Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kyros

  1. The classifications of the Puranas are from the Puranas themselves. Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda, 236.18–21 vaisnavanam naradiyam ca tatha bhagavatam subham garudam ca tatha padmam varaham subha-darsane sattvikani puranani vijneyani subhani vai brahmandam brahma-vaivarta markandeyam tathaiva ca bhavisyam vamanam brahmam rajasani nibodha me matsyam kaurmam tatha laingam saivam skandam tathaiva ca agneyam ca sad etani tamasani nibodha me " O beautiful lady, one should know that the Visnu, Naradiya, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha are all in the mode of goodness. The Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and Brahma are in the mode of passion. The Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda and Agni are in the mode of ignorance." Matsya Purana 190.13-14 “The glory of Hari is greater in sattvika scripture; the glory of Brahma is greater in rajasika scriptures; and that of Agni and Siva greater in tamasika scriptures. In mixed scriptures the glory of Sarasvati and the pitrs is said to be greater." Combine these two verses to the Bhagavad Gita verses I mentioned, and you can understand which Puranas bring knowledge and which ones don't. Please don't neglect to understand the three modes, they are essential to Vedic understanding. They are especially used in Ayurveda, and sattvic products are always beneficial while tamasic products bring harm. Also, just because the Puranas are named Matsya, Vamana, Skanda, etc, doesn't mean anything significant. Kind of like how the Katha Upanisad is named after the sage Katha, who promoted the particular Upanisad. The Matsya Purana glorifies Lord Siva more than Lord Visnu, but it considers those Puranas that glorify Lord Siva are tamasic. With this understanding the contradiction is reconciled. As for the Puranas being written in different time periods, that's impossible, because all the Puranas have coordinates on the arrangement of the universe, and if one of them were missing, it wouldn't work.
  2. There is no interpretation needed. You already accept the fact that the Linga Purana is a tamasic, and by just using common sense, we can understand that there must be something wrong with this Purana to be classified as tamasic. There is also this verse from the Gita that will explain things better. Bhagavad Gita 14.17 sattvāt sañjāyate jñānaḿ rajaso lobha eva ca pramāda-mohau tamaso bhavato 'jñānam eva ca From the mode of goodness, real knowledge develops; from the mode of passion, greed develops; and from the mode of ignorance develop foolishness, madness and illusion. (Only the sattva-guna can reveal real knowledge, while tama-guna brings foolishness. The three modes of nature do not apply to how a person acts either, it applies to a lot of other things. Ayurveda uses the three modes to separate foods. However, if you're one of those people who don't accept the Gita, then here are these verses.) Skanda Purana ( srimadbhagavatasyatha srimadbhagavatah sada svarupam ekamevasti saccidanandalaksanam "The nature of the Srimad Bhagavatam and the Personality of Godhead is always the same - full knowledge, bliss, and eternal existence." (Here the Skanda Purana clearly states that the Bhagavad Purana and the Personality of Godhead are of the same nature. There is no interpreation needed, and note that this is also a tamasic purana.) Skanda Purana, Prabhasa Khanda ( and Agni Purana (272.6,7) "That which gives accounts of the humans and demigods in the Sarasvata Kalpa, explains the supreme religion, basing itself on Gayatri, and narrates the slaying of Vrtrasura is to be known as the Srimad Bhagavatam. It has eighteen thousand verses. Whoever makes a copy of the Bhagavatam and donates it, on a golden lion throne, on the full moon day in the month of Bhadra, will attain the supreme destination". (It is also interesting to note that these two Puranas declare the Srimad Bhagavatam to explain the supreme religion. It also declares that by solely donating the Bhagavatam, fulfilling a certain criteria, will attain the supreme destination. Also take note that the Agni Purana is also a tamasic Purana.)
  3. Sensible_bloke, if you're going to quote a scripture, then quote one that wasn't translated by a white European supremacist.
  4. The Puranas hold relative measurements of how the universe is made up. When these measurements are put together, they can produce similar results as the modern astronomical method. This would establish the superiority of the Puranas above all other scriptures, including the sruti, because it'll be scientific and empirical. All by using a completely different coordinate system to explain the universe and provide the same results. Try asking any other form of religion to do that, and they won't because they can't.
  5. SB 11.30.33: Just then a hunter named Jarā, who had approached the place, mistook the Lord's foot for a deer's face. Thinking he had found his prey, Jarā pierced the foot with his arrow, which he had fashioned from the remaining iron fragment of Sāmba's club. However, Lord Krsna's actual disappearance is described in Srimad Bhagavatam 11.31.* Here's the verse that specifies that Lord Krsna does not die like ordinary people. SB 11.31.11: My dear King, you should understand that the Supreme Lord's appearance and disappearance, which resemble those of embodied conditioned souls, are actually a show enacted by His illusory energy, just like the performance of an actor. After creating this universe He enters into it, plays within it for some time, and at last winds it up. Then the Lord remains situated in His own transcendental glory, having ceased from the functions of cosmic manifestation.
