Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Kyros

Members
  • Content Count

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts 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 (2.6.4.3):

     

     

     

    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 (7.1.2.39-42) 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. 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.


  4.  

    The Glories of Advaita Acharya by Isana Nagara

     

    "One day Sri Madhavendra Puripada appeared to mother Sri Sita in a dream and told her with sweet words 'Listen, O Sita devi! My name is Madhavendra. Sri Advaita Candra took mantra from me. I will now give you the same siddha mantra that I have given to your husband and that attracts Krsna. Krsna does not eat grains offered to Him by an uninitiated person, and it is a great offence to act in a wayward manner.'

     

    "Sita-devi said: 'I am very fortunate that I met you. Please purify my heart and body with mantra initiation.' Then Madhavendra Puripada gave Krsna-mantra initiation to Sita, after which he vanished.

     

    "When Mother Sita awoke, she said: 'How amazing! Madhavendra Puripada gave me mantra diksa in a visionary dream!' Sita devi told everything to Advaita Acarya, who said: 'You are very fortunate. All your bonds have been severed.'

     

    "Still, despite Sita's vision, He gave her initiation again, according to the rules, on an auspicious moment."

     

    Haridasa Dasa of Haribol kutir, Navadvipa, in his Gaudiya Vaisnava Jivani:

     

    "During Rampratap's stay in the cave, Balwant Rao, the elder brother of Madhava Rao, the King of Gwalior, once came and expressed his loyalty to him. It was arranged that Balwant would take spiritual initiation from Krsnacaitanya dasa. But when Krsnacaitanya suddenly died, Balwant was initiated by Kesavdeva of Gopinathabag."


  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.  

    You omit, Youdhister Maharaj Sahdev and Nakul agreed with Draupadi. You should also learn to read a bit of Sanskrit and not rely on translation, Suta Goswami is saying Dvijas hair and jewel was removed.

     

    Clear?

    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

    tesham vividha-varnanam kuto varna-vinishcayah

    bhrigur uvaca

    na vishesho 'sti varnanam sarva-brahmam idam jagat

    brahmana purva-shrishtam hi karmabhir varnatam gatam

    himsanrita-priya lubdhah sarva-karmopajivinah

    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.

    “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.

     

     

    How is insulting ones heritage any different from one self. Infect it is worse, I was ok when a guy long time ago insulted me but when he insulted my mum and dad I stood up ready to fight him. You can defend Arjun till the cows come home but the fact remains he addressed him by his apparent birth.

    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?

     

     

    They did by breaking the back bone of Vedic culture by spreading lies about cast system and people like you took the bait and we are still suffering because of it.

    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.

     

     

    Again you are dodging let me spell it for you and I quote

    BG2.31: Considering your specific duty as a ksatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation.

     

    This is his Kula i.e. his family tradition.that is what he was worried about The VarnaShankra.

     

    Jai Shree Krishna

    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."

     

     

     

    “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."

     

     

     

     

    “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."

     

     

     

    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."

     

     

     

    “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.”

     


  7.  

    Lets face it, those who disagree find their version of "true excuse" reading the same Shastra, but I am going to leave it at that.

     

    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?

     

    Care to back up your statement.

     

    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?

     

     

     

    Even if it true draupadi acknowledge it and Arjun acted upon her request, that is enough.

     

    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?

     

     

     

    I am well aware of what he had done, but their feud was well before that, it started when the Raj Kumars were having to display their ability. Do you know the story?

     

    That is because Lord Krishna knew of his real birth. Let us have the quote any way.

     

    Despite all that, he still never called Karna directly a "suta." He only made fun of his heritage, not himself.

     

     

    This statement would apply to any profession, still the fact remains that ones verna is determined by birth and the training starts at an early age.

     

    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?

     

     

    Better to pay obeisance to a Brahmin then to a pretender. An atheist would not pretend to command such a respect.

     

    And you wonder why the people of India was so easily brainwashed by the British?

     

    I rest my case.

