Raguraman

Hare Krishna, Been a long time. Great picture. I have visions of four armed form of Krishna when I meditate. Keyuravan Makarakundalavaan Kiritee Haaree Hiranmaya-vapur-dhritha sankha-chakrah.Sankha-Chakra - Gadaapaano Dwarakaanilayaachyata // Govinda Pundareekaaksha Raksha Maam saranagatam

Hare Krishna, I remember the teachings of Yudhistra Maharaja from Mahabharath. Karmas done in previous lives are like the seeds we have already sown in the field, while the actions that we perform in this life is like the farmer who plows the field. So the outcome depends on both the seeds sown and the knowledge and work of the farmer.

Hare Krishna, No Vaishnava temples allow any kind of flesh to enter the premises of the temple. Bhagavad Gita: Whosoever offers Me a leaf, a flower, a fruit, or water with devotion; I accept and eat the offering of devotion by the pure-hearted. (9.26) No meat here. Manu Smrithi on meat eating. Please read fully ans try to understand it. Chapter 5: Verse 26 through Verse 56:

Hare Krishna, No Vaishnava temples allow any kind of flesh to enter the premises of the temple. Bhagavad Gita: Whosoever offers Me a leaf, a flower, a fruit, or water with devotion; I accept and eat the offering of devotion by the pure-hearted. (9.26) No meat here. Manu Smrithi on meat eating. Please read fully ans try to understand it. Chapter 5: Verse 26 through Verse 56:

Hare Krishna, It is funny how you christians react irrationally by flooding with verses from bible. I think you have a problem with your faith. To say that Lord Krishna(GOD) will serve a human being(jesus) is blasphemous. You can believe what you want. What happened in Egypt or elsewhere is irrelevant here and do not hope for a moment that such a thing will happen although it strengthens your faith. False religions always have a begining and an end like your bible based religions. Vedas are eternal and teach you the truth not found in bible or other books. Infact Vedas have no author(not even GOD= Krishna). Lord Krishna(GOD) can only be known through Vedas.

Hare Krishna, It is funny how you christians react irrationally by flooding with verses from bible. I think you have a problem with your faith. To say that Lord Krishna(GOD) will serve a human being(jesus) is blasphemous. You can believe what you want. What happened in Egypt or elsewhere is irrelevant here and do not hope for a moment that such a thing will happen although it strengthens your faith. False religions always have a begining and an end like your bible based religions. Vedas are eternal and teach you the truth not found in bible or other books. Infact Vedas have no author(not even GOD= Krishna). Lord Krishna(GOD) can only be known through Vedas.

