raghu

I have been told on numerous occasions that iskcon's system of giving brahminical initiation to non-brahmins has its basis in paNCarAtra. Does anyone know which paNCarAtra supposedly authorizes this practice? From what I have read in hari-bhakti vilas, birth is considered by gaudiyas to be a prerequisite. That would seem to make iskcon's system unorthodox by gaudiya standards.

More specifically, birth is a prerequisite for one's varna. If one is born into a particular varna then it is his responsibility to take up the duties of that varna.

Why is it that when a scriptural definition that explicitly says, "This is a Vaishnava," is offered, it is ignored and something totally irrelevant is brought up in its place? We already quoted the definition of Vaishnava by Sanatana Gosvami. Did I miss some rationale as to why we are now ignoring Sanatana Gosvami? Is it just the same old iskcon "pick and choose what supports my opinion and ignore the rest" all over again?

Correct. This is an iskcon translation, and iskcon worship is Krishna-centric. This means whenver there is a reference to any form of Vishnu in the mUla they will insert "Krishna" into the translation. But yes, as far as the padma purANa quote by sanAtana gosvAmI is concerned, one who is initiated into Vaishnava mantra and worships Vishnu (or any proven form of Vishnu) is a Vaishnava. One who is devoid of these practices is not a Vaishnava. This is a very simple and clear definition.

Correct. This is an iskcon translation, and iskcon worship is Krishna-centric. This means whenver there is a reference to any form of Vishnu in the mUla they will insert "Krishna" into the translation. But yes, as far as the padma purANa quote by sanAtana gosvAmI is concerned, one who is initiated into Vaishnava mantra and worships Vishnu (or any proven form of Vishnu) is a Vaishnava. One who is devoid of these practices is not a Vaishnava. This is a very simple and clear definition.

<CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</CITE> - Cite This Source - <CITE minmax_bound="true">Share This</CITE> <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=def) --> sec·tar·i·an·ism –noun <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">sectarian spirit or tendencies; excessive devotion to a particular sect, esp. in religion. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <HR class=ety minmax_bound="true">[Origin: 1810–20; sectarian + -ism] <!-- google_ad_section_end(name=def) --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0 minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD minmax_bound="true"><CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.</CITE> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- end luna --> <CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)</CITE> - Cite This Source - <CITE minmax_bound="true">Share This</CITE> <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=def) --> sec·tar·i·an –adjective <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">1.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">of or pertaining to sectaries or sects. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">2.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">narrowly confined or devoted to a particular sect. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">3.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">narrowly confined or limited in interest, purpose, scope, etc. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>–noun <TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">4.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">a member of a sect. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">5.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">a bigoted or narrow-minded adherent of a sect. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <HR class=ety minmax_bound="true">[Origin: 1640–50; sectary + -an] —Related forms sec·tar·i·an·ly, adverb <!-- google_ad_section_end(name=def) --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0 minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD minmax_bound="true"><CITE minmax_bound="true">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.</CITE> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I was speaking of the motivations of iskcon people. The author of Jaiva Dharma may have had different motivations.

