sumedh

Hare Krishna Dear Roohani Sevadhari you said: First off, don't attribute silly ideas to god. So talk about "according to lekhraj siddhanta" -- okay. Rest of reply has got to do nothing with the original question. It seems that your answer is that after some 5000 years all animals merge into god. Is it correct?

dear roohani sevadhari you said: which i understood perfectly well. My comment was that mind/intellect is physical in nature which has got to do nothing with the soul. btw it can be easily shown by logic that mind/intellect is physical in nature.

Dear Roohani sevadhari you said: What is this up with 5000 years? Read any archeology findings of late? For example a 7000 year old temple found in Mallesvaram, or old writings in Harappa dating back to 3500BC. Unfortunately, you dodged the question again as to why this "drama". Is the question too difficult to understand? Important questions you should ask yourself is the foundation of your believe. Seems to me like history as in British India time; so if it changes (which it has already) then what would be the status of your faith? Other question is whether your belief system stands and falls on the integrity of one person.

The dear roohani sevadhari on godly service goes off to tangents as regards this thread without giving answers to previous questions, such as how do the hallucinations of Lekhraj which conflict with all scriptures have any authority. Please dont try discussing about the guru-tattva, for you do not consider any pramanas. But remaining on point, many iskcon sites have Lord Krishna at the front page while this has that of Srila Prabhupada. You have issues with this ... right. Well, not everyone can be satisfied, still you may want to communicate your feelings to the site administrator. which is another tangent. Your learned friend does not consider your childish objections to have any relevance but still would respond to it due to other reasons. The learned friend prefers to call Lord Krishna because it indicates Master of the self as opposed to God which has the majesty factor predominant; others may have other reasons -- same is the case with Shri Krishna for Shri is the name of Goddess Lakshmi which indicates opulence etc. the attributes of Goddess Lakshmi. At other places the learned friend also writes Shri Krishna depending on context. The learned friend would like to know if roohani sevadhari on godly service of some god, considers any pramanas as valid. Does he consider vedas, or the brahma-sutra or srimad-bhagavatam as pramanas because there needs some common ground for discussion.

Hare Krishna Yes, Lord Shiva also entered me ... Please realize that this is nothing more than sentimentalism. You said: And before you said about Harappan civilization and Mahabharata. Seriously, are you still living in British India? The latest excavations have shown the Harappan civilization to be far older than thought previously, and shaligram shilas have been found. In addition the discovery of ancient Dwarka off-shore also provides the necessary evidence. Hint: update yourself on the latest situation. Yes, the scriptures tell the devotees to reprimand those who are lost for their own good. If one has obtained even a little fortune, then he must distribute it to others and reprimand is one of those ways. As for myself, i cannot be such a fraud to claim to be god or representative of god as others. From Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.14.32 From Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.14.34 Then in Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.4.17 So one should cut the others arguments by arguments from the accepted pramanas. you said: Not all acharyas and gurus are genuine, and the same can be applied to Dada Lekhraj anyways -- so whats your point? The test of a genuine guru is the adherence to the Vedic siddhanta, the disciplic succession and most of all our own sincerity which helps us to recognize a true acharya. So far your judging of Lekhraj as god (or empowered by god) is nothing more than sentimentalism. As for the differences in acharyas, it is due to the nature of time, place and circumstances. As i said, this is off-topic and should be in a separate thread where i would be happy to provide the reasons with pramanas. Cut the .. Tell me what becomes of animals and will they forever remain in the material worlds. And don't present silly things as coming from Lord Shiva. Well not really, soul has got to do nothing with matter. you said: No, the question is why do they perform this "drama" full of miseries. See this is not a kids forum where your ideas will pass by like that, you need to explain things. So much for your god. Thq question stands where it is. Why do we need to make any effort in the first place, when the Lord can free us all at once from ignorance and all other ills. Okay your god is bound himself, so that explains many things. See as i said before, when you come up to a forum like this then you have to at least give rational reasonings if you do not understand what means by pramanas. Essentially, your answer to all the questions has been that in your conception God Himself is bound... Well, then there is nothing more to say other than that unfortunately your service is not godly rather in someone's who is bound.

