LoveroftheBhagavata

Hare Krishna Aditya, I already tackled your first 4 questions on guru paramparas and sampradayas, and JNji took charge of the Puranas classification list, about which I have the following to say, namely that the Puranic corpus of literatures is increasingly being accepted by scholars and academicians as being way more ancient than was commonly thought in the past, and no less a prominent figure than Ludo Rocher, a German Indologist whose work is widely hailed as THE current industry standard as far as this given body of texts is concerned, had to concede in his 1986 book "The Puranas" that the literary evidence studied by him leads to the conclusion that indeed, as per native Indian tradition, Puranas existed on a par with the Vedas in the distant past, and served as companion volumes to them, since they were more easily understood by ordinary people. Other than Rocher, other specialists in the field have also reached similar or comparable ideas. This of course matters little to Vedic practitioners who place faith directly in the words of shastra and have intimate conviction in the truths propounded therein. And the majority of texts have been corrupted over time, with a great too many interpolations being now present in them. However, to an attentive reader, there is sufficient cross-checking and corroboration still between the surviving recensions of the different scriptures to allow a sincere student extract the essence of Veda and benefit from it. In addition, the sattvika Puranas are obviously superior to the rest of the canon to an objective person, just as the Srimad Bhagavatam, which has mystified more than one academic scholar for the unified structure of its composition and rigour of thought, is evidently superior to the other mode-of-goodness Puranas. However, although the accepted paradigms of academia do not hold much importance for devotees, it is gratifying to see that researchers are having to modify their views to some extent, and more often than not, these revisions are in the direction in which sadhakas are swimming, i.e. the version held by shastra. As for the Gita Press problem, what can I say other than that I do not know much about that, but I do recall reading somewhere a while back that Bhaktivedanta Swamiji once told a disciple who had made this very enquiry to him that the translations of the Sanskrit verses from different quarters were not altogether that different, and that his purports, the base for which he used the commentaries of several previous acharyas, brought out the meaning of those shlokas. As for the accusations of mayavada contamination, I ignore whether ACBSP really did make those charges, but even if he did, I would not quite concur with such a pronouncement. To my novice eye, and that of many others, the Gita Press in Gorakhpur is doing a fine job indeed, and I find that their publications promote a generic Vaishnava viewpoint, whilst not strictly adhering to the understanding of any one sampradaya. I think that a visit to their website www.gitapress.org could possibly convince you of the same. Radhe Radhe

Indeed. These days, the impurity of human activities are in the process of turning Vraja-bhumi into a veritable cesspit, and there seems to be little anyone can do about that. Krishna help us if one of the last oases of a modicum of bhagavata-dharma on earth goes to the dogs the way the rest of the world almost has. It appears that in future, those devotional practitioners who long for some solitude and tranquility in order to tend to their bhajana and scriptural study are going to have to retire to less accessible spots such as the Himalayan holy towns of Badrinath, Devprayag or Rishikesh for that matter. Radhe Radhe

http://home.planet.nl/~dijk7364/ Sri Sri Radha Madana Gopalah Sharanam Jai Prabhu Sitanath All over the world the glories of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Nityananda Prabhu are now being sung. However, without Advaita Prabhu, who is also called Gaur Ana Thakur, He who brought Gaura to this world, there would be no Mahaprabhu, so this website provides the opportunity to dive into the world of the Advaita Parivara, the disciplic succession descending from Advaita Prabhu. Most particularly, this site is dedicated to Sadhu Baba Nikunja Gopal Gosvami, a 13th generation direct descendant of Sri Advaita Prabhu, providing audio, views and text about this unique mahatma. We hope you will enjoy this site. Jay Radhe. www.madangopal.com

