[Guruvayur/Guruvayoor] Bhakti Yoga.

[Guest guest]

So according to Krishnadaya only people who are Vaishnavites are expected to visit and worship Sri Guruvayurappan and when the main Deity plays prominent role sub deities don't hv much importance.This seems to be a strange theory that only Vaishnavites shuld visit Krishna temples and Saivites visit Siva temples and thereby distinquishing even the very nature of God and splitting Him into two parts as Vaishnava God and Saiva God.Quite strange.There is no necesiity for any argument as this requires only commonsense that all people who visit Krishna temple at Guruvayur are not Vaishnavites as Krishnadaya may imagine.They also worshiip Siva ,Sastha and other deities of Saivites.Why shuld God be baulkanised as Vaishnava God and Saiva God?In Siva temples too we hv vaishnava deities and all worship that and no disputes. Krishnadaya must also understand that Narayaneeyam might hv been made by Melpathur but the glory of the same was spread

allover India and abroad by the late Anantharama Deekshidar who was a doyen of discourses and when he was afflicted by illness he went to GVR and worshipped Sri Krishna thru Narayaneeyam and in course got his disease cured and from then onwards wherever he went for doing discourses he made it a point to discourse Narayaneeyam and by that only many people came to know even the existence of such a hymn.Perhaps you may not be aware this fact.That is why even his photo is adorned along with bhatthathiri in GVR temple.He was not a vaishnava but an ardent Saiva.So don't try to make your conclusion that Sri Guruvayurappan belongs to only people who are Vaishanavites and all who visit the temple are vaishnavas.That has stemmed from your imagination.I am not arguing with you as it is a waste I know as you hv a definite mind set up which can't accept other things.This I mentioned even in my reply earlier. Just by writing a comment an

ardent devotee of Krishna won't change or get confused as you imagine and if the devotee does the same then he or she is not a devotee of Sri Krishna.Arguments wll always be there and not necessarily be taken as a matter of conversion from one sect to another sect.Just becoz the vaishnava acharyas reject advaita followers of Sankara and others can that argument be accepted and do you think it has any sanctity?This seems to be some conversion theory never believe advaita and only what vaishnava acharyas said believe those things.Such things shuld not hv been written as the same will only confuse the real bhakthas of Sri Krishna.who will get the impression of worshipping saivite Gods like Siva and others are against religious spirit.You believe in whatever things as I hv already said in my earlier reply that all depends on individuals perceptions and convictions.But ridiculing Sankara undoubtedly the Greatest of all and praising only the vaishnava acharyas is not the proper

way of presenting the matter and shows your immaturity only.You must hv the broad vision to accept all things enunciated by all the acharyas and not confining yourself in some shelf. Anyways there is no meaning to say to you who can't hv the mind to accept the views of others also and clinging to one particular thing and rejecting all the other Great people who brought glory to India, is simply futile.I hv never criticised Gita,Bhagavatham and you imagine something as if I am trying to wean away the devotees of Krishna to some other sect.I am not for any such move but definitely your writings show you are on that path which is simply ridiculous and pitiable.For your info I am not for Vaishnava sect or Saiva sect as I love both sects and worship the Gods of both sects and also a good follower of Sri Guruvayurappan and I may hv my own Ishta Devata and that is personal. Again I say I

wrote the reply not to offend you neither this one or the previous one but only to make you understand that you shuld hv more broad views on spiritual matters and not live like a frog in a well.God Bless dear friend Krishnadaya. and don't get agitated by this reply as I hv told only the truth and as an answer to your reply.Let us stop with this as you hv certain mind set which does not allow to make your thinking broader and you must accept the fact that God is One whether Vaishnava God or Saiva God. <krishnadaya wrote Krishna, Guruvayoorappa,It is not advisable to argue when someone questions the fundamental supreme authority of Sri Krishna as well as His literary incarnations and restricts the scope of discussion to non-vaishnava saints . As such, this write up is just to remove the confusion in the minds of Krishna-bhaktas who were disturbed by the mentioned distortion . When a Vaishnava goes to Guruvayoor temple , he/she worships the presiding Deity Guruvayoorappan as well as the sub-deities therein namely Siva, Ganesha , Bhagavathy and Ayyappan . As such the question of spiritual intolerance doesn't arise . Ishta-devatha is a term meaning "the God one prays most." Sri Krishna is the `Ishta-devatha of Vaishnavas for whom focused Bhakti-Yoga to Him is like life-air . Vaishnava authorites

