Who is a Hindu ?

[ggohil]

Hare Krsna

 

I apologize to all the readers if my comments appeared un-necessarily harsh.

 

Girish

[animesh]

Dear ggohil,

I wrote "Many people do not belive in God whole-heartedly."

 

What I mean to say is that they think that there is God, but they do not feel (mark this word) in their hearts that there is God.

 

When somebody eats food that is bad for him, then he thinks "OK Ok chalta hai'. What will happen if I eat little bit of these things? I'll take some medicine. Nothing will happen to me" etc. etc. But can one think like that with respect to God or w.r.t. heaven and hell?

[ggohil]

My concern is not with people believing in God or not, but, rather with a universally dismissal

of all the feelings one may have about God and treating them as conditioning of mind and so on.

 

The simple fact is, that no one knows what other person feels (relationship with God) or to what

degree. Knowing God (unfortunately or fortunately) happens to be a spiritual matter.

 

People may put forward their theories based on experiments or logic, that is fine as long as they

understand it is only a theory and not a conclusive fact.

 

Faith is not blind to a person who has established relationship with God.

[animesh]

________

My concern is not with people believing in God or not, but, rather with a universally dismissal of all the feelings one may have about God and treating them as conditioning of mind and so on.

________

 

As I wrote, there may be people who have really realized God. So, both kinds of people are possible. Those who have really realized and those who think that they have but have not. But I agree that one should not universally dismiss the feelings of all the devotees as conditioning of mind.

 

_________

The simple fact is, that no one knows what other person feels (relationship with God) or to what

degree. Knowing God (unfortunately or fortunately) happens to be a spiritual matter.

_________

 

That is correct. Nobody denied that.

 

_________

People may put forward their theories based on experiments or logic, that is fine as long as they understand it is only a theory and not a conclusive fact.

_________

 

I don't know if I should agree with this because every knowledge is based on experiments and logic, though the details of experiments and logic vary from person to person. So, in this sense, every knowledge should be considered as theory and not a conclusive fact. If putting some arguments, somebody says that there is God, it is only a theory. If somebody says that there is no God, then also it is a theory.

 

_________

Faith is not blind to a person who has established relationship with God.

__________

 

Correct. And such a person really deserves respect, because his way of living and attitude towards other beings must be very very great and praiseworthy. But, unfortunately, we find that many wrong deeds are also done in the name of God. I find this problem in all religions.

There are people who, in the name of God, preach good habits like universal love, unselfishness, etc. etc. But, we also find instances when, in the name of God, some try to spread bad practices in society. It is really unfortunate that many are affected by that because they think that these practices must be good even if they seem bad. In fact, my post was related to this only. My post was not at all related to "whether or not belief in God is correct". Personally, whenever I am alone and contemplate on such topics, then I also feel as if some such almighty force is present. Though I am not sure if that force is exactly the same as our scriptures describe.

When I say that sometimes I feel that there has to be some almighty, then I do not mean to say that I have realized God. Honsetly speaking, I have not. So, if someone says that my feeling may be because of some conditioning of mind, then it is a possibility.

[viji_53]

Faith is very important to go forward in spiritual path. It is really unfortunate to select the wrong people as guru. We should be very careful in selecting the Sat-Guru. Binu Hari Krupa milahi nahi santa. Unless you have Hari's grace you won't get pious association. If you have deep faith in reciting God's Name, Ramayana & Gita , I tell you from my experience, you will be able to feel the presence of God. But you should have unflinchable faith, With out of tint of doubt.

HariBhol!

[animesh]

I agree that Ramayana is really a great epic as it teaches us how to be an ideal person. (The only thing which I do not like is the part of Ramayana in which Sita is asked to leave the palace). The verses in Gita are also worth reciting and pondering over.

[shvu]

 

When one looks into the Ramayana more closely, there is nothing extra-ordinary about Rama. Rama killed Vali hiding behind a tree, because he knew he could not hope to win aginst him directly. That is hardly a sign of a Kshatriya. He sent his wife away to the forest based on a washerman's statement. What he should have ideally done was to correct the washerman of his opinion and set an example.