Dear roohani sevadhari you said: This is not true, because you do not understand the nature of devotion. No one here is angry as you imagine but calling spade a spade is the duty of every person who deems oneself on the path of Truth. Humility does not mean meekness and non-opposition. I presented the objections in details with pramanas, and ilkewise if you want to put forward your point of view you should give logical and/or scriptural evidences. The main point here is from where does Dada Lekhraj derive his authority? I can also imagine all kinds of things and write them down; so will you agree them to be coming from God ... The fact is that Dada Lekhraj and followers do not understand the basics of Vedic knowledge, what is prasthana-traya etc. Since you think that the scriptures are either junk or have been manipulated there is no common ground to discuss. Obviously personal accusations should be avoided, but when a personality claims to be god then he/she would come under the scanner as to whether his/her siddhanta is consistent, and does it match to the Vedic siddhanta etc. Now here we have someone who does not know the basics of Vedic knowledge posing as god and then you say that we should not reject him. Many a times repremand is the best option for correction. Second important point is that when you come to discuss on a certain forum, you should at least read some basic things of their philosophy because you start accusing about things they do not believe in the first place and the discussion becomes meaningless. The next point is that since you have hardly read Vaishnava theologies so you have no idea of the real nature and status of the scriptures. So i suggest that you first read some introductory material such as Ishopanishad, Perfect Questions Perfect answers, Bhagavad-Gita as it is, in the books section of this site. Then the discussion shall be much more meaningful. you said: God is also present in the God-realized Acharya who is empowered by the swayam-prakash of the Lord. So we should understand the scriptures through the acharyas. As regards, the differences in opinions of acharyas it is a different matter for which you can create new thread. But the basic reason is that just like there is so much material varigatedness it is the nature of spiritual varigatedness. you said: And how about the animals? What does your organization propose to do about them who outnumber humans by a really huge margin? Actually only the sublime path of bhakti is available to all the jivas without any distinction including species, which has been distributed by Sri Chaitanya to one and all. But let us stick to basics. Since you believe Dada Lekhraj is god, then naturally his siddhanta should be able to answer all the questions completely. So i would like to pose the following questions for a start: 1. What is the nature of a jiva soul? 2. If the jiva soul is completely pure, then why and how does she come to this material world in the first place. 3. Why do you think the Lord does not give liberation to all the jivas at this very moment since He is so loving and caring of the jivas? 4. Why do you think we need to follow any procedure to achieve the highest objective, and why does it take much time and energy? i.e. why does Lord not take all those who show an inclination into His family. 5. What is the nature of the relationship of Lord and jivas? 6. Where do jivas come from? Please give a good amount of thought before answering. These are some important questions that every spiritual seeker should ask and find answers to his/her own satisfaction.

Roohani sevadhari, do you wish to ask questions or only accusations. First off you digress from the original topic so much that the original thing is lost. Still i shall attempt to give some answers. If you wish to discuss caste system then do that in a separate thread. The vaishnava acharyas have been continuing to oppose the hereditary caste system. The bhakti movement as started by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu which is meant to be distributed to all living beings, including animals, is the only duty of jivas. Roohani sevadhari said: What sastra is saying that a person's spiritual position shall be ascertained by the external paraphernalia, not that external paraphernalia is against dharma. These things do not indicate the level of spirituality rather are a kind of "dress code" to have a congenial environment. Then Roohani sevadhari said: No causing any kind of injury to living beings is sinful and is the abc of vaishnava doctrine. Sacrifice means giving up something and not the other way round, okay. Bhagavad-Gita 4.42 Srila Prabhupada JSD 6.5 As already quoted: Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.5.32 The only yajna that is recommended in this age is the sankirtana yajna. Also read this: http://www.prabhupadavani.org/web/text/146.html Roohani sevadhari said: I do not "feel" so; just that you didn't read the quotes properly. One should perform the work in accordance with his/her nature which is a particular mixture of the three modes of nature -- sattva, rajas and tama. So there is no question of birth being the criteria. Actually the scriptures say the following: So actually nearly all the humans in this age are sudras and most even below not in the varnashrama system at all. Roohani sevadhari said: This is right. To be more precise, the eternal religion of the soul, the anu-chit, is to render uninterrupted causeless devotional service to the vibhu-chit, Lord Krishna. Then Roohani sevadhari said: This is due to reasons which you shall not understand because of the god you have created in your mind. Oh yeah i forgot, god like Dada Lekhraj will give no?