     

     

    Again you are evading the question, Arjun was clearly worried about his Kula and family tradition and his ancestors more specifically ‘Varna Shankara’ meaning destroying the Varna do you want me to quote the verse?

     

    Jai Shree Krishna

     

    Arjuna's family tradition was to live according to the Vedas, as was everybody elses.

     

     

    Better to pay obeisance to a Brahmin then to a pretender. An atheist would not pretend to command such a respect.

     

    And you wonder why the people of India was so easily brainwashed by the British?

     

    I rest my case.

     

     

    Again you are evading the question, Arjun was clearly worried about his Kula and family tradition and his ancestors more specifically ‘Varna Shankara’ meaning destroying the Varna do you want me to quote the verse?

     

    Jai Shree Krishna

     

    Arjuna's family tradition was to live according to the Vedas, as was everybody elses.


  8.  

    That is a verse on what the Brahmana's priorities should be. Nothing in there about how to identify a Brahmana. The Manu Smriti also says,

     

    2.35 According to the teaching of the revealed texts, the Kudakarman (tonsure) must be performed, for the sake of spiritual merit, by all twice-born men in the first or third year after birth.

     

    2.36 In the eighth year after conception, one should perform the initiation (upanayana) of a Brahmana, in the eleventh after conception (that) of a Kshatriya, but in the twelfth that of a Vaisya.

     

    If your theory is correct, how does the Manu Smriti author expect one to know if the year old child is going to display Brahmana characterestics when he grows up? If you have actually read the Manu Smriti instead of copy-pasting selective quotes noted down by your peers, then you would know that varna is determined by birth to the Manu Smriti author, as is the case other traditional works.

    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."

     


  9.  

    I understand that an argument that proves you wrong must be pointless. You are not the first one to take position on this forum nor will you be the last.

     

    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.

     

     

    If you know you are ignorant, it is advisable to be careful about what you post or at least be clear that you are confident about what you are writing. And when people make positive statements (such as two suns), the burden of proof is always on them to backup their words.

     

    Cheers

     

    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.


  10.  

    That is fine I don’t deny that allegories are present in sastras but Gita that is news to me.

    Did Lord Krishna say anything to that affect to Arjun?

    Question was in what various forms may I worship you was it not?

    And Lord Krishna answers hear my main manifestation, now if that equates to allegories you can have it.

    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.

     

     

    Ah ha I hear a but in the form of 'purpose' otherwise I would post it for you, but what’s the point you only try and find an excuse around it.

    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.

     

    It does not matter what you think, it is enough Draupadi had no problem with calling him a Brahmin.

    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.

     

     

    There is no escaping Arjun always meant and taunted him of his apparent low birth.

    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.

     

     

    But I also like your example, you see a brahmana child will always be known as a brahmana’s son. The Brahmin thread and training is given at an early age, that how the system was and is.

    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?

     

     

    Now you are evading the answer.

     

    Jai Shree Krishna

    There is a reason why it's called "Vedic" culture. How one is suppose to act, is based on the scriptures.


  11.  

    Now that is new for me, just like a new defination of atheist.

    No, allegories and examples are constantly used in the Upanisads.

     

    Well let me explain this again, the puran under discussion was Padma puran so let me make this clear do you except Siva Gita of Padma puran?

     

    I accept all Vedic texts. They all have a purpose. I accept the Shiva Purana, Siva Gita, and the Siva Tantras.

     

     

    Sloka you quote, does not actual say the verna is determined by any particular means, simply states that one is born with some inherent quality. Now how would you judge this, without making mistakes, such a task is beyond human faculty.

     

    Common sense is not beyond human faculty. There are many descriptions of brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaisyas, and sudras in the Vedas.

     

     

    Finally an admission that there actually is a seminal birth by caste how ever the qualification.

     

    Qualities still take precedence over birth by caste with the garbhadana ceremony.

     

     

    Here is a tacit admission that ones (pahechan) recognisation primarily is by birth but Maharaj further qualified, if they don’t saw that quality then they disqualify themselves. But no where it admits that the varna has changed.

