Deathless

 

The following is an interesting debate. Actually, I admire the writtings

of both Kesava Krsna Prabhu and Rocana Prabhu.

 

 

 

Avoiding False Humility

 

BY: ROCANA DASA

 

 

Oct 3, CANADA (SUN) —

I have recently been engaged in a discussion with

Kesava

Krsna

dasa

. The dialogue began with my reply to his "Them ‘N All" article on Dandavats.

 

 

I offered my comments in an

Obeisances to Dandavats

editorial, and received his prompt reply. There following several rounds of exchange (see links at bottom of this article).

 

 

A few days ago I received the following note of apology from

Kesava

Krsna

prabhu:

• Dear Rocana prabhu,
  
  
  
  Please accept my humble obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.
  
  
  
  I have directed my responses to you personally and have clearly displeased you by doing so. Whether in mind or heart, please forgive me if I have offended you. I hope you will look kindly upon me. I am very sorry.
  
  
  Your servant,
  
  
  Kesava
  Krsna
  dasa

 

It's comes as a bit of a surprise to me that

Kesava

Krsna

is so fixated on this whole idea of offending… me offending him, me offending some leader in ISKCON, him offending me, etc., etc.

 

 

Frankly, I think the whole concept of 'offending people' is blown way out of proportion in the ISKCON community

.

First of all, we're not great, exalted Vaisnavas.

 

 

The person we should seriously worry about offending is Srila Prabhupada. Beyond that, this offense business is used more as a ploy to keep people in line in the institution than anything else.

 

 

It's obvious that

Kesava

Krsna

dasa

has been well indoctrinated into this practice. Calling each other Vaisnavas, advanced devotees and senior disciples of Srila Prabhupada is all very nice.

 

 

But when it comes to the point where we can't address something we think is not in line with the Sampradaya Acarya's instructions without being accused of being critical, then it's ridiculous. We're simply muzzled as a result, not protected from "Vaisnava aparadha".

 

 

The gist of my entire theme of Srila Prabhupada as Sampradaya Acarya is not simply about putting Srila Prabhupada in his rightful place, but also putting us in our rightful place, which is infinitesimally small in comparison.

 

 

As such, we can't get hung up with all this etiquette business to the detriment of our own spiritual life and preaching

Krsna

Consciousness.

 

 

We can't interpret the dictums of etiquette in such a way that we become discouraged from correcting the problems that keep our spiritual life and the preaching from unfolding in a way that would please the Sampradaya Acaryas.

 

 

I'm sure that

Kesava

Krsna

dasa

and I would get along royally if we were just good friends or neighbors, or lived in the same community, but we don't. Instead, he has essentially taken the position of being a spokesman for ISKCON.

 

 

I am responding to his writings, and that is the nature of our relationship. Many of us in the wider community don't often get the opportunity to discuss issues with those who run the institution, so we have to make do with what is given -- in this case,

Kesava

Krsna

dasa

.

 

 

But that doesn't stop me from mentioning my Godbrothers, who are still strongly holding onto the reins of power in ISKCON, and who should be held accountable for many of the unfortunate things that have been and still are going on.

 

 

I recently enjoyed talking at length with a sincere brahmacari. He told me about the advice he had received from an American guru/sannyasis who travels to various temples in ISKCON.

 

 

This ISKCON leader advised him not to preach in North America because it was hopeless. He told this devotee to go to Eastern Europe, India or South America, because people are more receptive there. So no wonder the preaching in North America has taken an obvious downturn, so much so that they've had to form the quasi-corporate SSPT committee in order to attempt to remediate or reverse this trend.

 

 

One of the main problems in North America has been the 'brain drain', wherein advanced preachers and sincere disciples are getting initiated by gurus who spend most of their time outside of America, and entice their American disciples to follow them as they preach to the "more receptive" people.

 

 

Many of those gurus and sannyasis who remain in America appear to be in some sort of retired hibernation. We seldom hear anything about their activities.

Kesava

Krsna

dasa's guru happens to be among this group.

 

 

When

Kesava

Krsna

speaks out he represents both himself and his guru, and one has to assume that he's representing the guru as much as he's representing Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON.