Hare Krishna, http://66.175.7.224/taratamya_chart.htm CHANDOGYA UPANISHAD gives the taratamya or gradation of the Devas. http://madhva.tripod.com/Upanishad/chand/intro.htmlChapter 7 In this chapter an exposition of Bhumavidya is given. It is declared that the God designated as Satya and Bhuma is supreme and all other deities are inferior to him. To explain this doctrine of Vishnusarvottamatva the hierarchy of deities is described first. This description of Devata Taratamya begins with an interesting dialogue between Narada and Sanatkumara. Narada approaches Sanatkumara for instructions. Sanatkumar asks him to mention whatever he has already studied. Narada narrates what he has already studied. He gives a long list of lores viz. Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda. Atharvana, Ithihasa, Purana, the lore that deals with the manes, mathematics, the lore that deals with the deities, minerology, the original veda, Panchatantra, the lore that the deities can only know, Aranyaka, the lore that deals with the spirit, political science, astronomy, the lore that deals with the serpents and the lore that deals with the people connected with the deities. He confesses that he knows only the word aspects of all these lores but not the meaning viz. the Supreme God conveyed by them. He appeals to Sanatkumar 'Sir, I have heard that one who knows the Supreme God will cross over the sorrow. I am sorrow stricken. Kindly help me to cross over the sorrow.' Sanatkumara tells him that all these lores consists of words that convey the attributes of the Supreme God, meditates upon the Supreme God present in these words i.e Nama, the abhimani deity of Nama i.e, Ushadevi, Santkumara continues to instruct Narada 'Meditate upon the Supreme God present in Vak that is superior to Nama i.e, Ushadevi, meditate upon the Supremem god present Manas i.e Parjanya that is superior to Vak, Samkalpa i.e Mitradeva. Chitta i.e Agni, Dhyana i.e, Varuna, Vijnana i.e, Chandra Bala i.e, Pravaha Vayu, Anna i.e, Aniriddha, Ap i.e, Ahankarikaprana, Tejas i.e , Purandara and kama, Akasa i.e, Umadevi, Smara i.e, Siva, Asa i.e, Bharati and Sarasvati, Prana i.e, Mukhyaprana and Chaturmukhabrahma. Thus, listing the deities in their hierarchical order and instructing Narada to meditate upon the Supreme God present in these, Sanatkumara explains 'Just as the spokes of a chariot wheel are fixed in the hub, similarly, all other deities are dependent upon Mukhyaprana. He functions moved by the Supreme God present in these, Sanatkumara explains 'just as the spokes of a charriot wheel are fixed in the hub, similarly, all other deities are dependent upon Mukhyaprana, He functions, moved by the Supreme God. Mukhyaprana takes the liberated souls to the Supreme God. The Supreme God designated as Satya is the highest. It is the Supreme God Satya who is to be understood. He is Vijnana i.e Jnanasvarupa, he is Mati i.e, the ground of all thinking, he is Sraddha i.e, the ground of faith, he is Kriti i.e, the source of all activity, he is Bhuma i.e, he has infinite attributes and has infinite bliss. He has to be understood as Vijnana, Mati, Sraddha etc, and finally as Bhuma. When one knows the Supreme God designated as Satya, he will not see anything else as independent, will not here and understand anything else as independent, this Supreme God is designated as Bhuma i.e, Gunapurna. When one sees, hears and understands all other. All others abd the world are dependent on him. These are inferior to the Supreme God. The Supreme God who is designated as Bhuma is immortal. All others are mortal. This Supreme God is founded on its own greatness. The Supreme God designated as Bhuma is below, is behind, is in front, to the South, to the North, he is near and he is infinite. His Aniruddha form designated as 'Aham' is present in Jiva, his Vasudeva form designated as Atma is present every where. He who knows him in this way will love him, will have as his master and freely move in all worlds. The liberated Jiva will not suffer from the death, illness or pain. By the pure food of instructions from his Gurum he obtains pure knowledge and firm memory of the God. Sanatkumara revealed the Supreme God to Narada.

Hare Krishna, Thankyou for your informative post. I am reminded of the following verses from Bhagavad Gita. Not that I know GOD, I wonder why people like Guru Nanak, Kabir, who are all quite evolved souls, do not know Lord Krishna truly. Chapter 7: Self-Knowledge and Self-Realisation The Supreme Lord said: O Arjuna, listen how you shall know Me completely without any doubt, with your mind absorbed in Me, taking refuge in Me, and performing yogic practices. (7.01) I shall fully explain to you the Self-knowledge together with Self-realization after knowing that nothing more remains to be known in this world. (7.02) Scarcely one out of thousands of persons strives for perfection of Self-realization. <font color="blue">Scarcely any one of the striving, or even the perfected persons, truly understands Me.</font color> (7.03)

Hare Krishna, Thankyou for your informative post. I am reminded of the following verses from Bhagavad Gita. Not that I know GOD, I wonder why people like Guru Nanak, Kabir, who are all quite evolved souls, do not know Lord Krishna truly. Chapter 7: Self-Knowledge and Self-Realisation The Supreme Lord said: O Arjuna, listen how you shall know Me completely without any doubt, with your mind absorbed in Me, taking refuge in Me, and performing yogic practices. (7.01) I shall fully explain to you the Self-knowledge together with Self-realization after knowing that nothing more remains to be known in this world. (7.02) Scarcely one out of thousands of persons strives for perfection of Self-realization. <font color="blue">Scarcely any one of the striving, or even the perfected persons, truly understands Me.</font color> (7.03)

Hare Krishna, Well then Mahaprabhu and nanak did not agree with each other. My point was according to nanak Krishna was not God. How did Mahaprabhu compromise on tis issue or did any of the Acharyas on Gaudiya Vaishnavism speak on this issue.

Hare Krishna, Well then Mahaprabhu and nanak did not agree with each other. My point was according to nanak Krishna was not God. How did Mahaprabhu compromise on tis issue or did any of the Acharyas on Gaudiya Vaishnavism speak on this issue.

Hare Krishna, I have raed the part where Chaitnaya Mahaprabhu met nanak(founder of sikhism). Sikhism clearly denies Vedas and does not accept Lord Krishna as GOD.Can anyone tell me whether nanak and Mahaprabhu had any debate on this issue. Why was Mahaprabhu not able to convince nanak. I have read somewhere in sri guru granth that Lord Rama and Lord Krishna repented for calling himself as GOD when they died. Now this is a blasphemous statement that SGGS makes and is quite an insult.