Well, this is one of my reasons for subscribing to the traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava Parivaras instead of being a member of either ISKCON or Gaudiya Math. For someone born completely outside of varnashrama to think that they can somehow become qualified for brahminical initiation just by the waving of a magic wand strikes me as a shocking display of a lack of humility. The reason for the descent of Mahaprabhu was prema-bhakti, not radical social activism. Barring a handful of His associates (notably Srila Raghunatha dasa Gosvami and Srila Haridasa Thakura), almost all of His followers were born brahmanas, including His very own Self. Having said this, nearly everyone on this forum, myself included, would not have come to raganuga-bhakti if it were not for the vision and preaching of Bhaktivinoda, Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivedanta. Thus, even whilst veering more towards classical Chaitanya Vaishnavism, I do appreciate the Bhaktivinoda Parivara/Sarasvata Parampara in large measure, and am grateful to these three great souls for what I owe to their efforts. At the end of the day, Bhagavati Radhika grants us Her grace for our purity of thought and advancement in sadhana. The shape of our tilaka or colour of our cloth has little bearing, in the broader scheme of things. My approach is to try to receive the gift of Krishna-bhakti wherever it is available, whether in orthodox branches, Gaudiya Math or ISKCON. And nobody in their right mind would deny that there are indeed wonderful devotees (and not so nice personages as well) in all three places. Just to say a final thing before I'm off this uninteresting and boring thread; I do not have an opinion, one way or the other, on Jesus. To the extent that divinity was present or not in him, I wish the very best to those who find him and his words inspiring. For my part, I can never thank Bhagavan enough that He gave me a Hindu body in this life. From infanthood, I've had the humongous fortune to hear about, learn about and worship Him and His confidential associates, i.e. the Devas and Devis. Later, the Lord was merciful enough to bring me in contact with the teachings of Sri Gaurasundara. The fact is, I have barely scratched the surface of my own infinitely profound Vaishnava tradition, and delving in the neverending depths of Hari-bhakti is what the Godhead has prescribed for me for the rest of eternity. Hence, there is little time or energy left to look at the shiksha of any exogenous culture or philosophy at all. Indeed, for someone who is attracted to the path of devotion to Radha-Krishna and who has taken shelter of the Bhagavatam, there is no need for that anyway. And I do think that any true, sincere, committed sadhaka would readily empathise with this. Radhe Radhe

Haribol Well, it is certainly not my intention or purpose to convert you to Vaishnavism. I'm not into this proselytizing business anyway. Just one word on all that you have said. Advaitins, Shaivas, Shaktas, Vaishnavas, Tantriks, Buddhists etc will disagree with one another till pralaya, or even maha-pralaya, and as I mentioned earlier, little is to be gained by debate. The Vaishnava acharyas, whether Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Vishnuswami, and our own Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana have all written extensive commentaries on the Brahma-sutras, drawing their back-up material from numerous different sources: the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Itihasas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and other texts too. Sankarites and neo-Vedantins alike can disparage our personalistic conception of divinity all they want, that is all they can do. For us, Sri Hari was, is and will remain the Param Brahma, i.e., the origin and root cause of the Brahmajyoti, just like Bhakti shall forever shine brighter than "mere" jnana. In the Gaudiya sampradaya, though, we do accept that God does have an eternal impersonal feature, the Brahman effulgence, and on this point, we do differ somewhat from certain other Vaishnava lineages. As they say, to each his own, and I do wish you the best advancement possible on your particular chosen path. Pray the same for me with respect to bhakti-yoga for your part. Om tat sat

Yes, not everyone is fortunate enough to drown themselves in the Ganga for a misdemeanour, as Visnujana Swami did, nor would that be appropriate for everybody.