  6. Kailash, she is Lord Siva's wife. I don't see why she would reside anywhere else.
  7. Maharaja Yudisthir is not God. Sahadev is not God. Nakul is not God. Draupadi is not God. Lord Krsna is God. Asvatthama was a twice born who fell from his position. Hence why Lord Krsna refers to him as a relative of a brahmana and says he can be killed. Mahabharata (Shanti-parva, Moksha-dharma, Chapter 188) bharadvaja uvaca jangamanam asankhyeyah sthavaranam ca jatayah<o:p></o:p> tesham vividha-varnanam kuto varna-vinishcayah<o:p></o:p> bhrigur uvaca<o:p></o:p> na vishesho 'sti varnanam sarva-brahmam idam jagat<o:p></o:p> brahmana purva-shrishtam hi karmabhir varnatam gatam<o:p></o:p> himsanrita-priya lubdhah sarva-karmopajivinah<o:p></o:p> krishnah shauca-paribhrashtas te dvijah shudratam gatah “Bharadvaja said: There are innumerable categories of animate and inanimate living entities. How can one determine their various varnas?” “Bhrigu replied: There are no real differences among varnas. When Brahma first created the universe, it was inhabited only by brahmanas. Later on, as a result of their activities, people attained the designations of different varnas. <o:p></o:p> “When the brahmanas commit violence, speak lies, become greedy, earn their livelihood by any and all activities, lose their purity by sinful activities, then they become degraded into shudras.” Take note of the word "dvijah" up above. Just because it says "twice-born" in sanskrit doesn't mean anything. Asvatthama is a twice-born, and comitted sinful activities and degraded himself into a sudra. I never said he wasn't addressing him by his apparent low birth. You're making assumptions here. If my father was a janitor, and I end up being the President of a country, why would I get mad if someone calls me the son of a janitor? Am I suppose to be insulted? In case you don't know, they teach in the American schools here that the caste system is based on birth, not qualities like I'm saying. You're the one agreeing with them, not me. Being a Kshatriya was Arjuna's individual duty, and Lord Krsna was telling him to do just that. Here's some more scriptural quotes that should make this MORE clearer, as if they're not already. Srimad Bhagavatam 9.2.17 dhṛṣṭād dhārṣṭam abhūt kṣatraḿ brahma-bhūyaḿ gataḿ kṣitau nṛgasya vaḿśaḥ sumatir bhūtajyotis tato vasuḥ "From the son of Manu named Dhṛṣṭa came a kṣatriya caste called Dhārṣṭa, whose members achieved the position of brāhmaṇas in this world. Then, from the son of Manu named Nṛga came Sumati. From Sumati came Bhūtajyoti, and from Bhūtajyoti came Vasu." Srimad Bhagavatam 7.11.35 yasya yal lakṣaṇaḿ proktaḿ puḿso varṇābhivyañjakam yad anyatrāpi dṛśyeta tat tenaiva vinirdiśet "If one shows the symptoms of being a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra, as described above, even if he has appeared in a different class, he should be accepted according to those symptoms of classification." Mahabharata (Anushasana-parva 163.5, 8, 26, 46, 48, 51, and 59) “Uma said: O Lord, O sinless master of the living entities, I have some doubt about how members of the three castes-kshatriya, vaishya, and shudra-will attain through their own nature the platform of brahmanas. “Maheshvara replied: If kshatriyas or vaishyas become situated in the behavior of brahmanas and spend their lives in the occupations of brahmanas, then such persons can attain the position of brahmanas. “O goddess, by the same procedure a shudra can become a brahmana and a vaishya can become a kshatriya." <o:p></o:p> “By the results of these activities and by becoming an adherent of the agama scriptures, or in other words, by taking initiation through the pancaratrika system, then a low-born shudra also becomes a brahmana." “O goddess, Lord Brahma has personally declared that by performing pure activities, a self-controlled shudra is fit to be served just like a brahmana." <o:p></o:p> “In my opinion, if pious activities and good character are found in a shudra, it should be understood that he is better than a brahmana." <o:p></o:p> “Birth, purificatory processes, study of the Vedas, and good birth are not the criterion for being a brahmana. The only criterion is one's behavior." “A person is born as a brahmana in this world simply as a result of his nature. A shudra situated in the profession of a brahmana also becomes a brahmana." <o:p></o:p> “I have thus explained to you the secret of how a person who is born as a shudra becomes a brahmana and how by deviating from his occupational duties a person born in the family of a brahmana becomes a shudra.”