 

So to say that Rama was the perfect man and everyone should live like Rama is not a good idea. Hanuman, Bhishma, Karna etc are much better people than Rama that way. If one says pick only the good qualities of Rama, then that logic can be extended to everyone.

 

Cheers

[animesh]

Hi Shvu,

I also do not like that Rama sent Sita to forrest knowing fully well that She was innocent. But I do not find anything wrong in killing Vaali hiding behind a tree. Because there was no way Vaali could have been killed if he had seen Rama. Of course, someone may claim that since Raama was Himself God, it should have been possible, but that would mean making the boon given to Vaali that if he sees the one fighting him, then half of the strength of Vaali's adversary will be reduced and will get added to the strength of Vaali. Raama killed Vaali by hiding behind a tree. This can be considered as bad because it is not the seen of a true Kshatriya. But if He had not done so, then it would not have been possible to save Sugriva from Vaali which would have been much worse.

In Mahabharata also we find such example. Someone may say that Krishna did bad by asking Yudhistira to lie to Dronacharya that Ashwathama had been killed. But if Guru Drona had not been killed by some means, then it would not have been possible for Pandavas to win and thereby stop the evil deeds of Kauravas.

 

Many times in our lives we are faced with a situation in which if we do some particular thing, then it is bad. If we do not do, then also it is bad. But we have to choose one of these two options because there is no third option. So, we have to choose the one which is less bad among the two.

[animesh]

I left one sentence incomplete. I wrote

"...that would mean making the boon given to Vaali that if he sees the one fighting him, then half of the strength of Vaali's adversary will be reduced and will get added to the strength of Vaali."

 

The sentence should read

"...that would mean making the boon given to Vaali that if he sees the one fighting him, then half of the strength of Vaali's adversary will be reduced and will get added to the strength of Vaali, as false."

 

[ggohil]

Hare Krsna:

 

Interesting view, Shvu.

[shvu]

Hi Animesh,

 

Here is my analysis of the Vali episode. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

Vali sends Sugriva to the forest out of misunderstanding. Sugrive now wants to kill Vali so that he can become king again. Note that Sugriva is not a better guy than Vali nor is Vali an evil person. Rama is looking for an army to help him get his wife back. He is approached by Sugriva who offers his army inturn for becoming king. They both plot to kill the invincible Vali and the way Rama kills him is treachery and back-stabbing, no less.

 

Vali while dying tells Rama, "If you had only approached me, I would have single-handedly gone to Lanka, destroyed Ravana and rescued your wife. Why did you have to do such an act which is against Kshatriya dharma?"

 

Rama says, "You should have protected your brother..."

 

That in my opinion is an empty argument to save face. If Rama felt that way, he should have talked to Vali and resolved the misunderstanding. Killing him from hiding was not the way out. However it is clear that Rama had vested interests and was not concerned about Sugriva or Vali. He wanted an army to go to Lanka and that was his motive for killing Vali. Which is why he is not an ideal man as some think.

 

The Pandavas were not fighting the Kauravas because they were evil. They were fighting them because they wanted to be kings. Yudhistira should have stuck to his policy of truth and not lied about Ashwathaama. But out of greed for his kingdom, he resorted to lying. Nothing great about him either. There was a Harishchandra who did not lie even when he lost his son. Where ideals are concerned, he is better than Yudhistira.

 

Note however, that this has nothing to do with worshipping Rama as a God. This is strictly about whether Rama can be considered an ideal person and should people live like him.

 

Cheers

[viji_53]

Ramayana ends with the coronation of Rama after His return from forest after killing Ravana. The Lava Kusa episode was added by narrowminded people afterwards. Coming to Vali's killing ; Vali was sent to the earth to help Rama in killing Ravana, but insted he became friend of Ravana. So Rama had to remove him. Rama killed Vali in adharma way by showing people that no one even God is not exempt from punishment for wrong doings.That was the reason Rama in His next birth as Krishna accepted the death at the hand of hunter who was Vali in his previous birth.