roohani sevadhari said: Read carefully, i also wrote occupational and other duties. Please give relevant reasoning; i was not talking of "present day Hinduism" but what Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad-Gita. The silly argument given in the original post was that there were no other religions at that time, so this statement in Gita is false or manipulated; it was only a clarification of that. As regards caste system, it is in a degraded state as of now. The original varnashrama system is like occupational duty, but much more than that and is described as follows: So based on the nature of the embodied person in a particular life, by the combination of the modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the varna of the person is determined. If one takes up an occupational duty in accordance with his/her nature and employs that in God's service it will be best, as the Lord says. roohani sevadhari said: Read my previous post. We do not need to please the Lord. What we need to do is engage our minds in Lord 24 hours a day. But how to do that? So the various ceremonies are a means to attract ones mind to the Lord; instead of the useless stuff that we feed to our minds all the time, don't you think it is infinitely better to engage in serving the Lord. Prahlad Maharaj says in Srimad-Bhagavatam (7.5.23-24): Moreover, scriptures clearly say that in kali-yuga the only way, the only dharma is hari sankirtana.

Do a little bit of reading before speaking. The first point is that, in the words of Srila Prabhupada: "You should immediately, who has no reference to the sastra, immediately take him as a rascal number one. This is the conclusion." So all that was given in the original post was nothing more than idle speculation. The second thing is that you have not read the scriptures at all, rather only some bogus persons words and make conclusions from that. As a result you say: All the vedic scriptures say that Lord Krishna was never in the womb of Mother Devaki as a physical body. For example: From Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.2.18 Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.3.7-8 Read chapters 10.1-10.3 of Srimad-Bhagavatam. The Lord does not take birth but appears. Similarly when the hunter shot Lord Krishna in the foot, He ended His lila's and ascended to the spiritual world in that transcendental body. From Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.30-35-45 From Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.31.1-13 Some of today's so called gurus imagine that they are above shastra, or they know better than the shastra. So for such persons Srila Prabhupada has said: "These two things are recommended. Not that fools, as they are thinking, ‘I can..., I can think myself. I don’t agree with the sastra. I don’t agree with the spiritual master. I don’t agree with scriptures. I have got my independent opinion.’ He is fool number one, rascal number one.' (lecture, New York, November 24, 1966)" These are harsh words but are true. The vedic scriptures give the highest knowledge of God and those who imagine they they know better are either speculators, or charlatans. With so many imposters around, the simple test is to check whether the ideas of the person agree with the conclusions of vedic scriptures, or does he/she even attempt to give shastra pramana to justify his/her siddhanta, or do they have a siddhanta at all. If not then the conclusion is given in the quotes of Srila Prabhupada. Srimad-Bhagavatam says about the present times:

Hare Krishna please accept my pranams i would like to make a small enhancement so that others may not misunderstand you said: It means that in the spiritual world the nature of Time is different, i.e. there is only the eternal present and no past/future. From Srila Bhaktivinoda's Jaiva Dharma Chapter 15 Jiva-tattva From Srila Bhaktivinoda's Jaiva Dharma Chapter 14 Sakti-tattva

why do people bother writing about things to which they have no clue, just like pests needlessly throwing out junk using quotes from some "hopkins", "garvey" ... dharma does not mean religion; it means the spiritual practises and occupational and other duties. The Lord Himself gives various kinds of dharma in Gita (e.g. meditation, karma yoga etc) and then asks Arjun to just adopt sharanagati. The rest of the stuff is a really third grade attempt to show Lord Shiva as supreme, and proves one thing -- the Brahmakumari and Adhyatmik Ishwariya Vishwavidyalaya are bogus. I really pity those who actually follow such organizations despite directly seeing their dishonesty. Only reminds of one thing: better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt ...

please accept my pranams Sri Brahma Samhita is actually a very difficult book. Even our tattvacharya Srila Jiva Goswami says "Although the Brahma-samhita is a very difficult book, the commentaries of the sages have made it easy to understand.". You can find Srila Jiva Goswami's commentary here: http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/bmgs/goswamis/writings.htm with translation by Kusakratha Dasa prabhu, which is easier to read. Srila BhaktiSiddhanta Saraswati's commentry is more elaborate, though difficult to understand; in fact i find most of the writings of Srila BhaktiSiddhanta Saraswati difficult to understand -- key is to read again and again.