Jaya Radhe Aditya, For fault of time, I can only respond to you on a piecemeal basis. In the Gita, Krishna is teaching Arjuna the same transcendental knowledge which He spoke to Suryadeva millions of years in the past, and Surya in turn instructed His son Vaivasvata Manu who for his part let on King Ikshvaku on the same material. There is no disciplic succession, however, that comes through Arjuna. The purpose of the speaking of the Gita served an altogether different purpose. The parampara that you find in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is is the one presented to Prabhupada by his guru, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. It is a shiksha-parampara, whereby shiksha is stressed over diksha. In more orthodox branches of the tradition, parampara is defined by reception of diksha, although shiksha also clearly plays a very important part there also. Traditionalists and Sarasvatas have been debating over this diksha-shiksha issue for a century now. However, at least two traditional acharyas (that I know of), Radha-Govinda dasa Babaji and Hridayananda das Babaji, both of Nityananda Parivara, have acknowledged that Prabhupada was indeed energised by Lord Nitai for preaching on a global scale, irrespective of the disagreements over the guru parampara thing. As for question number 4, the Padma Purana says that in KALI-YUGA, four authentic Vaishnava sampradayas exist. This goes as follows: samprAdya-vihInA ye mantrAs te niSphalA matAH atah kalau bhaviSyanti catvAraH sampradAyinaH SrI-brahma-rudra-sanakA vaiSNavAH kSiti-pAvanAH catvAras te kalau bhAvyA hy utkale puruSottamAt rAmAnujaM SrI svIcakre madhvAcAryaM caturmukhaH SrI viSNusvAmInaM rudro nimbAdityam catuHsanAH Unless one is initiated by a bona-fide spiritual master in the disciplic succession, the mantra he might have received is without any effect. For this reason four Vaisnava disciplic successions, inaugurated by Laksmi-devi, Lord Brahma, Lord Siva, and the four Kumaras, will appear in the holy place of Jagannatha Puri, and purify the entire earth during the age of Kali. Laksmi-devi chose Ramanujacarya to represent her disciplic succession. In the same way Lord Brahma chose Madhvacarya, Lord Siva chose Visnu Svami, and the four Kumaras chose Nimbarka. (quoted in Prameya-ratnavali by Baladeva Vidyabhusana, 1.5-6) However, this verse is not to be found in all extant recensions of the Padma Purana, which is a vast text of some 55,000 shlokas, and thus some people are led to disregard it. But it is said to still be there in one or two of the available editions. The personalities you listed all lived in prior yugas, and thus this does not apply to them. I shall get to your other questions when I'm a bit freer, but for now, this will have to suffice.

Perhaps you got the maha-mantra from the bible, otherwise there is no purpose to be served here. All that this proves is that if you can quote HDG to defend the truth of mleccha-dharma, others can do likewise to support the opposite viewpoint. As I said, for a systematic and methodical delineation of sabda pramana, take a look at the Tattva-sandarbha.

Haribol, I basically endorse your post (well, the first paragraph almost fully, but the second for sure doesn't meet my approval in toto). Regarding Lord Rama and Sri Hanumanji, us Gaudiyas accept Murari Gupta to be the manifest Maruti of Gaura-lila. Maybe you will like the piece that follows: Radhe Radhe

A truly pukka-Vaishnava write-up by HH Bhakti Charu Maharaja. Maharaja is a wonderful devotee and has manifested a beautiful Radha-Madana Mohana temple and centre in Ujjain. Hopefully, I can get down to visiting that tirtha the next time I'm in India.

On the other hand, you seem to think that you're a paragon of integrity. So much for trnad api sunicena. Just to quote your own guru, HDG A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami: "The sastras of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran. Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore although they have their arguments and reasoning, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy deem these scriptures unacceptable.” I'm sure you must've come across this statement many a time before. And yes, if you want to know true pramana, go read Srila Jiva Gosvamipada's Sri Tattva-sandarbha for a masterpiece of devotional and scholarly exposition of this subject matter.