     

    No, it doesn't, he bases it on qualities. It does not get more clear than this.

     

     

    Take for example Youdhister Maharaj or Bhismapita endowed with quality par excellence never have they been addressed as any thing but Kstriya.

     

    But they were still mostly endowed with the qualities of a kshatriya. Those kinds of kshatriyas are called rajarsi's; saintly kings.

     

     

    In your haste of making him a Kstriya on the battlefield, you forget that he committed a heinous crime so in your book he should be worst then a sudra, but yet you admit that he was called a Brahmin.

     

    No I didn't. He should've gotten his head cut off.

    Ironically, Asvathama is going to be the next Vyasa...

    Yes I know that, you know that yet Arjun at the time was not to know, even though Karna was a great warrior he was address as sutaPutra, there is no doubt Arjun was addressing him off his apprent low birth therefore not worthy of him to fight with, can you see the point?

    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.

     

     

    Do you know the meaning of Kula, What was the family tradition of Arjun was it Brahmin, Vaisya or Sudra?

     

    Following the Vedic way of life.

     

    My assumption are based on facts, have you ever consider the statistic of dropout rate. It would be very interesting read.

    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.

    don’t get me wrong, my hats off, to who ever cultivates Brahmincal quality, what is there any need of varna designation, a devotee of the lord needs no varna.

    Jai Shree Krishna

     

    Yes. Hare Krsna


  12.  

    Dude, were you paying attention in school?

    No, it's hard to pay attention in American schools.

     

     

    A star is naturally luminescent. The moon is not *naturally* luminous. To spell it out, the moon has no light of its own & simply reflects sunlight. The webster definition you posted is about stars & has nothing to with the moon.

     

    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

     

     

    Wrong. "Vedic cosmology" does not state there are only one (two) stars. If you want to quote the Surya Siddhanta or some such text to prove your point, feel free to do so.

     

    It does not require that much of imagination to get past that translation. Just take it symbolically and move on. The accuracy of the translation of this verse is a pointless digression.

     

    Cheers

    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.


  13.  

    It’s evident from posts #10, #11, #12, and #13, that the meaning (definition) of the Sanskrit term 'nakshatranam' in the original verse must be: 'among constellations', and not: 'among stars'. The phrase: "I am the moon among the constellations", makes perfect sense in Hindu (Vedic) astrological context (see post #12), whereas the phrase: "I am the moon among the stars", really makes no sense at all..

    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.


  14.  

    Maharaj Yudhister followed Dhrtarast and they were there in his kindom, seeing that he decided to leave and I quote

     

    SB 1.15.37: Maharaj Yudhister was intelligent enough to understand the influence of the age of Kali, characterized by increasing avarice, falsehood, cheating and violence throughout the capital, state, home and among individuals. So he wisely prepared himself to leave home, and he dressed accordingly.

     

    So it is reasonable to assume it was there in Maharaj Pariksit reign.

     

    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.

    In that case you will have to tell me what was the distress he heard and how.

    Isn't it implied in what he said?

    Great now we have a new defination of atheist, very rich.

    English words are known to evolve...

    Then we have to read in gita,amongst the Kavi (poet) I am asura have it your way.

    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.

    Do you accept Shiva Gita of the Puran? No one off Sakracharya followers would accept this.

     

    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 have no doubt Buddha is mentioned in Purana, but I doubt very much your simplistic version is accepted by those who follow him, some even contend the Buddha of Puran is not the same as Gautam Budh.

     

    I actually happen to believe Lord Buddha and Gautama Buddha are different. That's another subject though.

    What?

    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.

    Very important part of Vedic dharma take that out and we have society of cats and dogs.

    That is no reason to dilute the top most order of Vedic way of life the Sanyasi is not for any Tom Dick or Harry.

    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.

    Truth would come out in the end with or without westerners, considering they spread the lies in the first place.

    It'll come out faster with their help.

     

     

    Ask any Madhvacharya followers.

     

    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.

     

     

    Care to give any quotes.