Tackleberry is correct that many other false religions like sad-darshanas, Buddhism, etc are also eternally existing. Being eternal does not grant something authority by the very fact of it being eternal. As far as its origins are concerned, the term "sanatana dharma" is used in dharma-shAstras and mahAbhArata but the useage is completely unlike that used by iskcon people. Usually in these sources the term is used in the context of a moral imperative, i.e. "one should not eat meat, this is the sanAtana dharma.One should offer respects to a brahmana, this is the sanAtana dharma." I suppose you could extrapolate from this that sanAtana dharma refers to the Vedic theology, but that is your choice. I am not actually aware of any useage in the shAstras to denote the conclusions of shAstra i.e vedAnta. The term "Hinduism" is of foreign origin and has come to describe the people living in India and following Vedic culture. Hinduism is not a religion, but rather a general category of various religious traditions that at least theoretically accept the authority of the Vedas. When used in that way, there is nothing wrong with the term. This is the way it has historically been used both in India and amongst scholars who study India. The problem starts when neo-Vedantists like Vivekananda, Chinmayananda, etc start using "Hinduism" to describe their watered-down, politically correct version of Advaita philosophy. If one does a google search for "Hinduism," one will find many sources which incorrectly define Hinduism according to views held only be neo-Vedantins and/or Advaitins, i.e. accepting all gods as different forms of the same Brahman, accepting all religions as valid, etc etc. This is a big slap in the face to the Vaishnava Vedanta schools whose views get ignored by these self-appointed authorities on "Hinduism." Unfortunately, the problem is perpetuated by iskcon fanatics who also accept this historically incorrect meaning and start hurling abuses at anyone or anything that is labeled as "Hindu." What the iskcon thugs often neglect to tell you however is that while Prabhupada clearly distances himself from "Hinduism" in some contexts, he also uses the term "Hinduism" freely to denote Vedic culture in *other* contexts. Some examples from his own writings: In the above examples, prabhupada and Sri krishnadAsa kavirAja are both clearly using "Hindu" and "Hinduism" to refer to Vedic culture rather than to neo-Advaita. It is therefore only the modern iskcon people who use Hinduism exclusively in the pejorative sense and refuse to acknowledge it as another term for Vedic culture. Despite all their claims to being loyal to Prabhupada, they often misunderstand Prabhupada and his different uses of the term. And also because many of them are social misfits with various insecurities, they feel better only when they can look down on others, and hence they cling to terms like "sanAtana dharma" (the origin of which they do not understand) and hurl abuses at "Hinduism." To the modern iskconite, "Hinduism" is a very dirty word, and anyone who even uses the term "Hinduism" immediately disqualifies himself and anything he says from serious consideration. - Thus, when someone posted a critique by a practicing Vaishnava on Christianity, one of our stalwart "Vaishnavas" immediately denounced it not because of the merits of its arguments but on the sole basis that its author used the term "Hinduism" to denote his own religion. - Similarly, when someone else posted an article about a Hindu priest who was discriminated against in the United States Senate, another stalwart "Vaishnava" responded chillingly with derision and apathy because the priest was "Hindu" and not "Vaishnava" and thus the discrimination was not worthy of his concern. - Then there was another "Vaishnava" who publicly wondered why intelligent Indians would be attached to the label Hindu, implying that to call oneself Hindu was not intelligent, thus calling into question the intelligence of Hindus. Based on these and many other examples from this forum, it seems that the motivation behind modern iskcon's propagation of the term "sanAtana-dharma" is exclusivist in nature - they want to continue distancing themselves from and continue supporting their prejudiced remarks against "Hinduism."

I appreciate that you think you are basing your views on "the eternal virtues that are sanatan dharma." However, I do not know what your concept of "sanatan dharma" is, and as it seems less than obvious that it is based on any extrinsic source, I would just like to remind you (as I was trying to do earlier) that your values upon which you judge "right" from "wrong" are less objective than you might think. American libertarianism, which is the forerunner of post-modern humanism, holds that the rights of individuals are God-given and inalienable, and that this is self-evident. However, the reality is that this view developed as a result of historical events and did not have the status of objective truth until recently. From this comes the humanist ethos that officially frowns upon class and caste differences and emphasizes personal freedoms over divinely created duties/responsibilities. This in turn colors the view of many individuals who try to approach Vedic civilization, as it obviously has in your case. That is not intended to be dismissive either; my observation is that many secular Hindus have the same problems that you do. All of you are coming in with a completely different set of values and worldview which is itself the product of relatively recent developments in culture and history originating primarily in Western Europe and North America. I don't see how much of Vedic culture will make sense to you if you cannot put aside the assumptions inherent in that worldview. I agree with this. But then I would ask why your views on "sanatana dharma" seem to have more in common with the critics than in the followers. What is sanatana dharma to you?? I do not think you really wanted me to comment on this, but I will do so anyway from the perspective of someone who does believe in upholding dharma. Please note that what I know of this incident is limited, and my comments are based solely on how you have represented this to me. In the first place, I agree that the King's punishment seems cruel and unusual. This is not just my personal view, but also a view based on numerous statements in the smritis about how a king should protect all of his subjects, even right down to helpless animals. I cannot understand why, on one hand, a king should give protection to animals, and yet he cannot give protection to people who engage in mixed-caste marriages. In the bhAgavata, mahArAja parIkShit found Kali engaged in the most abominable activity of torturing a cow and a bull and yet still spared Kali when the latter surrendered himself. There would have been no need for any punishment because the loss of the man's reputation as a brahmana would have been sufficient. Secondly, I will also state that Basavanna was misguided in trying to arrange a marriage between a brahmana and an outcaste. You cannot overlook differences simply by ignoring them. A brahmana has specific duties and responsibilities towards society and among them include the performance of sacrifice which requires a very qualified wife. Practically speaking I can say based on observation that people who marry outside of their culture have to give up some of that culture in order to make the marriage survive. But when that culture involves being a teacher and an example for others to follow, then Basavanna was doing a disservice to society at large by destroying such a person through a mixed marriage. Marriage is a sacrament for promoting a God-centered society. It is not an arrangement for people to simply gratify their senses. Leaders must be grown from infancy; they cannot just learn to be brahmanas, kshatriyas, etc once they are teenagers or adults. Nature and nurture, you see. That is why the varnAshrama system is traditionally birth-based. Birth affords the only measureable prerequisite for determining how a child should be trained. Otherwise it would be subjective for one to determine whether one should be a brahmana, a kshatriya, etc. A brahmana is accorded a great deal of respect as per our dharma-shastras, but those same dharma-shastras place extremely high expectations on him. He can't fulfill those expectations if he is not raised as a brahmana from birth, which means having brahmana parents who can also lead by example. The experience of iskcon shows the problems in an idealistic, but non-vedic "birth does not matter, brahmana by conduct alone" tradition. This is a response to the corrupted birth-based Vedic system in which children of twice-born families were no longer being educated in the traditional gurukula system. But as far as consulting a *qualified* guru when one is faced with ethical dilemmas, that is very clearly supported by texts like bhagavad-gItA. Right knowledge cannot be generated de novo. It must be transmitted from one who has it to one who does not. Arjuna had also learned Vedas as a child, but when faced with the prospect of having to kill his kith and kin in order to unseat a murderer on the throne, he was confused about how to proceed. One has to be taught spiritual science just as one is taught any other science. And sometimes one has to be taught again as Arjuna was. You may see this as surrendering your independent judgement. But if the guru is qualified and the shishya is sincere, then the guru will defeat the shishya's doubts and transform his faith into conviction.

