kaisersose

You are swallowing and killing countless bacteris with every breath you take. By your logic, you should be born as bacteria for your next million lives. Where did he say that? There are Vaishnava cultures which do not accept beets as valid food. Onion, garlic, etc., etc.,...the list of unacceptable foods is long. Now show me where Krishna said he does not accept eggs, beets, onions, etc. There is a world of difference between "Krishna said so" and "some Guru in my line said so". Cheers

And that is a problem, why? Anyway, I ate an orange this morning. Am i becoming an orange in my next life? Meat eaters generally eat different types of meats, poultry, seafood, etc - all in a single lifetime. If x ate a chicken, a goat, a pig and a fish, which one of these is he becoming in his next life? If there is a BG verse addressing this question, please quote. Simpler to say, any religion that does not align with my own beliefs has "no meaning". The funny thing is, all those "meaningless" religions also make the same criticism about other religions, including the OPs. Cheers

No traditional school interprets that verse as Krishna claiming to be the source of Brahman. But then, that is obviously because their interpretations have to make sense from a much broader range of scriptures and absurdities are simply not allowed. But if we are interpreting this verse in isolation as some new groups tend to do, then anything is possible. Btw, Madhva interprets this verse as Krishna being the source of Laxmi (Brahman). Cheers

I can only tell you what I told Sensible Bloke. End the discussion post haste and go take a cleansing bath in the nearest holy river. Cheers

Sensible Bloke, To qualify for that monicker, you have to first quit discussions with Ranjeet and his distinguished colleagues and preferrably take a cleansing bath in the nearest holy river ASAP. Else, the name does not apply! Cheers

Why do you think there has to be a point? There is no point at all, unless we make one up for ourselves or - as is more common - accept one from external sources, mainly religious. In any case, these questions are a big deal only if you are bored or are unhappy with the way your life is progressing. Else, such questions either do not pop up or do not matter. Cheers

<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> Quick responses to your questions and arguments. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> SH: I agree with you, but if it would be necessary to identify a Brahmana then wouldn't studying the qualities of the person be a better criteria for judging the person than the birth of the person ? <o:p></o:p> Evidently not, as no one is qualified to assess an individual's "real" Varna and recent examples of such attempts have created disastrous results. In the absence of such an ability, the only way is to determine Varna by birth and that is how things have been done for thousands of years. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> SH. The puranas say that in Kali Yuga demons also take birth as Brahmanas.<o:p></o:p> Then the Purana agrees that Varna is determined by birth. Otherwise, this statement has no meaning.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> SH. In Vajrasucika Upanishad, it is clearly stated that birth is not a criteria<o:p></o:p> A dubious source. There is also an Allah Upanishad & a Chaitanya Upanishad. Isolated quotes from unknown sources do not make sustainable arguments .<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> SH. Also how can you make sure that all the ancestors in a person's lineage had been Brahmanas and have performed all the samskaras ? <o:p></o:p> Why do we need to do that? I fail to see the relevance. How do we know Prabhupada comes from an unbroken disciplic succession from where ever he claims he is? How do we know they were all genuine? Did you ever pose this question to your Gurus? <o:p></o:p> SH. In Chandogya Upanishad too there is the story of Satyakama who was recognised as a Brahmana inspite of a low birth.<o:p></o:p> Wrong. Gautama's first question to Jabala was on his lineage. Since the boy did not know who his father was, Gautama asked him more questions to determine his lineage and accepted the boy as a disciple *only* after he was satisfied about his lineage. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> SH:Srimad Acharya in his commentary on Chandogya Upanishad (previously mentioned) has said that a Sudra has the qualities of Crookedness, do you think Sri Kanakadasa was crooked at the same time a saint ?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> No. You are mixing real life with academics. If you go by the book, no one on the planet displays all the characteristics of a single Varna and none other. Hence, it is a wasted attempt to determine Varna by characteristics. The only choices you have are to accept Varna by birth or reject the Varna system. Introducing new concepts of dynamic Varna, etc., are not acceptable. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Cheers<o:p></o:p>

If you really, really believe she is omnipresent, then how can you specify a location for her? She is everywhere. Else, you do not really believe in her omnipresence. You cannot have both. Pick one. Cheers

