karthik_v

Not only in India, but everywhere else in the world Catholicism is based on dogma. It has always been so. The only occasion when they rebelled, albeit subtly, was in the late 1920s and early 1930s, when the German Catholic church desperately tried to breakaway from the scheming Cardinal Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII, who then virtually ran the Vatican. Vatican colloborated with Hitler, helped him destroy the German Catholic church first and then the protestants, both of whom resisted the Nazi and ultimately signed the Concordat of 1933. On the earlier occasion, those who rebelled against the Vatican, albeit for reasons not related to reforms, ceased to be Catholics. The world knows their descendents by the name Protestants. That has always been the case with the church. For example, if you are a Filipino Christian, your marriage is valid only when a representative of the Vatican approves it. It is a common sight to see a Filipino in the USA getting married to a girl in his country, but can't bring her right away, as the marriage certificate takes a few months to arrive. Such a tight control on every aspect of your life is what the church has always sought and often got. In that stifling atmosphere of distrust, fear and secrecy, the Vatican colloborates with the mafia, launders their money and starts insurgency all over, as they are doing in the NE of India. Strangely, people believe believe that it is a religion. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Neither back, nor oppose. Religion has little to do with science. Metaphysics begins where Physics ends [figuratively speaking]. A Hindu priest dabbling with everything from Algebra to Zoroastrianism is setting a bad precedent, the one we are familiar with as from the case of the Vatican. Behind the facade of all PR campaign, that is the truth.

That is true.

Has any of those western scholars even demonstrated on one instance where the assessment of Elst is biased and contrary to the data on which he is basing them? If mere assertion would do, then you can taint anybody. But scholarship requires an objective presentation. In fact, Dr. Elst has shown, with incontrovertible evidences, that western academics like Harvard's Michael Witzel bluff outright [please refer to his intentional misleading translation of Baudhayana Srauta Sutra to fit his theories and the subsequent death knell sounded by Prof Geoge Cardona and Dr. Kalyanaraman] and none of the mainstream western academics, barring Cardona [even he was hesitant to come out openly], had the integrity or courage to admit that Witzel was wrong and biased, even after it was proven so. So, what makes their mere assertions and judgements superior? Islam has nothing to do with the Bhakti movement per se. Bhakti movement originated in the Tamil country and its seeds were sown during the Sangam days of Paripadal collections. Bhakti had spread to the north even before the first Muslim invasion of the Sindh took place. And any internal organic growth in the Bhakti tradition happened in the South before it came under the Muslim rule. Islam can take little credit for any positive aspect in the Bhakti tradition. Could you eloborate on this statement? I really don't understand as to how a religion like Christianity or Islam with little philosophical basis can make the philosophy rich, logic oriented, anologically inclined vedantic tradition to "copout". You make it sound as if these Semitic religions ever engaged Hinduism in a philosophical debate. Au contraire, the only way they spread was through sword and dogma, for they never had reached the intellectual heights of Hinduism or Buddhism. Nor am I, but I am pragmatic. Hinduism is not an organized religion. It is the way of life that respects pluralism. When faced with hostile, dogmatic and highly organised semitic religions, and coupled with the fact that Indian economy is no match to the western coffers, the Hindus need some kind of organization that would resist the aforementioned entities. So, for me, Thackeray stays on for now. In my ideal world, there shall be no Thackeray or VHP or RSS, but there shall be no Vatican, Teresa, Southern Baptists, Wahhabi etc., as they are a million times more pernicious - and deceptive. If Thackeray is the dog with which I chase out the missionary thiefs, so be it. Just that I would put him back in his kennel when it dawns. Thanks for the reference. If he lived in the first place. Because that faction has been and is pre-dominant. Further my criticism of Christianity is based only on the "Bible" as available to us [that is mutilated and parts burnt out after 325 CE]. Which is very true and I cannot disagree with you on this. Yet, it is my observation that most of the people can't think. They are products of propaganda. Such a propaganda needs a counter. When a missionary in his cossack comes dancing around ridiculing Hinduism and talks of the great miracles of Jesus, a speed-breaker would be to say: "Oh yeah, all you say is right. And the entire validity of Christianity depends on the claim that Jesus the persona did exist historically. But, then history bears no evidence to it and the accounts by his 4 primary disciples contradict each other, rendering the whole story false. So buddy, can you prove with some credibility that Jesus existed [with better credibility than the Shroud of Turin], before we dump our religion for yours? You see, Hinduism doesn't depend on the historic existence of Rama, Krishna or Siva for its survival, unlike Christianity.". I have seen this work wonders. The crowd, if Hindu beaming with a smile and if Christian, starting to murmur "Is it true? Is there no evidence that Jesus existed? Is it all fabrication? Is it true that the worship of Mary has no basis in the Bible?" and the missionary turn red in his face and lose composure. On those moments, I have intuitively known that I have saved a few Hindus from conversion, rendered that missionary ineffective atleast for a while and sown the seeds of agnosticism in the minds of the followers of Christianity. I always distinguish between what I produce for the niche market and what I produce for the masses.

