Chitta

Poor thing. My challenge is still waiting for at <font color="red">8th Feb 2004</font color>.

Thank you for making my task easier. I did not know that you would throw in the Vaishnava towel, which is emblazoned with the Chakra and conch shell, that prematurely. Whatever that you had asked for I had provided. Yet, you tergiversate. You flee, fudge and hedge. Perhaps, I am expecting too much from one with such lilliputian intellect. The least you could do, in your condition, is to declare that you are now a 'nirayuthabani', completely at my mercy. I shall punish you no more. Your red herrings, double talk and blathering, seriously, have been tried by too many netters to influence intelligent people. Now that I have pulverized you, I shall see whether, by the Mercy of your Lord Maha Vishnu <font color="red">(of the interpolated Rg Veda)</font color>, you will be able to rise from the ashes like the phoenix.

<font color="red">Your method of dodging issues and direct debate is not new on the net.</font color> It has been tried long enough for it to have become tiringly trite. Beneath the veneer of your long irrelevant postings, I could espy an insecure Vaishnava seething piteously. You might just want to answer my posting for you on <font color="red">8th Feb.</font color> That will help you. Pelting innuendoes, ducking cowardly behind irrelevancy compels one to ignore you.

I do not know which 'Guest' you are although your ideas sound as gassy as the other I dealt with on 8th Feb. Anyhow, read my posting on <font color="red}8thFeb2004at04:07PM[/color">. It has the answer to your present posting.

You might want to read what I have told you on 02/08/04 at 10:15 AM. Having dealt with that, you may proceed with the rest. Otherwise, do not expose your ignorance too much.

