Ganeshprasad
-
Content Count
922 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ganeshprasad
-
-
Pranam
Where is the edit features gone? i can not edit my post any help?
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
Not at all. There really is nothing for me to hide. I assume you're one of those people confused about Lord Visnu and Lord Siva's actual position.
Not at all.
Well let me tell you.
Your telling me has no value.
Call it an excuse if you want, but it's a true excuse.
Lets face it, those who disagree find their version of "true excuse" reading the same Shastra, but I am going to leave it at that.
Lord Krsna and Arjuna didn't consider him a Brahmana; neither did the rest of the Pandavas.That's many against one, and one of them is God himself. Your choice
Care to back up your statement.
Even if it true draupadi acknowledge it and Arjun acted upon her request, that is enough.
Have you forgotten what Karna has done? After all he's done, why would Arjuna give any respect to him?
I am well aware of what he had done, but their feud was well before that, it started when the Raj Kumars were having to display their ability. Do you know the story?
I would offer you quotes of Lord Krsna condemning Arjuna for repeatedly calling Karna "suta-putra," but I have none until I look it up.
That is because Lord Krishna knew of his real birth. Let us have the quote any way.
There's a story of two brahmana born boys who ended up being even lower than mlecchas. They were beat and/or kill people, kidnap people, raped women, eat cow beef, among other things.
They were known as sons of a brahmana, but they were offered no respect.
No one can argue there.
The brahmin thread means nothing if their nature isn't that of a brahmana. It's just a costume, and the less intelligent class of men follow them around just dogs. You can live with that kind of concept if you want, but it's never the Vedic way.
This statement would apply to any profession, still the fact remains that ones verna is determined by birth and the training starts at an early age.
I suppose you would even pay obeisances to that "Brahmin" atheist and wash his feet when he comes to your house?
Better to pay obeisance to a Brahmin then to a pretender. An atheist would not pretend to command such a respect.
There is a reason why it's called "Vedic" culture. How one is suppose to act, is based on the scriptures.
Again you are evading the question, Arjun was clearly worried about his Kula and family tradition and his ancestors more specifically ‘Varna Shankara’ meaning destroying the Varna do you want me to quote the verse?
PS this will be my last post on Varna hear, if you want take it to Brahmana thread.
Jai Shree Kerishna
-
Pranam
No, allegories and examples are constantly used in the Upanisads.That is fine I don’t deny that allegories are present in sastras but Gita that is news to me.
Did Lord Krishna say anything to that affect to Arjun?
Question was in what various forms may I worship you was it not?
And Lord Krishna answers hear my main manifestation, now if that equates to allegories you can have it.
I accept all Vedic texts. They all have a purpose. I accept the Shiva Purana, Siva Gita, and the Siva Tantras.
Ah ha I hear a but in the form of 'purpose' otherwise I would post it for you, but what’s the point you only try and find an excuse around it.
Common sense is not beyond human faculty. There are many descriptions of brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaisyas, and sudras in the Vedas.
Humans are inherently prone to making mistakes.
Quote:
<TABLE dir=ltr cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=62>In your haste of making him a Kstriya on the battlefield, you forget that he committed a heinous crime so in your book he should be worst then a sudra, but yet you admit that he was called a Brahmin.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
No I didn't. He should've gotten his head cut off.
Ironically, Asvathama is going to be the next Vyasa…
It does not matter what you think, it is enough Draupadi had no problem with calling him a Brahmin.
Say you're father is a business man, but you take up the profession of a doctor.
Despite your profession, you are still the son of a businessman.
Similarly, Karna, while a kshatriya, was still a son of a suta.
There is no escaping Arjun always meant and taunted him of his apparent low birth.
But I also like your example, you see a brahmana child will always be known as a brahmana’s son. The Brahmin thread and training is given at an early age, that how the system was and is.
Quote:
<TABLE dir=ltr cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=43>Do you know the meaning of Kula, What was the family tradition of Arjun was it Brahmin, Vaisya or Sudra?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Following the Vedic way of life.
Now you are evading the answer.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
That's an allegory. Most of the 10th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita is an allegory. Lord Krsna was trying to tell the people how great He is, and he uses allegorical accounts to make a point.
Now that is new for me, just like a new defination of atheist.
Quote:
<TABLE dir=ltr cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=24>Do you accept Shiva Gita of the Puran? No one off Sakracharya followers would accept this.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
They really have no choice. The Padma Purana is a Vedic text. If they reject it, what can they accept then?
Well let me explain this again, the puran under discussion was Padma puran so let me make this clear do you except Siva Gita of Padma puran?
Why, when I could quote Madhvacarya himself?
http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-04-13.htmlsvabhaviko brahmanadih samadyaireva bhidyate
yonibhedakrto bhedo jneya caupadhikastvayam (Gita Tatparya 4.13)
Here's a line in the original sanskrit of his commentary. The keyword there is svabhaviko, which means inherent. He bases this on quality, not birth.
However, there is an actual seminal birth by caste, and it's done by the garbhadana purification process. It's the only birth by caste concept that works.
Sloka you quote, does not actual say the verna is determined by any particular means, simply states that one is born with some inherent quality. Now how would you judge this, without making mistakes, such a task is beyond human faculty.
Finally an admission that there actually is a seminal birth by caste how ever the qualification.
Mahabharata Vana-parva, Chapter 180
“Maharaja Yudhishthira replied to this: If such symptoms are found in a shudra he should never be called a shudra, just as a brahmana is not a brahmana if he does not possess these qualities.
“O snake, only a person who is endowed with the characteristics of a brahmana can be called a brahmana, otherwise he is a shudra.”
Here is a tacit admission that ones (pahechan) recognisation primarily is by birth but Maharaj further qualified, if they don’t saw that quality then they disqualify themselves. But no where it admits that the varna has changed.
