Guest guest Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 Radha and Krishna were married. The other radha which married the other guy wasn't the real radha. That was the shadow of Radha. This is explained in brahma vaivarta purana. Look in that puraana to understand radha and krishna and not in those dirty poems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 I did not mean to attack you. I only got sick of those dirty peoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 A father should kill his adulteress daughter, because such a girl brings the whole kula to hell. If she can't be killed she should be certainly abandoned by the family. Just like a pativrata stri takes the whole family to heaven an slut takes the whole family to hell. Therefore she should be killed or abandoned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagat Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 Here I absolutely must put my foot down. This is unacceptable. The Muslim world is full of this horror known as "honor killing." That anyone would advocate such a thing in the name of Krishna is horrendous and unacceptable. It cannot be passed unnoticed and must not be condoned in any way. The fear and abhorrence of human sexuality is NOT what religion or spirituality is about. But no matter what our views, sex desire is a powerful urge that causes even the most chaste to occasionally wilter. To condemn someone to death (or any other kind of draconian punishment) for adultery or other sexual transgression is entirely in contrast to the religion of mercy and love. Rigid puritanism goes against the spirit of Vaishnavism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagat Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 Prostitutes are mentioned in the Ramayan, Mahabharata and Bhagavata. Indeed, it appears from a careful analysis of these texts that they played an important role in Vedic society. In any society of rigid rules, there are always exceptions--hijras, prostitutes, kings with their harems, etc., etc., who are not abhorred by the society, but given a certain recognition. As such, our whore, who has performed her svadharma so honorably that she has serviced a thousand men is indeed worthy of a seat in heaven. sva-karmanA tam abhyarcya siddhiM vindati mAnavaH. <hr> The verse is indeed from PadmaP, 3.61.37 to be exact. The correct reading is: Udhva-bAhur ahaM vacmi zRNu me paramaM vacaH | govinde dhehi hRdayaM na yonau yAtanA-juSi || Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 I agree with jagat. Hinduism is not islam. We should not kill useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonehearted Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 Line me up right behind Jagat. If you people are going to propose such abhorrent nonsense, so contrary to the loving mood of Krishna, in the name of Krishna, you'd darned well better stop hiding behind anonymous posts. Such cowardice! It's bad enough that this evil is carried out under the guise of Islam; now you folks want to connect it to sanatan-dharma--worse, to community of Krishna's devotees. Even if you were to find some sympathetic ears (eyes?) here, most of us just will not tolerate advocacy of such bull-puckey. Babhru das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raga Posted June 18, 2003 Report Share Posted June 18, 2003 Radha and Krishna were married. The other radha which married the other guy wasn't the real radha. That was the shadow of Radha. This is explained in brahma vaivarta purana. Look in that puraana to understand radha and krishna and not in those dirty poems. Please tell me the history of Brahma Vaivarta Purana. How old is it, how authentic is it, how interpolated is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2003 Report Share Posted June 19, 2003 Ask that for your dirty poems. They are not authoritive at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raga Posted June 19, 2003 Report Share Posted June 19, 2003 Ask that for your dirty poems. They are not authoritive at all. So in other words you have no idea. Thanks for bragging, anyhow. In another thread, there was someone who declared himself a pure devotee of Krishna, and who spoke of the duty of establishing dharma whenever adharma is in sight. Perhaps you would come along well. However, among scholars who dispassionately study topics of religion and culture, fundamentalism is not much welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2003 Report Share Posted June 19, 2003 Yes I would like. Please give me the URL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagat Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 jAyAM sa jAnann api zuddha-zIlAM lokApavAda-prasarAsahiSNuH | saumitrim Adizya sa-garbha-bhArAM tatyAja vAlmIki-tapovane tAm || Though he knew his wife to be pure in character, he was unable to tolerate the spread of calumny. So he abandoned her, pregnant, ordering Lakshman to leave her in Valmiki's hermitage. (Dasavatara-carita 7.262) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagat Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 nityArdra-duHkhe jana-jIvite’smin sukhAny anityAni sa-yauvanAni | ghanAni vidyud-dyuti-caJcalAni kSaNa-kSayANi priya-saGgamAni ||263|| In this human life, which is soaked in constant misery, the pleasures associated with youth are but fleeting. Like the flashes of lightning reflected against the clouds, the company of our loved ones disappears in a moment. The problem is that Rama's commitment to society was greater than his commitment to the truth of Sita's purity. And even if she had been raped, or worse, willingly succumbed to Ravana, could she not have been forgiven? The scenario is one of commitment to public office over private considerations, even if that means abandoning one's vow to protect, etc., one's wife. He saved her from Ravana, and that is the end of his obligations to her. It's a real tough one. This is in connection to "honor", by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagat Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 Just checked Champu Ramayana of Bhojadeva, who concludes sAketaM samupetyavAn sa vijayI saMsevito bhrAtRbhiH sugrIva-pramukhAn api priya-sakhAn sve pade sthApayan | svacchandaM suciraM sukhAny anubhavan devyA tathA sItayA rAmaH pAlayati sma kIrti-vibhavair AmodinIM medinIm || Which briefly stated means that Rama ruled the kingdome "freely enjoying the delights of life with his wife Sita." So Bhoja had some problems with the classic conclusion of the Ramayana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 i have a fear that anti-vedic people of kali yuga would try to manufacture shloks with messages that would be vedic, and try to pass them on as vedic verses to deme the vedic dharma/ culture. it would be better to not reveal the rules of making shlokas. jai sri krishna! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hare_krishna Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 You people stop arguing about whatever. I opened this thread to understand how shlokas are made. /images/graemlins/mad.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hare_krishna Posted June 30, 2003 Report Share Posted June 30, 2003 have a fear that anti-vedic people of kali yuga would try to manufacture shloks with messages that would be vedic, and try to pass them on as vedic verses to deme the vedic dharma/ culture. it would be better to not reveal the rules of making shlokas. jai sri krishna! No. Don't let Sanskrit knowledge pass away. Some scholars are bearing in mind that Sanskrit is a dead language already. It is not. It is still alive, but it is a little bit ill and lies in the hospital right now. It is not dead yet. It won't die ever. We all have to support Sanskrit language by learning it and teaching it. Or else we become the slayers of our own culture. There won't be any Hindu or Hindu related religion over some hundred years if Sanskrit knowledge vanishes. Sanskrit is the very foundation of vedic religion. Every hindu who knows sanskrit should teach sanskrit and every Hindu who does not know sanskrit should learn sanskrit. That will keep sanskrit alive together with vedic culture. Jagat is doing a great job, explaining about sanskrit. We should all make use of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.