 

 

So in that respect, I feel it's within my right and duty to point out actions of his guru that appear to be contradictory from what Srila Prabhupada expected of him.

 

 

This is one of the many points that I've brought up in my articles which Kesava Krsna has chosen to avoid under the guise of all this false humility.

 

 

It's just a smokescreen. In reality, he's been defeated and won't admit it. In a morning walk conversation I was recently listening to, Srila Prabhupada was challenging the devotees to come up with an answer to his philosophical assertions.

 

 

They couldn't, and Srila Prabhupada said if you can't give a rebuttal, that automatically means you've been defeated. If you want to follow Vaisnava etiquette, then you should at least admit it when you've been defeated. This is the honorable thing to do.

 

 

So

Kesava

Krsna

prabhu, if I'm wrong and you haven't been defeated, than let's step away from all the aparadha allegations and apologies, and get down to addressing the philosophical points I raised in my original article.

 

 

After all the time we've spent going back and forth about criticism, etiquette and aparadha, we could have discussed the real issues threadbare by now.

 

 

Your apology is accepted, and I hope you'll also forgive me for having offended you or your spiritual master in any way. Now kindly address the philosophical issues I've laid out, or give me your hand in defeat.

 

 

 

<center>

Links to the Discussion Thread

 

(Most recent at bottom)

 

“Them ‘N All”

 

Obeisances to Dandavats

 

Them ‘N All Reply

 

More on Them ‘N All

 

Beware! The fault-finders

 

Free Speech In Krishna Consciousness

 

Clarification

 

Response to

Kesava

Krsna

dasa

 

Who are the leaders in Iskcon?

 

Why Can't We Be One Happy Family?

When Srila Prabhupada is Happy, the Family is Happy

 

</center>

They don't care in the slightest if you insult an Advaita Vedantist or a Shaiva , even to the point of mocking their faiths.

But say one negative thing about a Vaishnava - even if the statement has nothing to do with Vaishnavism - and you go straight to hell. How very self-serving.

Well, I now disown this thread, as it is clear to anyone who applies some critical thinking that the Siva-Gita is a fatuous interpolation that certainly can not weave into the main body of the text of the Padma Purana in a seamless, logical, consistent manner.

 

All glories to Mahadeva Shiva but it is Lord Hari, and ONLY LORD HARI, who is God. This is the sum and substance of Vedic philosophy, and those who see anything else in the Vedas are only deluding themselves, and that too most comically. In short, Vaishnava Vedanta is the cream of religious systems, and I know that instinctively as well as intuitively. I chose to turn away from it due to my own bad karma not that long ago, but as much as I wished to shun the conception of a personal deity, I found the irresistible charm of Sri Sri Radha-Govinda inexorably pulling me back to Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

 

Hence, others may want to consider the nonsense with which I started this thread as something worthy of being commented upon, but for my part I distance myself from it, definitively.

Wow. That was a quick de-conversion to re-conversion.

Oh well. Follow your heart, that's all that matters.

Again, the Bhagavata-purana enumerates the family-tree of Lord Brahma's descendents up to the 11th Century CE.

 

Lord Brahma's sons wnet on to live theirown lives and also to populate and rule over cosmic affairs up the present moment and will continue until all of the cosmos are anihilated along with every living soul --unless the said souls escapes . . .

 

Lord Brahma is approximately 50 years old.

In this present day of Brahma --we are living now during the reign of the 7th Manu.

 

Brahma was born 115 Trillion earth years ago.

 

The puranas are histories that occured at vastly different epochs & Kalpas during Brahma's first 50 years--some puranas span different Brahmas from different Brahmandas.

 

So, the events & dharma & pastimes & level-of-consciousness & the political maneuvers of Maharajas & mighty despots create different situations where different mystic events occur for the upliftment and enlightement and civic tranquility are given a framework to transpire.

 

Reading, studying, and even hearing of all such events, as recorded & transcribed by Vyasadeva, are always for the greater good irregardless of local traditions or conditioning --yet they may not be palatable to those without thorough literacy --so the puranas are duly divided to accomodate the different modes of personal preferences.

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Shreela Vyasa-deva, originally compiled the Vedic wisdom.