Far be it for me to amend, add to, or disagree with this analysis in anyway, but having met a few sweet, soft-spoken devotees in iskcon whose voices are rarely heard, and then having seen the obnoxious ones who loudly frequent forums such as these, I have a different perception of the problem. I think iskcon's problem is that it has shudras doing all of its "preaching." By which I mean their steadfast dedication to the gangster-like strategy of avoiding coherent thought and resorting instead to the internet equivalent of clubs and baseball bats to bludgeon their opponents into silence. Which rarely works since people aren't as stupid and as obsequious as they think. It kind of gets back to what I was saying somewhere else about the little bully syndrome. It just seems to me that iskcon isn't the place to be if you are looking for genuine spiritual guidance/authentic Vaishnavism. But it is the place be if you are a social misfit who enjoys a sense of newfound power and authority. At least if these iskconites could distance themselves from terms like "Vaishnavism,Vedic,Bhagavad-gita" etc then no one would really care what they preach. It is only because they preach many wrong ideas in the name of Vaishnavism that those of us who are truly committed to that discipline feel obligated to step forward and stop them from dragging our sampradayas through the mud. I have, on more than one occasion, seen friends become attracted to iskcon based on what appeared to them to be a shared spiritual point of view, only to be violently excommunicated when they could not accept some of the strange neo-Hindu ideas that the iskcon people were propagating.