Dear Guest (who is hiding dastardly behind an anonymity), Would I keep you on tenterhooks? Let me give you the starter before the full course. I welcome you to the world of real debate. As I had said before, you might condescend to allow me to introduce my credentials and background myself. I require no proxy, especially one of an ignoble and mediocre material. Thus, leave it to me, if I see fit, to dilate on my proficiency in anything. My principal object is to dismantle the elaborate belief system of the Vaishnava, and my mention of the ISKCON or the Hare people is by way of illustration and incidental reference only. You said, You also <font color="red">claimed,</font color> Evidently, you did not bother to read what I had said of the excerpt. The war and rivalry between the Vaishnavas and the Shaivites were so intense that both started tampering with the Puranas, interpolating, altering and corrupting the puranas by inserting new and foreign matters, information and texts which are foreign to the purpose of Vyasa. The puranas of the 1st stratum (which covers the period extending to the reign of Janamejaya) were compiled by Romaharsanaat. Those of the 2nd stratum (which extends to the time of Asima Krishna) were compiled by Ugrasrava (the son of Romaharsanaat). Those of the 3rd stratum covered the period after Asima Krishna till the close of the 4th centurt AD. The puranas were passed on in this fashion. There was no writing, so the compositions passed by word of mouth. In the process, therefore, the fanatical opportunists added their own compositions. Padma Purana is but one of those texts that have suffered at the hands of the rascals. If you were to examine the Venkateshwar Press edition (1880s) version of Padma Purana and Nag Publishers', you would see a world of difference. And it is, therefore, not surprising that your "...multiple different recensions of a purAna separated in both time and space", are no exceptions to the skullduggery. The Vaishnavas are fond of quoting the following interpolations which I have obtained from two different recensions that the Vaishnava so-called Uttama-Adikaris rely on. These are some of the texts that the Vaishnava had purposefully <font color="red">fabricated</font color> to show Lord Shiva denigrading himself: "Addressing Lord Shiva, the Supreme Personality of Godhead said, 'Please make the general populace averse to Me by imagining your own interpretation of the Vedas. Also, cover Me in such a way that people will take more interest in advancing material civilization just to propagate a population bereft of spiritual knowledge.' "Lord Shiva informed the goddess Durga, the superintendent of the material world, 'In the age of Kali, I take the form of a brahmana and explain the Vedas through false scriptures in an atheistic way, similar to Buddhist philosophy.'" [The above is stated in the Padma Purana, and quoted in the Chaitanya-caritamrta (Madhya-lila Ch.6:181-182), that Lord Shiva was requested by the Lord to appear as a brahmana to deviate the human race from Him.] "The mayavada philosophy", Lord Shiva informed his wife Parvati, "is impious (asac-chastra). It is covered Buddhism. My dear Parvati, in the form of a brahmana in Kali-yuga I teach this imagined mayavada philosophy. In order to cheat the atheists, I describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be without form and without qualities. Similarly, in explaining Vedanta I described the same mayavada philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by denying the personal form of the Lord."* This is also described in the Brhat-sahasra-nama, where Lord Krsna orders Lord Shiva: "In Kali-yuga, mislead the people in general by propounding imaginary meanings of the Vedas to bewilder them."* [The above is found in Padma Purana, Uttara-khand] May it be the puranas, Darsanas, or the Shrutis, the Vaishnavas, like all other opportunists, did not leave things to chance when mutilating the texts to suit their purposes. They inserted texts, deleted words, paraphrased passages, misrepresented symbols, and presented canards unashamedly. Because the Shrutis generally are not the favourite of the hoi polloi, they found the Puranas their vehicle for propagating insulting lies. You asked me, The list, evidently (as any intelligent being would know), cannot be exhaustive, especially when the research work spans a whole anthology of diverse works. (Do not pick holes in me as to why I have not stated all the works. Despite this caution, of course, (I know) you would do just that --- for that would only help you in your desperation to throw the readers off the scent): 1. Weber Max: "The Religion of India" --- The sociology of Hinduism & Buddhism; 2. Zimmer, Heinrich: "Philosophies of India"; 3. Potter, Karl H: "Presuppositions of India" 4. K.M. Sen: "Hinduism"; 5. Chatterjee, Satischandra: "The Fundamentals of Hinduism"; 6. J. Gonda: "Visnuism and Sivaism"; 7. Sastri, Nalinimohan S: "A study of Sankara"; 8. Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham: "Hindu Dharma". 9. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati: "The True History & the Religion of India" 10. K.V. Paliwal, Ph.D: "What Hindus Should do?" (an article) 11. Sadhu Prof. V. Rangarajan: "Who is a Brahmin"; 12. Swamy Jyotirmayananda: "Vedas & Varnas";. 13. St Martin's College (Division of Rel & Philo): "Overview Of World Religions"; 14. Ronald Inden, Jonathan Walters, and Daud Ali. "Querying the Medieval: Texts and the History of Practices in South Asia" 15. Blavatski: "The Secret Doctrine" 16. http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_11/msg00031.html (papers on the net) 17 http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/volume_three/m132.html (papers on the net) I would advise you to write to the authors to find out how they conducted their research, and what the basis of their findings was, and what verifiable scientific methology that they had used to insure their works against the charge of prevarication, etc. Once again, you did the unholy thinking for me when you surmised, This is one of the typical Vaishnava tactics of putting words in the mouth of their adversaries. There is no issue of what you like and what I dislike. My purpose, as I have reiterated ad nauseam is to demolish/dismantle the Vaishnava belief system. <font color="red">It is, in fact, the work of the Hare people and the Vaishnava at large to quote those passages which are favourable to their preaching and teachings and pooh-pooh those that are at variance with their belief system. For instance, the same Vaishnava who condemn the Shiva-category puranas as Tamasic are the self-same Vaishnava unashamedly accept portions of Skanda Purana when they find things that serve their purpose. Similarly, Vaishnava who demean the Guru Gita (which is part of the Skanda purana) quote but one sloka, "....Ajnana Timirathus-ya....". Where would you find evidence of hypocrisy more than in the life of a Vaishnava (who dastardly hides behind pseudonym) who attributes his qualities to the others?</font color> You said, .emphasis added by this writer You had very generously quoted some verses (purportedly from the Rig Veda), of course (although properly literate in Devanagiri) in transliteration only. What I am going to tell you will throw cold water on your exuberance: one, you are thoroughly ignorant that the <font color="red">Rig Veda is not free from interpolations and mutilations by fanatics; two, anything (even those which have not been marred by human intervention) can sound something else when quoted out of context.</font color> If you insist that we should go by whatever that these opportunistic fanatics have given us as gospel truths, let me quote you a number of verses, purportedly from the Rig Veda, "[sacrificer:] 'They are pressing out the impetuous, exhilarating Soma juices with the pressing-stone, for you, Indra. Drink them! They are cooking bulls for you; you will eat them, generous Indra, when they summon you with food.' "<font color="red">Rig Veda 10:28:3.</font color> "[indra:] 'They have cooked for me fifteen bulls, and twenty, so that I may eat the fat as well. Both sides of my belly are full.'<font color="red">Rig Veda 10:86:14.</font color> "[indra:] 'Because I was in desperate straits, I cooked the entrails of a dog, and I found no one among the gods to help me. I saw my woman dishonoured. Then the eagle brought the honey (soma) to me.'<font color="red"> Rig Veda 4:18:13.</font color> "[indrani:] 'No woman has finer loins than I, or is better at making love. No woman thrusts against a man better than I, or raises and spreads her thighs more.'; <font color="red">Rig Veda 10:86:6.</font color> Of course, by the above, I would not want the discussion on RigVeda to close. I would want to prove to you what Vishnu's constitutional position was, and how he ascended to the level of the so-called supremacy. I would, at the same time, show proofs that there is evidence in the Sattic Puranas (which the Vaishnavas worship as the only texts that they should read as God's chosen elites) that Lord Shiva has been seen as Vishnu's equal. If all things go well, I would want to show to some of fanatical Vaishnava here the history behind all the rivalry and antoganism between the Shaivites and Vaishnavites. This will help put all their texts in context. I, sincerely, hope that the Webmaster or any others here will not ban me from this site. If you do, then, you are deviating from the tradition started by Sanatana Dharma, which is to engage in Vada to establish the Truth. I hope Guest could come out in the open and take me on. I shall present him and his faithful votaries with a gallimaufry of evidence that would allow the curtain to come down on their sophistry.