The story of Rama sending Sita to forest again were added by some narrowminded people. Even if you consider it is true, the purpose of Rama as avatar is to show to the world how a man should live. A king shoud be prepared to even sacrifice his kith & kin for the sake of his people. The kings should not sacrifice the country for his kith & kin as taking place now at present.

In my opinion we can never see a person like Rama who upheld dharma.

Jaki krupa lavalesu the mathimanda Tulasidasahu

Payo Param visramu Rama samana Prabhu naahi Kahu. There is

No body who can be compared wth Rama. Rama is equal only to Rama. Sita also played Her role very well showing how a woman should uphold dharma.

Hari Bhol!

[Love]

Woah! I missed out on quite a bit as lots of words have been said since I last checked this discussion out. So, please accept my apologies for trying to inundate everyone with my reply. From all that I have read under this thread of discussion, I once again feel that we are all very good at blaming Hinduism for everything that is going wrong in India. I don’t know if that way it makes all this impersonal to us in some way or not and provides a level of comfort. However, I do know that plain criticism cannot lead anyone anywhere. What is required is an effort to find the basic questions related to the malaise, analyze them and find some answers or cure for them. So, I will try and start some questions here and provide my understanding for them. I am sure quite a few of you guys will be able to provide your own thoughts and with His blessings may we reach the Truth in this matter.

 

Q. Why do/ did Hindus have quite a handful of social-ills – sati, casteism, corruption, etc?

A. Sati system can be explained away quite easily. It started at times when Muslims, who found immense pleasure in ravaging the women of the conquered after vanquishing them, were invading Hindus. So, Rajputanis (Rajput females) initiated this system whereby they preferred to sacrifice themselves into pyre rather than fall in the hands of the enemy. It even continued during the British Raj for similar reasons. Ideally, this practice should have been discontinued once the reason to have initiated was no longer existent. Unfortunately it did not. WHY?

 

Casteism also was a totally different concept to what it is in modern times. It so became, as it was another way Muslims found out to break us into sections easily and we like fools got divided and easier to conquer. The reason was not simply to conquer us. After all, early Muslim invaders like Khalji, Tughlaq, etc did not attempt this. They simply came to plunder wealth from India and would return after their mission would be over. However, later on Muslims, who tried to settle here came here not just for the wealth but to spread Islam. If any one of you may have read Koran (the Holy Book and the only book in Islam), you will understand very easily that Muslims would not have been able to spread Islam amongst the Hindus as they were spiritually much more provided for, while they themselves were absolutely denuded. So, how could they sell desert in place of a forest? Easy way to accomplish this was to start creating these divisions between us. Mind you, the divisions were always there but in the form of social structure functionally. They managed to use this division to divide us physically. All they simply required to do was provide importance to certain sections of the society – respect the brahmins, fight the kshatriyas, plunder the vaishyas, and outcast the shudras. That way, brahmins easily developed superiority complex and thought they were superior to other castes. However, since they could not have done without the kshatriyas for their protection, they continued to be at their side. Vaishyas, meanwhile were left out getting plundered. Shudras, neglected and treated a pariahs became disenchanted with their beliefs naturally. And the maulvis used this disenchantment to convert them to Islam. Innumerable Hindus, who would not convert, were killed. So some more Hindus converted to Islam out of fear or thinking that this would be their outer form to survive while in their hearts they would continue to believe in their dharma. Such families over the years forgot that some ancestor of theirs became Muslim out of fear or with something in mind and so those families eventually became true converts. Muslims had won the war. Not the one in which they conquered India as a state, but in the way of spreading Islam – their ulterior motive in their later invasions. The proof that casteism did not exist in India in its present form comes from a story in Mahabharata. After the war, Pandavas had to do a yagna. For this purpose Kunti asked for a specific rishi and sent Bhim to request him to come and perform the rituals on the auspicious occasions. I do not remember the rishi’s name. For this I apologize and request if someone else who is also familiar with the story may enlighten me. Anyway, Bhim went and managed to make the rishi to agree on accompanying him back to their kingdom for the yagna. On the way back, they passed through a certain tribal village (shudras colony) and as it was night, he asked Bhim that they will stay there for the night. Bhim exactly knew about the people who inhabited the place and thought that the rishi was not a man of the world and so may not know about the place. However, since he dared not to say this openly to him, he requested the rishi that if he may not mind Bhim would carry him while he could sleep. Rishi did not relent to his request. So, with a heavy heart and to fulfill his mother’s wish, Bhim went on to stay with him in the village of the shudras. He was astonished to find that this rishi was enjoying his night stay with the shudras. He drank to his fill and then even went on to eat meat and other things that the shudras had made to celebrate his presence there. Bhim wondered what sort of a rishi mother had asked for? However, he kept quiet, as it was not his wont to question his mother’s authority. The next day on the way rishi asked him to speak up what troubled him the whole night. After much persuasion Bhim went on to speak that which was on his mind and had troubled him after the stay at the village. Rishi smiled and told him that he did this to make Bhim evolve out of the superiority complex that he had grown in ignorance that his caste, kshatriya was a higher class, or because of his education he was in any way superior to other people. And the act of drinking, merry-making and eating meat, etc did not affect him as he was ‘nishkarma’, so that his karmas did not bind him with their results. He had to do this to teach Bhim the lesson of equality among castes. Now, Mahabharata may be just a story, but it does tell us one thing about the social circumstances in those times that there was a message that there was no one superior caste or group of people. Why is it then we forgot this message?