Amlesh, That quote again: <CENTER>grhitaivisnudiksako visnu-pujaparo narah</CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER>vaisnavo 'bhihito 'bhijnairitaro 'smadavaisnavah </CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER> "One who is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra and who is devoted to worshipping Lord Vishnu/Krishna is a Vaishnava. One who is devoid of these practices is not a Vaishnava." (quote from Hari-bhakti-vilas,11, quoted from Padma Purana) There is no need to change the subject or obfuscate the issue with tangential reasoning. Theist does not know what he is talking about, and neither does anyone else who tries to claim that Vaishnavism somehow refers to anyone who worships a single supreme God. There is no need to deify him or any other so-called Vaishnava who are not even initiated Vaishnavas (by their own admission). If you want to understand the beliefs of a sampradaya you must go to that sampradaya's acharyas. The purpose of language is to communicate clearly. There is no point in saying something if its meaning is not clear or does not tell us something we do not already know. "Vaishnava" has a specific meaning. As per Sanskrit rules it means one who follows/worships Vishnu. And yes, it is a Sanskrit word. When Sanatana Gosvami (an authority on Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which Theist is not) says that a Vaishnava is one who is initiated into Vaishnava mantra and who worships Vishnu, that is a very clear and concise definition. If "Vaishnava" and "Vishnu" are more all-encompassing (as Theist, cbrahma, et.al. hold), then Sanatana Gosvami's statement's would be ambiguous and unnecessary. As per Theist's "interpretation" of the above, Sanatana Gosvami's statement should read: "A devotee of God is one who is initiated into the mantra of God's names and is devoted to the worship of God. One who is devoid of these practices is not a devotee of God." As you can see, the above statement does not really tell us anything we do not already know. This is because Sanatana Gosvami was not providing a definition of a generic God-worshipper. If he was, he could have used any number of generic Sanskrit terms like "Brahmavadi" etc but he did not do so. During medieval India there was much debate on the identity of the Supreme Brahman and so Sanatana used a very specific set of terms to delineate his God-concept from the God-concepts of others with whom he disagreed. It is only in that context that his writing makes sense. It doesn't make any sense as per the "interpretation" given by Theist. By the way, don't you think it odd that Theist, who has never even read Hari-Bhakti Vilas, is nevertheless offering an interpretation on something found therein? Don't you think a person should know the context of a statement before presuming to know what it means? Whereas when the Gaudiya Vaishnava sannyasi who has read it quotes it, Theist regards him as a fool. I think it is very strange among Gaudiya Vaishnavas that when one knows what he is talking about, he is condemned if he does not offer praise towards Christianity. But when he is completely clueless about Gaudiya Vaishnava writings, he is treated as an authority akin to Bhagavad-gita just because he likes Christianity. I guess the point is that knowing what you are talking about is not as important as worshipping Christianity when it comes to determining authority figures in G Vaishnavism.

How about from the pen of a real Vaishnava? <CENTER>grhitaivisnudiksako visnu-pujaparo narah</CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER>vaisnavo 'bhihito 'bhijnairitaro 'smadavaisnavah </CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER> "One who is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra and who is devoted to worshipping Lord Vishnu/Krishna is a Vaishnava. One who is devoid of these practices is not a Vaishnava." (quote from Hari-bhakti-vilas,11, quoted from Padma Purana)

Well if you really don't care, then why are you posting anything in response? At least 'krsna' posted 4 nice pictures of Sri Krishna. You haven't contributed anything other than your pompous attitude that no one should discuss what you aren't comfortable discussing.

No, I just quoted you word for word. Those highlights again - enlightening Theist quote #1: enlightening Theist quote #2, in regards to the Vedas not predicting Jesus: But anyway, goodbye to you, and don't let the door hit you on the way out...

that's not what you said before: In http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/36602-jesus-only-way-2.html (posting #33) in response to a poster who claimed that the Vedas predict Jesus, another poster made the point that Vedas do NOT predict Jesus. In response to this latter point, you (Theist) sarcastically wrote, in a posting entitled "blinders on" that: So back then, Vedas were a "book" to you. And one who relied on them to extrapolate reality was guilty of sectarian feelings in your eyes. Certainly the whole "eternal sound vibration" theory didn't seem to occur to you then. Well, why should it, since the poster made a logical point, and you knew you just had to disagree, because it was against Jesus... so you dredged up the whole "sectarian Hindu books" theory for lack of anything more intelligent to say.

I agree with the point that one should not blindly follow rules and regulations. When conflict between different dharmas exists, one should go to one's guru and ask what the correct path is to follow. This is precisely what Arjuna did when he submitted himself before Sri Krishna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. If he had made his own decision, citing that "ahimsa is the supreme dharma," then a murderer and rapist would have remained on the throne of Kurukshetra. And then the women's rights groups would instead criticize Gita because it sanctions rape, instead of just criticizing it for being sexist... The problem with today's society is that many people don't follow any rules. They want to remarry because celibacy is inconvenient. They want to divorce because marriage is inconvenient. They want to eat meat because being kind to animals is inconvenient. They want free birth control pills for their children because good parenting is inconvenient. And so on and so forth. How can such people be taken seriously when they cry foul at dharma shastras? They are barely on the level of animal life. As I clearly mentioned earlier, I suggested the possibility of interpolation of certain passages because they were *inconsistent* with certain smritis and seemed illogical and out of character for a brahminical text. I am certainly not pronouncing an authoritative opinion on the subject. I am only trying to suggest an alternative view of the text beyond the myopic one of today's academia which holds that the view of Manu as casteist, sexist, misogynist, racist, and every other -ist that exists is the only politically-correct view. While I do not think that any reading will ultimately satisfy them, I do think they should give some credit to ancient Hindus being more compassionate and empathic. For every questionable verse they quote from Manu, I can quote 10 more smritis suggesting that actual Hindus thought and behaved differently. Is it likely that Manu disagreed with other sages and Puranas? Or is it more likely that Manu's work has suffered over time from the same problems that have plagued the Bible, the Shiva Purana, the Yoga Vasishtha, etc? I don't know what your concept of "sanathana dharma" is. The idea that the shrutis and smritis are consistent and authoritative is a well known feature of classical Hindu/Vedic culture. The idea that one should submit to a guru when faced with apparent conflicts in one's duties is also a feature of the same culture. I don't agree with the neo-Hindu view that one can pick and choose by himself what duties and what shastras to follow.