This post is to the Guest who posted his message on 7.2.2004 at 9.17 am. Please don't go. I am coming to you soon after my lecture.

I, really, am amazed at your ability to talk through the hat. We do not require commercial breaks like you. If you intend to join in the fray, please read and respond to my postings on 7th Feb 2004 (2.00 am & 2.05 am). Red herring, exit.

Just as you have the volumes of works with you in the comfort of your home, I too have mine in my house. Fret not though --- write to them, ask for their source, they would be just too glad to assist you. In this day and age, information can be obtained fast. In the mean time, please get back to the original discussion, which I have highlighted in red in the above posting.

As you discuss more and more with me, you are revealing how much you are in want of information and knowledge. But that wouldn't be bad at all provided you did not, with that scanty knowledge, try to preach to others and misled people. I am afraid, therefore, I would have to set the record for you and innocent people here. First, you try to misrepresent Vyasa by quoting Madhva; and now, to misrepresent Ragavendra, you're quoting Madhva. I do not see the logical flow in your argument. You would want me to accept what you're saying based on reckless, spurious conjectures. You might want to remain religiously focussed. As if your purposeful obfuscation was not enough, you have now introduced Ramanuja into the picture too. <font color="red">If I am going to be led into that discussion, then, I would allow you to get away with your initial prevarication, i.e., that Vyasa believed in your interpretation of what the Gunas that the Puranas represent.</font color> Please prove the portion in red first. Do not obfuscate the issue by all the ramifications.

There is no point in becoming emotional. If you cannot sustain a good debate, then, you should not have entered the arena. Being dogmatic does not help prove your point. Like I said, it is worth your while to check all your volumes of Ragavendra's teachings. <font color="red">What I have quoted is from the works that I have obtained from Mantralaya, the nerve centre of his teachings.</font color> You might want to check with your sources before you deny yourself the right to know the Truth.