Dear guest You said: If you would have cared to read the quote before, you would not have jumped and exposed your ignorance. That Parabrahman Sri Hari is the same who expands as infinite Forms of Kshirodakashayi Vishnu and Garbhodakashayi Vishnu in each of the universes. All His Forms are one and the same. If you fail to understand this simple point, you are truly lost.

Hare Krishna You seem to think that advaitists or shaivas or shaktas etc. are all valid paths following vedic teachings. However, none of the accepted acharyas agrees with you; vaishnava acharyas including Sripad Ramanuja, Sripad Madhva, or Vallabhacharya etc. all said that without devotion to Sri Hari there is no possibility of reaching the ultimate goal and that advaitism or shaivism etc. are opposed to vedic conclusions. Similarly advaitins claim that Sri Hari is subject to Maya and devotion works only to a point, beyond which only jnana (in the way they explain Truth) works. Acharyas in both philosophies have engaged in extensive philosophical debates to establish their conclusions, and both sides do not agree with you that both philosophies are (simultaneously) correct vedic dharma. The question here is of what is the vedic dharma in the first place. As you say the reality that presents itself is that all those who follow any interpretation of the vedas call themselves hindu (and even some of those who do not accept vedic scriptures); vaishnavas accept bhagavata dharma as the true vedic dharma and that is what they would identify themselves as. You interpret hindu dharma as synonymous to vedic dharma; others see it differently and the reality is that the word hindu is applied to all whether or not their philosophy actually is vedic -- as i said the opinion of vaishnava acharyas is that advaita/shaiva/... are not vedic and same is the case with others following other philosophical lines. I do not see what you try to say here. The opinion of vaishnava acharyas is that the eternal nature of anu-chit jiva soul is to render devotional service to the vibhu-chit Sri Hari, and that this is the conclusion of Vedic scriptures. Advaitins do not agree with this position, neither do shaivas/shaktas etc. Either vaishnava acharyas are right or else they are not; it is not logical to say that all are right simultaneously. The names of Sri Hari or Shiva are those of distinct personalities; to say that all are Supreme is opposed to logic and vedic scriptures. Consequently if someone claims that all these different groups are following the vedic dharma then it is opposed to the teachings of the respective groups themselves for they hold that the other groups are misrepresenting the vedic scriptures.

Hare Krishna please accept my obeisances The real reason of not being happy is not being situated in the true constitutional position -- when the jiva turns away from the rasadhara there is no rasa and hence suffering. If the world of illusion where the jiva tries to be the lord would have been a place of only comfort then it would have been quite unfortunate because then all the baddha jivas would have remained bereft of attaining true spiritual life for the eternity. The loving parents punish the child to correct him, and though in the short term it appears painful in the long term it is most auspicious and so cannot be truly called suffering. Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur explains in Jaiva-Dharma Chapter 16:

Hare Krishna Guestji, if members of iskcon or some other vaishnavas do not prefer to be identified by the term hindu then why do you object. Therefore one should prefer to be identified as followers of sanatana-dharma or bhagavat-dharma. Different people interpret the Vedic scriptures in different ways ranging from vaishnavas, advaitists, shaivas, shaktas etc. and the differences between them are not small. In the bhagavata dharma, vaishnavism is understood as the nature of soul and thus that is preferred over other designations. The culture of shastrArtha is ancient, very healthy and infinitely superior to blind believing in something which is pleasing. You call it bickering; the alternatives are much worse. haribol