About 1000 people regularly attend Sunday programs. I doubt they can finance 100% internally, unless some rich industrialist donates.

Jagatji, of my many shortcomings, dogma isn't one.

Dr. Elst is not known for such. If there is a conflict, the blame must rest entirely on the Christians, who have for centuries abused Hinduism and continue to do so. It is to the credit of the Hindus that they don't critically analyse Christian theology and expose it for what it is worth, which is nothing, though I see no reason why not. In fact, I am drafting a thorough text on the myth of Jesus and how what is known as Christianity is indeed a masala mix from myriad sources, often tribalistic in nature. Hindus should cease to be on the defensive and instead give a taste of their own medicine to the Christians. Between those two statements lies the answer. He apologized to the indegenous native Americans because they are virtually extinct and pose no threat to the Vatican. We must remember that even in 2000, this Pope didn't tender a specific apology to the Jews for the holocaust crimes of the Vatican. He just spoke in very general terms about the past excesses of the church. He simply refused to apologize for the inquisition of Goa. In fact, Vatican belligerently declared that there is no need for regretting the so called past crimes, during his visit to India. When Arch Bishop Arulappa, during his debate with David Frawley, admitted that he is not convinced that Christianity is the only way to salvation and agreed that Bhagavad Gita too can hold the light, he was chastised by the Vatican. This was in 2000 again. There is no change in the mindset of the church establishment. Their half hearted charades are only a reaction to two outcomes. One, there is a growing resentment against Christianity and the church as the facts about their crimes are becoming public. Two, more and more westerners are deserting Christianity and Vatican is desperate to project itself as liberal. I am saddened to see an academic make such remarks. Can he quote even 1 incidence of any violence by Hindu nationalists against Christian civilians? Why is that Christian academics are extremely diplomatic when it comes to the glaring crimes of the church, but spare no oppurtunity to exaggerate the so called crimes of the Hindus? Till date, the Christian missions are hostile towards the Hindus and are abusive of Hinduism. they are always scheming one way or the other to invent myths to evangelise India. Let me quote two examples: One, the much hyped up, but thoroughly proven as fake, miracle of Mother the money launderer Teresa. Two, the recent pathetic attempt by the Vatican to nominate a Polish missionary for the Nobel peace prize. Thank God, he didn't win it. Had he, then that propaganda would have aided the church for another 5 decades in converting poor Hindus. Have you visited and lived amidst the Harijans and tribals? I have. I was, in fact, raised in their midst. I can tell you that they consider themselves Hindus. Every violence against the missionaries, though only handful in number, has been carried out by the tribals themselves who got agitated that the missionaries are luring their brethren away from their Hindu roots. Before the tribals were classified as animists, many British authorities themselves admitted that there is nothing in their practises that distinguishes them from the Hindus. If you can access the Linguistic Survey of India from the end of 1880s you can see all that. Please read the book I suggested. It provides similar statistics for Bengal, Punjab, Kerala, Andhra and Karnataka. The scenario is ditto the same. In fact, Tamilnadu has been the most conservative. And the myth of evil Brahmins scheming against the lower castes was invented by the Baptists, of course with British funding, in the same period, as they openly acknowledged that until such a division is introduced, any conversion of the Hindus to Christianity is impossible. I have often challenged many academics who propagate such myths to produce atleast one historically documented case of violence/oppression committed by the Brahmins against the so called lower castes in Tamilnadu. They just flinch away [of course, after calling me a Hindutva propagandist, whom they wouldn't want to deal with /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ]. Since you are familiar with the Bhakti movement, please allow me quote a relevant fact. Historically speaking the Bhakti movement started in Tamilnadu around the 5th century CE and then spread northwards. For the Vaishnavas, the holiest works are the Naalaayira Divya Prabhantham composed by the 12 Azhwars, of whom only 2 were Brahmins and the rest from the so called lower castes, including the Harijan community. In fact, one of the 3 of the earliest trinity among them, Thirumazhisai Azhwar, was a Harijan and says so in his own hymns. Likewise for the Shaiva Bhakti, the basis is the contemporary [to the Azhwars] works of the 63 Nayanmars of whom only 16 were Brahmins. Now, if the Harijans could compose hymns and if they were recited by the Brahmins, then there can be little justification in the claim that they were historically denied their rights. Such a denial, as I pointed out, arose from the oppressive regimes of the Muslims and the European Christians. It had its basis in economics and foreign colonialism and not in Hinduism. True, some of those abnoxious practices found their way into the smritis, but as I have argued before, it is easy to see that they are later day interpolation. Further, such books were never the law under any Hindu king.