Take for example Youdhister Maharaj or Bhismapita endowed with quality par excellence never have they been addressed as any thing but Kstriya.
That wasn't on the battlefield. That was when he was captured by Arjuna for killing Draupadi's five sons in cold blood, and then he tried to kill the unborn Pariksit in the womb of his mother.
In your haste of making him a Kstriya on the battlefield, you forget that he committed a heinous crime so in your book he should be worst then a sudra, but yet you admit that he was called a Brahmin.
Just because Karna was the "son of a suta" (which he wasn't) does not mean he's a suta. It means' his father was a suta…
Yes I know that, you know that yet Arjun at the time was not to know, even though Karna was a great warrior he was address as sutaPutra, there is no doubt Arjun was addressing him off his apprent low birth therefore not worthy of him to fight with, can you see the point?
I think you need to get your sanskrit translations checked.
Here's the sanskrit for 1.43. There is no mention of varna, just family tradition.
Do you know the meaning of Kula, What was the family tradition of Arjun was it Brahmin, Vaisya or Sudra?
You're making assumptions. There are plenty of people who have taken up the brahmanical way of life. Especially westerners, and not just ISKCON.
You can find westerners in other sampradaya's as well.
My assumption are based on facts, have you ever consider the statistic of dropout rate. It would be very interesting read.
don’t get me wrong, my hats off, to who ever cultivates Brahmincal quality, what is there any need of varna designation, a devotee of the lord needs no varna.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
They did in Dhrtarastra's kingdom and in Ajamil's time.Unless you can show me proof they existed in Maharaj Pariksit's kingdom, you should keep quiet on this.
Maharaj Yudhister followed Dhrtarast and they were there in his kindom, seeing that he decided to leave and I quote
SB 1.15.37: Maharaj Yudhister was intelligent enough to understand the influence of the age of Kali, characterized by increasing avarice, falsehood, cheating and violence throughout the capital, state, home and among individuals. So he wisely prepared himself to leave home, and he dressed accordingly.
So it is reasonable to assume it was there in Maharaj Pariksit reign.
The boy obviously didn't care about the snake around his father's neck since he didn't mention it.
In that case you will have to tell me what was the distress he heard and how.
You must understand that me calling Sukracarya an atheist doesn't mean he does not believe in God. My use of the word is different than the standard, so I'll just clear that up now.
Great now we have a new defination of atheist, very rich.
Instead, I'll call Sukracarya an asura, would that be better?
Then we have to read in gita,amongst the Kavi (poet) I am asura have it your way.
If you want sastric proof, I would have you read Sri Padma Purana, Uttara Khanda Chapters 235-236.
Padma Purana 6.236.7Padma Purana 6.236.8-9
Padma Purana 6.236.10
Padma Purana 6.236.11
Do you accept Shiva Gita of the Puran?
No one off Sakracharya followers would accept this.
As for Lord Buddha, He's been mentioned in various Puranas as well.
Harivamsha (1.41),Vishnu Purana (3.18), Bhagavata Purana (1.3.24, 2.7.37, 11.4.23), Garuda Purana (1.1, 2.30.37, 3.15.26), Narada Purana (2.72), Linga Purana (2.71), Padma Purana (3.252)
I have no doubt Buddha is mentioned in Purana, but I doubt very much your simplistic version is accepted by those who follow him, some even contend the Buddha of Puran is not the same as Gautam Budh.
Well, maybe you don't know, but there are a lot of people who claim to follow Gaudiya Vaishnavism but don't follow the rules and regulations.
You can't go around calling yourself a vegatarian with a piece of meat in your mouth. Similarily, you can't call yourself a Gaudiya if you yourself don't follow the rules and regulations.
What?
He wasn't concerned about varna, he was concerned about them taking up Krsna Consciousness.
You want have any argument from me over this.
Varna and ashrama are temporary, they're not permanent.
Very important part of Vedic dharma take that out and we have society of cats and dogs.
Considering that many Indian's are taking up the Western way of life, it's good "ammo" to have Westerners chanting the name of a "Hindu" God.
That is no reason to dilute the top most order of Vedic way of life the Sanyasi is not for any Tom Dick or Harry.
Risky, but like you have stated before, our culture is dying out,
Where did I say this
and people still believe in some of the crap the Brits fed to them. The only way people will take them up again is if they were inherently intelligence in the first place, or westerners tell them the truth.
Which is slowly taking place. Many scholars have now questioned the validity of the Aryan Invasion Theory, and now the whole Indo-European language theory is coming under attack as well.
Truth would come out in the end with or without westerners, considering they spread the lies in the first place.
No, he didn't.
Ask any Madhvacharya followers.
Caste by birth isn't supported by sastra.
Care to give any quotes.
Visvamitra was a Kshatriya, but he later on became a Brahmana. Your caste is determined by your actions.
This is one vary exceptional case and this he achieved after thousand of years.
Dronacarya and Krpacarya were both brahmanas, but on the battlefield, they were to be considered kshatriyas.
They were never called Kshatriyya, infect Dronacarya’s son Asvasthama having killed the Pandava’s son even then Dropadi referred to him as Brahmin.
Even after seeing the Lord in his Virat rup Arjun is calling Karan, the Sut putra even though he is a great warrior. Birth is one’s pahechan there is no escaping that but a noble person is Dhira not disturbed by all this, one’s job is to know the truth and in pursuit of this there is no loss, if I fail than there will be a better chance later. Death is a great leveller.
Gita chapter one,
The everlasting qualities of Varna and family traditions of those who destroy their family are ruined by the sinful act of illegitimacy. (1.43)
This is one clear indication of birth varna connection.
We have been told, O Krishna, that people whose family traditions are destroyed necessarily dwell in hell for a long time. (1.44)
Now Arjun was worried about kula dharma what would that be I ask? Because some of you may have us believe it could be any number of four.