Haribol Baobabtree, I don't have enough posts to send you a PM, so I shall reply to you here. I was in fact born in an all-Devatas/Devis worshipping Hindu family, outside of India, and I still love, honour and respect all Vedic deities, though the service of the lotus feet of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna is the parama-pada, as per the tradition that has captured my heart most, i.e. raganuga-bhakti. Yes, the "fellow" in my avatar is 108 Shri Sakhicharan Dasa Babaji Maharaja, a siddha-mahatma of the Narottama Parivara, and Guru of the revered 108 Shri Krishna Dasa Babaji Maharaja (Madrasi baba). You can learn a great deal about the divine lives of these exalted bhaktas if you follow the external link given on the Krishna Dasa Babaji website thread on the recommended websites section of these forums. Just in passing, I believe that classical lineages follow the spirit of Mahaprabhu and Srila Rupa Gosvamipada more closely than the Gaudiya Matha, which is why I call myself an aspirant on that specific path, but that doesn't stop me from having tremendous appreciation for the Sarasvata Vaishnavas for their immense contributions to contemporary Gaudiya Vaishnavism, even though I disagree with them on certain points. As for ISKCON, a lot can be said about that organisation both in favourable and unfavourable terms. As for me, I prefer to concentrate on the more positive aspects of their preaching and efforts in spreading Vedic culture around the globe. In the part of the world where I am, if it weren't for them, I would have practically no opportunities for sadhu-sanga, although one needs to exercise discernment and caution regarding whom to associate with, even within the Vaishnava samaja. There are elements in the writings and teachings of Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada that are preaching tactics more than anything else. In other places, some minor mistakes are undoubtedly present. However, on the whole, his principal writings, and here I'm referring mainly to his Bhagavad-gita, Srimad Bhagavatam and Caitanya-caritamrta translations and commentaries (as well as the Krishna book), are nothing short of glorious. At least some traditional Gaudiyas hold that the BBT multi-volume Srimad Bhagavatam is still, to date, the best available version on the market for devotees, with the Gita Press edition, which is just a translation with no purports, coming in second position. That doesn't mean that they would chime with Bhaktivedanta Swami in every single jot and tittle, but I think that you can see the point I'm trying to make. Regarding Sri Krishna as Svayam-Bhagavan, we don't expect everyone to accept the authority of the Brahma-samhita and Gosvami granthas. That would be extremely foolish an expectation in any event. We do, however, take SB 1.3.28 to be the paribhasa-sutra of the entire Bhagavata, which is itself the very foundation of our philosophy. It is significant that although up to this particular shloka, other avataras have been mentioned along with a description of Their characteristics, Krsna's characteristics have not. Yet if anyone insists that His characteristics have been described earlier, they can only be referring to the word bhagavan (rama-krsnav iti bhuvo bhagavan aharad bharam [sB 1.3.23]), which is not used when describing any of the other incarnations. In the paribhasa-sutra (SB 1.3.28), the characteristic of Krsna as svayam bhagavan is described, reiterating with emphasis what has been cited earlier (SB 1.3.23), however awkward some may perceive it to be. Furthermore, the fact that this description has been left until the end of the description of the incarnations serves to emphasize the conclusion that Krsna alone is svayam bhagavan, and for this reason it has been placed there. As per the rules of literary composition, facts meant to be emphasized should be placed at the end of the composition. Also bear in mind that this core verse comes after those depicting the three purusha-avataras, Maha-Vishnu, Garbhodakashayi-Vishnu and Kshirodakashayi-Vishnu. In the end, it serves no real purpose to argue about these things. Shastra serves as a guide first and foremost, and the number of souls in material existence is limitless. Not everyone is meant to take up the path of raganuga-bhakti, and end up in Goloka. Lord Hari Himself has countless eternal spiritual abodes within the Paravyoma, where He accepts the service of His devotees in an infinite variety of different ways, whether as Vraja Krishna in Vrindavana, Vasudeva Krishna in Mathura or Dvarakesha Krishna in Dvaravati. Lord Ramachandra also has His dhama in the spiritual world where He is surrounded by His associates, and the same applies to the innumerable four-armed Narayana vilasa-murtis, each of whom has His transcendental Vaikuntha-loka. Some souls are destined for Sadashivaloka, the eternal realm of Devadideva Mahadeva, others will ultimately dissolve their selves and merge into Brahman, and still others will forever roam about the material cosmic phenomenon, in the multiplicity of dimensions and domains of life that exist in the kotis upon kotis of brahmandas emanating from the pores of Maha-Vishnu. Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta actually allows for a very pluralistic conception of religion. The wisest course of action is, however, not to squander valuable time in argumentation but rather to purify ourselves and become eligible for entrance into the Lord's lila through committed and sincere adherence to the sadhana that every one of us may have shraddha in.

Absolutely, Tantrayoga. trnad api sunicena taror iva sahisnuna amanina manadena kirtaniyah sada harih This is what Lord Caitanya instructed His parampara heirs. Fortunately, many modern Gaudiyas have left behind this deplorable attitude of partisanship and embraced a more universalist approach. For a sample of same, you can glance at the blogs of Madhavananda Das and Advaita Das if that says anything to you. Haribol

Indeed, and please accept my appreciations for this statement of yours. It relates a simple, axiomatic truth which, if people properly comprehended, would eliminate much of the sectarianism one finds in contemporary religions.