Christianity and liberalism are like oil and water. Christianity begins with dogma and after one traverses the entire path, it ends in dogma.

Colonial scholars always portrayed Ram Mohan Roy because that suited them. Before Vivekananda, Swami Dayananda Saraswati had started the reform movement. He even converted mlecchas back to Hinduism through shuddhi. There were several evil practices like sati, which had crept into the Hindu society, but the eradication of the same had little to do with the Christians. If any, the Christians were keen on preserving the archaic laws of Hinduism, such as Manusmriti, which had never been in vogue, and even making them the law as Jones did. Further, stringent attacks on casteism and mundane worship can be traced back to almost 2000 years, when the Shaivite saint Tirumuular wrote scathingly about them. He had not met one Christian in his life, unless Jesus was moving around in Tamilnadu as a ghost. Unfortunately, many have come to measure Hinduism through the interpolations, much of which happened in the medieval era and specifically in Sanskrit literature. Above all, evil practices like untouchability and casteism have little religious sanction. They are an outcome of terrible land ownership and taxation policies like the zamindaari system which destroyed Indian lives. These were introduced by the Moslems and perfected by the Christian Europeans. With scarce resources and a ruthless ruler, the Hindus started preying on each other. How many Christians would agree if I say that the African Americans practice marginalism [because they have always been the marginalised elements of the society] and not Christianity? How many would agree that no non-Jew could have ever been a Christian, because Jesus was a racist and called the gentiles dogs? Even though these are facts, for the sake of being politically correct, nobody says so. How come calling the tribals animists okay, when it is not true? Perhaps, this is the myth the p-sec press of India is trying to create. In the recent Gujarat riots, the Muslims were lynched not by the upper caste Hindus, but by the Harijans. So much for their not feeling Hindu. The entire leadership of RSS in Tamilnadu comprises of a Harijan as its head and many lower castes as its main office bearers. This in a state that had 8 decades of anti Hindu propaganda. So much for their feeling of marginalization. I would request you to read the book "A beutiful tree" by the Gandhian historian Dharampal. It provides statistics, collected by the missionaries and the British in 1821, that clearly shows that the Harijans were not excluded from educational institutions in Tamilnadu even at such a later date. Gandhi also said that he listened to the missionaries without aversion but without getting convinced. He had many more scathing words for them and wanted conversion to be banned as he considered it an affront on a civilized society by barbarians. Why should we find an excuse for the insult the rascal Pope heaped on India?