Hare Krishna May i suggest the records of Pandit Jasraj who is a great devotee of Krishna. His albums are of the classical Indian style which not everyone relishes but once one develops some taste then they are truly beautiful; i recently had the fortune of attending a live performance which was quite remarkable.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam Theistji, Somehow i find this question sounding more like an opinion rather than a question. The correct answer to this question of course would be that Srila BhaktiSiddhanta is not a conditioned soul like the rest of us who is subject to illusion or cheating propensities. I find it inconsistent when you immediately accept without questioning Srila Prabhupada's statements which state that Jesus is an empowered jiva but have grave doubts as regards some other statements regarding Jesus; it seems to be a biased way of accepting what appeals. As far as i know none of the other vaishnava acharyas have accepted Jesus as an empowered incarnation, and it is not difficult to find a large number of differences between bhagavata siddhanta and Jesus' words as expressed in Bible (there are similarities but the differences are also quite prominent) e.g. regarding Form(s) of Lord or jiva/maya/cit sakti or hell/satan etc; so questioning that would be more logical. I find it hard to understand as to how you would claim to know the historical Jesus any more than as expressed in Bible or as in the words of Srila Prabhupada/BhaktiSiddhanta. Any other rational explanation would count as speculation. However, i would like to offer the following. Jesus does not express the sentiment of Srila Vasudeva Datta i.e. praying to his Father to give him all the sins of all the living entities and let him suffer for eternity. The words or sentiments of a pure devotee like Srila Vasudeva Datta are as good as Truth. So one can turn the question around and ask how one can claim that Jesus would also be willing to take sins of all the beings when his words give no such hint; in other words their moods are different and pure devotees can compare the moods like what is done for different kinds of rasas. I would agree that this is the spirit of surrender and in some sense the starting point of gaudiya philosophy. However, the point of how to develop the love, to know and execute "Thy will" etc. is covered scantily at best in the words of Jesus as expressed in Bible. Satyaloka is not spiritual world. I do not agree with your judgement that the picture being presented is that of a bound soul working his way upward. In this context it would be useful to remember liberated souls like the four Kumaras who themselves were empowered incarnations (of transcendental knowledge!) or Srila Sukadeva or even Uddhava who "worked their way upward" in some sense. There are many kinds of empowered incarnations mentioned in Bhagavatam 1.13 (particularly 1.13.26/27) for example. A liberated soul does not imply Krishna's associate in Vraja. haribol

He defeated jarasandha 17 times while the eighteenth time (when attacked by kalayavana and then by jarasandha) the two Lords fled the battlefield and established Dvarka in their famous "Ranachora" pastime /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Hare Krishna Your reply was based on the statement: So you should have simply said that this is a wrong understanding and corrected it instead of swearing. However, it is a known fact that muslims celebrate festivals like bakr-id by mass slaughter of innocent animals as an offering to Allah for eating. So the onus is on you to prove that this behaviour is opposed to Quran. On the contrary i have given verses which clearly say that this is fine and falls in the category of good halal food which is a sacrifice to Allah. You said: You are right, the Quran makes no direct mention of this but there is something known as deductions based on scriptural statements. Having soul is such an important truth that if the Quran says that humans have soul, but makes no mention of animals then it will be understood that apart from humans no one has soul and that is the accepted belief of almost all Islamic theologians currently. If you read the currently accepted beliefs of Islamic scholars and leaders then you will find that almost all of them believe that animals have no soul precisely because Quran says humans have soul but animals are not mentioned. How far do we regress your logic here? Do the stones have souls? Do plants or germs have souls? Quran makes no mention of these either. So how do we select and come to conclusions. The natural deduction is that according to Quran animals have no soul. You said: I have heard so elsewhere but am yet to see a verse from any Hadith which substantiates this point, maybe you can bring some here so that we can be clear of just heresay; however the main problem is that most muslims do not accept this interpretation. There are many more, much much more important truths hidden in some of islamic texts which Sri Gaurangadeva revealed regarding the Truth and aim of human life that muslims do not care to know. For instance:From Chaitanya-Charitamrta Madhya 18.185-196 From Jaiva-Dharma Chapter 5 Simultaneously Sri Gauranga did not hesitate to criticize the sinful practises of muslims such as in Chaitanya-Charitamrta Adi 17.153-17.171. So you thoroughly misjudge devotees here, for many have more knowledge of your own scriptures. If you want to know more then read "The Hidden Treasure of Al-Qur'an (as explained by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu)" which must be available from Nararatna Dasa prabhu e.g. here http://www.dipika.org/2003/01/10/muslim.preaching.program/index.html