Hare Krishna, I have raed the part where Chaitnaya Mahaprabhu met nanak(founder of sikhism). Sikhism clearly denies Vedas and does not accept Lord Krishna as GOD.Can anyone tell me whether nanak and Mahaprabhu had any debate on this issue. Why was Mahaprabhu not able to convince nanak. I have read somewhere in sri guru granth that Lord Rama and Lord Krishna repented for calling himself as GOD when they died. Now this is a blasphemous statement that SGGS makes and is quite an insult.

Hare Krishna, Shastra has to be understood through LOGIC. Otherwise each person can interpret it as he wants it. Any language by itself has to be a logical construction of words. Otherwise we cannot understand each other. Apparently you do not understand what I was trying to say. I have come to this conclusion after having understood the teachings of AchArya Madhva and AchArya RAmAnujA. I have read the ten pricipal upanishads and bhashyas of AchArYa MaDhva. Unless you think something is wrong in my interpretation according to Upanishads your statements are unfounded. By the way I am not talking to Krishna in my heart, but surely He is guiding me through the teachings of HIS great devotees. That is what I meant. Know one thing. There is no such rock. Whatever exists, it's very existence depends on GOD. This is perfectly in accordance with shastra. Know that Prakriti and Purusha are both beginningless; and also know that all manifestations and Gunas arise from the Prakriti. (13.19) There is no nonexistence of the Sat (or Atma) and no existence of the Asat. The reality of these two is indeed certainly seen by the seers of truth. (2.16) Consider the two statements from Bhagavad Gita. [13:19] says that besides GOD both purusa and Prakrithi are eternal. So there are three eternal entities that always exist. 1. GOD 2. Jivas 3. Matter or Prakrithi [2:16] says that SAT never becomes nonexistent and also ASAT never comes into existence. So SAT = What exists eternally ASAT = What does not exist So the rock = ASAT. GOD supports(AdhAra) the other two eternal entities namely Jivas and Prakrithi. Their mere existence depends on GOD. Implies such a rock = ASAT All glories to Srila Prabhupada. As for what our GURU said, its alright. I can understand what he meant. But one should not repeat like a parrot.

Hare Krishna, Shastra has to be understood through LOGIC. Otherwise each person can interpret it as he wants it. Any language by itself has to be a logical construction of words. Otherwise we cannot understand each other. Apparently you do not understand what I was trying to say. I have come to this conclusion after having understood the teachings of AchArya Madhva and AchArya RAmAnujA. I have read the ten pricipal upanishads and bhashyas of AchArYa MaDhva. Unless you think something is wrong in my interpretation according to Upanishads your statements are unfounded. By the way I am not talking to Krishna in my heart, but surely He is guiding me through the teachings of HIS great devotees. That is what I meant. Know one thing. There is no such rock. Whatever exists, it's very existence depends on GOD. This is perfectly in accordance with shastra. Know that Prakriti and Purusha are both beginningless; and also know that all manifestations and Gunas arise from the Prakriti. (13.19) There is no nonexistence of the Sat (or Atma) and no existence of the Asat. The reality of these two is indeed certainly seen by the seers of truth. (2.16) Consider the two statements from Bhagavad Gita. [13:19] says that besides GOD both purusa and Prakrithi are eternal. So there are three eternal entities that always exist. 1. GOD 2. Jivas 3. Matter or Prakrithi [2:16] says that SAT never becomes nonexistent and also ASAT never comes into existence. So SAT = What exists eternally ASAT = What does not exist So the rock = ASAT. GOD supports(AdhAra) the other two eternal entities namely Jivas and Prakrithi. Their mere existence depends on GOD. Implies such a rock = ASAT All glories to Srila Prabhupada. As for what our GURU said, its alright. I can understand what he meant. But one should not repeat like a parrot.

Hare Krishna, On the contrary, I believe in what Upanishads say again. My thoughts originate from Lord Krishna in my heart, who is the SELF as explained in the Upanishads. My logic originates from the blessings and teachings of Lord Krishna's devotees like Acarya Madhva and the great saint Sri Raghavendra Swamy.

Hare Krishna, On the contrary, I believe in what Upanishads say again. My thoughts originate from Lord Krishna in my heart, who is the SELF as explained in the Upanishads. My logic originates from the blessings and teachings of Lord Krishna's devotees like Acarya Madhva and the great saint Sri Raghavendra Swamy.