Vyasadeva himself was born from a fishermans daughter OUT OF WEDLOCK. Are you sure you want to call him a sudra?
He was born off Parasarmuni, one’s gotra is always known by the fathers.
Please use some common sense. I got more for you...
Hey look! A Brahmin atheist!
Very good and this is suppose to prove your point yes
Here's a more...
Quote:<TABLE dir=ltr cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=219>We have a western Vaisnava (who was born in a mleccha family), ------
is destined to be cast into eternal hell.
Compared to…
A young man from Daksina Kannada, born in a brahmana family, studied some scripture
------
keep in touch with his culture via a webpage run by a group of young men in a similar situation…and of course, he is a brahmana!
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Do you see how stupid the caste by birth concept is?
Give me a break.
Formal if he keeps up then my Pranam and all good wishes but I have seen much too often the falling from grace, what was the word they used, oh yes, spaced out.
The later is a product of poverty, if he is earning his keep honestly and does not neglect his dharma then he surely will have chance to progress, if not he would have wasted his good karma and regress in to lower form of life.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
Go on.
Kshatriya's can gamble. I'm talking about brahmana's here.
Not really my response was to your quote and I quote again
Kali could not be killed.Pariksit Maharaja allowed Kali to live in four places; however, those four places didn't exist.
Do you still maintain those four places did not exist, I can rally go on.
No, go reread what I posted. The brahmana boy didn't get mad because of the snake. He didn't mention anything about the snake. You're trying to bend the point-blank meaning of the verses.
No, the verses state this clearly. He considered the "watchdog" king asking his father for some water to be distressful to him. No mention of snake.
Lets not get bogged down by the child’s opinion of the king, his duties and his place.
Fact is the boy heard of his fathers distress, what could be the fathers distress? That is under question not boys opinion. So lets consider what that might be, and how he possibly come to hear off it,
Known facts, the king approached the hermitage in the hope to quench his thirst, saw the rishi in medition, having had no response the king places a dead snake on the body of the sage. So we have two possible answer
a) there was some one there who witness all and was able to relay that information to the boy.
In that case why did the king not approach that person. Further more there no suggestion that there was any one there.
B) someone came by after the event and saw the sage, with the snake on him and that is all he could relay to the boy.
What I meant by faultless is that he shouldn't have been cursed like he did. That was uncalled for. Even the brahmana boys' father stated it.
I agree if you cared to read my first response I said the punishment did not fit the crime
As a matter of fact, here's a verses that will exempt Pariksit Maharaja from his so called “crime.”
SB 1.18.44: Due to the termination of the monarchical regimes and the plundering of the people's wealth by rogues and thieves, there will be great social disruptions. People will be killed and injured, and animals and women will be stolen. And for all these sins weshall be responsible.
How this exempt him from his act is beyond me, but you can have it, does not matter.
How does he have the gods on his side? He's constantly helping the asuras, and because he does that, I call him an atheist. Or would you prefer me to call him an asuras as well? That wouldn't be so off.
While you at it why don’t you call Lord Shiva atheist or asura, he is for ever helping who ever worship him, even asuras.
Sukracharya is not an atheist unless you can bring a sastric proof don’t go there.
I suppose all demons are in the mode of goodness then?
Who so ever can recognize the Lord are more the in mode of goodness they are blessed.
Maybe you didn't understand what I said earlier. So let me explain this with more information.
The best example here is Hiranyakasipu. He did penances for hundreds of celestial years, and Lord Brahma finally appeared before him, and gave him all sorts of boons. You should read up on it. There was no way for Brhaspati, or Lord Indra to be able to defeat asuras when they are protected by boons of a higher authority. That's the only time brahmanas and kshatriyas are unable to do anything without the help of Lord Visnu.
Lets face it we were not, at least not me, talking about this various asuras. Balimaharaj had no boons from any deva, he was guided by Sukracharya an atheist by your defination, so Brahispati and Indra were faced by weaker asura again your defination and lost end off.
There was no proper brahmana caste in the beginning of Kali-Yuga. That's why Lord Buddha came and preached against the Vedas because the so called brahmanas back then were misusing the scriptures. This was later reestablished by Sankaracarya, but people wouldn't accept deity worship back as quickly, so he stuck with his advaita philosophy. Then later on, the four sampradayas showed up to reestablish Lord Visnu's supremecy.
Are you going to back this up with any Vedic ref.? all of this is your opinion may be excepted within your group, no Buddhist, or followers of Sankracharya would believe this. Lord Vishnu’s supremacy is not under question here.
However, fake brahmanas also popped up all over the place, and as a result India couldn't fight back as strongly as it could.
Care to explain where this so called fake brahmanas popped up from, were they more powerful then those four sampradaya? Did you know Sankracharya, Madhvachaya and company actually believed in Varna by birth?
So your main source of information is this board? Then you're automatically doomed to misunderstand ISKCON.
I have been associated with Iskcon for over thirty years, I have witness lies, extortion of money from unsuspecting Hindus, I have seen Tirthpada, Bhagvan, Vipramukhi and company fall. to think that I use to bow down to them, wana make me puke.
We already have successful farm communities set up; not to the extent that we would like, but we're getting there. He may have given sannyasa to who appear unworthy, but many of the people fell down because they weren't complete in their training. Srila Prabhupada knew he didn't have much time in this world, considering his age, so he gave his disciples sannyasa so people in India could take them seriously.
In other words he either did not know their varna or he knew but still went ahead in the hope that they may reform, no wonder it spells disaster. As far as I know the varna is for life time. Krishna warns about keeping to ones duty, it is not as if I shell try one thing today and if it fails take up something else.
We can give any tom dick and harry sanyas in order that people in India would take them seriously, wow do you know what you are saying? I give up.