like Ramanuja , Madhava , Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Melpathur Naryana Bhattathiri ,and Prabhupada have asked their followers to remain steadfast in their Bhakri-yoga by fully complying with Bhagavan's instructions . In fact , these Acharyas strongly rejected the Maya-vadi philosophy of the Advaitists . Accordingly, the Vaishnavas are relying on specific scriptures like Bhagavatham , Gita and Narayaneeyam which have the stamp of approval by Bhagavan Krishna Himself . And Bhagavan provides His Devotees with opportunities and wisdom to understand the concepts of the mentioned scriptures . A designer has to comply with the specified codes and standards in order to produce an acceptable product . Same way , a Vaishnava complies with the eternal instructions of Sri Krishna without fail . There is no difference between Sri Krishna , His His attributes and His instructions . Bhagavad Gita is relevant for all ages . Even in

this Kali-yuga , Gita guides it's followers in the right path. A humble servant of Guruvayoorappan . -------------------------guruvayur , GANAPATHY RAMAN <agraman62 wrote:>> This is only my thoughts and in no way be treated as a rebuttal of Krishnadayas postings as I hv already made known Krishnadaya is a devotee of Krishna and could not tolerate anything is said other than Krishna.But the fact is that Krishna is only one of the eversomany Gods in our Hindu mythology.Though His avatar was different from others and He preached Gita it becomes easier to quote from what He said.My point is then what abt other Gods and their followers who also get the same benefits which Krishna promised.Krishna told only arjuna in a battlefield His teachings.Following

the same in all circumstances won't lead us > in the present age as many of them are not practicable.He taught arjuna only to surrender to Him and fight the war instead of running out of the battle field and do the duty of a Kshatriya.So just banking only on Gita alone for all the ills of the society won't help much,I think.The teachings happened abt 4 or 5000 years ago in a different yuga and applying all the tenets in the present age will lead only to confusion.This does not mean I challenge Krsihnadaya but her wordings used seem to be not correct,I feel.> > Krishnadaya uses that jnanis is also devotees and there arise duality and such things.She harps on devotion and diluting the same amounts to absurdity.May be she is correct.But how devotion comes?Is it by seeing a Deity or by reading some texts or Gita? She elaborately quoted from Bhagavatam.Just becoz this Group is dedicated Sri

Guruvayoorappan is it a must that one shuld quote only > from Gita,Bhagavatam and Narayaneeyam.Is there any compulsion.Or the scriptures mean only these three.Then what abt Nayanmars who are 64 in number who worshipped Siva and made lot of hymns in praise of Him.Are they not followers or devotees?Sankara ,an acknowledged advaitin wrote Saundarya > Lahiri,a beautiful celestial song on Devi shuld be ignored?He was no doubt a> Realised soul and he never wrote that hymn for himself as there was no necessity for him as when one merged in the God there is no dualism but all can't become like him and hence he coined so many hymns on Devi ,Ananda Lahiri on Siva,Bhaja Govindam on Krishna,Subrahmanya bhujangam on Subrahmanya and there was no necesiity for him to do all those things when he knew he was only writing the same on himself being one with God but for the > other mortals like Krishnadaya and me to