Just a correction --- I am not a Shaivite. If you have accepted the Gurus you quoted, then, it is your problem. I wonder why you think others who do not belong to your sampradayats should 'accept them'. It is the same as what the others insist that you should accept what Sudheendra Tirtha of Kashi Mutt or Vidhyadhiraj Tirtha of Gokarn Mutt say; or should surrender to Sachidananda Saraswati of Kavale Mutt or Sadyojat Shankarashrama of Chitrapur Mutt.

First, you quoted Madhva and now Raghavendra, another pontiff who comes in the tradition of the Madhva lineage. You cannot prove that Vyasa did, in fact, mean the meaning that you had attached to the classification of the Puranas. I am sorry but I have to point out to you an important aspect of Sri Raghavendra's later life, before his expiration. As he soared higher in Bhakti, he declared in an open court that was presided by a Muslim emperor that <font color="red"> one who makes a distinction between Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu, and claims that one manifestation is 'higher' than the other, one shall make Hell one's eternal abode.</font color> It is worth your while, especially in your earnest effort to propagate your faith, to check this historical fact up immediately. I know, next you would quote a train-load of other pro-Vaishnava scholars and believers and exhort me to surrender to them. Wouldn't the Shaivites and Samarthans too quote their Mutt leaders and pontiffs, and archaryas to do the same? Would you, then, accept their exhortation? If you don't, why should the others? The discussion has just warmed up, to say the least!

You have very consistently proved here that you lack scriptural knowledge and the knowledge of the entire history that led to all these divisions in the Indian society. Earlier when you quoted Veda Vyasa, you gave your readers the impression that even the interpretation of what the Gunas were, was that of Vyasa. Now, you claim that it was that of Madhva, who evolved a dualistic system of philosophy out of the Prasthana-Traya. <font color="red"> The classification was not that of Vyasa. Period.</font color>

So, do you agree that Padma purana contains interpolations? You, therefore, also agree (as you quote the so-called Shaivite antics) that the Vaishnavites have engaged in the tit-for-tat puerile conduct? Hence, you have, like most other Vaishnavites, had the knowledge that there is something egregiously wrong with how they have treated the so-called Demi-gods in the Vaishnavana puranas? The Padma purana is but one example of a text that had been mutilated by fanaticism.

You claimed that "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu,...Lord Ramanuja, Lord Madhvacharya, Lord Nimbarka, Lord Vallabha, Lord Raghavendra ..... have proved 'Advaitham & other pseudo religions (such as Shaivam, Buddhism, Jainism)' as false". I shall take up the point about Chaitanya Mahaprabu at another time (for I require an elaborate discussion to prove that he was never opposed to Advaitam) --- as to your point that the others had 'proved' 'Advaitam' false, I would have to tell you that you as wrong as the Hare Krsnas. Yes, they argued with all and sundry but "no" they never managed to convince the world that theirs was the only path. You are consumed with the Christian proselytizing zeal.

If you need to clarify any issues about me, you might want to check with me straight --- I need no proxy in your form to interprete my life, erudition or experiences. Would your Vaishnava pride allow me to do that for myself? Because your conjectures of me are as reckless and misinformed as your knowledge of the scriptures. I am no Shastra-jnani but I am no simpleton to parrot what I had been brainwashed to believe. I checked, double-checked, re-checked, re-re-checked with the Vaishnavite scholars and others before I came to the inconvertible conclusion that the Vaishnava philosophy is wrong. Contrary to the Ritvik writer's belief, I did not meet some Babas and Ramakrishnas; but many eminent Vaishnava Gurus and a few others from other sampradayats as well. When I underook this task of extirpating misinformation here, I knew that someone would happily quote the oft-quoted ISKCON/Ritvik quotation from the Padma Purana, where Lord Shiva had purportedly denigraded Himself. Scholars of pre-eminent status have said that Padma Purana, together with a couple of other Puranas and Upanisads, had been ravished by fanatics during the Vaishnava/Shaivite war. Much of what we have (today) in the Puranas that the scholars had quoted contain disgraceful interpolations, additions and deletions. The quoted passage, for example, is the work of not Vyasa but that of the fanatical Vaishnava who wanted to disgrace the Shaivites. If you need proofs of this, you may write to me for volumes of references. As if this blunder was not enough, the Ritvik writer lied that "...(the) Vedas proclaim Vishnu to be Supreme God...". I challenge the writer to cite this from an authoritative translation of the Veda that he claimed this is found. I shall, then, prove from rich sources that Vishnu's status in the Vedas was subservient to Rudra; and worse still, in the entire 4 Vedas, there is only one place where Krsna's name was mentioned.