Quote:
<TABLE dir=ltr cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=160>Here you betray your real objection, nothing to do with castist, just check what you list as Acharya, all of them Vaisnava and off course you would pay lip service to Sankaracarya (there is no escaping that). All the others, who worshiped other then Lord Vishnu are to blame, yes.
But you loose all your arguments simply because most if not all the Acharya you have listed, actually believed in varna by birth including Tulsidas
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Demigod worship is not recommended by the four sampradaya's. As a matter of fact, it is considered that their intelligence is considered stolen if they do.
Now you confirm what I suspected all along, worship of deva that bother you. Your assessment of BG.20 is so faulty and bias to say the least.
The words spoken by Lord Krishna are more appropriately translated:
“Those whose wisdom has been carried away by various desires, being prompted by theirown nature, worship other Deities, adopting rules relating to each.
On other hand this what Krishna says
Brahmaa, the creator, in the beginning created human beings together with Yajna andsaid:
By Yajna you shall prosper and Yajna shall fulfill all your desires. (3.10)
Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)
Men in the mode of goodness worship the devas; those in the mode of passion worshipthe demons;
and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits. (17.4)
The worship of Devas, Braahmana, guru, and the wise; purity, honesty, celibacy, and nonviolence; these are said to be the austerity of deed. (17.14)
Now this is not a subject under discussion but it is your deep rooted problem of worship of devas that betrays your objection of Verna system for which you have no clue how to establish or recognize, a job I would think best suited to Dharmaraj who would know karma and desire of a given soul and place them in the appropriate varna. Unless of course if you think there is no guna and karma involved in a persons birth and everything is a random selection.
You claimed to come from Brahma Goudia Madhva sampradaya and Madhvachrya accepted varna by birth, so you don’t really have a leg to stand on.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
Kali could not be killed.Pariksit Maharaja allowed Kali to live in four places; however, those four places didn't exist.
What nonsense, you are living in a cloud cookoo land, Maharaj Youdhistir gambled his wife, Ajamil got involved with prostitute, should I go on.
Kali asked for leniency, and this is where Pariksit Maharaja was caught in a predicament. He chose to allow him to live in gold, because gold could be purified and regulated.
What? I don’t get it.
Gold is something people get mad about.
As for the little brahmana boy, he wasn't, or shouldn't have been wearing gold, nor was he anywhere near Pariksit Maharaja. He cursed Pariksit Maharja out of his own desire and arrogance.
I never said brahmana boy was wearing gold, it was the king who was wearing gold in his crown. Why would such a noble king behave so badly against the Samik rishi, if not but the influence of kali.
Also, the claim that it was because of Pariksit Maharaja's action that warranted the little brahmana boy to curse him, but that is not the case.
There was no reason other then that, had Pariksit Maharaj not acted as he did he would have no reason to do anything.
The boy cursed Pariksit Maharaja because he felt that Pariksit Maharaja stepped over his boundaries BY ASKING FOR A GLASS OF WATER.
I am dumfounded by this logic, I am lost for words, even today if you went to an Indian house first thing normally offered is water. Bhagvat clearly says the boy got angry because he heard of his fathers distress
SB 1.18.32: The sage had a son who was very powerful, being a Brahmana,s son. While he was playing with inexperienced boys, he heard of his father's distress, which was occasioned by the King. Then and there the boy spoke as follows.
What possible other distress did the father have? You are letting your imegination running head of you.
This is evident by the following verses:
SB 1.18.33: [The brāhmaṇa's son, Śṛńgi, said:] O just look at the sins of the rulers who, like crows and watchdogs at the door, perpetrate sins against their masters, contrary to the principles governing servants.
SB 1.18.34: The descendants of the kingly orders are definitely designated as watchdogs, and they must keep themselves at the door. On what grounds can dogs enter the house and claim to dine with the master on the same plate?
As you can see, there is no mention of the boy getting angry over the snake around his father's soldier.
There could not be any reason other then the child’s hearing of his father distress. following verses are child’s opinion of what a kings duty is towards the kingdom and in particular to a Rishi.
As a matter of fact, he most likely didn't even know there was a snake around his father's neck, and I provide the following verse to support my claim:
SB 1.18.38: Thereafter, when the boy returned to the hermitage, he saw a snake on his father's shoulder, and out of his grief he cried very loudly.
Perhaps you can tell us with your wild imagination what was the ground of the boy hearing about his fathers distress? what was the distress?
If he knew about the snake beforehand, why didn't he use that as a reason to curse Pariksit Maharaja? Instead he curses Pariksit Maharaja for asking for a glass of water.
Please be reasonable, give this little balak (child) some credit, no one would begrudge someone a little water, beside such a scenario would not have any ground for any distress, remember all this time the Samik rishi is in trance.
Pariksit Maharaja was faultless. Kali was faultless as well because gold was nowhere near Srngi.
Sure that is why Pariksit Maharaj felt remorse, do you want me to quote the verse again?
Gold was surely on Pariksit Maharaj head, perhaps I am not explaining this properly or simply you are not reading what I wrote.
Sukracarya was an athiest, or if it makes you happy, he was a brahmana influenced in the mode of passion and ignorance.
He was against Lord Visnu, and as a result, against varnashrama dharma.
don’t make me Lough, if he was atheist why would he have gods on his side.
The son of brigu top most amongst sages, who went to study Vedas. Infect Krishna says I am Kavi amongst Ussana (Sukracarya).
You have no idea what you talk about, only reason he joined asuras was because of his dislike of favouritism, Brihspati the priest of Deva received from his father.
He recognised Lord Vishnu as soon he saw him, hardly a symptom for some who is in mode of ignorance.
Bali Maharaja had Sukracarya on his side, who was blessed by Lord Shiva to be able to revive the dead.
My point still stands.