develop the bhakthy marga so that people like us can recite the same and try to evolve ourselves in the ladder of bhakthy.> So too Ramakrishna Paramahansa worshipped Kali and got her vision and thru Her Grace got all the knowledge though he did not study much abt the scriptures and other things but becoz of the Grace he could quote so many teachings.The same thing is with sage Ramana who took a different path by > having his own theory to find out whatwas he and thru 'atma vichara' he dived within himself and found that he was also a speck of the Creator.All Realised souls or jnanis though initially they hv to be bhakthas of some deitiy and thru severe austerities and spiritual discipline were able to merge in the Cosmic Power and there was no necessity for them to become a devotee again as they hv crossed that stage and when they had realised that all are ONE then who shuld be a devotee for whom?As we were

having the same problem earlier I mentioned that the river is a river by name only so long the same reaches the ocean and when the same merges with the ocean then the identity of the river is lost and do you want to say that the ocean is a devotee of the river or vice versa when the river has already become one with the ocean?> As I don't hv much knowledge abt sastras I can't comment on that.But how many sastras you know and do you know the meaning of what they import to the understanding of common people like me.We always hv readymade answer that such and such thing is said in sastras,Krishna has said such things in Gita,> Bhagavatham says such and such things and so we shuld follow.Then are we not becoming something like a robot without really understanding and try to improve our own knowledge?For anything and everything we depend on some texts mean we just surrender our God given intelligence and wisdom

to those quotes.Don' you think so?Why man is given intelligence and wisdom?To use it > in a way that he or she shuld be able to study and try to understand both the aspects positive and negative and the applicability of the same in the times we live in and not moving back to several thousand years .We shuld try to study those things and also use our own versions and realise the reality according to change of times.What Gita says or Bhagavatham says need not necessarily be followed literally but one must use one's senses and try to intrepret > according to needs.In the whole of the world how many people are real Krishna devotees?doyou think that you can make the whole world one of Krishna Conscious stage? I hv to ask you this questions not out of showing that I am greater than you in knowledge or to show some sort of ego complex which Idon't > possess but your wordings are such which I can't digest.Hence

this staright > questions not to wound you but harping on one subject only we can't develop bhakthy but making ourselves adjusting to the thoughts of others only thru > pursuasion one must try to make others realise the facts that contain in our > statements.If you would hv covered all the aspects of all deities and all types of > devotees of other deities then I would hv certainly appreciated you.But instead of that you chose the path of jnanis and making that others think devotion as absurdity are not in any way ethical and it shows some type of assertation that people who worship other deities and who got knowlede by worshipping their own deities other than Krishna are not devotees or bhakthas and attacking jnanis are not the proper way.Anyway you or I are not jnanis and then how can we make comment on them and no janni says thatyou hv to accept his versions only including Krishna who also

distinguishes bhakthas into four categories.> > Your following of Krishna and your concern for Him is laudable but the way you hv presented is not palatable at least to me.There are so many saints who worship eversomany deities for years and when their karmic effects are over they > get themselves merged in the Oneness and there is no rebirth for them and they need not come back again to hv more experiences as even Sri Krishna has said in Gita.Such souls are rarely found and they never exhibit themselves.So there is no more devotion is required for them as they hv become one with the Creator.> Till we reach that time some following or devotion of somebody is a must and I used to say when one chooses one deity one shuld cling on to that.Then how bhakthy comes?Not from birth but when the child grows and the parents take the child to temples and say good things and the same shuld get imbibed in the

mind of the child and then it will grow automatically over the years.Now a days how many children are taught bhakthy by their parents?Teaching Gita and other things can takeplace when the child grows up sufficiently advanced and you can't expect a child of even 10 to grasp what Krishna said in Gita.All those things> can come only at a later part of time as Dr.Saroja Ramanujam has pointed in> another mail.Till then the child will be more interested in his or her studies andto> come out successfully in life and at that time if you go on teaching Gita and other things they will even lose what little interest they hv got.Even during Krishnas' time or subsequent times how many people knew Gita nobody knows.Actually I came to get some interest in Gita only after hearing a 'Gita Yagna' which the late Swami Chinmayanada used to conduct and I was attracted by his language,erudition,the wayhe used to