    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.”

     

    This is one vary exceptional case and this he achieved after thousand of years.

     

     

    They were never called Kshatriyya, infect Dronacarya’s son Asvasthama having killed the Pandava’s son even then Dropadi referred to him as Brahmin.

     

    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.

     

     

    Even after seeing the Lord in his Virat rup Arjun is calling Karan, the Sut putra even though he is a great warrior. Birth is one’s pahechan there is no escaping that but a noble person is Dhira not disturbed by all this, one’s job is to know the truth and in pursuit of this there is no loss, if I fail than there will be a better chance later. Death is a great leveller.

    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...

    Gita chapter one, The everlasting qualities of Varna and family traditions of those who destroy their family are ruined by the sinful act of illegitimacy. (1.43)

     

    This is one clear indication of birth varna connection.

     

    We have been told, O Krishna, that people whose family traditions are destroyed necessarily dwell in hell for a long time. (1.44)

     

    Now Arjun was worried about kula dharma what would that be I ask? Because some of you may have us believe it could be any number of four.

     

    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

     

     

    He was born off Parasarmuni, one’s gotra is always known by the fathers.

     

    Not out of wedlock.

     

    Formal if he keeps up then my Pranam and all good wishes but I have seen much too often the falling from grace, what was the word they used, oh yes, spaced out.

    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.

    The later is a product of poverty, if he is earning his keep honestly and does not neglect his dharma then he surely will have chance to progress, if not he would have wasted his good karma and regress in to lower form of life.

    Jai Shree Krishna

     

    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.


  15.  

    Not really my response was to your quote and I quote again

     

    Do you still maintain those four places did not exist, I can rally go on.

    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.

    Lets not get bogged down by the child’s opinion of the king, his duties and his place.

    Fact is the boy heard of his fathers distress, what could be the fathers distress? That is under question not boys opinion. So lets consider what that might be, and how he possibly come to hear off it,

    Known facts, the king approached the hermitage in the hope to quench his thirst, saw the rishi in medition, having had no response the king places a dead snake on the body of the sage. So we have two possible answer

    a) there was some one there who witness all and was able to relay that information to the boy.

    In that case why did the king not approach that person. Further more there no suggestion that there was any one there.

    B) someone came by after the event and saw the sage, with the snake on him and that is all he could relay to the boy.

    The boy obviously didn't care about the snake around his father's neck since he didn't mention it.

    I agree if you cared to read my first response I said the punishment did not fit the crime

    I apologize then.

     

    While you at it why don’t you call Lord Shiva atheist or asura, he is for ever helping who ever worship him, even asuras.

    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.

    Sukracharya is not an atheist unless you can bring a sastric proof don’t go there.

    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...

    Lets face it we were not, at least not me, talking about this various asuras. Balimaharaj had no boons from any deva, he was guided by Sukracharya an atheist by your defination, so Brahispati and Indra were faced by weaker asura again your defination and lost end off.

    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?

    Are you going to back this up with any Vedic ref.? all of this is your opinion may be excepted within your group, no Buddhist, or followers of Sankracharya would believe this. Lord Vishnu’s supremacy is not under question here.

    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)

    I have been associated with Iskcon for over thirty years, I have witness lies, extortion of money from unsuspecting Hindus, I have seen Tirthpada, Bhagvan, Vipramukhi and company fall. to think that I use to bow down to them, wana make me puke.

    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.

    In other words he either did not know their varna or he knew but still went ahead in the hope that they may reform, no wonder it spells disaster. As far as I know the varna is for life time. Krishna warns about keeping to ones duty, it is not as if I shell try one thing today and if it fails take up something else.

    He wasn't concerned about varna, he was concerned about them taking up Krsna Consciousness.

    Varna and ashrama are temporary, they're not permanent.

    We can give any tom dick and harry sanyas in order that people in India would take them seriously, wow do you know what you are saying? I give up.

    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.

     

    Now you confirm what I suspected all along, worship of deva that bother you. Your assessment of BG.20 is so faulty and bias to say the least.