Hardly unless of course if you think Brahspati or Indra did not have anybody on their side. Lets not make this Shiva V Vishnu duel, fact of the matter was that assura's were stronger at the time. No fault of Brahmana Brahspati and this is the point it was no fault of Brahmana cast or otherwise for the fall of India, they were simply faced with adversary far brutal and stronger against the satriyas King made week, by the influence of Jain and Buddist ahimsa doctrine.
And second, I'm not against the varnashrama system. I'm against the birth by caste concept. That's the root of what crippled Vedic civilization and allowed foreign invaders to take over.
And like I said, Prabhupada didn't get to complete ISKCON.
A house half built isn't very stable in the first place.
If everything that’s been said on this board is believed, Prabhupad gave Sanyas to unworthy character knowingly, then the foundation was shaky from the start.
Lets face it the experiment failed miserably.
The only brahmanas I would praise are those in line with Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya, Visnuswami, Nimbarkacarya, and to an extent, Sankaracarya.
The real brahmanas who kept Vedic civilization from falling completely apart of those mentioned above, and Vaishnava's like Tukarama or Tulsidas.
Not those castist brahmanas.
Here you betray your real objection, nothing to do with castist, just check what you list as Acharya, all of them Vaisnava and off course you would pay lip service to Sankaracarya (there is no escaping that). All the others, who worshiped other then Lord Vishnu are to blame, yes.
But you loose all your arguments simply because most if not all the Acharya you have listed, actually believed in varna by birth including Tulsidas
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
The only asuras that were able to "rule" heaven were those blessed Lord Brahma and/or Lord Shiva.Brhaspati rishi, while competent, isn't powerful enough to stand against demons blessed by Lord Brahma or Lord Shiva.
Especially Lord Shiva.
You want to check your facts before you make such ridiculous statement neither Lord Brahma or Lord Shiva had anything to do with it, it was the result of Brahman Sukrachariya descendant of Brighu Muni, siding with asura, funny how a brahmana siding with asura can still be called Brahman!
As far as I know, the Brits and Muslims weren't blessed by any demigod, for obvious reasons, yet they were still able to take over India.
I'll leave it at that…
Neither was Bali Maharaj so your point is mute.
Muslims were brutal, they were repulsed many times, each time they were spared instead of giving appropriate punishment they were freed to come back and fight another day. There is a lesson to learn here just as Pariksit Maharaj let the kali free this kings did the same with Muslims.
Each time Brahmana gets the blame, you are really something, instead of giving praise to them for keeping and maintaining the Dharama against all the odds you are insulting them. You should read up on history how brutal the Muslims were.
Yet when Brits came they were astounded by the piety and culture of India. And only way they broke the backbone of Bharat was by spreading false propagandas about our Dharma and Brahmana in particular and sad part is you are still taking that bait to malign us.
Just think is there one country out there where Muslims or British ruled and survived their region intact?
I'm assuming you want to put the blame on Srila Prabhupada, right? Sorry, but that belongs to the GBC, which were incomplete in their training.
The very next thing Prabhupada was going to teach was varnashrama, but he passed away before he could do anything with that.
I leave that for you to decide, you guys are very good at apportioning blame twisting all logical reasoning, I was only using your yard stick.
The vedic scriptures are littered with wars when the brahamanas at the head of society, but that's not my point.
You are right our scripture are littered with wars, there always been struggle with forces of evil against the good. Some of us prefer to concentrate on dharma, you are welcome to blame the brahmanas without any evidence, and believe the propaganda spread by the British.
I'm talking about the ridiculously easy takeover by foreigners.
Hence why I said "fake" brahmanas. It is clearly stated in what you quoted that they could not have conquered us unless they broke our very own culture, and how else to do this than to manipulate incompetent (fake) brahmanas?
They used our own culture against us. This is what happens with the caste by birth concept.
It never would have been possible but for people like you believing those lies spread by Brits, they attacked the very fabric of our society, the varna system, and people like you fell for it. If varna system was so bad why do you think your guru wanted to establish it, but failed.
First think the culture would not have existed if the brahmanas were fake.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
Srngi's influence continues to be evident.What evidence, opinions and purport does not prove anything especially when it is so biased. As we learn from Bhagvat, kali appeared as soon as Lord Krishna left the earth.
King Pariksit failed to deal with him instead allowed him four places to reside as well as in gold, which proved to be fatal, kali took resident in his gold Mukat, Kali did his job and Pariksit Maharaj acted in a way not fit for a King which he later regrated as thus;
Sri Suta Gosvāmī said: While returning home, the King [Maharaj Pariksit] felt that the act he had committed against the faultless and powerful Brahmana was heinous and uncivilized. Consequently he was distressed. SB1.19.1:
Pariksit Maharaj who is always protected by Lord Vishnu, but he accepted his fate happily upon hearing the brahmanas curse, he went on the banks of Mother Ganga ready to die.
We may argue thus that the curse actually became blessing in disguise as Pariksit Maharaj received nectar from a Brahmana Sukdev Goswami, in the form of Bhagvat katha. Since then the Bhagvat has become a source of inspiration for millions.
It would be foolish for me to conclude that the Bhagvat puran is a result of brahmanas curse or the kalis appearance as a result of it, since both were present before the event.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam kaisersose
I wish I could, but hey if they keep up like this it want be long before they self destruct. They are doing a fine job tearing each other apart.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
And again by
More evidence that caste by birth people are incompetent.
1. Real brahamana's wouldn't have allowed Muslim kings to sit on the throne, but they did.
2. Real kshatriya's (leaders), who were trained by brahamana's, wouldn't have allowed foreignors to take over.
So would you say Brihaspati rishi was incompetent for allowing defeat of devas and let asuras rule the heaven. Answer yes or no, your evidence is very watertight.