Hare Krishna, The question apparently may look foolish. One may wonder what good can come out to society or himself by asking such questions. But before going into self-realization one has to understand through intelligence something about GOD. That is why I appreciate such questions from atheists. They dispell some of your false conceptions you have. As for "Can Lord Krishna create a rock he cannot lift" if one answers "yes" or "no" there is a problem of questioning the OMNIPOTENCE of GOD. That is why I try to understand what GOD is ontologically. If somebody asks a scientist "what is outside the universe ?", he would say that UNIVERSE by its very definition includes everything. In a similar fassion there is no such rock as that which GOD cannot move. You may still think that this answer shows some inability on GOD's part. My answer is definitely no. Still GOD is omnipotent because whatever exists, it's very existence is dependent on GOD. There is nothing outside of GOD (physically and in every sense). Please try to understand and meditate on what I am trying to say. Omnipotent means all powerful. Only an independent entity as explained in Upanishads can be omnipotent. Let me rephrase the question ? Can GOD create another GOD(Different from the first GOD) that exists independently like HIMSELF ? The atheists' question has a deeper philosophical problem. The only answer I have found is in UPANISHADS. No other spiritual text is as PERFECT as the UPANISHADS. Your contention that GOD can create a rock that cannot lift and later he will lift has a problem. I cannot understand your answer logically. If GOD lifts the rock then you are saying in effect that GOD cannot create a rock that he cannot lift.

Hare Krishna, The question apparently may look foolish. One may wonder what good can come out to society or himself by asking such questions. But before going into self-realization one has to understand through intelligence something about GOD. That is why I appreciate such questions from atheists. They dispell some of your false conceptions you have. As for "Can Lord Krishna create a rock he cannot lift" if one answers "yes" or "no" there is a problem of questioning the OMNIPOTENCE of GOD. That is why I try to understand what GOD is ontologically. If somebody asks a scientist "what is outside the universe ?", he would say that UNIVERSE by its very definition includes everything. In a similar fassion there is no such rock as that which GOD cannot move. You may still think that this answer shows some inability on GOD's part. My answer is definitely no. Still GOD is omnipotent because whatever exists, it's very existence is dependent on GOD. There is nothing outside of GOD (physically and in every sense). Please try to understand and meditate on what I am trying to say. Omnipotent means all powerful. Only an independent entity as explained in Upanishads can be omnipotent. Let me rephrase the question ? Can GOD create another GOD(Different from the first GOD) that exists independently like HIMSELF ? The atheists' question has a deeper philosophical problem. The only answer I have found is in UPANISHADS. No other spiritual text is as PERFECT as the UPANISHADS. Your contention that GOD can create a rock that cannot lift and later he will lift has a problem. I cannot understand your answer logically. If GOD lifts the rock then you are saying in effect that GOD cannot create a rock that he cannot lift.

Hare Krishna, This is a very good question which atheists ask. The question arises because western people do not know what exactly GOD is ? If one reads Upanishads then it can be explained ontologically. The following points about what is GOD is important. 1. GOD is the only independent entity. 2. Matter, Jivas etc. are entities whose very existence depends on GOD. GOD is the the SELF of all these other entities. It means GOD is AdhAra(support in every sense) of all these other entities. HE pervades all these other entities. 3. Every other entity exists and moves, Jivas live, breathe, think, talk and do every other activity because of this entity called GOD. Even free will(to wish for something) exists because GOD allows it. If the above points are clear then one can understand that there is no such rock that GOD cannot move. There is nothing outside of GOD. Everything exists, moves etc. because of GOD and not vice-versa.

Hare Krishna, This is a very good question which atheists ask. The question arises because western people do not know what exactly GOD is ? If one reads Upanishads then it can be explained ontologically. The following points about what is GOD is important. 1. GOD is the only independent entity. 2. Matter, Jivas etc. are entities whose very existence depends on GOD. GOD is the the SELF of all these other entities. It means GOD is AdhAra(support in every sense) of all these other entities. HE pervades all these other entities. 3. Every other entity exists and moves, Jivas live, breathe, think, talk and do every other activity because of this entity called GOD. Even free will(to wish for something) exists because GOD allows it. If the above points are clear then one can understand that there is no such rock that GOD cannot move. There is nothing outside of GOD. Everything exists, moves etc. because of GOD and not vice-versa.