     

    The words spoken by Lord Krishna are more appropriately translated:

     

    “Those whose wisdom has been carried away by various desires, being prompted by their own nature, worship other Deities, adopting rules relating to each.

    It says the same thing. My desires do not know wisdom.

     

    The verse I quoted has a clearer interpretation.

     

     

    On other hand this what Krishna says

     

    Brahmaa, the creator, in the beginning created human beings together with Yajna andsaid: By Yajna you shall prosper and Yajna shall fulfill all your desires. (3.10)

     

    Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)

     

    Men in the mode of goodness worship the devas; those in the mode of passion worshipthe demons; and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits. (17.4)

     

    The worship of Devas, Braahmana, guru, and the wise; purity, honesty, celibacy, and nonviolence; these are said to be the austerity of deed. (17.14)

     

    Now this is not a subject under discussion but it is your deep rooted problem of worship of devas that betrays your objection of Verna system for which you have no clue how to establish or recognize, a job I would think best suited to Dharmaraj who would know karma and desire of a given soul and place them in the appropriate varna. Unless of course if you think there is no guna and karma involved in a persons birth and everything is a random selection.

    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.

     

     

    You claimed to come from Brahma Goudia Madhva sampradaya and Madhvachrya accepted varna by birth, so you don’t really have a leg to stand on.

     

    Jai Shree Krishna

    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...

     

     

    One middle-class Delhi couple that wedded three years ago illustrates how such negotiations work. Arun and Deepti decided to get hitched in 2005 after dating secretly for a few years. When they approached their families, both sides objected. Though both are Brahmins, they belong to different subcastes, and Arun is from Bihar, considered a backward region, while Deepti grew up in Delhi; she is also better educated, speaks better English, and has a higher-paying job than Arun. But over time, sustained lobbying won over the families. "We both were ready to have a runaway marriage," says Deepti. "But we wanted our parents to agree. That is something which has not changed in India." Today, to show her respect, Deepti veils her face when she visits Arun's family in conservative Bihar, and Arun (a rare atheist) goes to temple to please Deepti's parents. Love, as they say, may still conquer all; but in India today, tradition remains nearly as powerful.

    Hey look! A Brahmin atheist!

     

    Source

    Here's a more...

    We have a western Vaisnava (who was born in a mleccha family), who wakes up during the brahma-muhurta every morning, takes bath thrice daily, applies urdhva-pundra in all twelve places on the body, wears dhoti and kaupina, chants Lord Govinda's name 25,000 times, worships Tulasi, worships the Deity form of the Lord with sixteen upacaras, lives a life of celibacy, is a strict vegetarian, does not eat onions, garlic and other forbidden foods, does not drink tea or coffee, does not take any form of intoxication, offers whatever he cooks to Krsna, does not smoke, does not gamble, studies the sastras, performs kirtana, fasts on ekadasi, and distributes the Bhagavad-gita to fallen people in the most degraded places.…he is (to be considered) a fallen Mleccha (because of birth), without any brahminical quality whatsoever and is destined to be cast into eternal hell.

     

    Compared to…

    A young man from Daksina Kannada, born in a brahmana family, studied some scripture at the local sabha when he was a child, now living in America, wakes up at 7.00am, eats his Corn-Flakes, gulps down his coffee and rushes out to catch the tube into town, works for a Mleccha beef-eating-manager (now what does that say for their guna and karma?) in a software company in order to send some money home to his family in Bangalore, watches Hindi films and cricket on Zee-TV on the cable-television so that he doesn't become totally home-sick, wears a three-piece suit at the office and Levi jeans at home, has never heard of a kaupina or longhoti and wears 'Fruit of the Loom' underwear instead, has forgotten how to put on a dhoti or lungi and is not inclined to remember, wouldn't dare apply urdhva-pundra because his friends would laugh at him, trying desperately for a green-card, is vegetarian but doesn't really look too closely at the E-numbers on the back of the packet ("It's OK — Krsna says in Gita, 'Patram puspam' and 'Ma sucah!'"), has no time to read sastras because he is too busy working for money, and tries to keep in touch with his culture via a webpage run by a group of young men in a similar situation…and of course, he is a brahmana!