pronounce the subject in a very lucid manner.So expecting too much and quoting Gita and Bhagavatam may be ok for a group but in real life I wonder how far the same will attract persons.Of course in all discourses people may throng as their is no dearth for people in thiscountry > anywhere but afterwards what happen to them and whether they follow the teachings or just ignore and appreciate only the scholorlypresentation of the > lecturer we don't know.> Dear Krishna,if any of my sentences hv the effect of wounding your feelings kindly bear with me as it is not my intention to offend you in any manner.You wrote something and just I countered that is all.Since this will make other members also to take part in a new twist to the points I hv put some questions which sometimes you may find the same difficult to answer.So with all the articles,as putting questions is easy but to give a convincing reply is

difficult.> Again I beg your excuses if you feel in anyway offended by my writings as I hv always treated you as my good friend.Also I say I am not against Bhagavatam,> Gita and other scriptures but much dependence on the sayings won't help in the present day world as what Krishna preached was under different circumstances though they may be applicable in some cases and not in all respects.> > Hare Krishna,> > agraman.> > > > > Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers>

Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Ganapathy Raman, Krishnadaya and others.

 

Radhe Krishna.

 

There seems to be a small wrong understanding about the term

"Vaishnava.". The term "Vaishnava" is referred to also in many places

in Bhagavatam. It means "the one who worships Vishnu". It is wrong

to assume that a socalled "Vaishnava" can only worship Vishnu. Vishnu

Himself is said to be worshipping Lord Siva in many places. So it is

the understanding of the term "Vaishnava" makes all the difference.

 

Kindly pardon me for the interference.

In humble devotion,

KVG.

 

 

 

GANAPATHY RAMAN wrote:

 

 

So according to Krishnadaya only people who are Vaishnavites are

expected to visit and worship Sri Guruvayurappan and when the main

Deity plays prominent role sub deities don't hv much importance.This

seems to be a strange theory that only Vaishnavites shuld visit Krishna

temples and Saivites visit Siva temples and thereby distinquishing even

the very nature of God and splitting Him into two parts as Vaishnava

God and Saiva God.Quite strange.There is no necesiity for any argument

as this requires only commonsense that all people who visit Krishna

temple at Guruvayur are not Vaishnavites as Krishnadaya may

imagine.They also worshiip Siva ,Sastha and other deities of

Saivites.Why shuld God be baulkanised as Vaishnava God and Saiva God?In

Siva temples too we hv vaishnava deities and all worship that and no

disputes.

 

Krishnadaya must also understand that Narayaneeyam might hv been

made by Melpathur but the glory of the same was spread allover India

and abroad by the late Anantharama Deekshidar who was a doyen of

discourses and when he was afflicted by illness he went to GVR and

worshipped Sri Krishna thru Narayaneeyam and in course got his disease

cured and from then onwards wherever he went for doing discourses he

made it a point to discourse Narayaneeyam and by that only many people

came to know even the existence of such a hymn.Perhaps you may not be

aware this fact.That is why even his photo is adorned along with

bhatthathiri in GVR temple.He was not a vaishnava but an ardent

Saiva.So don't try to make your conclusion that Sri

Guruvayurappan belongs to only people who are Vaishanavites and

all who visit the temple are vaishnavas.That has stemmed from your

imagination.I am not arguing with you as it is a waste I know as

you hv a definite mind set up which can't accept other things.This I

mentioned even in my reply earlier.