I think it is important to respond back, or some unsuspecting people may actually believe such posts to be the truth. 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. Also, there is no shortage of such claims which make things "easy". Read a verse from this book and all your sins will be washed away. Take a dip inthe ganga and all your sins are washed away. The list is long... These are qualities a Brahmana should attempt to have. These are not critieria to determine one's varna and no one has interpreted them that way expect for a few Johnny-come latey Gurus. Completely wrong. All that verse says is Krishna created the four varnas. Everything else you wrote above is your own creation and is not from the verse. Feel free to prove me wrong. I highly doubt your friends believe this. It is extremely important to them to be classified as Brahmanas. But here is the problem. Was he a non-Brahmana, who temporarily displayed Brahmana characterestics and fooled Prabhupada or was he a Brahmana who fell down later? Both options are equally plausible in your dynamic varna theory. How do you know which? You cannot make this stuff up as you go along. Varna is not dynamic to be changed as people fall up & down. A Brahmana who falls is a Brahmana, though he has fallen. Drona was a Brahmana though he fought in wars and killed people. Karna was not a Brahmana by birth and and was cursed by Parashurama for lying about his real identity. Arjuna was a kshatriya even though he did not want to fight. Krishna's message to him was to perform his Kshatriya dharma. Vidura was never called a Brahmana, though he was wise and Gautama accepted Jabala as a disciple only after he was convinced about his lineage. Now there may be a couple of isolated verses disagreeing with the norm, but these sources are dubious and are easily discarded in favor of mainstream evidence. We can find isolated verses in support of just about anything - including an Allah Upanishad. I am not even going into the fact that the historical tradition in India that varna has been known by birth for thousands of years and the only cases of departure are from recent groups with agendas. If you disagree with any of this, feel free to provide evidence. The root problem I see here is western devotees have been fed a line on how varna system in India has "lost its meaning" due to corrupt Brahmanas and how it is important for western devotees to "become" Brahmanas. This sets the ground for all the misconceptions floating around on this forum. Cheers

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. To be fair, I see nothing wrong with Prabhupada's translation, in spite of being far from impressed by his scholarship in other cases. 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

Dude, were you paying attention in school? 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. 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

If we want to map the Varna system to the real world, then I agree. We are living in different times and in a different culture where many of the cultural concepts that come associated with religion are no longer relevant. The Amish are a good example. Before the industrial revolution and the corporate culture, people typically followed a profession through ancestry. The father would teach his craft to his son and the son would continue the tradition. Most of the cultural aspects in religion are contingent upon such a tradition. Professions based on varna system can only make sense in a very simple, primitive model - like we can still see in some tiny villages around the world. We cannot really go back to that model anymore, as man has voluntarily moved into a more complex model through the centuries. It is not necessary to take that step back either. Cow protection is a problem only for people who believe the cow should not be slaughtered. This group has always been a minority through known history - even during primitive times when the social model was very similar to the varna system. I do not see how that can change in the foreseeable future. Meat-eating seems to be driven by some compulsive, internal need and as long as that need exists, animals will continue to be slaughtered. All I can do is be happy that several animals have lived longer lives because I have not gobbled them up. Cheers

Yes. This is the point I am alluding too. The root cause is the idea that somehow we can identify a varna by external observation. This may work in some cases, but is definitely going to fail in several cases which leads to the inevitable conclusion that this is not the way to go. I can never assign varnas to an individual based on my obervation of the individual, no matter how hard or how long I observe him. People exhibit different characterestics & behaviors in different circumstances and times. I was a bully in college with a like-minded gang, harassing professors, girls and pretty much everyone with trips to the police-station, purely due to the prevailing environment. I wasn't like that either before or after. If a set of people who know me have to classify my varna based on observation, you will get all 4 possible types. Tying Varna to behavior is an impossible science. But the more imporant point is none of this matters in this context. Let us take a Hare Krishna Vashnava from the west , who was not born in India and is hence "varna-free". As a Vaishnava, is it necessary for him/her to become a Brahmana? If yes, what is the benefit? Does Iskcon as an organization (officially or unofficially) differentiate Vaishnavas initiated as Brahmanas from other Vaishnavas? I am trying to understand the importance of the label within. Thanks

There were Brahmanas who went through life in abject poverty never owning a single cow and there have been countless non-Brahmanas owning cows. I would say it is the responsibility of the owner to protect his/her own cows and it not a general Brahmana responsibility. Cheers

And the Prashurama incident was completely avoided. The problem here is you have mixed up unnecessary distractions into your goal of Krishna. Your critical requirement of recognition of as Brahmana is a distraction and is flawed for a number of reasons - including chiefly the inability of any individual to make such identifications. Consequently, you are mutilating age-old traditions (however bad they may be in your vision) and trying to realign them with your needs - all for no purpose as they are completely unnecessary for someone whose only goal is Krishna. We have reached a point where we will only be repeating what we already posted countless times. Since the Karna incident was not raised earlier, I added it for completeness. Have fun andy, Cheers

Nothing here says varna is not decided by birth and I am unclear on Kulpavana's position on the matter anyway, though to his credit his posts appear far more level-headed than most people here. Parashurama's anger at Karna on the bee incident. Let us hear the opponents out on this one. Cheers