     

    Do you see how stupid the caste by birth concept is?

     

    Give me a break.


  16.  

     

    What nonsense, you are living in a cloud cookoo land, Maharaj Youdhistir gambled his wife, Ajamil got involved with prostitute, should I go on.

    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.

    What? I don’t get it.

    Gold is something people get mad about.

    But it can be purified and regulated.

    I never said brahmana boy was wearing gold, it was the king who was wearing gold in his crown. Why would such a noble king behave so badly against the Samik rishi, if not but the influence of kali.

    Andy already pointed this flaw out to me. Go read his post.

    There was no reason other then that, had Pariksit Maharaj not acted as he did he would have no reason to do anything.

    I am dumfounded by this logic, I am lost for words, even today if you went to an Indian house first thing normally offered is water. Bhagvat clearly says the boy got angry because he heard of his fathers distress

    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.

    SB 1.18.32: The sage had a son who was very powerful, being a Brahmana,s son. While he was playing with inexperienced boys, he heard of his father's distress, which was occasioned by the King. Then and there the boy spoke as follows.

    What possible other distress did the father have? You are letting your imegination running head of you.

    There could not be any reason other then the child’s hearing of his father distress. following verses are child’s opinion of what a kings duty is towards the kingdom and in particular to a Rishi.

    Perhaps you can tell us with your wild imagination what was the ground of the boy hearing about his fathers distress? what was the distress?

    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.

    Please be reasonable, give this little balak (child) some credit, no one would begrudge someone a little water, beside such a scenario would not have any ground for any distress, remember all this time the Samik rishi is in trance.

    Yet, this is what the child was complaining about, and ended up cursing him for. Verses state this clearly.

    Sure that is why Pariksit Maharaj felt remorse, do you want me to quote the verse again?

    Gold was surely on Pariksit Maharaj head, perhaps I am not explaining this properly or simply you are not reading what I wrote.

    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.

     

    don’t make me Lough, if he was atheist why would he have gods on his side.

    The son of brigu top most amongst sages, who went to study Vedas. Infect Krishna says I am Kavi amongst Ussana (Sukracarya).

    You have no idea what you talk about, only reason he joined asuras was because of his dislike of favouritism, Brihspati the priest of Deva received from his father.

    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.

    He recognised Lord Vishnu as soon he saw him, hardly a symptom for some who is in mode of ignorance.

    I suppose all demons are in the mode of goodness then? :confused:

    Hardly unless of course if you think Brahspati or Indra did not have anybody on their side. Lets not make this Shiva V Vishnu duel, fact of the matter was that assura's were stronger at the time. No fault of Brahmana Brahspati and this is the point it was no fault of Brahmana cast or otherwise for the fall of India, they were simply faced with adversary far brutal and stronger against the satriyas King made week, by the influence of Jain and Buddist ahimsa doctrine.

    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.

     

     

    If everything that’s been said on this board is believed, Prabhupad gave Sanyas to unworthy character knowingly, then the foundation was shaky from the start.

    Lets face it the experiment failed miserably.

    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.

    Here you betray your real objection, nothing to do with castist, just check what you list as Acharya, all of them Vaisnava and off course you would pay lip service to Sankaracarya (there is no escaping that). All the others, who worshiped other then Lord Vishnu are to blame, yes.

    But you loose all your arguments simply because most if not all the Acharya you have listed, actually believed in varna by birth including Tulsidas

    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.

     

     


  17. 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.


  18.  

    You are right about his argument being off base, but so is your conclusion. Below is the logical progression based on the evidence and opinion of an advanced devotional servant of Lord Krsna. See the relevant portions of the purports below.