Of course, it is debateable if Christianity has been around for 2000 years in its present form. The Bible comes into being only during the Council of Nicea - that is 325 CE. On the other hand, if we were to argue that Christianity is as old as every source from which it draws, for nothing is original in it, then it becomes as old as the Gilgamesh legend. For an impartial reader, it is a mixture that drew from all sources and evolved over time. If a mere statement is also proof thereof, then I have nothing more to say. If not, you have to show that Christian literature dwarfs Hindu works, qualitatively and quantitatively. Interestingly, much of the Christian literature hailed by the people has been an outcome of Greek thought or Indic thought that went westward through the Arabs and Turks. What would that mean? Even assuming every ISKCON devotee does so, which itself is not true, how does it taint every Hindu? In case somebody thinks that Christianity accepted the heliocentric model way back, please think twice. Vatican's acknowledgement didn't come until 1983. That is long after every sane scientist was persecuted for disproving the babblings in the Bible. In contrast, those who think that the Hindus haven't yet come to terms with science would do well to read Aryabhatiyam, written in the 4th century CE. Or a host of other treatises that were written before the Moslems invaded. That was long, long before the church theologians were warning their faithful that the ship would fall off the horizon, because the earth is FLAT. I would have believed so, but for all that money involved. Missionary game is smart business and has little spiritual basis. Those missionaries who don't convert en masse face the brunt of the church. I am skeptical it is their right. Any right is reciprocal. Most western countries, including France, ban all Hindu sects, on one pretext or the other. Why should India allow a missionary from Italy or France to come home and convert when their governments won't allow an Indian Hindu or a Buddhist the same? That is not true. I would agree if it is about an individual who changes faith after studying it. But, most Christian converts in India are poor tribals induced by force and chicanery. In a country where 40% are below poverty line, you can always find gullible. Such conversions happen en masse. Those who convert haven't done so, because they have found something inadequate in their own religion, but because of inducements form the missionaries. FYKI, nobody ill treats a tribal, who often live in their own tribal areas where hardly any outsider ventures.

Jagat, To Indianise means to internalize Indian traditions and to have respect for the same. The Syrian Christians who dressed and prayed to Jesus just like the Hindus did to their Gods had truly Indianised. The church today is NOT Indianising. You cannot Indianise by abusing Hinduism, by building huge churches blocking the way to the ancient temples, by opening slaughter houses in front of them and by revolting against Indian values and by showing scant regard for Indian sensibilities. The shadow of my left foot, the current Pope visited India 2 years ago. He was taken by the government to Gandhi samadhi on a tour. They have a guest book, which the dignitaries sign. Do you know what this senile lunatic wrote there? He wrote: Have you ever heard of any other dignitary disrespecting his amiable hosts in such a brazen manner? Oh, yes, he didn't kiss the soil of India upon getting off his plane. An act he always performs and which he promptly performed for full 2 minutes upon entering the cathedral in Delhi. So much for that rascal's regard for India. If I am a lecherous fellow who is only after your daughter, who has no regard whatsoever for your culture and the values that you cherish, will you have a dialogue with me just because I picked up 3 sentences in your language? Won't you just kick me out instead? If the Christians are really keen on Indianising themselves, let them first revoke the ecumenical order that proscribes all "heathen" practices including yoga and Indian dress.