I think you are being unfair to iskcon. When iskcon devotees are preaching, it is only then that iskcon/krishna-conciousness/hare-krishna is transcendental to Hinduism. It's only when iskcon devotees want money or are fighting persecution that suddently iskcon is a part of the grand Hindu tradition. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Right. Nevermind all the good points it made. Nevermind the fact that the author is a practicing Vaishnava. Nevermind the fact that he can put two and two together and derive a logical conclusion, in contrast to the iskcon-prabhupada groupies. The whole article must be dismissed because its author used the dirty H word.

Excuse me???? *You* were the one who previously opined that the Vedas were sectarian holy books of Hindus. *You* were the one who scoffed at the idea of limiting one's understanding of God to the Vedas as sectarian. *I* have always held to the Vaishnava point of view that Vedas are apaurusheya and beginningless. If memory serves, this was explained to you, but in your infinite wisdom but you had no use for such concepts even though they are held by all Vaishnava acharyas including members of your own sampradaya. Would you like me to pull out the URL's?

grhitaivisnudiksako visnu-pujaparo narah vaisnavo 'bhihito 'bhijnairitaro 'smadavaisnavah <CENTER></CENTER> "One who is initiated into the Vaishnava mantra and who is devoted to worshipping Lord Vishnu/Krishna is a Vaishnava. One who is devoid of these practices is not a Vaishnava." (quote from Hari-bhakti-vilas,11, quoted from Padma Purana)

The original points under contention were whether or not Jesus was a covered Vaishnava, and whether Christianity was not in some sense simplified Vaishnavism. These were discussed to death in other threads, with the rationalists presenting clear and precise points while the iskconites could do nothing other than hurl insults one after another. The iskconites couldn't win those arguments. So now they (specifically cbrahma) have changed it to one of objecting to "christianity as a disqualification from understanding Vaishnavism" I don't think being a Christian is a disqualification from understanding Vaishnavism any more that Mayavada is. After all, learning about what is incorrect leads you to to seek with conviction a philosophy that is correct. of course, mayavadis have the advantage of at least being within the scope of Vedic culture, whereas Christians do not... sort of a headstart, I would say?