  8. The edit feature goes away after some time.
  9. It only takes common sense to understand the difference. You can't reject Puranas like the Padma Purana, or Matsya Purana (which also mentions Puranas glorifying Lord Siva to be tamasic in general, and itself IS a Purana that glorifies Lord Siva). Bhagavad Gita 14.17 sattvāt sañjāyate jñānaḿ rajaso lobha eva ca pramāda-mohau tamaso bhavato 'jñānam eva ca From the mode of goodness, real knowledge develops; from the mode of passion, greed develops; and from the mode of ignorance develop foolishness, madness and illusion. Sattvic Puranas glorfy Lord Visnu, tamasic Puranas glorify Lord Siva. People just don't want to admit the truth. That's not my problem, that's theirs Even sruti-sastra confirms Lord Visnu's supremecy. Rg Veda 1.22.20 tad visnoh paramam padam sada pasyanti surayah diviva caksur atatam visnor yat paramam padam "Those who are entirely devoted to Lord Vishnu,after death, go to the supreme spiritual planet, where they lead eternal lives under the thralldom of His superior, internal energy." The sruti is filled with them. Clear? SB 1.7.33 tata āsādya tarasā dāruṇaḿ gautamī-sutam babandhāmarṣa-tāmrākṣaḥ paśuḿ raśanayā yathā Arjuna, his eyes blazing in anger like two red balls of copper, dexterously arrested the son of Gautamī and bound him with ropes like an animal. SB 1.7.35 mainaḿ pārthārhasi trātuḿ brahma-bandhum imaḿ jahi yo 'sāv anāgasaḥ suptān avadhīn niśi bālakān Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: O Arjuna, you should not show mercy by releasing this relative of a brāhmaṇa [brahma-bandhu], for he has killed innocent boys in their sleep. Clear? Bhagavad Purana 1.7.53-54 śrī-bhagavān uvāca brahma-bandhur na hantavya ātatāyī vadhārhaṇaḥ mayaivobhayam āmnātaḿ paripāhy anuśāsanam kuru pratiśrutaḿ satyaḿ yat tat sāntvayatā priyām priyaḿ ca bhīmasenasya pāñcālyā mahyam eva ca The Personality of Godhead Sri Kṛṣṇa said: A friend of a brāhmaṇa is not to be killed, but if he is an aggressor he must be killed. All these rulings are in the scriptures, and you should act accordingly. You have to fulfill your promise to your wife, and you must also act to the satisfaction of Bhīmasena and Me. The keyword in this verse is brahma-bandhur. Lord Krsna (God) does not even consider Asvattama a brahmana, but a friend of a brahmana and must be killed. Bhagavad Purana 1.7.55 sūta uvāca arjunaḥ sahasājñāya harer hārdam athāsinā maṇiḿ jahāra mūrdhanyaḿ dvijasya saha-mūrdhajam Just then Arjuna could understand the motive of the Lord by His equivocal orders, and thus with his sword he severed both hair and jewel from the head of Aśvatthāmā. Draupadi may have spared Asvatthama, but Lord Krsna (GOD) and Bhima wanted him dead. Clear? Despite all that, he still never called Karna directly a "suta." He only made fun of his heritage, not himself. Mahabharata Anusasana-parva 143.50 na yonir napi samskaro na srutam na ca santatih karanani dvijatvasya vrttam eva tu karanam "Neither birth, nor samskaras , nor learning, nor progeny are the qualifications to be a brahmana . Only brahminical conduct is the basis for brahminical status." Clear? And you wonder why the people of India was so easily brainwashed by the British? I rest my case. Arjuna's family tradition was to live according to the Vedas, as was everybody elses. And you wonder why the people of India was so easily brainwashed by the British? I rest my case. Arjuna's family tradition was to live according to the Vedas, as was everybody elses.
  10. I've actually recently learned/remembered that there is a ceremony called the garbhadana-samskara ceremony which is done by families to acquire a child in accordance to their own caste. This is also mentioned in the Manu-Smriti 2.27 and various other places. I don't know where to find details of the ceremony at the moment. Most "brahmana" families aren't aware of this and don't do it, so they may get a child from a different caste and as a result, you get a child who acts completely differently than what a brahmana does, yet they still consider him a brahmana. I believe that's where the mistake arises. Noone expects caste to be determined immediately. It takes time to understand someones nature. When you meet someone, you have no idea who they are, but after awhile you get used to their nature and character. This is the only way to understand someones position. Mahabharata Anusasana-parva 143.50 na yonir napi samskaro na srutam na ca santatih karanani dvijatvasya vrttam eva tu karanam "Neither birth, nor samskaras , nor learning, nor progeny are the qualifications to be a brahmana . Only brahminical conduct is the basis for brahminical status." There's also the mention of Visvamitra who was a Kshatriya, but became a Brahmana through his actions. Mahabharata, Adi-parva 174: ksatriyo'ham bhavan vipras tapah-svadhyayah-sadhanah sva-dharmam na prahasyami nesyami ca balena gam dhig balam ksatriya-balam brahma-tejo-balam balam balabalam viniscitya tapa eva param balam tatapa sarvan diptaujah brahmanatvam avaptavan "Visvamitra said to Vasistha: You are a brahmana, endowed with the qualities of austerity and Vedic knowledge. I am a ksatriya, so on the basis of my nature I will forcibly take this cow (Nandini). "Later, when Visvamitra was defeated, he declared that the strength of the ksatriya was inferior to that of the brahmanas. He thus decided that the performance of austerities was the only way to empower one with superior strength. "The greatly effulgent Visvamitra thus performed all kinds of austerities and attained the position of a brahmana."