These wonderful qualities are no more a characaterestic of a Brahmana than they are of a Vaishnava. A Shudra Vaishnava should be able to develop the same qualities or may already have them. Danger to the the individual. On one hand you admit that the Vaishnava position is not binding to a specific Varna. And then on the other hand, you believe initiating into the Brahmana varna is like a "promotion" whch is a contradiction. To me someone who intends to be a Vaishnava and then also at the same time is trying to become a Brahmana or believes that the Brahmana is better than people of other varnas in attaining Krishna is a confused individual. Seeing Varna as a qualification to be a Vaishnava is incorrect and ironically the only people who are supporting the concept are those who claim to be against it! The danger is the distraction caused by such a notion. And by conversion, I mean a person of one varna moving into a new one through an initiation rite. Cheers

Shankara's commentary also has nothing specific and he simply says shashi among nakshatras, just repeating the original verse. But Ramanuja has something on this. Of Adityas, who are twelve in number, I am the twelfth Aditya, called Visnu, who is paramount. Of luminuous bodies, namely, among luminaries in the world, I am the sun, the most brilliant luminary. Of Maruts I am the paramount Marici. Of constellations, I am the moon. The genitive case here is not to specify one out of many included in a group. Its use is the same as what is exemplifed in the statement 'I am the consciousness in all beings' (10.22). I am the moon who is the Lord of the constellations. I believe Madhva was also clear that the moon is not a star, but I do not have his commentary with me now. Cheers

I see this accusation *a lot* on this forum. Why is it that anyone who questions the Hare Krishna system or people must be doing so out of envy? Perhaps whenever you ask questions or disagree, you are doing so out of envy & you think that is the way it is with everyone. For instance, you do not agree with Mayavada beliefs. Is that out of envy? Or is it the usual case of double standards where the concept applies only to those who question your beliefs? Just FYI, there is nothing to be envious about at all. Not a single point that I can think of. So the questions are not out of envy, but something else. Like our friend Andy108 would say, I will let you figure that one out. Cheers

Ganesh, Best to say away from these topics. They are simply posting nonsense on how India went "downhill" because of Kali yuga and bad Brahmins. This is the first time I am seeing the view of how Kali yuga is bad ony for India and Brahmins being held responsible for foreign rule! Each day brings out more & more nonsense on this forum. Now if they can present facts (which has not happened) then we can respond back. Otherwise, we can do better than to trade opinions. Iskcon or nor, the fact remains that the west still sees India as a failed third world country. And movies like slumdog millionaire are just reaffirming the fact that people have a hard time moving away from stereotypes. Cheers

It is my opinion that your friend is going about this the wrong way. The Hare Krishna doctrine or for that matter any other religious doctrine is *not* to teach astronomy or even provide correct & accurate pictures of astronomy. Astronomy is completely orthogonal to the main topic and making it a focal point of the doctrine (as your friend appears to have) is the wrong approach. Cheers

You are creating a paradox. By asking questions, you are moving away from faith and yet you want the answer to the question make you faithful again. Faith exists when you believe it as is. If you require rationale and all questions answered before you can accept the doctrine, then you are not a faithful person. So pick your choice. Will you accept the doctrine only if it aligns with your rationale (faithless) or will you just unquestioningly accept the doctrine because you trust the source and no more justification is necessary (faithful)? Cheers

...because you do not have the guts. Yes, we all know that. Foul language from a Brahmana? That is a big no-no, a sin which requires penance. Shave your head, stand erect facing North, place a 16 oz bar of ice on your head and do not move until it all melts down, all the while repeating the following chant: "I have been converted into a Brahmana and as a Brahmana, I swear to refrain from using foul language and conduct myself in a dignified manner under all circumstances". Or you can accept you lack Brahmana qualities and stop imagining yourself to be one. This will let you be your real self - with unlimited, free usage of foul words, tap dancing around uncomfortable questions, and displaying pretentious scholarship on discussion forums. Your pick Andy. Cheers

What was the British colonization of the rest of the world evidence of? You conveniently skipped the question. There was no India at that time. His empire was the North Indian region including Afghanistan. South Indian kingdoms were not part of the Maurya empire. And so what if he was a lower caste guy and if Chankaya was a Brahmana? I fail to see the relevance here. Please write intelligently if you can or else I advise you to keep silent and not embarass yourself with such nonsense. Most Indian kingdoms were ruled by Muslim kings when the British came to trade in India. Brahmanas are not required to keep foreigners out. That is the job of rulers and evidently, they did not do a good job. And what has any of this got to do with caste? There have been countless wars all over the world where someone always lost. To single out Indian wars and blame it on caste tantamounts to stupidity. Cheers

I have heard these empty "aparadha" threats from your colleagues for a number of years now. Seriously, I cannot believe how dumb you guys are. You are incapable of even understanding a simple discussion and how to respond to facts, even when they have been laid out in the most convenient form. All you are capable of is getting enraged, taking on a bullying attitude and spouting curses and empty threats. Little wonder that the organization has folded up the way it has. At the end of it all, the pity is you guys are kidding yourselves and are too dumb to realize that. Good luck my friend,