 

A more comprehensive answer to the ills that plague the Indian society is: -

First of all, we need to understand that Sati, castes, etc are customs or traditions of a civilization. Customs/ traditions generally are born of collective experiences of any civilization over several generations in response to some incidents in the distant past. Over time, they also form a part of our ancestral force. Ancestral force is something acting in all of us and is the way the experiences, traditions, knowledge is passed down from the father to the son and then to his sons. It is the way for the continuity of the family. This ancestral force did not let us stop the custom of Sati when it was no longer required. It continued to command Satis out of the society in one form or another. In the ancient times, people who were not have been fortunate to be enlightened by someone, like the rishi enlightened Bhim, passed down their parochial views about the superiority of their castes to their progeny and regrettably, out of ignorance, we sons have not been able to do the duty unto our fore-fathers so far and have continued to be commanded by this ancestral force. There is a saying that the sons of the father visit the son. Well, it is a part of the truth that our forefathers exist within us in their entirety – experiences, traditions, ignorance, and everything else. And it manifests itself in the form of this ancestral force. Now, this ancestral force is generated in our brains (Not minds. Brain is the plain organ within our cranium and is just the nervous system. Impulses, instincts are what form the brain. Mind is another level of the brain, which is active at the intellectual level in our existence) as it is a collection of impulses, instincts, (good and bad) etc of our forefathers. Now, even though this is accumulated over generations it is considered to be a dead entity by Hindu philosophy as it is a force that has parts that were active in some of our forefathers and should have not visited us. None-the-less it does. Our duty to our forefathers is to take rebirth from this force so that it may disappear from our brains (where it is considered to be adharma) and reappear in our hearts where it will establish itself in the form of dharma. The act of Hindus (tarpan) where they collect water in their palms in the river and pray is a symbolic form of the actual rebirth that we are supposed to take from this ancestral force and thereby help our forefathers also. Since, we forgot this art of rebirth and got confused over centuries of bad treatment at the hands of the rulers, we have seen the social conditions in India deteriorate.