 

Just by writing a comment an ardent devotee of Krishna won't

change or get confused as you imagine and if the devotee does the same

then he or she is not a devotee of Sri Krishna.Arguments wll always be

there and not necessarily be taken as a matter of conversion from one

sect to another sect.Just becoz the vaishnava acharyas reject advaita

followers of Sankara and others can that argument be accepted and do

you think it has any sanctity?This seems to be some conversion theory

never believe advaita and only what vaishnava acharyas said believe

those things.Such things shuld not hv been written as the same will

only confuse the real bhakthas of Sri Krishna.who will get the

impression of worshipping saivite Gods like Siva and others are against

religious spirit.You believe in whatever things as I hv already said in

my earlier reply that all depends on individuals perceptions and

convictions.But ridiculing Sankara undoubtedly the Greatest of all

and praising only the vaishnava acharyas is not the proper way of

presenting the matter and shows your immaturity only.You must hv the

broad vision to accept all things enunciated by all the acharyas

and not confining yourself in some shelf.

 

Anyways there is no meaning to say to you who can't hv the mind

to accept the views of others also and clinging to one particular

thing and rejecting all the other Great people who brought glory to

India, is simply futile.I hv never criticised Gita,Bhagavatham and you

imagine something as if I am trying to wean away the devotees of

Krishna to some other sect.I am not for any such move but definitely

your writings show you are on that path which is simply ridiculous and

pitiable.For your info I am not for Vaishnava sect or Saiva sect as I

love both sects

and worship the Gods of both sects and also a good follower of

Sri Guruvayurappan and I may hv my own Ishta Devata and that is

personal.

 

Again I say I wrote the reply not to offend you neither this one

or the previous one but only to make you understand that you shuld hv

more broad views on

spiritual matters and not live like a frog in a well.God Bless

dear friend Krishnadaya. and don't get agitated by this reply as I hv

told only the truth and as an answer to your reply.Let us stop with

this as you hv certain mind set which does not allow to make your

thinking broader and you must accept the fact that God is One whether

Vaishnava God or Saiva God. <krishnadaya >

wrote

 

 

 

Krishna, Guruvayoorappa,

 

It is not advisable to argue when someone questions the

fundamental supreme authority of Sri Krishna as well as His literary

incarnations and restricts the scope of discussion to non-vaishnava

saints . As such, this write up is just to remove the confusion in

the minds of Krishna-bhaktas who were disturbed by the mentioned

distortion .

 

When a Vaishnava goes to Guruvayoor temple , he/she worships the

presiding Deity Guruvayoorappan as well as the sub-deities therein

namely Siva, Ganesha , Bhagavathy and Ayyappan . As such the

question of spiritual intolerance doesn't arise .

 

Ishta-devatha is a term meaning "the God one prays most." Sri

Krishna is the `Ishta-devatha of Vaishnavas for whom focused Bhakti-

Yoga to Him is like life-air .

 

Vaishnava authorites like Ramanuja , Madhava , Chaitanya Mahaprabhu,

Melpathur Naryana Bhattathiri ,and Prabhupada have asked their

followers to remain steadfast in their Bhakri-yoga by fully complying

with Bhagavan's instructions . In fact , these Acharyas strongly

rejected the Maya-vadi philosophy of the Advaitists . Accordingly,

the Vaishnavas are relying on specific scriptures like Bhagavatham ,

Gita and Narayaneeyam which have the stamp of approval by Bhagavan

Krishna Himself . And Bhagavan provides His Devotees with

opportunities and wisdom to understand the concepts of the mentioned

scriptures . A designer has to comply with the specified codes and

standards in order to produce an acceptable product . Same way , a

Vaishnava complies with the eternal instructions of Sri Krishna

without fail . There is no difference between Sri Krishna , His His

attributes and His instructions .

 

Bhagavad Gita is relevant for all ages . Even in this Kali-yuga ,

Gita guides it's followers in the right path.

 

A humble servant of Guruvayoorappan .