As there are three distinct responses to my post, I am afraid, the readers here would have to bear with my individual responses to them. Let me take on 'gokulkr' first. "gokulkr" claimed that he knew that "...all puranas including 'SAivaite puranas' are compiled by Veda Vysasa itself" --- I am gladden to hear that. Wherefore his nescience, I wonder! Vyasa is the compiler of the Puranas from age to age; and for this age, he is Krishna-Dvaipayana, the son of Parasara. While He compiled them into the 3 cardinal categories, He did not intend, as "gokulkr" had mischieviously misinterpreted, that "Those who want to realise 'God' should only consdier satvic puranas". That is "gokulkr's" mischievious interpretation. The Lord who categorised the puranas into the 3 categories exemplified the three Gunas in the puranas: that they 3 were part and parcel of His Being complementing what he had said of the Gunas in chapters 13-14 of the Gita. Everything emanates from Him ---nothing, not even tamasa guna, has an independent existence. Otherwise, He would not have called Himself the Chief among the thieves. This is the problem with people like the Vaishnavites, especially the ISKCON/Ritvik people --- they would misquote, or quote things out of contexts, just like the Christians and misrepresent facts. For instance, as they feel the so-called 'Tamasic' puranas are not meant for men of God, why then they cite passages from the Skanda purana to support "Tulasi worship", etc. If the Purana is Tamasic, then, they should not even touch it with a barge pole --- but they do! Why? Well, so long as anything serves their little purposes of purveying half-truths, they would resort to such low tactics. To this day, they cannot reconcile why Vyasa, the Krsna-incarnate, should allow puranas to contradict themselves! Please quote Bhaja Govindam --- by all means; but quote it in conjunction with His other eulogies too. Why don't you show that Adi Shankara did praise and waxed lyricals about other Incarnations too. Aren't you being mischievious by presenting but one facet.

I too accept Lord Vishnu as 'God'. I am not saying He is not. He is as God as much as Lord Shiva is. That's my point.