Even other authoritative smritis like Bhagavad-gita and Bhagavata Puranam contain material that is overtly patriarchical. You could similarly object to their status as authoritative texts when they contain material that is not compatible with modern, egalitarian sentiments on gender relations. Manu Smriti is originally an authoritative source, but like many smritis the currently available recensions may have some interpolations, and I am not sure how much of what we have of it today is the authentic words of Manu. Of course, being authoritative is not the same thing as being popular or acceptable to the masses (or for that matter, to the English-educated intelligentsia). But other texts refer to Manu and traditionally Hindus have accepted it. And traditionally, Hindus do frown on widow remarriage, because the Hindu worldview stresses fidelity to one's spouse and satisfaction with whatever sense gratification one is allotted in life, rather than repeated seeking of newer opportunities for sense gratification within the context of religious ritual. Certainly one could argue that restricting one's desire for sense gratification is unjust. Wouldn't a young widow be happier by being able to get remarried again? The answer to the question is largely based on what values you have, which in turn is based on what you consider real. I don't remember the original context in which Manu forbids remarriage. My copy appears to have gone missing. But your initial objection was to widow remarriage while now you seem to be solely concerned with widow remarriage in the context of child marriage. Of course, that is really a different concern. When I hear of child marriages in the context of young girl + old man it certainly strikes me as unfair to the girl. But then again, those were not the norm in Vedic society, now were they? I am inclined to believe that the root problem should be fixed, rather than blaming the consequences of allowing such problems to exist in the first place. There may be other rationale for forbidding widow remarriage. Traditionally, Hindu males would not accept one as a wife if she had already been the wife of another. Now, you may argue that this is unjust. But if a man is seeking marriage, he certainly has a choice as to what he wants in a wife. If the parents of a girl fail to mention that she was previously married, and a man took her hand in marriage with wrong understanding of her background, would you feel that to be just? Certainly in that context I could understand a prohibition against widow remarriage. In iskcon women and men remarry all the time. Iskcon's own founder referred to this behavior as being akin to prostitution, and indeed many orthodox Vaishnavas frown on this behavior and regard it as very low-class. Manu does not seem to be saying anything in regards to remarriage that isn't already a part of traditional Hindu society. Your argument as stated above is not sensible. By the same token the whole Kurukshetra war would then be regarded as unjust and Arjuna should have been content to let a rapist and murderer remain on the throne of Hastinapur. I am looking at the online copy at the Sanskrit Documents website. I thought it was pretty obvious that these verses were referring to those born outside of Vedic culture (i.e. not brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas, nor shudras) as made clear in 10.46, not the "lowest castes" (which would imply shudras and vaishyas). Anyway, I have some doubts as to whether these verses are really part of the original Manu or a later interpolation. I really don't know why a text that is concerned with brahminical and Aryan culture would bother itself so much with the occupations of those who are outcaste. If I am a brahmana, why would I want to specify that a Nishada should make his living by fishing? I would rather that a Nishada find some other work that doesn't stink up the place. By the way, the idea that Nishadas were forbidden from entering civilized society is not consistent with the Mahabharata. During the house of wax episode, there is mention of a Nishada woman and her five sons who visited Maharaja Dharmaputra during his last days in the wax palace. If what Manu says was true, wouldn't Dharmaputra have forbidden her to come in? On the contrary, the Pandavas received them also (these were the same Nishadas who were said to have wandered off and gotten lost in the palace in a drunken stupor, and got unknowingly left there when the palace was burnt down and their corpses later mistaken for the Pandavas). I think that it is important to first define Vedic society correctly, without undue reliance on biased scholarship and corrupted texts. So we are back on the subject of arranged marriages being unjust again? Given the extreme marital dysfunction (as evidenced by a 60% divorce rate) in industrialized countries, I am still inclined to believe that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. I would go so far as to say that the original uncorrupted Manu Samhita should dictate how society should be structured. But, I realize that is not very politically correct these days.

I wasn't disagreeing with the point about the Bible not being infallible. The point I was trying to make is, I don't see how you can say that Jesus is "in union with Krishna," or for that matter make any definitive statement about Jesus, when the only sources upon which your understanding of him is based, are as per your own admission, flawed. Just a logical objection, you see. Apologies in advance if it was too rabidly anti-Christian of me.

So the Bible isn't infallible, has major mistakes, and yet Jesus is clearly in union with Krishna. Ok....

There is no shAstric pramAna stating that "Christianity is incompatible with Vaishnavism." There is also a striking absence of explicit shAstric pramAna stating that Judaism is not compatible with Vaishnavism, Islam is not compatible with Vaishnavism, Atheism is not compatible with Vaishnavism, Satanism is not compatible with Vaishnavism, terrorism is not compatible with Vaishnavism, ethnic-cleansing is not compatible with Vaishnavism, etc. Then again, one does not need shAstric-pramAna to refute something that is obviously not correct. When one makes an outlandish claim, the logical burden of proof is on him (or her) to prove it, rather than insisting on proof by lack of explicit statements to the contrary. We know what Vaishnavism is by reason of shrutis and smRtis. We know what the characteristics of these other religions and ideologies are by vritue of their respective literatures and histories. Intelligent people who are not motivated by blind faith are quite capable of making a dispassionate comparison of the two and noticing the incompatibility. On several threads, the incompatibility of Christianity with Vaishnavism was discussed with explicit reference to Christian scripture, Christian beliefs, etc. In each case the presentation was so conclusive that the iskcon vaishnavas of this forum got so agitated and malicious that the moderators were forced to close those threads down. My sig file contained a list of insults that were hurled at me during those threads (before the moderators deleted it, that is) for bringing up these different evidences from Christianity. Now, once again, we have the same pattern of iskconites pretending as if these discussions never happened, and wondering why any rational person cannot accept that christianity is compatible with Vaishnavism.