 

-------------------------

guruvayur ,

GANAPATHY RAMAN <agraman62

wrote:

>

> This is only my thoughts and in no way be treated as a rebuttal of

 

Krishnadayas postings as I hv already made known Krishnadaya is a

devotee of Krishna and could not tolerate anything is said other than

Krishna.But the fact is that Krishna is only one of the eversomany

Gods in our Hindu mythology.Though His avatar was different from

others and He preached Gita it becomes easier to quote from what He

said.My point is then what abt other Gods and their followers who

also get the same benefits which Krishna promised.Krishna told only

arjuna in a battlefield His teachings.Following the same in all

circumstances won't lead us

> in the present age as many of them are not practicable.He

taught

arjuna only to surrender to Him and fight the war instead of running

out of the battle field and do the duty of a Kshatriya.So just

banking only on Gita alone for all the ills of the society won't help

much,I think.The teachings happened abt 4 or 5000 years ago in a

different yuga and applying all the tenets in the present age will

lead only to confusion.This does not mean I challenge Krsihnadaya but

her wordings used seem to be not correct,I feel.

>

> Krishnadaya uses that jnanis is also devotees and there arise

duality and such things.She harps on devotion and diluting the same

amounts to absurdity.May be she is correct.But how devotion comes?Is

it by seeing a Deity or by reading some texts or Gita? She

elaborately quoted from Bhagavatam.Just becoz this Group is dedicated

Sri Guruvayoorappan is it a must that one shuld quote only

> from Gita,Bhagavatam and Narayaneeyam.Is there any

compulsion.Or

the scriptures mean only these three.Then what abt Nayanmars who are

64 in number who worshipped Siva and made lot of hymns in praise of

Him.Are they not followers or devotees?Sankara ,an acknowledged

advaitin wrote Saundarya

> Lahiri,a beautiful celestial song on Devi shuld be ignored?He was

no doubt a

> Realised soul and he never wrote that hymn for himself as there

was no necessity for him as when one merged in the God there is no

dualism but all can't become like him and hence he coined so many

hymns on Devi ,Ananda Lahiri on Siva,Bhaja Govindam on

Krishna,Subrahmanya bhujangam on Subrahmanya and there was no

necesiity for him to do all those things when he knew he was only

writing the same on himself being one with God but for the

> other mortals like Krishnadaya and me to develop the bhakthy

marga so that people like us can recite the same and try to evolve

ourselves in the ladder of bhakthy.

> So too Ramakrishna Paramahansa worshipped Kali and got her vision

and thru Her Grace got all the knowledge though he did not study much

abt the scriptures and other things but becoz of the Grace he could

quote so many teachings.The same thing is with sage Ramana who took a

different path by

> having his own theory to find out whatwas he and thru 'atma

vichara' he dived within himself and found that he was also a speck

of the Creator.All Realised souls or jnanis though initially they hv

to be bhakthas of some deitiy and thru severe austerities and

spiritual discipline were able to merge in the Cosmic Power and there

was no necessity for them to become a devotee again as they hv

crossed that stage and when they had realised that all are ONE then

who shuld be a devotee for whom?As we were having the same problem

earlier I mentioned that the river is a river by name only so long

the same reaches the ocean and when the same merges with the ocean

then the identity of the river is lost and do you want to say that

the ocean is a devotee of the river or vice versa when the river has

already become one with the ocean?