Jagat, Dialogue can arise only if both the parties are interested. Christians are NOT. Just 2 years ago, when the Pope visited India, he refused to use the word Hindu or to accept it as a bonafide path to realization. Instead he called for the evangelization of India. He would never have the guts to do so in Israel or in any Islamic country. Hindus have never been exclusive. They have always embraced everyone - even the weakest - and allowed them ultimate freedom to practice their religion in India. The Jews have been around for almost 2 millennia in Cochin in India and though a minority they have been acccorded the most freedom. The Christians have been around ever since the Syrians came to Kerala around the 5th century CE and the Hindus welcomed them. Hell, we even welcomed the Sufi spies who set up watch towers paving way for the Muslim onslaught. We haven't kicked out any ofthem, not even the ambling cossacks, though they deserve to be. But when someone comes with the intention of destroying my culture, there is little room for dialogue. Did anyone suggest that the Jews should have had a dialogue with the SS officer on their way to Auschwitz? How can we have dialogue with the lumpen element [the current Pope] who canonised Pius XII, who was instrumental for the ascension of Hitler and who secured safe passage for the Nazis to South America and South Africa once the war was over? Christianity orginally targetted only Brahmins. Even till date, the Tamil Bible is called veda makam. Before the ecumenical council of the 15th century banned ethnic practices, Syrian Christians were very much Indianised. There was no cossack dancing on the streets. During the 20th century, the church in India Anglicised itself, though the process started with that gangster they call St. Xavier. It invented the Dravidian-Aryan divide and targetted the Dravidians and tribals for conversion. It is no wonder that the bulk of the Christian population in India is in Kerala, Tamilnadu, Goa and NE. Now, they want to evangelize the whole India and realize that they have to appear attractive to the Aryan north Indians too. Hence this Sanskritization gimmick, which they had after all abandoned for 100 years while busily chasing the south Indians. I am yet to know of a Vaishnava organization that has deployed billions of dollars, exclusive TV channels, media blitz and government subsidy and funding for converting others. In case you are aware, kindly let me know. also, if you are aware of any Vaishnava organization that burnt the natives by hanging them upside down or that which ordered the soldiers to "take" the local women, please let me know. The church, under Saint my left foot Xavier did all this during Goan inquisition. Not accurate. There were no outcastes until Hieun Tsang and Fahien came and went. They are not even mentioned by Al Beruni [10th century CE], though he talks of rigid caste system taking roots. If the Hindus had been intolerant towards other faiths, how do you think the Parsis, Jews, Christians etc., practised their faith in India long before the European colonisers came? If we are getting assertive and suspicious today, it is due to betrayal of faith. It is not we who have to change. It is the Pope who has to - first by apologizing for the atrocities committed by Saint my left foot Xavier. Animism was a term invented by the British in the 19th century. Whichever non-Hindu tribal faith existed in the distant past, exists today. And several tribal faiths are very much Hindu. What a Hindu calls Lord Shiva, the tribals call Sudalai Maadasaamy and what a caste Hindu calls Mahavishnu, the Sangam Tamil tribals of the kurinji thinai or the hills called Maayoan. Another myth. Caste reforms have not been brought about as a reaction to Christianity. Church in India is the most casteist. Despite the fact that the Harijans make the bulk of their followers, virtually all the priests are high caste converts. Even recently, a big controversy broke out when Arch Bishop Arulappa, a high caste Vellaalar Christian, retired and was replaced by a Harijan. They even have seperate churches for Harijans. And above all, in the period you are mentioning, they only targetted the upper castes and Brahmins to be precise. When they converted the Brahmins of Trichy by offering them free education in St. Joseph's college, they were allowed to maintain their Brahmin practices, as an inducement. Check out any matrimonial advertisement for Christians. They all say Vellaala, Nadar, Syrian Catholic etc.. Caste is very rigid in Indian Christianity. So, the claim that the Hindus reformed as a reaction to that religion is untenable. A thousand years before the Europeans came in, Ramanujacarya paved way for the temple entry of the Harijans.