 

Q. What is faith? (Before we classify it as blind or discuss its repercussion)

Several of you have given very good definitons for faith. Yet I feel it is just a defintion that could have been picked up from a dictionary and then shredded to provide different experiences about it. However, we are not counting the fact that our existence is laid out at different levels – somatic (physical), intellectual, scientific (factual), psychological, and spiritual. At different levels faith within us is different things. At the physical level faith is simply trying to believe someone and is easily broken down by our bad experiences in the material world into doubt and worldliness in our personality. At the intellectual level, faith is simply a trust in one’s own abilities correctly to follow a dream and create/ discover what we believe in. At the scientific level faith is very transient and changes with changing facts and data that is presented to us. At this level faith should not be blind also as it is only a transient faith, that need to accommodate the incompleteness of facts and transform into faith in things based on new found facts. At the psychological level faith is simply love. At the spiritual level of our existence, it is utter faith in what we are looking for. This faith is however not transient, and so you can classify it as blind-faith. It is not transient, as it is faith in the eternal Truth to the level where it does not need to question the existence of the eternal truth. It just knows that the truth is out there for those who strive to find it.

[animesh]

Hi Shvu,

I had replied to you, but now I see that my reply is not there. Oops, I think I had got disconnected that time.

 

Anyway,

I agree that Yudhistira etc. are not comparable to Harishchandra so far truthfulness is concerned. It is said that Yudhistira was a great sacrificer. But Karna was far bigger sacrificer than Yudhistira. But what I was trying to say is that we can not make a fixed list of good and bad deeds. Depending on situation the same thing can be good or bad. Sometimes we are having a fixed set of options and each of these is bad. But since these are the only options, we have to choose one of them.

Take an example. Suppose that I am standing somehwhere. Suddenly I see one person running and hiding somewhere. Then I see another person. On seeing the other person, I understand that he is planning to do some harm to the first one. This second person asks me if I have seen the first one. Of course, telling truth is good. But should I tell truth in this case?

[animesh]

Hi Love,

______

From all that I have read under this thread of discussion, I once again feel that we are all very good at blaming Hinduism for everything that is going wrong in India.

________

 

No, none of us is blaming Hinduism as such but some of us are blaming many vice in society that are being done in the name of religion.

 

One more thing. You have mentioned that many vice became prevalent in India due to Islam invasion. I accept that. But were not Hindus also responsible for this to some extent? Now also some people are trying to spread bad deeds and it is not that they are all Muslisms; most of them are Hindus. As a simple example, now also you will find some people who claim that Sati system is good and that it is sanctioned by our shastras.

[shvu]

Hi Animesh,

 

Interesting point. Dharma means speaking the truth at all times, under all circumstances. However in the type of situation described by you, it is more meaningful to lie [provided the person hiding is not a muderer and the person chasing him is not a cop]. Which raises the question, about what is ideal? To speak the truth always or to know when to be truthful and when not to be?

 

However, Yudhistira's situation was not this. He had to choose between being truthful or to become the king and he chose the latter. Not that he was wrong, but it just shows that he was as ordinary as any other person.

 

To add, there is no one who can be called an ideal person. Every person faces different circumstances in life and has a different, unique background. Attempting to copy someone else who is considered ideal will simply not work. It is not required either.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

"However, Yudhistira's situation was not this. He had to choose between being truthful or to become the king and he chose the latter."

---

 

Yudhistira had to choose between following mundane social duties, or obeying the direct instruction of God.

[viji_53]

Dear shvu,

Yudhishtra did not agree to Krishna's proposal to lie saying Ashvattaama is dead. Krishna asks him if he sees Ashvattama die can he tell it? He agrees. Krishna names an elephant as Ashvattama & Bhima kills the elephant. Then Krishna asks Yudhishtra tell the truth & Yudhishtra tells Ashvattaama athha Kunjaraha(An elephant named Ashvattaama died) . Before Yudhishtra finishes the complete sentence Krishna blows His Panchajanya so Drona hears only Ashvattaama died & throws his arrow & bows & then Krishna asks Arjuna to kill Drona.