Hare Krishna, I am not an expert. I am learning a lot of things here. I think the word comes from the root "CHIT" which means consciousness or awareness as in human beings. The meaning of the word "Chaitanya" denotes the source of all consciousness or the Supreme Being. I think the suffix "ya" is generally used in sanskrit to denote the source or one who possesses it or the one(it) from whom(which), it or him/her is born.

Hare Krishna, http://home.attbi.com/~chinnamma/ 58. krsHNah a) One who is always in a state of Bliss (with His sport of creation etc.). b) One who has a dark-blue complexion.. The first interpretation is supported from the following verse in MahAbhArata - krshir-bhU-vAcakah Sabdo NaSca nirvrti vAcakah | vishNus-tad bhAvayogAcca krshNo bhavati SASvatah || (MB Udyogaparva 5.68.5) Approximately translated, this says: krishi means bhU, Na means nirvrtti or happiness and bliss, and BhagavAn is called KrshNa because He is the union of these two. Sri Sankara and Sri Bhattar interpret the name slightly differently with this same starting point. Sri Sankara interprets bhU to mean existence (bhU - bhav - to be), and Sri Bhattar interprets bhU to mean a receptacle or ground or container (e.g., bhUmi). So Sri Bhattar says that krshNa here means the receptacle of extreme joy because of His constant sport of creation etc. referred to in the previous nAma. Sri Sankara interprets the name to mean that He is the union of existence and bliss. The second interpretation also has its support in the MahAbhArata - krshAmi prthivIm pArtha bhUtvA kArshNAyaso halah | krshNo varNaSca me yasmAt tasmAt krshNo'ham arjuna || SAnti parva 342.79 Note the words krshAmi, kArshaNa, and krshNa in the above. Each of these words leads to a new and different interpretation of the meaning of the nAma here. The meaning of the first line in the above sloka is "When the earth becomes shelled by its hard crust, I shall turn myself into an iron plough-share (black-colored), and shall plough the earth." The name krshNa can arise out of the fact that He is doing the act denoted by the word "krshAmi". Sri Chinmaya beautifully points out that this "ploughing" refers to His ploughing all the stupidities in His devotees and preparing the heart-field, weeding out all the poisonous growth of sin, and cultivating therein pure Bliss. The second part of the verse means "O Arjuna! Because of my dark complexion, I am called KrshNa". The dark complexion referred to above could be because He is the (dark colored) iron plough, or because He is dark complexioned like the water-bearing cloud. Either way, because of His dark complexion, He is called krshNa. Notice that the dark complexion is associated with "kAr mugil vaNNan" or "nIla megha syAmalan" - One who has the color of the rain cloud loaded with His limitless mercy. Sri Chinmaya points out that the inner meaning behind the "dark" complexion is that BhagavAn is not easily recognized (i.e., He is veiled behind some darkness) by those who aspire to reach Him except through single-minded devotion. The nAma krshNa can also be interpreted in terms of the word "AkarshaNa" or magnetic attraction. He is krshNa because He irresistibly attracts all His devotees. Or He sweeps away (like a magnet drawing away the iron filings) the sins in the hearts of those who meditate upon Him. This nAma occurs once more later as nAma 554 in "vedAh svAngo'jitah krshNo.....". Sri Bhattar gives the meaning b) for nAma 554, and gives the first explanation for the current nAma describing the paravAsudeva form. 554. kRshNah a) One who is always in a state of Bliss (with His sport of creation etc.). b) The Dark-hued. c) He who irresistibly attracts His devotees to Him through His infinite kalyANa guNa-s. d) He who cultivates the Earth like a plough and makes it suitable for life forms to form and nourish. e) He who appeared as veda vyAsa or kRshNa dvaipAyana. f) He who cultivates the minds of devotees by providing the veda-s in His incarnation as kRshNa dvaipAyana. g) The Dark, Mysterious, and Unknowable except by deep devotion. This nAma occurred earlier as nAma 58. Please refer to the detailed interpretation provided there as well. The first four interpretations were covered there. Some additional details are provided here. In support of interpretation (a), SrI v.v. rAmAnujan observes that unlike in rAma incarnation where bhagavAn went through enormous difficulties - nATTil piRandu paDAdana paTTu - nammAzhvAr tiruvAimozhi 7.5.2, in kRshNa incarnation it was "inbuRum iv-viLaiyATTuDaiyAnaip peRRu (tiruvAimozhi 3.10.7)", "kanRinai vAlOlai kaTTi (periAzhvAr tirumozhi 2.4.8)", etc. Another anubhavam of SrI v.v. rAmAnujan is that bhagavAn is laughing at us mockingly, seeing that we are not putting to good use the hands and legs and all the indriya-s He gave us to help us attain Him, but instead we are misusing these and getting into the cycle of birth and rebirth. Under the current nAma, SrI ParASara BhaTTar gives one more of his anubhava-s of this nAma, and indicates that the Suddha sattva material which His body is made of has a fascinating complexion dark like the blue cloud. One of the grammar rules (uNAdi sutra 3.4) states that when the root kRsh - to plough is followed by affix nak, it means one of the colors - kRsher varNe. It is interesting to note that one name for grapes is kRshNA because of this connotation of color. So also, iron is called kRshNA because of its black color. This latter meaning is used to explain the significance of bhagavAn's nAma as kRshNa in mahAbhArata SAnti parva 143.49 - kRshAmi medinIm pArtha! bhUtvA kRshNAyaso mahAn| kRshNo varNaSca me yasmAt tena kRshNoham arjuna|| This is a slight variation of the Sloka also quoted from mahAbhArata under the explanation given under nAma 58. The two Sloka-s are too similar to each other to suggest that these are variants of the same reference. I do not have the original version of mahAbhArata to check the authenticity of the references. In support of interpretation (b), SrI v.v. rAmAnujan gives references to the following: kaNNan enum karum daivam (nAcciyAr tirumozhi 3.1), kariyAn oru kALai (tirumozhi 3.7.), etc. SrI kRshNa datta bhAradvAj gives the following explanation along the lines of interpretation ©: karshati bhagavAn AtmAnam prati vayovarNa rUpaa lAvaNya madhurI rasotkarsheNa iti kRshNah, or kRshate AtmAnam prati bhaktAn sa-soundaryeNa iti kRshNah, based on (kRsha vilekhanam AkarshNam ca). SrI satyadevo vAsishTha and others also support this interpretation along with the other two. SrI Sa'nkara interprets this instance of the nAma of kRshNah as referring to veda vyAsa (e), who is none other than an incarnation of bhagavaAn according to SrI vishNupurANa - kRshNadvaipAyanam vyAsam viddhi nArAyaNam prabhum | ko hyanayh puNDarIkAkshAn mahAbhAratakRt bhavet (VP 3.4.5). The dharma cakram writer uses the concept of bhagavAn being like a plough (the basis of interpretation d), combines this with SrI Sa'nkara's interpretation (e), and offers a new interpretation (f). His anubhavam is that in the form of veda vyAsa, bhagavAn cultivates the minds of people by providing to us the veda-s, and so vyAsa, who is none other than nArAyaNa, is referred to by the nAma kRshNa here. SrI cinmayAnanda uses the meaning "dark" for the word kRshNa, and suggests that this nAma of bhagavAn signifies the "unknown factor" that expresses through us - whose manifestations are all our physical, mental, and intellectual capabilities. Except by deep and sincere devotion, He cannot be comprehended, and so He is kRshNah - Dark and Mysterious.