Hare Krishna Yes one *can* possibly interpret the verses of Quran to show that meat eating is not recommended. However as far as i have read, it does not prohibit it anywhere. If you wish to substantiate your point then you need to produce a verse which says that all meat is forbidden which you cannot, simply because none exists. So if you want to be taken seriously, instead of calling others liers and swearing you should produce verses from Quran to show that a) animals have soul, and b) all kinds meat is forbidden to eat. It will be more than welcome if Quran would say that animals have soul, and meat-eating is sinful. Unfortunately neither the Quran says it (or at least the accepted translations), nor any of the muslims accept either of these two. Rather than arguing here you would do well to argue with muslims if your argument has any backing from Quran. Quran 2:173 So halal meat as per the guidelines is allowed to be eaten. Quran 6:145 Quran 16:115 Then muslims will also use verses like these: Quran 2:168-171 Quran 16:116-117 to emphasize that saying (halal) meat-eating is not good or forbidden (and any other thing not mentioned in Quran) is following satan etc etc. As for animals having soul, remember that unless Quran explicitly says that animals have soul there is no reason to imagine that actually Quran says so using some indirect interpretation. You think you are very clever in having reversed the real statements: a) Quran does not say explicitly that animals have soul, and b) Quran allows for eating meat. If you can present a verse which says that animals have soul then it will be indeed a pleasant surprise which will bolster argument against meat-eating significantly.

All glories to the devotees of the Lord Neither am i remotely qualified; i only try to explain the little i have understood and there must necessarily be errors in my understanding. This discussion is to clarify our own understanding so that we may at least be satisfied with the answers. haribol

Hare Krishna please accept my dandavat pranams This may not be the correct way to put it. The material energy is an intrinsic part of the Lord. It is like saying "why is God Omnipotent?" -- well the answer is that it is His nature. Similarly the jiva souls and the material energy are an intrinsic part of the Absolute Truth, or in other words they are also (part of) Absolute Truth and are eternally true. When we put it more "sweetly" then we say that these are lilamayi attributes of the Lord. That's not an entirely correct description of the gaudiya siddhanta. We have eternally blissful spiritual forms but we have not attained them yet or we have never been in svarupa-siddhi. From Srila Prabhupada's letter to Jagadisa Maharaja in 1970: So here Srila Prabhupada says that the jivas were in a susupti state before becoming involved in material realm. Krsna Book, Chapter 28 So the souls have the first opportunity to associate personally with Krsna. Before that the association of baddha-jivas was as described before with (Krsna as) Mahavishnu since the jivas in the material worlds are coming from Lord Mahavishnu. You said: We suffer because of our past deeds/misdeeds. Initially we made the mistake of choosing material worlds instead of the spiritual world, and despite the Lord trying to attract everyone to Himself by performing various pastimes since time immemorial we have stuck to our guns. Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur answers this question as follows in Jaiva-Dharma Chapter 16: In reply to "If Krishna really loves and cares for us so much, why didn't He create a world for us that had none of these threefold miseries of disease old-age and death?" i would say that the real reason for our suffering is that we are not situated in our true consititutional position. We desired to be independent of the Lord and there is no rasa without the Lord and therefore we suffer. If the Lord had indeed created such a world where there would be no suffering then it would have been most unfortunate because then we would never ever had attained our constitutional position. Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur says the following in Jaiva-Dharma: And finally: If it were not so then we would have remained bereft of true spiritual life for eternity. The parents who love their child punish him to bring to the correct way; if they do not then the child becomes more bezerk and their love only becomes ignorance. As quoted above in the short term it seems painful, but in the long term it is auspicious especially considering that the entire stint in material world is infinitesemal compared to that in spiritual realm. You said: He does present the perfect examples. For this age of confusion, therefore, the pastimes of Lord Chaitanya are the most appropriate when He appears as the universal Guru. As neophytes some may not be able to relate with His pastimes in other avataars quite as well.

If you mean to be honest then be specific. A blanket statement like this only shows your own position which itself can be said to be dogmatic etc. People seem to be fond of throwing around words like "arrrogance", "bigotary", "hypocrisy" etc. for ISKCON without any justifications. Its not just semantics. Saying that a person is hindu really does not tell anything about his philosophical or religious pratises apart from that he/she identifies with a particular group. It is much too loose a term; better word would be vaishnava or sanatana-dharma. The more correct categorization would be those who accept the Vedas and follow the varnashrama dharma meaning the four social and four spiritual orders of life. haribol

Duryodhana tried to kill bhima even as a child; he was envious of pandavas since their childhood. Duryodhana made friends with Karna when he had shown all the feats that Arjuna had, and also challanged Arjuna for a fight. So it can be concluded naturally that Duryodhana did all that after seeing the prowess of Karna. Leaving all that apart he tried to strip his bhabhi before the entire assembly of elders etc. Even today the bhabhi is considered like a mother in many traditional homes in india; by any means he would be considered right there with the greatest scoundrals even by today's standards. I guess one can find virtue in even the greatest criminal.