     

     

    But because the age of Kali was seeking an opportunity to spoil the cultural heritage of the four orders of life, the inexperienced boy gave a chance for the age of Kali to enter into the field of Vedic culture. Hatred of the lower orders of life began from this brāhmaṇa boy, under the influence of Kali, and thus cultural life began to dwindle day after day. The first victim of brahminical injustice was Mahārāja Parīkṣit, and thus the protection given by the King against the onslaught of Kali was slackened.

     

    Herein Śṛṅgi, a qualified son of a great brāhmaṇa, attained the required brahminical power both by birth and by training, but he was lacking in culture because he was an inexperienced boy. By the influence of Kali, the son of a brāhmaṇa became puffed up with brahminical power and thus wrongly compared Mahārāja Parīkṣit to crows and watchdogs.

     

    Thus the downfall of the brahminical powers began as they gave importance to birthright without culture. The downfall of the brāhmaṇa caste began in the age of Kali. And since brāhmaṇas are the heads of the social order, all other orders of society also began to deteriorate.

     

    This mentality of false prestige is the cause of downfallof the perfect social order, and we can see thatin the beginning it was started by the inexperienced son of a brāhmaṇa.

     

    The conclusion is not lack of proper birth or training, but lack of cultural experience, or lack of the culture of equal-vision, compassion and tolerance. This lack of cultural experience is Kali's refuge. This is why Srila Prabhupada came not just to train the brahminically inclined in potent ritual, but to infuse them with the culture of knowledge of Sri Krsna and how every living being is His part and parcel and how Krsna is present in every one, and how to treat each person for their best benefit instead of how it best benefits our own sense of prestige.

     

    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.


  19.  

    You want to check your facts before you make such ridiculous statement neither Lord Brahma or Lord Shiva had anything to do with it, it was the result of Brahman Sukrachariya descendant of Brighu Muni, siding with asura, funny how a brahmana siding with asura can still be called Brahman!

    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.

     

     

    Neither was Bali Maharaj so your point is mute.

    Bali Maharaja had Sukracarya on his side, who was blessed by Lord Shiva to be able to revive the dead.

     

    My point still stands.

     

     

    Muslims were brutal, they were repulsed many times, each time they were spared instead of giving appropriate punishment they were freed to come back and fight another day. There is a lesson to learn here just as Pariksit Maharaj let the kali free this kings did the same with Muslims.

    This wouldn't have happened with the Kshatriya's were trained properly by martial brahmanas.

     

     

    Each time Brahmana gets the blame, you are really something, instead of giving praise to them for keeping and maintaining the Dharama against all the odds you are insulting them. You should read up on history how brutal the Muslims were.

    The only brahmanas I would praise are those in line with Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya, Visnuswami, Nimbarkacarya, and to an extent, Sankaracarya.

     

    Not those castist brahmanas.

     

     

    Yet when Brits came they were astounded by the piety and culture of India. And only way they broke the backbone of Bharat was by spreading false propagandas about our Dharma and Brahmana in particular and sad part is you are still taking that bait to malign us.

     

    Just think is there one country out there where Muslims or British ruled and survived their region intact?

    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.

     

     

    I leave that for you to decide, you guys are very good at apportioning blame twisting all logical reasoning, I was only using your yard stick.

    What did I twist? I made a true statement. Nothing to twist there.

     

     

    You are right our scripture are littered with wars, there always been struggle with forces of evil against the good. Some of us prefer to concentrate on dharma, you are welcome to blame the brahmanas without any evidence, and believe the propaganda spread by the British.

    And you're accusing me of twisting information around? Talk about hypocrisy.

     

     

    It never would have been possible but for people like you believing those lies spread by Brits, they attacked the very fabric of our society, the varna system, and people like you fell for it. If varna system was so bad why do you think your guru wanted to establish it, but failed.

    First think the culture would not have existed if the brahmanas were fake.

     

    Jai Shree Krishna

    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.


  20.  

    King Pariksit failed to deal with him instead allowed him four places to reside as well as in gold, which proved to be fatal, kali took resident in his gold Mukat, Kali did his job and Pariksit Maharaj acted in a way not fit for a King which he later regrated as thus;

     

    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...