The final, most perfect and sublime work by Shreela Vyasa-deva is Shreemad-Bhagavata Purana, which is the natural commentary on the Vedanta-sutra.

There is also the Bhagavad-geeta, which was spoken by the Lord Himself and recorded by Vyasadeva.

These are the most important revealed scriptures, and any commentary that contradicts the principles of the Bhagavad-geeta or Shreemad-Bhagavata Purana is unauthorized.

There is complete agreement among the Upanishads, Vedanta-sutra, Vedas, Bhagavad-geeta and Shreemad-Bhagavata Purana, and no one should try to reach any conclusion about the Vedas without receiving instructions from members of Vyasadeva’s disciplic succession, who believe in the Personality of Godhead and His diverse energies as they are explained in the Vedic Tradition that has been sheltered by the Maharajas who understood the ultimate purpose of dharma.

None of this tells me why you call certain devas and devis demigods, but you don't call Vasu---DEVA--- a demigod, when the same word is used to describe both of them.

If you are going to translate Deva, either translate it strictly as 'god' or translate it strictly as 'demigod'. It makes no sense to change the translation of the same term just because you feel that the other devas are worthy of less respect than Vasudeva.

Adventures in Etymology:

 

But our discussion is the use of the name Demi-god ---and thus the word "demi".

 

My Dictionary also says:

demi- 1. half (From Latin dimidium, "divided in half"; and dimidius . . .)

 

Which seems to me, a non-Latin speaker, --as demigod in both examples --why is that?

 

Anyway, upon further exploration, my Dictionary also says:

 

Demos = From Greek --the common people; populace; district, people;

 

Demagog, also Demagogue, noun; a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular passions and prejudices.

Gk dēmagōgós a leader of the people, popular leader, equiv. to dêm(os) people + agōgós leading, guiding; see -agogue.

From agein, to lead; see <tt>ag-</tt> in Indo-European roots.

 

-agogue or -agog, a combining form with the meaning “leader, bringer,”;

Gk -agōgos, -ē, -on, akin to ágein to lead, c. L agere to lead, drive, ON aka to carry, convey. suffix A substance that stimulates the flow of;

It's spelled "demigod' not 'demagod'.

And, were you looking under 'demagogue' or the prefix 'demi-' when you saw the etymology for Greek 'demos'?

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

So demi-god means, Half a leader of the people?

That makes no sense. Either you are a leader, or you aren't. You can't be half of a leader.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

So, similarly the definition of "God" seems to be:

 

1. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
   
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
   
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
   
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
   
5. A very handsome man.
   
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

So, why not just call them 'gods' and 'goddesses'? Why must you call them half of what they are?

<!--//

//--><!--EOF_DEF--><!--BOF_DEF-->or as MONOTHEISTS think:

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

Well, since Hinduism has multiple devas and devis in it, I don't think it can be considered strictly monotheistic. Even if you do worship only one god.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

It would seem that anyone who thinks God is more than ONE is a pagan, hedon, animist --or anything other than a monotheist.

"Pagan"? "Heathen"? I didn't realize this was a Christian forum. Can we just stick to the correct term, 'polytheist' or 'pantheist'?

Since, by definition God is of one of two groups:

ONE Almighty Transcendent Person

or

Multiple subjective conceptions befitting all stratum of species.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

IMO, one who says DEMIGOD is a derogatory term are saying that no God is a Demi-god if that God is to be called GOD;

They are saying that 'God is God' no matter how many other God-competitors or God-contemporaries exist simultaneously.

They are saying, 'If my God exists, and your God exist too --then how can any one God be the Supreme God'?

Why does one god need to be better than another? Is that a universal law or something?

They are saying, 'If my God is not supreme, then none are supreme.'

It's more like, "Gods are gods, we shouldn't try to call them half of what they are."

It seems to me as if the people who use this word are just biased against other gods.

For example, notice that when you translate 'Vasudeva', you translate it as 'God of the Vasus'. But, when any other god is called a 'deva' you translate it as demigod. Why the deception? It's the same word, so why give it two different definitions?

but,

IMO, the term "God" refers to a single entity.

 

The term "God", as a proper noun, does refer to a singular entity.