It is very difficult to be like Yudhishtra. Though Karna was also a good person , he was helping evil people(he was on the side of adharma) which brought his fall.

HariBhol!

 

[Love]

Hello Animesh,

 

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

No, none of us is blaming Hinduism as such but some of us are blaming many vice in society that are being done in the name of religion.

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

 

If we think about this, is there any point in blaming vice/ religion? When we try and blame such concepts, we are really dealing with non-entities. This means that no matter how hard we will try and raise an outcry about these issues, we will be heading nowhere. The reason is that we are only going to look at the problem and not the cause of it. Unless we make ourselves aware of the origin of these vices we cannot root out the problem. And that is all I have been trying to say all this while about the various problems we Hindus are facing today. Once we are able to narrow down on the cause for these vices, problems/ uncultured behaviour in our society we are one step ahead in rooting them out. And the way will be to understand the defferent levels of existence within our personality and learning the art of making active the one that need be at any point of time. This will slowly remove confusions of centuries from Hindu psyche and make ourselves a more cultured race again - one that could easily discriminate between dharma and adharma, even dharma and religion, etc.

 

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

One more thing. You have mentioned that many vice became prevalent in India due to Islam invasion. I accept that. But were not Hindus also responsible for this to some extent? Now also some people are trying to spread bad deeds and it is not that they are all Muslisms; most of them are Hindus. As a simple example, now also you will find some people who claim that Sati system is good and that it is sanctioned by our shastras.

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

 

Hindus are definitely to blame for failing to evolve out of the archetypes at that time. When Hindus were busy trying to create a culture of becoming human (not super-humans, or Gods, but simply humans who had as a race taken rebirth from their inner conflicts), Muslims invaded. Muslims were only part of the equatin that Hinudus were trying to solve to become better humans. We failed at that time to come out of that archetype adn that is where we have been since then. All Hindu militancy that you are seeing today is a result of all the opression over years. I remember when I used to live in Bareilly (a town in UP) where we used to have frequent communal riots between Hindus and muslims. Earlier, it was Hindus who would be killed in large numbers by the Muslims and Congress, a pro-Muslim party, would do littel to acknowledge this fact. Eventually, some Hindus somewhere found out the only way to become fanatic themselves about their faith in order to fight away the fanaticism of the Muslims. I am not condoning Hindu fundametalism. However, to keep quiet about injustice is just as well adharma. In that light certain fundametalism will not be bad for Hinduism as long as we remember to remain human beings and within our culture. Then it will be a fight against adharma and not blind following.

I am only trying to put up a point to say that we need to solve these problems within ourselves, Sati or whatever else as a issue bothers us, as it may be a part of our collective consciousness and take rebirth from it at that level. Gradually, I ma certain we will then find that these vices will disappear from India to be replaced by goodness and humane attitude. If we do not remove them from our psyche they are here to stay for eternity in one form or another. We have Sati in India. America has cults. America has gun culture. What is the difference. I am trying to say that education has not done for America what it promised to do. Why? Because, education does not culture your nerves, or cure them of the archetypes. It only teaches them to become subtle by suppressing unsocial behavior. Suppression only makes them stronger and one day they erupt in another horrendous form. So, I say that the way is neither what the West teaches nor the way is what we think it is - educating every Indian will cure us of this. The path to solution lies within each of us and when we as individuals start making that change within ourselves, we will see the change happening in India, slowly but surely.

 

May God give us strength to know the way.

 

 

[animesh]

It is true that Karna was on the side of Kauravas and not Pandavas. But, in my opinion, Pandavas are themselves to be blamed for this. When Pandavas were making fun of Karna by calling him shudra-putra and were not willing to allow him to participate in competition, then Duryodhana made him king. So, it would have been treachery on the part of Karna to fight opposite of Duryodhana in Mahabharat war.

 

When we read Mahabharat, then very often we have the tendency to consider every act of all those on Pandavas' side as good and of all those on Kauravas' side as bad.