To my knowledge, Bhagavan Sri Rama hardly allowed Himself to be worshipped during the 11,000 years he was present on earth during Treta-yuga of the 24th divya-yuga. Check out both the Valmiki Ramayana and Ramacharitamanasa if you feel inclined to do so. Regards

Pranam Tantrayoga, I am an (uninitiated) follower of traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta. The Gaudiya understanding is that Lord Shiva DOES annihilate the material cosmos at the time of pralaya, not Indra, and yes, Mahadeva is a manifestation of God, though we consider Krishna to be Bhagavan in His most complete, charming and perfect svarupa. Shiva is also not tainted by tamo-guna, though one of His functions is that He is in charge of the mode of ignorance, whilst being untouched by it. Of course, my school of thought differs theologically and philosophically from yours, and quite radically, but you seem to have a rather warped view of Chaitanya Vaishnavism, if I may say so. Of course, you cannot be blamed for this, since most Gaudiyas with whom you have conferred seem to be of the intransigeant, fanatical type. A true average follower of Sriman Mahaprabhu doesn't fight with others over doctrinal issues, but rather is too busy exploring the vastness of his own sampradaya to have any time for such things.

I think the title of this thread is misleading right from the start, since Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not the philosophy of Prabhupada. Bhaktivedanta Swami has carved a place for himself in eternal history by taking the gift of Mahaprabhu outside of India and thereby blessing the people of this world with Hari-nama. However, the garden in which the sublime path of devotion to Lord Krishna in the mood of Vraja was planted is the Srimad Bhagavatam, which is the most important Gaudiya scripture. According to the Bhagavata itself, as well as the Garuda Purana and other texts which I can quote when I have a little more time, Srimad Bhagavatam is the ripened fruit of the desire tree of Vedic literature. The traditional view is that the recitation of this wonderful shastra occurred some five millenia into the past, first by Sri Sukadeva to Maharaja Parikshit at Suka-tala on the banks of the Ganga and then later by Suta Gosvami to the assembly of sages at Naimisharanya. Some even say that the Bhagavata relates Krishna-lila and other events as they happened in a prior kalpa, which would place these several billions of years back. It is thus hardly a novel philosophy, the one that Swami Prabhupada brought to the West and preached. Sure, those who do not have faith in the Bhagavatam can argue about the truth or falsehood of the Vaishnava concept of reality till the end of time, but that will bring about little in terms of concrete achievements to them. They certainly won't break my faith in the timeless message of Mahaprabhu, whom we know to be Krishna Himself in the garb of a bhakta. Srila Sakhicharan das Babaji Ki Jaya!

It is true that the term demigod is an unsatisfactory rendering of the Sanskrit word Deva. I myself translate it as god, with a little g, just to differentiate the Devas from Bhagavan. However, Krishna tells Arjuna unequivocally that His worship is topmost, so in the end it matters not that much I suppose. However, the Devatas and Devis are direct, confidential associates and servants of Lord Hari, and holding Them in high regard is essential for any serious sadhaka. This is something about which many modern Vaishnavas, especially those who draw their knowledge from ISKCON and to a lesser extent the Gaudiya Matha, are sorely lacking in. Traditional/non-Sarasvata Gaudiya Vaishnavas undoubtedly fare way better in this regard. For instance, the Bhagavatam tells us that Lord Shiva is the greatest Vaishnava, but the shameful lack of respect with which He is talked about by many a disciple of Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is simply revolting. Some will even twist and turn facts and quotes and go to any extent to show that Christ was a true divine envoy, but they lack the requisite qualities to appreciate a direct scriptural statement from the Bhagavata (our primary shastra), concerning the exalted nature of Mahadeva. Kulapavanaji's post above is especially commendable in this connection, coming from an ISKCON member. Haribol Prabhu!