However, "god(s)" doesn't refer to an entity. It refers to a group of entities.

Because there is a difference between a diplomat and a statesman.

The former pretends to act and the latter acts.

 

The absence that Mahak is speaking is in terms of the pristine responsibility that a President should take and not mere actions which leads to fruitless results.

 

There is a big difference in doing and doing what should be done.

It doesn't matter if he just sits and makes no change whatsoever. He is still a government official who is officially running the government.

Another thing, anarchy is the lack of any sort of governmental order whatsoever. Even if we go with your interpretation - that the president elect might not do anything, making it some sort of unofficial anarchy - it still isn't an anarchy. America will still have Congress under Obama. It will still have a House of Representatives and a Senate. It will still have state governments and courts.

So, no matter how you feel about Obama, America, I'm almost certain, will not be an anarchy within four years time. That is, unless you think that Congress will be abolished, the Senate will be abolished, the House of Representatives will be abolished, all state governments will be abolished, and all courts in the United States will be shut down.

To Deathless,

 

Nostradamus knew about Hinduism, he saw the events of the world unfolding before his spirtual inner eye.

 

There is a verse which backs this up, he says that the Punic faith will be broken, it's chapter 2 verse 60, it says the following :

 

"The Punic faith broken in the East, Ganges, Jordan, and Rhone, Loire, and Tagus will change etc...."

He also mentioned the Jordan and the Rhone,the Loire, and the Tagus. I don't see how it's unique. He just includes one famous river in a list of other famous rivers. I'm sure that many educated people knew of the Ganges at that time.

He specifically speaks of the Ganges and there he says will be a change of attitude or something.

 

Punic faith stands for Islam and that will be broken in the aboved mentioned places.

 

He also says that the Gods will make it known to the mortals that they are the instigators of the Great Conflict, Hinduism is the only true religion and as I worship God Himself, Lord Krishna, Hinduism knows many Gods, especially Lord Shiva, who benedicted a guy named Mahamada to establish a terrible and demiac religion.

He actually used the term 'gods'? I really have a hard time believing that.

Trust me, Nostradamus knew about Hinduism.

I guess I just don't see a reference to Islam in India as the equivalent of understanding Hinduism.

Technically you are right but I think Mahak might be predicting that things are going to break down so bad that people will lose faith and no longer acknowledge the authority of the US government so it could descend into anarchy at least temporarily. Not saying this is gonna happen as only God knows the future. Its like when you play that game Civilization and you change government styles the civilization goes into anarchy for awhile.

I suppose that makes sense. People have built up such a hype on Obama, who can say what and how they would feel if things don't turn out as they think they will?

United States Government officials are frontmen for the federal reserve shadow government. They are television personas met to cater to the psychological needs of the population and to keep the population distracted while behind the scenes powerful banking families continually collapse and rebuild economies with the ultimate goal of conditioning all humans to be their slaves and work for them for nothing. Maybe they are not technically creating anarchy but the whole thing is still diabolical.

For example, I dislike the Bush Administration. I also dislike theocracies and monarchies. However, I would never equate the Bush Administration with a theocratic monarchy. That would make no sense, as that is obviously not the type of government that runs the United States.

Similarly, it is irrational to compare the United States under Obama to an anarchy, as that is not the form of government - rather, lack-thereof - the United States will live under if it has some type of government official running it.

I have stocked up on beans and rice.

it is recommended that vaiśyas and śūdras should immediately give up their bodies upon hearing blasphemy of an exalted person like Lord Śiva

It seems to me that a truly spiritual group of people would not care on what day God is celebrated, as long as God is being celebrated. What a shame that these people cannot see beyond their sectarian and cultural differences.

Oh yes, Einstein actually was a advaitan.Einstein actually devised Theory of relativity from advaitan concepts :idea:

He meant it was more scientific in that it points to an energy that pervades nature, making it a more scientific philosophy, rather than just the worship of a specific deity, which is more of a religious philosophy.

Ranjeet, surely you realize that the initial poster posted this in 1999. Who are you so angry with? Someone who isn't even on here anymore?

Om Shanti.

Okay? That's all nice and good and all, but I still don't see how a president could possibly make an anarchy.