[shvu]

 

Well said Animesh. The Pandavas were no saints themselves. They were perfectly ordinary people.

 

Hi Viji,

 

Yudhistira did lie. He was 4 inches above the ground always until he lied to Drona which pulled him down to the level of the other humans. Although it has been a while, I remember the author devoted a whole page to how Yudhistira fell from his exalted position. Unless of course, this "4 inches" is not found in the original Mahabharata.

 

Cheers

[animesh]

It is not that all those on Pandavas side were good and all those on Kauravas side were bad. There were good and bad on both sides. If we select one person from Pandavas' side and one from Kauravas' side and then ask, "who was better?", the answer would depend on who those two people are.

[Love]

Did we ever consider that the simple message in all these stories, where even Ram is shown to have done a deed that belies our beliefs or appears to be so is that man is not infallible and he will commit sins since he is not absolute/ perfect. However, it is the level of consciousness to which he grows that commands respect for him. So, we cannot point on failure in character of Ram/ Yudhistra and compare to to the acts of any otehr human being. Perhaps, what they did was wrong, but surely one cannot discount the innumerable good acts on their behalf or their strife to stand by dharma in adverse circumstances. How many people do we know who have been able to achieve this level of clarity of mind?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It is not that all those on Pandavas side were good and all those on Kauravas side were bad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Krishna incarnated to remove all the kings from the face of the earth, because they were a burden to mother earth. He was the one who destroyed the Pandava's army as kala-rupa. Simply by fighting on the side of the Pandavas did not make everyone as a realized soul. There were so many reasons why each person chose to fight on a particular side. And not everyone on the side of the Kauravas was evil. Bhisma was a fully liberated soul and pure devotee of Lord Krishna. The Bhagavatam glorifies him as one of the twelve mahajanas, or great authorities on krishna-bhakti. Krishna's own army fought on the side of the Kaurava's.

 

In the lila of the Lord, each devotee plays a role, like actors in a play. Sometimes one devotee must act the part of the villain in order to create the perfect mood for the Lord's pastimes. This is pure devotional service, free from any tinge of expectation.

 

Not everyone involved was a liberated soul, but on both sides Lord Krishna's eternal associates were taking part.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Yudhistira did lie. He was 4 inches above the ground always until he lied to Drona which pulled him down to the level of the other humans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

There is mention of Yudhisthira coming down to touch the earth, but it is the commentator's who explain why this occurred (as is also the case in Yudhisthira seeing hell). Those who propagate social morality as the supreme duty choose to explain the cause as being the lie told by Yudhisthira. Those who propagate pure devotion to God as the ultimate duty explain that Yudhisthira touched the ground, and subsequently had to see hell, due to his hesitation in following the order of Lord Krishna (to tell the lie).

 

[viji_53]

Dear shvu,

You always seems to justify Veerappan's actions by your logic. Pandavas were good when compared with Kouravas. Krishna spared only Pancha Pandavas lives for the sake of queen Kunthi(ofcourse Parikshit for their race). Pandavas underwent so much sufferings inspite of being good. You can not compare Yudhishtra with Rama. Nobody worships Yudhistra. We think of only Harichandra when we talk about truth not Yudhishtra. We think of only Karna when we talk about charity & not Yudhishtra. Pandavas were devotees of Krishna , so He protected them showing to the world that God will protect Dharma even if He has to take adharmic means to protect His devotees. That was He did in Mahabharat war. He made pandavas kill their enemies in adharmic way, because it was impossible to kill them otherwise. To keep quiet in the court where Kouravas were making fun of Panchali was unpardonable sin . That was happened with Bhishma, Drona etc. What is the use of being a great person when you are not able protest against injustice done to a helpless lady? The Pandavas had the punishment of staying in the forest for 13 years for Yudhishtra's responsibility to stake Panchali in the gambling. Only Panchali thought of Krishna & He immediately came to her rescue. under any circumstances do not justify Veerappan's actions.

HariBhol!