3. Those countless Indian wars happened because fake brahamanas were the head of society, and if the head of society is weak so is the rest of the civilization.
Can we take it from this, using the same yardstick the countless fall down in Iskcon of so called Sanyasi never mind the average Joe, to be attributed to the leader?
Perhaps you can list some of the countless war that might have happened because of Brahmans at the head of society, or are you just stating this of your own whim.
Funny how the British found us before they ruled us even that under Muslim period and I quote, for your unbiased appraisal.
It was February 1835, a time when the British were striving to take control of the whole of India. Lord Macaulay, a historian and a politician, made a historical speech in the British Parliament, commonly referred to as The Minutes, which struck a blow at the centuries old system of Indian education.
His words were to this effect: I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.
Note; all this under the occupation of brutal regime whose sole goal was to destroy our Dharma.
I fill utterly repugnant by these so called followers of sanatan dharma, who are always eager to heap insult to our ancestors, who gave their blood, and under all odds kept the Dharma alive.
These guys have no shame, take our money by false pretence and through it back in our face. Dharma is under threat and this time from those who are masquerading as devotees, those who want to justify, under the guise of following Vedic dharma, things like guy marriages, making money by deception, sanyasis adopting life style more suited to CEO of big corporate,
Selling Vedic knowledge to maintain those life style.
That is not to say there are no pious followers out there but would they insult us like some of you have?
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
This was quoted in another thread.
Our spiritual master has said that India is suffering because of the on set of Kali yuga. That started with the first fallen brahamna Srigi(?) He cursed the faltless emperor. Then down hill from there, that would include loss of a society based on guna and karma, sanatana dharma. Thereby opening the door to retribution from foreign invaders.
This is a ridiculous statement to put it mildly, even though I must agree brahman’s son was over the top to curse the unknown person who had actually insulted his father by putting a dead snake on his neck.
Kali had already made his mark when The king saw him beating the cow, so why the blame on Brahmana?
The blame goes squarely on Pariksit Maharaj for letting the Kali free, instead he allowed him few places to reside and one of them was gold.
Would he have insulted the Brahman who was in meditation the way he did, if not for the influence of kali residing in his crown jewel?
He realised this mistake as soon as he took his mukat off, by then it was all too late
.
History will tell us many reasons for the brutal invaders to succeed, even after repeated defeats and I think one of the reason was the influence of Jain and Buddhist ahimsa that allowed the invaders eventually to take hold.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, that state he will attain without fail. (8.06)
Such a yogi is born in a family of wise transcendentalists. A birth like this is very difficult, indeed, to obtain in this world. (6.42)
After taking such a birth, O Arjuna, one regains the knowledge acquired in the previous life, and strives again to achieve perfection. (6.43)
Now, either we accept that the Lord who ordained the four varna, made a perfect system based on Guna Karma, executed perfectly by Yamraj, where if not, after death, and a new beginning, place a soul in its aproprait varna without any ambiguity.
Or we accept that birth is random, Guna Karma does not come in to the equestion and therefore birth has no significane in determining ones varna.
And question here arises who would decide and at what point, considering the training takes place at a very early age.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
Our sampradaya should drop all pretenses to Madhva's lineage - we are nowhere near these Vaishnavas in both philosophy and mood of service. We should simply claim lineage from Lord Caitanya.The rejection of the actual guru of Srila Bhaktivinoda, Bipina Bihari Goswami, was also a very controversial move, based on rather personal animosity of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta towards that Vaishnava.
There is too much reliance on idividual gurus in our line - once they make a controversial decision you are stuck with it. That is why our lineage is so fragmented.
Take the essence I say, parampara is what’s handed down from time in memorial from guru to sisya and the whole Vedic tradition has grown and thus we have a vibrant colourful culture, all 4 varans abide in it and lived in harmony, first the Muslims then the Christians did their best to break us down yet we survived, what we don’t really need to do is internally combust.
Sampradaya I have no time for, in my observation I have noticed, a great deal of time and effort, in the guise of seva, is spent on upkeep and betterment of such institute so that a lot of people can have a nice cosy life style, many a times actual dharma takes a secondary place, at times undharmic practice is justified in the name of Krishna or God.
Dharma can not be confined to any institute, it would get stifle, the soul can never be happy shackled, confined to boundaries of an institute.
Krishna says Parampara and not sampradaya.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Frankly, none of this parampara business means a hoot to me.This parampara issue means NOTHING TO ME.
How very convenient all the time Hindus have to put up with these quotes like not bonafide acharya or not authorized Sampradaya, and therefore great personalities like Mira, Tulsidas, Narshimehta, Jalarambapu and the list goes on, are scorned upon
And now that ones own sampradaya comes in to question suddenly it does not matter.
Great debating I say where everyone is a winner but Dharma.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
Not exactly Hell, but those who don't worship Krishna are not entitled for Moksha.So if I worship Shiva, I'm an ignorant fool who's wasting a human birth worshipping demigod & hence i'm not entitled for Moksha.
Not so fast, read Bhagvatam
SB 8.7.20: The devas observed Lord Siva sitting on the summit of kailasa Hill with his wife, Bhavani, for the auspicious development of the three worlds. He was being worshiped by great saintly persons desiring liberation. The devas offered him their obeisance’s and prayers with great respect.
SB 4.6/45 O most auspicious lord, you have ordained the heavenly planets, the spiritual Vaikuntha planets and the impersonal Brahman sphere as the respective destinations of the performers of auspicious activities. Similarly, for others, who are miscreants, you have destined different kinds of hells which are horrible and ghastly. Yet sometimes it is found that their destinations are just the opposite. It is very difficult to ascertain the cause of this.
What to speak of Veda
Rig Veda 7.59.12
Maha Mrituyonjaya Mantra
We Worship Tryambaka, Who spreads Fragrance and Increases nourishment, May He release me, like the cucumber from its stem, from Mortal life, and give me Immorality.