Leaders of governments can't make an absence of government. It's a contradiction in terms.

I guess you really did mean to make 'no rhyme' or use 'your reasoning abilities'.

Hi My friend says it is common among gods to marry sister ..that is brother sister marriage is seen among gods - is this true ?

 

Can some one share your knowledge in this ? Is there any example in hinduism or in Hindu gods where a brother has married his sister? Is it possible ?

 

Please explain if it is true ... if this question is wrong please ignore

Other than that, I can't think of any.

Shiva has no family and his wife is Parvati, the daughter of Himalaya.

Vishnu has no family and his wife is Lakshmi who was born from the ocean of milk. In all of their successive incarnations, they were never brother and sister either. Rama was son of Dasarath, Sita was daughter of Janaka; Krishna was son of Vasudeva, Rukmini was daughter of Bishmaka.

Brahma was born from Vishnu's navel and his wife is Gayatri and she is the daughter of a sage.

hello, i have a few questions:

 

1.Who was the first god of the hindu trinity to be created?

-I have heard it was Brahma (creator) that came from the golden egg of universal consciousness, but i have also heard he sprung from the navel of Lord Narayana. Which is it?

 

If the person is Shaiva or Vaishnava, they'll say Shiva or Vishnu was first.

If the person is Shakta or Ganpatya, they'll say that Shakti or Ganapati was first.

If the person is Advait, they'll say that God is ulimately formless and that such a question is unimportant as God has taken many forms, each of them having a certain role to fulfill. So, which one God took first has no special meaning, as all avatars are equally important.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

2. Also what are unique qualities, and what differentiates the Lord Narayana form from the Vishnu form?

-I am starting to beleive Vishnu combined with Ananta Shesha, Lakshmi, Brahma from the navel and others are the "Narayana Form"...am i right? please correct me if i am wrong

 

Isn't Narayan just a name for Vishnu?

3. I also hear that Narayana is the center of the universe or power/energy of the universe could this mean that his energy or form was present but there was no matter or life form until Brahma came and then Brahma created man and all other things in existence out of Lord Narayana/Universal energy?

According to Vaishnavas he is.

Shaivas think Shiva is center of universe, Shaktas think Shakti is center of universe, and so on.

There is an english word "demagog" Variant of demagogue-- hence, the word demi-god:

Demagogy

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Demagogy (also demagoguery) (Ancient Greek δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos "people" and ἄγειν agein "to lead") refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes.

 

–noun

1. a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people.

–verb (used with object)

3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.

–verb (used without object)

4. to speak or act like a demagogue.

 

 

--A term of disparagement ever since it was first used in Athens, 5c. B.C.E.

 

--noun

a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular passions and prejudices

 

--A politician who seeks to win and hold office by appeals to mass prejudice. Demagogues often use lies and distortion.

 

--A leader of the rabble; one who attempts to control the multitude by specious or deceitful arts; an unprincipled and factious mob orator or political leader.

 

 

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

 

 

 

Osama Bin Laden is a demagogue--alive or dead.

 

The richest man in your pradesh is a Variant of demagogue.

 

The beautiful women of the richest man are apsaras that will not give you the time of day.

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Obviously, the term DEMI-GOD is the nomenclature of a ruling Principal that oversees material affairs--that can bestow material favors inexchange for material bribes--that go towards the betterment of ones particular life span.

 

The Vedas enumerate the sons of Lord Brahma after he was born from Maha-Vishnu.

 

Lord Brahma is a spirit soul alive with a material body within the material universe.

 

Lord Brahma is a spirit soul with responsibilities and the power that is accorded to his rank.

 

Lord Brahma is the only person in this universe who possesses his unique prestige as, Father of all living creatures within this Brahmanda.

 

Brahman (the all-prevading self-luminous-void), Param-atma (life-force within the nucleus of every particle of creation), and lastly, Bhagavan (the reservoir of all personal perfections) are the three catagories of Mystic attainments --A demigod [& their aditya-cousins] knows this too.

 

Again, the Bhagavata-purana enumerates the family-tree of Lord Brahma's descendents up to the 11th Century CE.