> As I don't hv much knowledge abt sastras I can't comment on

that.But how many sastras you know and do you know the meaning of

what they import to the understanding of common people like me.We

always hv readymade answer that such and such thing is said in

sastras,Krishna has said such things in Gita,

> Bhagavatham says such and such things and so we shuld follow.Then

are we not becoming something like a robot without really

understanding and try to improve our own knowledge?For anything and

everything we depend on some texts mean we just surrender our God

given intelligence and wisdom to those quotes.Don' you think so?Why

man is given intelligence and wisdom?To use it

> in a way that he or she shuld be able to study and try to

understand both the aspects positive and negative and the

applicability of the same in the times we live in and not moving back

to several thousand years .We shuld try to study those things and

also use our own versions and realise the reality according to

change of times.What Gita says or Bhagavatham says need not

necessarily be followed literally but one must use one's senses and

try to intrepret

> according to needs.In the whole of the world how many people are

real Krishna devotees?doyou think that you can make the whole world

one of Krishna Conscious stage? I hv to ask you this questions not

out of showing that I am greater than you in knowledge or to show

some sort of ego complex which Idon't

> possess but your wordings are such which I can't digest.Hence

this staright

> questions not to wound you but harping on one subject only we

can't develop bhakthy but making ourselves adjusting to the thoughts

of others only thru

> pursuasion one must try to make others realise the facts that

contain in our

> statements.If you would hv covered all the aspects of all deities

and all types of

> devotees of other deities then I would hv certainly appreciated

you.But instead of that you chose the path of jnanis and making that

others think devotion as absurdity are not in any way ethical and it

shows some type of assertation that people who worship other deities

and who got knowlede by worshipping their own deities other than

Krishna are not devotees or bhakthas and attacking jnanis are not the

proper way.Anyway you or I are not jnanis and then how can we make

comment on them and no janni says thatyou hv to accept his versions

only including Krishna who also distinguishes bhakthas into four

categories.

>

> Your following of Krishna and your concern for Him is laudable

but the way you hv presented is not palatable at least to me.There

are so many saints who worship eversomany deities for years and when

their karmic effects are over they

> get themselves merged in the Oneness and there is no rebirth for

them and they need not come back again to hv more experiences as even

Sri Krishna has said in Gita.Such souls are rarely found and they

never exhibit themselves.So there is no more devotion is required for

them as they hv become one with the Creator.

> Till we reach that time some following or devotion of somebody is

a must and I used to say when one chooses one deity one shuld cling

on to that.Then how bhakthy comes?Not from birth but when the child

grows and the parents take the child to temples and say good things

and the same shuld get imbibed in the mind of the child and then it

will grow automatically over the years.Now a days how many children

are taught bhakthy by their parents?Teaching Gita and other things

can takeplace when the child grows up sufficiently advanced and you

can't expect a child of even 10 to grasp what Krishna said in

Gita.All those things

> can come only at a later part of time as Dr.Saroja Ramanujam has

pointed in

> another mail.Till then the child will be more interested in his

or her studies andto

> come out successfully in life and at that time if you go on

teaching Gita and other things they will even lose what little

interest they hv got.Even during Krishnas' time or subsequent times

how many people knew Gita nobody knows.Actually I came to get some

interest in Gita only after hearing a 'Gita Yagna' which the late

Swami Chinmayanada used to conduct and I was attracted by his

language,erudition,the wayhe used to pronounce the subject in a

very

lucid manner.So expecting too much and quoting Gita and Bhagavatam

may be ok for a group but in real life I wonder how far the same will

attract persons.Of course in all discourses people may throng as

their is no dearth for people in thiscountry

> anywhere but afterwards what happen to them and whether they

follow the teachings or just ignore and appreciate only the

scholorlypresentation of the

> lecturer we don't know.

> Dear Krishna,if any of my sentences hv the effect of wounding

your feelings kindly bear with me as it is not my intention to offend

you in any manner.You wrote something and just I countered that is

all.Since this will make other members also to take part in a new

twist to the points I hv put some questions which sometimes you may

find the same difficult to answer.So with all the articles,as

putting questions is easy but to give a convincing reply is difficult.

> Again I beg your excuses if you feel in anyway offended by my

writings as I hv always treated you as my good friend.Also I say I

am not against Bhagavatam,

> Gita and other scriptures but much dependence on the sayings

won't help in the present day world as what Krishna preached was

under different circumstances though they may be applicable in some

cases and not in all respects.

>

> Hare Krishna,

>

> agraman.

>

>

>

>

> Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for -

Answers