The Burning Cross BY: PRADEEP SHARMA Several years ago I wrote three articles that were posted on the internet called the Burning Cross, part one, two, and three. Since that time I have received hundreds of emails filled with questions, comments, and particularly the repeated request to establish a website to thoroughly examine the issue of Christianity and Vaishnavism from a historical and theological point of view. This I felt was a task too great for one man and so I began to look around for other devotees, both men and women, who would be interested in helping me with the necessary research and writing that would be required for such an undertaking. By the grace of Krishna I was successful and was able to put together a team of researchers and writers dedicated to the task. We have uploaded the site “The Burning Cross” and we invite all theologically and historically minded devotees to visit our website. While doing so if this is your first experience with a deep look at the similarities and differences between Christianity and Vaishnavism then your prior assumptions may feel challenged. If however you have already come in contact with this body of information then the Burning Cross website has some great materials that you will want to look at more closely. To give the Vaishnava community and the Sampradaya Sun readers a preview of what to expect on the Burning Cross website we give you the following quote from Shreela A.C. Bhakti Vedanta Swami Prabhupada and then from Shreela Bhaktivinode Thakura: From Shreela A.C. Bhakti Vedanta Swami Prabhupada: "The sastras of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran. Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore although they have their arguments and reasoning, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy deem these scriptures unacceptable.” From Tattva-viveka by Bhaktivinode Thakura Text 25 <CENTER>adi-jivaparadhad vai sarvesam bandhanam dhruvam tathanya-jiva-bhutasya vibhor dandena niskrtih</CENTER> “Some philosophers say that because of the first living entity's sin all the other living entities are imprisoned in the material world. Later, punishing Himself for their sins, God delivers the living entities.” Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura Deliberating on the virtues and faults of this world, some moralistic monotheists concluded that the material world is not a place of pure happiness. Indeed, the sufferings outweigh the pleasures. They claim that the material world is a prison to punish the living entities. If there is punishment, then there must be a crime. If there were no crime, then why would there be any punishment? What crime did the living entities commit? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being, the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from that garden into the material world filled with sufferings. Because of their offense, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of their birth. Not seeing any other way to remove this offense, God Himself took birth in a humanlike form, took on His own shoulders the sins of His followers, and then died. All who follow Him easily attain liberation, and all who do not follow Him fall into an eternal hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes Himself, and thus liberates the living entities. An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this. Text 26 <CENTER>janmato jiva-sambhavo maranante na janma vai yat-krtam samsrtau tena jivasya caramam phalam</CENTER> "(These philosophers say that) the living entity's life begins at birth and ends with death. After death, he is not born again. After death he attains the results of his actions in that one lifetime.” Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura To accept this mixed-up religion one must first believe these rather implausible things: "The living entity's life begins at birth and ends at death. Before birth the living entity did not exist, and after death the living entity will no longer stay in the world of material activities. Only human beings have souls. Other creatures do not have souls." Only extremely unintelligent persons believe this religion. In this religion the living entity is not spiritual in nature. By His own will God created the living entities out of matter. Why are the living entities born into very different situations? The followers of this religion cannot say. Why is one living entity born into a house filled with sufferings, another living entity born into a house filled with joys, another living entity born into the house of a person devoted to God, and another living enttity born into a wicked atheist's house? Why is one person born in a situation where he is encouraged to perform pious deeds, and he performs pious deeds and becomes good? Why is another person born in a situation where he is encouraged to sin, and he sins and becomes bad? The followers of this religion cannot answer all these questions. Their religion seems to say that God is unfair and irrational. Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why do birds and beasts not have souls like human beings? Why do the human beings have only one life, and, because of their actions in that one life are rewarded in eternal heaven or punished with eternal hell? Any person who believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion completely unacceptable. Text 27 <CENTER>atra sthitasya jivasya karma-jnananusilanat visvonnati-vidhanena kartavyam isa-tosanam</CENTER> "(These philosophers say that) by cultivating fruitive work and speculative philosophy one should make improvements in the material world and in this way please God.” Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura The followers of this religion have no power to worship God selflessly. In general their idea is that by cultivating fruitive work and speculative philosophy one should work to make improvements in the material world and in this way please God. By building hospitals and schools, and by doing various philanthropic works, they try to do good to the world and thus please God. Worship of God by performing fuitive work (karma) and by engaging in philosophical speculation (jnana) is very important to them. They have no power to understand pure devotional service (suddha-bhakti), which is free of fruitive work and philosophical speculation. Worship of God done out of a sense of duty is never natural or unselfish. "God has been kind to us, and therefore we should worship Him." These are the thoughts of lesser minds. Why is this not a good way to worship God? Because one may think, "If God is not kind to me, then I will not worship Him." In this way one has the selfish, bad desire to get God's kindness in the future. If one wishes that God will be kind by allowing one to serve Him, then there is nothing wrong with that desire. But the religion under discussion does not see it in that way. This religion sees God's kindness in terms of one's enjoying a happy life in this material world.