Shiva, While I agree that there are several unexplained components in the Big Bang theory, such as the missing mass, it is not correct that it stands discredited. It is still a viable model and the most pursued one. I am also very skeptical of ascribing conspiracy theory to everything. If Stephen Hawking changes his stance, on the strength of new evidences, do you think his career would be at stake? The Creation hymns of the Rk veda describe creation of the universe in very much the same way the Big Bang postulating physicists understand today. There is hardly any need for a Hindu to oppose Big bang on religious grounds. A believer's faith doesn't get shaken just because the Big bang theory is proven to be correct, for his faith isn't dependent on empirical evidences. A believer can very well argue that Big bang at best only explains the process of material creation, which itself should have received a spiritual impetus. So, for him, Vishnu as the Supreme creator is still relevant. I am not discouraging you from posting such thoughts which aren't mainstream. Actually, scientific thinking demands that we evaluate every thought without affiliations. I haven't yet gone through the links you have provided, though.

Shiva, While I agree that there are several unexplained components in the Big Bang theory, such as the missing mass, it is not correct that it stands discredited. It is still a viable model and the most pursued one. I am also very skeptical of ascribing conspiracy theory to everything. If Stephen Hawking changes his stance, on the strength of new evidences, do you think his career would be at stake? The Creation hymns of the Rk veda describe creation of the universe in very much the same way the Big Bang postulating physicists understand today. There is hardly any need for a Hindu to oppose Big bang on religious grounds. A believer's faith doesn't get shaken just because the Big bang theory is proven to be correct, for his faith isn't dependent on empirical evidences. A believer can very well argue that Big bang at best only explains the process of material creation, which itself should have received a spiritual impetus. So, for him, Vishnu as the Supreme creator is still relevant. I am not discouraging you from posting such thoughts which aren't mainstream. Actually, scientific thinking demands that we evaluate every thought without affiliations. I haven't yet gone through the links you have provided, though.

R K Prasad, Fortunately, now we have several distinguished archeologists like S R Rao, Nagaswamy, Bisht and B B Lal who are dedicated experts. Unfortunately, they don't have sufficient funding, which the Marxist combine has. S R Rao had lamented that they often don't even have the basic diving gear for conducting under water surveys. If the Hindus can pool in funds and help set up infrastructure, then the truth would emerge.

R K Prasad, Fortunately, now we have several distinguished archeologists like S R Rao, Nagaswamy, Bisht and B B Lal who are dedicated experts. Unfortunately, they don't have sufficient funding, which the Marxist combine has. S R Rao had lamented that they often don't even have the basic diving gear for conducting under water surveys. If the Hindus can pool in funds and help set up infrastructure, then the truth would emerge.

R K Prasad, Nice posts. While we can't be sure that the bridge and the submerged site in question belong to Lord Rama and Lord Krishna respectively, it certainly proves that civilizations of great antiquity existed in India. Not much is known about the bridge, but there are several man made structures found in the submerged Dvaraka, a site that is 9,000 years old. This in itself should demolish the common myth that civilization in India is just 5000 years old. I would be a little cautious about declaring that submerged city as the capital of Krishna. This is for 2 reasons: First, we should let all the facts emerge, so that the truth is known. Second, there are several anti-Hindu forces, who would gleefully attack us, if it turns out to be otherwise. In any case it disproves the commonly held academic point of view about the age of our civilization. And a revision of our history is due.

R K Prasad, Nice posts. While we can't be sure that the bridge and the submerged site in question belong to Lord Rama and Lord Krishna respectively, it certainly proves that civilizations of great antiquity existed in India. Not much is known about the bridge, but there are several man made structures found in the submerged Dvaraka, a site that is 9,000 years old. This in itself should demolish the common myth that civilization in India is just 5000 years old. I would be a little cautious about declaring that submerged city as the capital of Krishna. This is for 2 reasons: First, we should let all the facts emerge, so that the truth is known. Second, there are several anti-Hindu forces, who would gleefully attack us, if it turns out to be otherwise. In any case it disproves the commonly held academic point of view about the age of our civilization. And a revision of our history is due.