  11. You didn't prove me wrong, but I'll admit I was narrow-minded and quick to judge your post. No post is pointless, I apologize. I'm only here to understand the position my understanding of the Vedas are at, and many more came before me, and many more will come after me. Forever. I have never seen Vedic cosmology talk about there being more than two sun-like objects. If there are more, I haven't run across them, and unless they're stated in the Bhagavad Purana or similar texts, I won't for a long time. If they're in astronomical texts like the Surya Siddhanta and Siddhanta-Siromani, then great, I got those sitting in my bookshelf.
  12. Yes, but Arjuna did ask about his opulences to. Lord Krsna answered Arjuna how he can be remembered by his opulences. This is mentioned before he starts explaining them. Not at all. There really is nothing for me to hide. I assume you're one of those people confused about Lord Visnu and Lord Siva's actual position. Well let me tell you. Lord Visnu is Supreme; Lord Siva is not. That's the conclusion of the sastras. The purpose of the Siva Gita, Siva Purana's, Siva Tantra, and anything else that places Lord Siva above Lord Visnu is explained in the Padma Purana. Call it an excuse if you want, but it's a true excuse. Lord Krsna and Arjuna didn't consider him a Brahmana; neither did the rest of the Pandavas. That's many against one, and one of them is God himself. Your choice. Have you forgotten what Karna has done? After all he's done, why would Arjuna give any respect to him? I would offer you quotes of Lord Krsna condemning Arjuna for repeatedly calling Karna "suta-putra," but I have none until I look it up. There's a story of two brahmana born boys who ended up being even lower than mlecchas. They were beat and/or kill people, kidnap people, raped women, eat cow beef, among other things. They were known as sons of a brahmana, but they were offered no respect. The brahmin thread means nothing if their nature isn't that of a brahmana. It's just a costume, and the less intelligent class of men follow them around just dogs. You can live with that kind of concept if you want, but it's never the Vedic way. I suppose you would even pay obeisances to that "Brahmin" atheist and wash his feet when he comes to your house? There is a reason why it's called "Vedic" culture. How one is suppose to act, is based on the scriptures.
  13. No, allegories and examples are constantly used in the Upanisads. I accept all Vedic texts. They all have a purpose. I accept the Shiva Purana, Siva Gita, and the Siva Tantras. Common sense is not beyond human faculty. There are many descriptions of brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaisyas, and sudras in the Vedas. Qualities still take precedence over birth by caste with the garbhadana ceremony. No, it doesn't, he bases it on qualities. It does not get more clear than this. But they were still mostly endowed with the qualities of a kshatriya. Those kinds of kshatriyas are called rajarsi's; saintly kings. No I didn't. He should've gotten his head cut off. Ironically, Asvathama is going to be the next Vyasa... Say you're father is a business man, but you take up the profession of a doctor. Despite your profession, you are still the son of a businessman. Similarly, Karna, while a kshatriya, was still a son of a suta. Following the Vedic way of life. As I type, many people are leaving ISKCON, but many more are joining or taking it up. Things aren't as bad as they were back in the 80's, but ISKCON still grew. Yes. Hare Krsna
  14. No, it's hard to pay attention in American schools. The moon naturally reflects sunlight. Luminous- 1 a: emitting or reflecting usually steady, suffused, or glowing light b: of or relating to light or to luminous flux Please don't bring up pointless arguments. I'm not here to argue, I'm only pointing out possible reasons why Prabhupada may have translated the word as star while others have translated it differently. From what I've been exposed to on Vedic cosmology, it talks only about one (two) suns. Unless YOU, who supposedly knows better, points it out to me, I, and many others, remain ignorant.
  15. Actually, the moon can also be considered a star. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/star 1 a: a natural luminous body visible in the sky especially at night So, according to THAT definition, Prabhupada's translation would work. Combine that with Vedic cosmology which only has one (two) stars and Prabhupada's purport is practically Vedic. Someone may refute and say that there are plenty of sun-like objects out there, so the Vedas must be wrong; however, despite that information, Vedic astronomy does bring the same results as modern astronomy. So, take what you want out of that.