 

There is one "Almighty God", who created the manifest cosmos for the rectification & reconciliation of the souls who have left Krishna's Lila in Vaikuntha inorder to seek out self-lordship within the material worlds --just as Lord Brahma has done along with all his descendants, the Demigods & Adityas too.

 

Lord Brahma's sons wnet on to live theirown lives and also to populate and rule over cosmic affairs up the present moment and will continue until all of the cosmos are anihilated along with every living soul --unless the said souls escapes . . .

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

demi-

1. half

(From Latin dimidium, "divided in half", via Old French and Middle English demi- half)

It has nothing to do with the "politics of the gods". Demi- is a prefix meaning "half". When you call a god or goddess a 'demigod', you are calling them 'half of a god'.

Can you explain now?

regarding your "wondering"-- it is best not to 'wonder' --but to know your exact coordinates--materially, physically, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, financially, politcally --it is best to be informed perfectly/completely/absolutely, rather than according to one's whims and conditioning.

You sound very much like a fascist.

A boss of mine once said to me "If you don't know the answer or industry standard to a question, do not speculate--ask the authority for the answer--lest you later quote you own wrong speculation, in lieu of the real answer".

How very silly.

Why do some people call the devas and devis 'demigods'?

Do you use the same terminology for some people calling them 'demipeople'? If not, then why do you call some gods 'demigods'?

Just wondering.

I did a search and this was asked before some years back but no answers..... anyone here knows of any contacts in Malaysia ? thanks

Didn't Malaysia's government just outlaw yoga due to a conflict with the state religion's -that is, Islam's- principles?

lastly a question :

is durga demigod or not ? answer in yes or no ..

What exactly is a 'demigod', even? Are there 'demiasuras', 'demighosts', 'demipeople', and 'demianimals' as well?

Bhagavad-gita Chapter 2 Verse 72:

 

ñä brähmé sthitiù pärtha

nainäà präpya vimuhyati

sthitväsyäm anta-käle ’pi

brahma-nirväëam åcchati

 

SYNONYMS

eñä—this; brähmé—spiritual; sthitiù—situation; pärtha—O son of Påthä; na—never; enäm—this; präpya—achieving; vimuhyati—one is bewildered; sthitvä—being situated; asyäm—in this; anta-käle—at the end of life; api—also; brahma-nirväëam—the spiritual kingdom of God; åcchati—one attains.

 

TRANSLATION

 

"That is the way of the spiritual and godly life, after attaining which a man is not bewildered. If one is thus situated even at the hour of death, one can enter into the kingdom of God."

 

I must say that "Disappearance in Brahman" or "Vanishing in Brahman" is a far more fitting translation for Brahma-Nirvana than "Kingdom of God".

A better way of saying "Kingdom of God" would be something along the lines of Bhagavan Rajya, in my opinion. However, that isn't what Krishna said.

Hello,

 

I wanted to start and chant Hare Krishna, but i am to young to order the chanting beads of the internet, ( no credit card) and my parents would NEVER buy them for me

 

PLEASE can someone help:confused:

 

Thanks

Maybe you could use your fingers? Say one mantra per finger and then make tally marks on paper to see how many "rounds" you've done.

Or maybe just ask your parents to buy you beads and string in order to make a "necklace" or "bracelet"?

If tommorrow I leave my job and starts distributing Prasadam that does not mean from a Karmi I've become an Akarmi.

 

Whatever job I undertaking, the inward renunciation is important.

 

While distributing books and Prasadam, if still the thought of how much I will be able to distribute is tormenting me, then it is not yet Akarma.

 

All of this strikes me as being very true. It seems as if something internal should not have to be signified by something external, like clothing.

When action is undertaken with a view for a result.

 

However, Krishna says He prefer much a Karmi than an idle person.

A karmi is much better than a Vikarmi also.

 

Krishna proclaimed in the Gita, there is no action that He is forced to fulfill in this world, even then He act.

 

But to understand what is really beneficial for us is the action that neither yields +ve nor -ve results, viz. Akarma.

Yes, yes. I understand what a karmi is, I just don't understand how you dress like one.

Is it just wearing normal clothing or what is it? When I put on jeans and a t-shirt am I 'dressing like a karmi'?