It is very nice to hear that you have developed such a liking for Krishna. Since you have mentioned that your parents don't want you to be overly spiritual, I would suggest that you don't sound like a rebel - that is ALWAYS counterproductive. Pursue your reading of scriptures, practice of bhakti etc., on the one hand while being caring towards your parents on the other. Please don't forget that your parents, like most of us, are conditioned. It is not to your advantage or theirs, to agitate them unnecessarily due to your initial over zealous behaviour. Also, don't force them to follow your ways. If you are very loving towards them and after a while if they realize that you are actually a wonderful and responsible child [which they will when they see so many kids dumping their parents in an old age home], they will in fact follow Krishna consciousness, they way you ask them to do. This may take some time, perhaps a few years, but then it will be permanent. What is a few years anyway in the repeated cycles of birth and death? You don't have to become a renunciate to become a devotee of Krishna. Many great devotees of Him, such as Meera, Srila Prabhupad, to name a few, have been married too. What is needed is that you develoop genuine bondage towards Him - and do so naturally, without forcing yourself into any blind dogma. Perhaps, the best way would be to start chanting, reading the many books of Srila Prabhupad, while you still lead a normal life. I don't know how you can find a guru, but if you surrender to Krishna, He sends the guru your way - you don't have to search for one.

This is very good news. Especially the fact that the government is supportive of spiritualism. Recently, the government of Jayalalitha announced anna dhan [free food distribution] at the Sri Rangam temple. Perhaps, ISKCON should also contact them for the same. I think J N Das, who has served the poorest of the poor in Orissa, Karnataka and earlier in Tamilnadu, often times while starving himself [and without informing anyone about that], should also contact Tamilnadu government and see if they can support such a scheme which he could initiate in Tamilnadu. ISKCON, as well as the other independent organizations started by ISKCON devotees, does a tremendous work in distributing free food [ prasadam ] to the poorest people, *WITHOUT* indoctrinating and inducing anyone to convert. Often times, what they lack is organizational and PR skills. Mostly, they raise funds by themselves, which are meagre, and render a great service. This applies to J N Das also. Yet, if they can take the help of a government that is sympathetic towards Hindu cause, this will only increase the scope of their service manifold. ISKCON has a tremendous advantage due to another reason. An ISKCON temple is the epitome of social equality. That is the only place where you can see a Harijan perform puja or deliver a lecture on BG, while a Brahmin may be cleaning the toilet and getting initiated by him. Often times, I have criticised ISKCON for being dogmatic on a few issues. But, when it comes to putting into practice what they preach, none can compare with them. Srila Prabhupad said that one's varna is by guna alone and ISKCON implements it with its heart and soul. In a country like India, where millions of Harijans have been battered for centuries, due to such practices as untouchability, ISKCON brings in fresh air. What else can be more appealing to the people and the government than the fact that a hitherto untouchable person is now the priest in the temple? And that is an excellent way of empowering those poor souls that this indeed is their religion. After all, many of the great pioneers of the bhakti movement have been from the so-called outcaste community or lower castes.

Thought I always did! Was I hallucinating? Could it be the result of maaya? Or association with maayavadis?

Theist prabhuji, Gosh! What have you said? How can we accept diversity? Don't you know that there is only one path - the path? Thank God, there is no fatwa in ISKCON. Nevertheless, please delete that post. PS: This was written in lighter vein /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Don't issue any fatwa please!!!

Jivaa, who still perceives duality.

If SP referred to that bogus crowd alone, not everyone though, which hangs around in Rshikesh, then this is a justifiable criticism. I have seen so many of those characters smoking ganja, fleecing money from unsuspecting pilgrims, running an ayurveda mafia etc.. The same would be the case with several sadhus of Varanasi. Having said this, I must add that this applies to Vrindavan too, just that they come in the shape of Pandas and Babas [not everyone though].

This is a good question.

Dear Somesh prabhuji, If someone feels discontent, then as per Advaita, he is not yet realized.