Lord Shiva is very merciful he accepts all.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam Atanu ji
Glad to see you are posting here again.
You are correct. It is not my intention to generalise therefore I stated: But a few very immature devotees (mostly non-indian neo HK devotees perhaps) read some purports and apply that to Shiva as demi God and what not.
Om
I like to think not only some purports but the very use of the word Demigod for devas as half or semi, is a recent concoction and has no place in sanatan dharma period.
And when you have a translation as below one has to wonder why such deliberate mistranslation.
antavat tu phalam tesam
tad bhavaty alpa-medhasam
devan deva-yajo yanti
mad-bhakta yanti mam api
"Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet."
(Bhagavad-Gita 7.23)
Now compare most other translation which most near to what Krishna is saying in Bhagvat Gita
Such (material) gains of these less intelligent human beings are temporary. The worshipers of Devas go to Devas, but My devotees come to Me. (7.23)
If you want to see the absurdity of the translation as given in so called as it is see what lord Krishna says
Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)
Men in the mode of goodness worship the devas; those in the mode of passion worshipthe demons; and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits. (17.4)
The worship of Devas, Braahmana, guru, and the wise; purity, honesty, celibacy, and nonviolence; these are said to be the austerity of deed. (17.14)
Jai Shree Krishna
-
'Truth is One, but it has many names'. You never stop prattling, do you? This translation is atrocious.
Do I care about your translation, time to get out of this kindergarten mentality
It means, there is only one truth, ie, Brahman. And this Brahman has many names. Which means, all names like Rudra, Indra, Chandra belong to Brahman only.
Oh really, is anyone talking about Eko truth other then Brahman?
Not only names like Rudra, Indra Chandra Vishnu, Narayan but all this forms belong to Brahman.
However, the gods are not Brahman. Only the names belong to Brahman. Since Brahman is Vishnu, all names like Rudra, Shiva, etc. belong to him. The deities are simply named after him.
All names are Brahman's. All gods are not Brahman. The Vedas clarify that all gods are not the same.
thus, by default, this means that the Vedas provide sanction. Wherever Rudra is mentioned to be Supreme, it only indicates Narayana. Because Narayana is the One Truth and all Names belong to Him.
Gibberish, these are your opinion, I don’t buy in to it.
Again, mindlessly quoting Gita without understanding the context. In one verse, Krishna clarifies that even the abode of Brahma won't give moksha. Then how can Brahma be Krishna? He makes a clear distinction by saying that those who worship Devas will go to Devas and those who worship Him will go to Him.
What is it are this verses getting to you?
Who said anything about abode of Brahma giving moksa, it stand to reason if the abode is in material world it will be destroyed and why would you think worshipers of devas will go anywhere else other then who they worship.
'I am Brahma, I am the father of Brahma'. How can one entity be both of these things? A mindless interpretation like yours has no place in Vedanta.
Where have I brought my interpretation, see what Arjun is saying, you cant even read what was quoted Bg11.39 go figure not my sloka, if you have problem with Vedanta take it up with Arjun.
The verse, 'I am Brahma, I am Vayu' etc. simply indicate relative identity. For the thousandth time, do not quote mindlessly without understanding the concept. All of creation is the body of Narayana. The body is identified with the soul. To say 'Ganeshprasad' means I address Ganeshprasad's body and soul together.
You can shout from roof top makes no difference and I don’t care for your opinions.
Hence, since Brahma, Vayu, etc. are the body of Krishna, they are addressed in a sense of relative identity with Krishna.
Opinion
In the Kena Upanishad, Indra, Agni and Vayu admit that they have failed to realise Brahman. So, how can they be Brahman? Use common sense.
Ask Arjun.
Then they said to Indra, "O giver of wealth, find this out, what this spirit is.So be it." He hurried toward it. It disappeared from before him. In the same region of the sky, he came across a very beautiful woman, Uma, the daughter of the snowy mountains. He asked her, "What is this spirit?"
So Uma knows it, who is this Uma pati.?
That's 'letter'. And if you also believe that Mahesvara is not Shiva there, what is the point of quoting that verse?
No, no I did not say that, don’t put words in my mouth. Shiva is Maheshvara so much so that when I used maheshvara as an adjective you could not help equate that to Shiva.
Point was, Lord Krishna is saying hardly anyone knows him in truth, yet here you are making all kind of interpretation limiting his unlimited form and functions. Did you ever wonder why Arjun would ask him how may I worship you in your various forms?
There are innumerable verses praising Shiva as Supreme. There are innumerable verses that say he was created by Narayana and that he had a birth. Hence, to accept one portion at face value and ignore the other is not Vedantic.
First I do not accept your version of sat path bramana hence there is no birth of Lord Shiva that aside we can say the same for Lord Vishnu, who is described as mere sun deity or a younger brother of Indra or sat path barmana mentions his head being severed by bow. I know you will give us your opinion and that is just that opinion. facts are given in Vedas and if it says Shiva is supreme I have no arguments period.
The very fact that your 'interpretations' have not been accepted by any scholar in history should prove to you that you are in a clear minority. Even a Shaivite does not interpret those verses that way. Of course, if you feel you are above the level of seeking a Guru, kindly go ahead.
Hey, I don’t have to look beyond Tulsidas Goswami or Sridhar swami never mind a Shaivite.
Then, I suggest you stop pushing your stupid 'All Gods are One' theology here. Without understanding the basic way of debate, simply using a neovedantic interpretation for 'Truth is One, but it has many names' is useless.
Shiva is a jivatma for Vaishnavas based on authentic pramanas from Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Satapatha Brahmana and Mahanarayana Upanishad. I suggest that you stop posting inane interpretations if you believe otherwise. Someone said Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva were not Vaishnavas, which is what I came to clarify.