Hare Krishna, House of Lords Considers Proposals to Change Blasphemy Law Religion News Service LONDON, ENGLAND, June 10, 2003: Any attempt to change the current law on blasphemy to provide protection for all religions "is likely to run into profound controversy," according to the chairman of a House of Lords committee studying the issue. The present law on blasphemy protects only the Church of England. Laws on race relations have the effect of protecting Jews and Sikhs from incitement to religious hatred but not other religious groups because they are not seen as having a common ethnic origin. Britain's Muslim community -- which makes up three percent of the population -- "feels itself the least protected from hatred and most exposed to hostile attack, both verbal and physical," the committee said in its report. "The diversity of the United Kingdom's population now makes it imperative that, if there is to be legal protection for faiths, it must embrace all faiths," the committee stated. But, while the 12-member committee believed there should be "a degree of protection of faith," there was no consensus on the precise form such protection might take.

All Vedas were saved by mainly three traditions of South India, namely Advaita, Visitadvaita and dvaita schools of Vedanta. All three schools preserved the bhashyas written by their acharyas and is passed on even today through disciplinic tradition back from 7th century AD starting with acharya Adi Sankara. Do you think all these were also wrong. I have not seen in one school 11th book in Rig Veda or 8th book in Yajur Veda. Whatever recension you are speaking about may be created by the authors alleging Akbar to have created. Unless one knows what their research is it is futility on your part to put some absurd speculations out here.