  16. That's where you fall apart. The scriptures clearly imply that Maharaja Pariksit's kingdom didn't have any of those problems. Just because avarice, falsehood, cheating, and violence was increasing doesn't mean animal slaughter, gambling, prostitution, and intoxications were there. It was getting there, but Maharaj Pariksit was holding them back. Isn't it implied in what he said? English words are known to evolve... That's an allegory. Most of the 10th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita is an allegory. Lord Krsna was trying to tell the people how great He is, and he uses allegorical accounts to make a point. They really have no choice. The Padma Purana is a Vedic text. If they reject it, what can they accept then? Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda, 236.18–21 vaisnavanam naradiyam ca tatha bhagavatam subham garudam ca tatha padmam varaham subha-darsane sattvikani puranani vijneyani subhani vai brahmandam brahma-vaivarta markandeyam tathaiva ca bhavisyam vamanam brahmam rajasani nibodha me matsyam kaurmam tatha laingam saivam skandam tathaiva ca agneyam ca sad etani tamasani nibodha me " O beautiful lady, one should know that the Visnu, Naradiya, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha are all in the mode of goodness. The Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and Brahma are in the mode of passion. The Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda and Agni are in the mode of ignorance." The 18 Maha-Puranas are divided up into three modes. Six of them are in the mode of goodness, six are in the mode of passion, and six of them are in the mode of ignorance. The Matsya Purana also states that Sattvic Puranas glorify Lord Visnu, Rajasic Puranas glorify Lord Brahma, and Tamasika Puranas glorify Lord Siva. I don't have the actual quote, but you can find it early on in the Purana. The Padma Purana, being situated in the mode of goodness, is superior to Shiva Purana, which is situated in the mode of ignorance. If there are two contradicting statements, the one in a superior mode is to be taken as the truth. Lord Krsna confirms that only the mode of goodness can give knowledge. Bhagavad Gita 14.17 sattvāt sañjāyate jñānaḿ rajaso lobha eva ca pramāda-mohau tamaso bhavato 'jñānam eva ca From the mode of goodness, real knowledge develops; from the mode of passion, greed develops; and from the mode of ignorance develop foolishness, madness and illusion. So for instance, the Shiva Purana states Lord Shiva is supreme, while the Padma Purana states Lord Visnu is supreme. Which one to accept? We accept the one in the higher mode. Also, all the Puranas are connected together. At the end of each Purana, other Puranas are mentioned, along with the number of verses. If you take all of the Puranas together, you get the 18 Maha-Purana. I actually happen to believe Lord Buddha and Gautama Buddha are different. That's another subject though. They were analogies. Just because someone calls themselves something, does not mean they are....kind of confusing. In other words, just because they call themselves followers of Prabhupada, does not mean they actually are followers of Prabhupada. You can't call yourself a vegetarian, and then behind everybodies back, eat some meat. People get too attached to their roles as Brahmana or Sannyasa. While the varnashrama system is necessary, it takes a backseat when trying to get people into God consciousness. It'll come out faster with their help. Why, when I could quote Madhvacarya himself? http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-04-13.html svabhaviko brahmanadih samadyaireva bhidyate yonibhedakrto bhedo jneya caupadhikastvayam (Gita Tatparya 4.13) Here's a line in the original sanskrit of his commentary. The keyword there is svabhaviko, which means inherent. He bases this on quality, not birth. However, there is an actual seminal birth by caste, and it's done by the garbhadana purification process. It's the only birth by caste concept that works. Here's ONE of MANY quotes. Unfortunately they are in an unsupported font and hard to copy and paste, but here's one. Mahabharata Vana-parva, Chapter 180 sarpa uvaca brahmanah ko bhaved rajan vedyam kim ca yudhishthira bravihy ati-matim tvam hi vakyair anumimimahe yudhishthira uvaca satyam danam kshama-shilam anrishamsyam tapo ghrina drishyante yatra nagendra sa brahmana iti smritah sarpa uvaca shudreshv api ca satyam ca danam akrodha eva ca anrishamsyam ahimsa ca ghrina caiva yudhishthira yudhishthira uvaca shudre tu yad bhavel lakshma dvije tac ca na vidyate na vai shudro bhavec chudro brahmano na ca brahmanah yatraital lakshyate sarpa vrittam sa brahmanah smritah yatraitan na bhavet sarpa tam shudram iti nirdishet “The snake asked: O Maharaja Yudhishthira, who is a brahmana, and what is the object of knowledge? You are very intelligent, therefore I will be enlightened by your statement. “Maharaja Yudhishthira replied: A person who possesses truthfulness, charity, forgiveness, sobriety, gentleness, austerity, and lack of hatred is called a brahmana. “The snake said: Shudras also possess truthfulness, charity, freedom from anger, nonviolence, noneviousness, and lack of hatred. “Maharaja Yudhishthira replied to this: If such symptoms are found in a shudra he should never be called a shudra, just as a brahmana is not a brahmana if he does not possess these qualities. “O snake, only a person who is endowed with the characteristics of a brahmana can be called a brahmana, otherwise he is a shudra.” That wasn't on the battlefield. That was when he was captured by Arjuna for killing Draupadi's five sons in cold blood, and then he tried to kill the unborn Pariksit in the womb of his mother. Just because Karna was the "son of a suta" (which he wasn't) does not mean he's a suta. It means' his father was a suta... I think you need to get your sanskrit translations checked. utsanna-kula-dharmāṇāḿ manuṣyāṇāḿ janārdana narake niyataḿ vāso bhavatīty anuśuśruma Here's the sanskrit for 1.43. There is no mention of varna, just family tradition. Here's someone elses translation of that verse. http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-01-37.html Here's Prabhupada's, http://vedabase.net/bg/1/43/en Not out of wedlock. You're making assumptions. There are plenty of people who have taken up the brahmanical way of life. Especially westerners, and not just ISKCON. You can find westerners in other sampradaya's as well. Why would poverty bother a brahmana? They're suppose to live in simple places anyway. Isn't austerity one of their qualities? BG 18.42: Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and religiousness — these are the natural qualities by which the brāhmaṇas work. Sorry, but the later, despite being born in a brahmana family, is not a brahmana. The former, despite being born in a mleccha family, is a brahmana, or at least an aspiring vaishnava.