I read the entire thread on the matter, and I cannot help but be amused by the warped views of some of Vaishnavites who believe in the antiquated and sectarian misinformation that Lord Vishnu is, indeed, the Supreme Godhead Personality. WHAT CAUSED THEIR IGNORANCE? This is the result of their absymal lack of scriptural knowledge. I can bet my bottom dollar that none of those who so lavishly quoted chapters and verses from the puranas and Hindu texts has ever read their quoted scriptures in their entirety (in their original form). <font color="red"> The ISKCON's knowledge of the scriptures is pathetically circumscribed within the books written by Srila Prabhupada.</font color> They merely parrot what their so-called 'Archarya' (or 'Uttama-Adikari') has propounded, and they regurgigate his wrong teachings here without verifying the truths. MY CREDENTIALS Before I could be suspected of vilifying a personality whom the great majority of the ISKCON members religiously believe to be the messiah straight from Goloka or Krsna Loka, let me state my credentials first: before I came to know the Hare Krsnas about two decades ago, I had had met an innumerable group of spiritual men and women of differing and diverse persuasions. Finally, when I met the ISKCON people, I felt that I had met the right society. I started practising their teachings, read all of Prabhupada's books, devoured Srimad Bagavatam, the Simad Bagavad Gita (As It is), and a score of other works of the founder and his coterie. Along the way, as I intensified my sadana, got deeper into the practices, I discovered that there was something seriously wrong with the Hare Krsnas' teachings. MY SEARCH I delved into their books; studied the scriptures dutifully; whenever I had the opportunity, I made comparisons between Prabhupada's and his god-brothers' discourses and expositions. That is when I discovered a lot more about ISKCON's (and even Vaishnava's) grave misunderstanding of Sanatana Dharma, and their unpardonable nescience of the Hindu scriptures. During this time, I studied Sanskrit, boned up on the Upanisads, Vedas, Upa-Puranas, Agamas, etc. I found an unforgiveable lacuna in the ISKCON teachings. To begin with, Prabhupada's Bhagavad, As It Is is never 'as it claimed to be': there were very serious misinterpretations, interpolations, misrepresentations, canards and bigotry. TEMPLE PRESIDENTS AND ISKCON GURUS I had, therefore, met many Temple presidents, senior members and even the Gurus. Tamal Krishna Maharaj, Jayapadaka Maharaj, Gorvinda Maharaj are among the many gurus I met. I discussed with them the Vedas, the Ramayan, Samhitas, Agamas and the philosophical differences between Dwaita, Vishsista-Advaita and Advaitam. I was dismayed more than flummoxed that these people, who are supposed to be the repository of knowledge and the bastions of their 'Archaryas' teachings displayed enormous ignorance. They were like the Christians --- gita-thumpers, who quoted verses after verse, without the slightest comprehension of what the background to the scriptures. As you would have guessed by now, I made the decision, which I have, to this day, been proud to have done, to leave the movement for a Guru, who would put me back on the right track. Thanks to Krsna, I met the right Guru and I am now home and dry. PRABHUPADA'S TEACHINGS: THE FAULTS Prabhupada had merely resurrected the frail, hoary ghost of the "Vaishnava/Shaivite" war. Of course, some members who read this would take up the cudgels for their founder and challenge me to prove my assertions. I have come prepared, hence, I shall be more than glad to do justice to the task that I have undertaken here. But please allow me to pilot you through my arguments so that you would be able to see where I am coming from. CARDINAL PURPOSE My primary task now is to dismantle the Vaishnavites' brittle argument here. i.e., that Lord Vishnu/Lord Krsna is the Supreme, and that all others (espcially Lord Shiva) are his subordinates. I shall, for this purpose, take on those people with the most egregious notions: 1. That the Puranas Tell All The Vaishanavites here quoted the puranas so liberally to prove that the Shaivite religion is wrong about their belief that Lord Shiva is Lord Vishnu's equal. Their cocksureness, in this case, merely showed how much that they have understood the Puranas and Veda Vyasa's compilation. They were, as the informed readers would have clearly seen, under the delusion that only the Vishnu puranas spoke of 'supremacy'. Little did they guess that the other puranas too have their mention of who the 'supreme' is. When one of the readers pointed out their ignorance, one of the Vaishnavites promptly said that the Shaivite puranas were 'written' by the Shaivites. It was, seriously, a terrible slap in his own face. It merely revealed that he did not even know the history of the puranas. If he had known that it was Krishna Dwaipanya Veda Vyasa (who is none other than Krsna Himself) who had compiled the major puranas, he would not have braved making that statement. One of them, who pooh-poohed puranas extolling Lord Shiva, relegating them to 'written by Shaivites' category, praised the Kantha Purana. Evidently, he did not know that it was in Kantha Purana that Lord Vishnu's so-called subservient position to Lord shiva has been mentioned. One of them, sensing that the Vaishnavites here were losing in their arguments to the Shaivites as regards the issue of 'puranas', quickly said that 'oh, the Shiva puranas are deemed to be in Tasmasic mood, hence, we should not attach any importance to them' [paraphrased by this author]. Again, this shows that writer's crass ignorance. He did not, evidently, understand what the scholars meant when they said that the puranas are classified broadly under the 3 gunas. 2. Bhaja Govindam One of the Vaishnavites, in his earnestness to show that Shankara Acharya had written something in praise of Lord Govinda, posted his message twice. This is one of those ISKCON/Hare Krsnas' twice-told spiels --- the typical christian-type verbal gymnastic and antics. Quoting anything out of context would render even the holiest darn obscene, and the gross may pass off as 'divine'. Oh yes, the Pujya Parama guru did, indeed, sing praises of Lord Govinda, just in the same way as he had sung praises of Lord Shanmuka, Lord Ganesha, Lord Surya, Mother Durga, Lord Shiva. The mischievous reader who bothered to quote the Govindam in its entirety had, purposefully, neglected to quote the Archaryas other works in praise of other Avatars. If only the Vaishnavites here had bothered to study the scriptures on their own, instead of relying on what they had been brainwashed to believe, they would be much better. I stop here for responses. I shall deal with the arguments blow by blow. (What I have said here, heretofore, is just the introduction to my effort at proving the Vaishnavites here wrong. More to come).