Yes in gist of clarification you never fail a trick to make your un Vedic judgement on Lord Shiva, other then that I would not bother with likes of you.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
Oh yes we will except every thing we like and reject everything else because it clashes with srutis, well that is your problem but srutis it self says
Ekam sad, vipra bahudha vadanti - RSi dirghatamas, Rig Veda I.164.46
truth is one, sages call it variously. Lord Krishna says I am Shankara, Arjun says you are Vaayu, Yama, Agni, Varuna, Shashaanka, and Brahmaa as well as the father of Brahmaa. Salutations to You a thousand times, and again and again salutations to You. (11.39)
For me there is no contradiction, only thing that remains is to realise the truth following Dharma that is the paramount importance.
So pardon me for not accepting your opinion.
You are so caught up in your superiority concept that you fail to see I used small later in mahesvara.
Like I said before, you are free to worship Shiva if you wish. Just don't turn this thread into another Shiva/Vishnu debate.
I agree and you are free to worship Lord Vishnu, just don’t bring your interpretations to prove your point of view and making Lord Shiva a jiva. Yes keep this thread for mayavad discussion, what ever that means.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
Same old same old, not wishing to start a debate but
Vaishnav feels happy defeating Shiva using their own standard of measure, all the time making rules that fit in with their interpretation or else the srutis would contradict it self so they say. As if such contradictions can ever be present in Vedas, is nothing sort of admitting that srutis are faulty. Perish the thought. I will accept what it says at face value, hack with opinions and interpretations, just as Lord Krishna says hardly anyone knows me in truth the unborn mahesvara.
It is for an individual to realise the Brahman that which is beyond the triguna, to get bogged down in this supremacy contest is like missing the boat.
So be happy in your self declared victory meanwhile Lord Shiva’s worship, which is oldest known to mankind will be performed regardless.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
—Now here this!, Now here this!—
<?xml:namespace prefix = o />
Your postulations are sophomoric.
Why would you presume that those who follow A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's translations are uneducated?
You are wrongly considering the sentiments of a societal renouncer with those who seek to lead society.
Why are you assuming the position of pariah even before the Standard of Measurement is established?
That tells me you are insincere, with an emphasis on 'in sin'.
I went to Grammer school --so I learned the grammer of many Latin-Romance Languages, plus Japanese, Arabic--and what you are pointing out appears to presume I am much much less educated than your supposition would require to astond me with some revelation.
I do read your post--And I wasn't born yesterday, Kumar-ji.
I am not uneducated nor gullible nor slow witted.
I'm one righteous man. And quess what? I know it. It humbles me and it also emboldens me.
I need intellectual stimulation.
If I have to wade through your reverse upside-down diametrically-opposed inside-out double-speaking diatribe then you are simply
fooling with my sensiblities.
Ergo, you are not a scholar and You know it.
Please seek a hobby that wont deplete all your remaining good karma.
If I ask your opinion, that should be an Honor for you.
If I don't ask for your opinion--that's because I have no need for it, Boss.
I know who my daddy is. I know who 'The Man' is.
If you mis-speak one time while knowing you are out of your league -- you will be called to attest your ignorance among those who will have no vested interest in you.
—That is all.—
And your point is
-
Pranam
Originally Posted by GaneshprasadThere is no word 'worship and Deva' in the first two lines.
But it is the second line--so that would signify
that you read right to left?
Correct?
.............................................................
For an expert grammerian you sure do know how to punctuate other's flaws.
reading from right to left would make me an Arab, that i am not nor am i an expert in grammar but i have read enough to smell a rat.
and counting from bottom it is the second line, good i learnt a new technique
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Praam bhaktajan
Let me try and explain
anta-vat-perishable; tu-but; phalam-fruit; teñäm-their; / tat-that; bhavati-becomes; alpa-medhasäm-of those of small intelligence;
Do you see the word Deva or worship in this two line? I certainly can not
How do you get Men of small intelligence worship the demigods? Now see the translation I provide
Such (material) gains of these less intelligent human beings are temporary.
Jai Shree Krishna
-
Pranam
As we can see in reality, this verse is flawed. There are people who worship other Gods without asking for material gains and there are people who worship Krishna asking for better grades or curing cancer. Obviously the latter category, though worshipping Krishna would qualify as "alpa medhas" per BG 7.23 and the former category would not.
Precisely, and the translation is certainly flawed, yet i dont expect them to understand, for them as it is can not be wrong.
Repeat a lie enough time and people will believe it, Vedic gods have become half God, although no such concept in Vedas. Devas have become pariah. Printing and selling books (Shastra ) are a sign of spiritual progress, forget about following dharma(that would be walking on a double edge sword) anything goes in the name of Krishna, we will make lots of money fleecing those ignorant Hindus, anyone for that gravy train ? oh yes sounds good to me but then the reality dawns on me I will have to pay for it in the end.
Jai Shree Krishna
Who is a brahmana?
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted · Report reply
Pranam
You omit, Youdhister Maharaj Sahdev and Nakul agreed with Draupadi.
You should also learn to read a bit of Sanskrit and not rely on translation, Suta Goswami is saying Dvijas hair and jewel was removed.
Clear?
How is insulting ones heritage any different from one self. Infect it is worse, I was ok when a guy long time ago insulted me but when he insulted my mum and dad I stood up ready to fight him. You can defend Arjun till the cows come home but the fact remains he addressed him by his apparent birth.
They did by breaking the back bone of Vedic culture by spreading lies about cast system and people like you took the bait and we are still suffering because of it.
Again you are dodging let me spell it for you and I quote
BG2.31: Considering your specific duty as a ksatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation.
This is his Kula i.e. his family tradition.that is what he was worried about The VarnaShankra.
Jai Shree Krishna