  17. They did in Dhrtarastra's kingdom and in Ajamil's time. Unless you can show me proof they existed in Maharaj Pariksit's kingdom, you should keep quiet on this. The boy obviously didn't care about the snake around his father's neck since he didn't mention it. I apologize then. Lord Siva is equiposed to both demigods and asuras. He sees all beings as souls. Whatever boon he gives to asuras ultimately brings them to Lord Visnu, and whatever boon he gives to good people brings them to Lord Visnu. If you want sastric proof, I would have you read Sri Padma Purana, Uttara Khanda Chapters 235-236. You must understand that me calling Sukracarya an atheist doesn't mean he does not believe in God. My use of the word is different than the standard, so I'll just clear that up now. Instead, I'll call Sukracarya an asura, would that be better? In Srimad Bhagavatam 8.20.* and 8.21.*, Sukracarya is advising Bali Maharaja to go against the order of Lord Vamanadeva, knowing full well who He is. SB 5.5.18: "One who cannot deliver his dependents from the path of repeated birth and death should never become a spiritual master, a father, a husband, a mother or a worshipable demigod. The duties of the spiritual master is the guide his followers/disciples back to Lord Visnu's abodes, and to do that you must become a devotee of the Lord. However, in those verses Sukracarya is against giving Lord Vamanadeva anything at all. In other words he was advising Bali Maharaja to neglect Lord Vamanadeva. What kind of spiritual master would advise his disciple to reject the Lord's desire? Let's also not forget the fact he's helping the asuras... He had Sukracarya on his side, who was blessed by Lord Siva to be able to revive the dead. Being able to revive dead soldiers would really help out an army, don't you think? Padma Purana 6.236.7 mayavadam asac chastram pracchannam bauddham uchyate mayaiva kalpitam devi kalau brahmana rupina "Mayavada or Advaita philosophy is an impious, wicked belief and against all the conclusions of the Vedas. It is only covered Buddhism. My dear Parvati, in Kali-Yoga I assume the form of a brahmana (Adi Shankara) and teach this imagined philosophy. Padma Purana 6.236.8-9 apartham sruti-vakyanam darsayan loka-garhitam sva-karma-rupam tyajya tvam atraiva pratipadyate sarva-karma paribhrastair vaidharma tvam tad ucyate paresa-jiva-paraikyam maya tu pratipadyate "This mayavada advaita philosophy preached by me (in form of Adi Shankara) deprives the words of the holy texts of their acutal meaning and thus it is condemned in the world. It recommends the renunciation of one's own duties, since those who have fallen from their duties say that the giving up of duties is religiosity. In this way, I have also falsely propounded the identity of the Supreme Lord and the individual soul." Padma Purana 6.236.10 brahmanas caparam rupam nirgunam vaksyate maya sarva-svam jagato py asya mohanartham kalu yuge "In order to bewilder the atheists, in Kali-yuga, I describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Gauranga Krishna to be without any form and without qualities." Padma Purana 6.236.11 vedante tu maha-sastrera mayavadam avaidikam mayaiva vaksyate devi jagatam nasha-karanat "Similarly, in explaning Vedanta mahashastra, I described the same non-scriptural and inauspicious mayavada philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by denying the personal form of my beloved Lord." As for Lord Buddha, He's been mentioned in various Puranas as well. Harivamsha (1.41),Vishnu Purana (3.18), Bhagavata Purana (1.3.24, 2.7.37, 11.4.23), Garuda Purana (1.1, 2.30.37, 3.15.26)<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference"></sup>, Narada Purana (2.72), Linga Purana (2.71), Padma Purana (3.252) Well, maybe you don't know, but there are a lot of people who claim to follow Gaudiya Vaishnavism but don't follow the rules and regulations. You can't go around calling yourself a vegatarian with a piece of meat in your mouth. Similarily, you can't call yourself a Gaudiya if you yourself don't follow the rules and regulations. I'm sorry for your troubles, but it doesn't mean our core philosophy is corrupt. I haven't seen anywhere in our texts that say that we should scam and cheat people. He wasn't concerned about varna, he was concerned about them taking up Krsna Consciousness. Varna and ashrama are temporary, they're not permanent. Considering that many Indian's are taking up the Western way of life, it's good "ammo" to have Westerners chanting the name of a "Hindu" God. Risky, but like you have stated before, our culture is dying out, and people still believe in some of the crap the Brits fed to them. The only way people will take them up again is if they were inherently intelligence in the first place, or westerners tell them the truth. Which is slowly taking place. Many scholars have now questioned the validity of the Aryan Invasion Theory, and now the whole Indo-European language theory is coming under attack as well. It says the same thing. My desires do not know wisdom. The verse I quoted has a clearer interpretation. The devas cannot offer liberation, only the Supreme Lord can offer liberation. What Lord Krsna talks about up there is Karma-Yoga. Which does eventually give you liberation, but it is not the conclusion of the Bhagavad Gita. No, he didn't. Caste by birth isn't supported by sastra. Visvamitra was a Kshatriya, but he later on became a Brahmana. Your caste is determined by your actions. Dronacarya and Krpacarya were both brahmanas, but on the battlefield, they were to be considered kshatriyas. Vyasadeva himself was born from a fishermans daughter OUT OF WEDLOCK. Are you sure you want to call him a sudra? Please use some common sense. I got more for you... Hey look! A Brahmin atheist! Source Here's a more... Do you see how stupid the caste by birth concept is? Give me a break.