You asked a very interesting and thought-provoking question. I read the various responses to the question too. Spirituality and Krsna consciousness, as I view them collectively, transcends laws, rules, established beliefs, religious codes and belief system. As I say the aforesaid, I am prepared for the avalanche of waiting emails and postings from bhaktas, who would take exception to the view. Only a careful examination of the issue will clarify the mystery and enigma that surround Bhakti Marga. One extreme of living is to be blase about what harm we do to our surroundings and others; but the other extreme is the fanatical obsession with rule books. Such an obsession will give rise to religions like Jainism that requires its members to wear masks and sweep the floors before the believers tread. Oh yes, I agree that every living thing has an equal right to existence. After all, the soul that inhabits the body is the same soul in every body. However, where one's existence interferes with the harmonius living of another, the aggressor, if need be, has to be put down. The right of private defence has been accepted as a Dharma in the Smirities written by Yaknavalya, Manu and Parasara; and even in the Ithikas, this has been sanctioned. Apart from the above, a logical analysis of the "ahimsa" principle will shed light on the point that I am belabouring: if 'ahimsa' extends to absolute non-killing, we should not be living --- as pointed out (again) by another devotee, even the steps that we take towards the altar necessitates in the death of million of lives on the ground beneath our feet, lives striving in our bodies! Each time we drink and eat prasadam, we are committing 'himsa'. Extending this further, we would find ourselves refusing to take anti-biotics to kill the virus that causes us an infection or disease. In a word, it is all in keeping with sadana, bhakti and devotion to exterminate intruders into our homes and houses. (In point of fact, jivas that take births as roaches, insects and bugs are destined to have short life span to expiate their karmas).

You asked a very interesting and thought-provoking question. I read the various responses to the question too. Spirituality and Krsna consciousness, as I view them collectively, transcends laws, rules, established beliefs, religious codes and belief system. As I say the aforesaid, I am prepared for the avalanche of waiting emails and postings from bhaktas, who would take exception to the view. Only a careful examination of the issue will clarify the mystery and enigma that surround Bhakti Marga. One extreme of living is to be blase about what harm we do to our surroundings and others; but the other extreme is the fanatical obsession with rule books. Such an obsession will give rise to religions like Jainism that requires its members to wear masks and sweep the floors before the believers tread. Oh yes, I agree that every living thing has an equal right to existence. After all, the soul that inhabits the body is the same soul in every body. However, where one's existence interferes with the harmonius living of another, the aggressor, if need be, has to be put down. The right of private defence has been accepted as a Dharma in the Smirities written by Yaknavalya, Manu and Parasara; and even in the Ithikas, this has been sanctioned. Apart from the above, a logical analysis of the "ahimsa" principle will shed light on the point that I am belabouring: if 'ahimsa' extends to absolute non-killing, we should not be living --- as pointed out (again) by another devotee, even the steps that we take towards the altar necessitates in the death of million of lives on the ground beneath our feet, lives striving in our bodies! Each time we drink and eat prasadam, we are committing 'himsa'. Extending this further, we would find ourselves refusing to take anti-biotics to kill the virus that causes us an infection or disease. In a word, it is all in keeping with sadana, bhakti and devotion to exterminate intruders into our homes and houses. (In point of fact, jivas that take births as roaches, insects and bugs are destined to have short life span to expiate their karmas).