  18. I stopped reading after this. We don't need another temple. What we need is a farm community. $7 million could do wonders for a farm community.
  19. Go on. Kshatriya's can gamble. I'm talking about brahmana's here. Ajamil while born and raised like a brahmana, had inherent qualities of a sudra. That's why he fell and STAYED fallen. He later became a Vaishnava, but only after an extreme ordeal. But it can be purified and regulated. Andy already pointed this flaw out to me. Go read his post. No, go reread what I posted. The brahmana boy didn't get mad because of the snake. He didn't mention anything about the snake. You're trying to bend the point-blank meaning of the verses. No, the verses state this clearly. He considered the "watchdog" king asking his father for some water to be distressful to him. No mention of snake. Yet, this is what the child was complaining about, and ended up cursing him for. Verses state this clearly. What I meant by faultless is that he shouldn't have been cursed like he did. That was uncalled for. Even the brahmana boys' father stated it. As a matter of fact, here's a verses that will exempt Pariksit Maharaja from his so called “crime.” SB 1.18.44: Due to the termination of the monarchical regimes and the plundering of the people's wealth by rogues and thieves, there will be great social disruptions. People will be killed and injured, and animals and women will be stolen. And for all these sins weshall be responsible. Pariksit Maharaja was faultless. Andy has already pointed out that it was the will of the Supreme that all of this transpired. How does he have the gods on his side? He's constantly helping the asuras, and because he does that, I call him an atheist. Or would you prefer me to call him an asuras as well? That wouldn't be so off. I suppose all demons are in the mode of goodness then? Maybe you didn't understand what I said earlier. So let me explain this with more information. Various demons do penances for thousands of years to gain boons from either Lord Brahma and Lord Siva. Why would they do this? It's because asuras are overall, inherently weaker than the devas. So Lord Brahma or Lord Siva become pleased with the asuras, and they're obliged to give them some sort of boon in return. The keyword here is obliged. It's not that they want to, but that they're obliged. So the asuras, getting some pretty powerful boons (like the boon of not being able to be killed by devas) REALLY REALLY help them out. The best example here is Hiranyakasipu. He did penances for hundreds of celestial years, and Lord Brahma finally appeared before him, and gave him all sorts of boons. You should read up on it. There was no way for Brhaspati, or Lord Indra to be able to defeat asuras when they are protected by boons of a higher authority. That's the only time brahmanas and kshatriyas are unable to do anything without the help of Lord Visnu. There was no proper brahmana caste in the beginning of Kali-Yuga. That's why Lord Buddha came and preached against the Vedas because the so called brahmanas back then were misusing the scriptures. This was later reestablished by Sankaracarya, but people wouldn't accept deity worship back as quickly, so he stuck with his advaita philosophy. Then later on, the four sampradayas showed up to reestablish Lord Visnu's supremecy. However, fake brahmanas also popped up all over the place, and as a result India couldn't fight back as strongly as it could. So your main source of information is this board? Then you're automatically doomed to misunderstand ISKCON. We already have successful farm communities set up; not to the extent that we would like, but we're getting there. He may have given sannyasa to who appear unworthy, but many of the people fell down because they weren't complete in their training. Srila Prabhupada knew he didn't have much time in this world, considering his age, so he gave his disciples sannyasa so people in India could take them seriously. Try to understand. Prabhupada wanted to reestablish Vedic culture all over the world, and he was the only one who was able to convince thousands of non-Vedic people to take up the culture. Nobody else would have given them sannyasa. He couldn't trust most of his godbrothers because most were against him, there was only a couple of his godbrothers that supported him but they were in India. So he took the best course of action. ISKCON is still around, and it's only grown stronger despite all the falldowns that have happened. We have more members than we did back then. It certainly doesn't sound like we're failing. I could go on and on, about this, but the point is that Srila Prabhupada certainly caused a ripple in the world. ISKCON is just a name. Demigod worship is not recommended by the four sampradaya's. As a matter of fact, it is considered that their intelligence is considered stolen if they do. http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-07-20.html They also do not recommend that caste is by birth, but qualities of action: http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-03-05.html And finally, the Vajra-Sucika Upanisad rejects all caste by birth conceptions.
  20. If your friend is questioning Prabhupada's translations, he's welcome to compare them to various other (bonafide) translations. As for the sun and moon controversey. In Vedic astronomy (afaik) there are only two suns. One of the suns is the one we see, and then there is another sun in the hellish planetary systems. So it's not hard to believe why Prabhupada accepted that translation of naksatranam as stars. If you want to know more about Vedic astronomy, I would highly recommend checking out Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur's (Bimal Prasada) works, who is Srila Prabhupada's spiritual master.
  21. I have noticed that this particular board induces us the manifest the fantical side of ourselves. The internet in general, actually...
  22. Alas! Look at my imperfection! I apologize for the false information then. So in the end, it was because of the time and circumstance that all of that transpired, and not because of Pariksit Maharaja or the brahmana boy.
  23. I'm sorry, but you apparently have no idea what you're talking about. Sukracarya was an athiest, or if it makes you happy, he was a brahmana influenced in the mode of passion and ignorance. He was against Lord Visnu, and as a result, against varnashrama dharma. Bali Maharaja had Sukracarya on his side, who was blessed by Lord Shiva to be able to revive the dead. My point still stands. This wouldn't have happened with the Kshatriya's were trained properly by martial brahmanas. The only brahmanas I would praise are those in line with Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya, Visnuswami, Nimbarkacarya, and to an extent, Sankaracarya. Not those castist brahmanas. This wouldn't have happened if the castist brahmanas weren't so stuck up and actually taught the rest of society something. This is what happens when you keep people in ignorance. The real brahmanas who kept Vedic civilization from falling completely apart of those mentioned above, and Vaishnava's like Tukarama or Tulsidas. What did I twist? I made a true statement. Nothing to twist there. And you're accusing me of twisting information around? Talk about hypocrisy. More ignorance and hypocrisy. Our spiritual masters (plural) have never been more against those lies propogated by the British. You have things mixed up there. And second, I'm not against the varnashrama system. I'm against the birth by caste concept. That's the root of what crippled Vedic civilization and allowed foreign invaders to take over. And like I said, Prabhupada didn't get to complete ISKCON. A house half built isn't very stable in the first place.
  24. Kali could not be killed. Pariksit Maharaja allowed Kali to live in four places; however, those four places didn't exist. Kali asked for leniency, and this is where Pariksit Maharaja was caught in a predicament. He chose to allow him to live in gold, because gold could be purified and regulated. As for the little brahmana boy, he wasn't, or shouldn't have been wearing gold, nor was he anywhere near Pariksit Maharaja. He cursed Pariksit Maharja out of his own desire and arrogance. Also, the claim that it was because of Pariksit Maharaja's action that warranted the little brahmana boy to curse him, but that is not the case. The boy cursed Pariksit Maharaja because he felt that Pariksit Maharaja stepped over his boundaries BY ASKING FOR A GLASS OF WATER. This is evident by the following verses: SB 1.18.33: [The brāhmaṇa's son, Śṛńgi, said:] O just look at the sins of the rulers who, like crows and watchdogs at the door, perpetrate sins against their masters, contrary to the principles governing servants. SB 1.18.34: The descendants of the kingly orders are definitely designated as watchdogs, and they must keep themselves at the door. On what grounds can dogs enter the house and claim to dine with the master on the same plate? As you can see, there is no mention of the boy getting angry over the snake around his father's soldier. As a matter of fact, he most likely didn't even know there was a snake around his father's neck, and I provide the following verse to support my claim: SB 1.18.38: Thereafter, when the boy returned to the hermitage, he saw a snake on his father's shoulder, and out of his grief he cried very loudly. If he knew about the snake beforehand, why didn't he use that as a reason to curse Pariksit Maharaja? Instead he curses Pariksit Maharaja for asking for a glass of water. Your argument is baseless. Pariksit Maharaja was faultless. Kali was faultless as well because gold was nowhere near Srngi.
  • Create New...