Ganeshprasad

Pranam The four Varna or divisions of human society, based on aptitude and Karma, were created by Me. Though I am the author of this system, one should know that I do nothing and I am eternal.(4.13) So it is quite clear according to Gita varna is not man made but the formation by non other but the creator him self. So the question arises how does a varna can be established as a fair and just without causing a lot of confusion. If an individual make a judgement then on what bases that would be made ? These presupposes the birth of an individual was random there was no guna karma attached from previous life, real smack in the face, might as well throw Vedas and karma out of the window. Those who do not agree with birth, perhaps they can tell us, how before the brits who broke the back bone of verna system, by feeding their lies, worked? The division within a family it self would be hard to overcome. There has been different quarters for each varna, how would a family within which there are different varna live to gather, how would a marriage take place? On what basis child’s samskaras would be performed? There could be many complication of acceptance. Krishna can not establish an imperfect system. 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) 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? Because some of you may have us believe it could be any number of four. Ignorance (or outright rejection) of varNAshrama dharma has caused serious problems in the interpretation and practice of hindu dharma. Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam all O Lord, let any one accept any sadhana, he is free to follow its pursuit. But to me Your name is the granter of all boons. Karma, upasana, jnana - the various paths outlined in the Vedas for the emancipation of the soul - all are good. But I seek only one shelter and that is Your name; I seek nothing besides….Tulsidas Goswami this age of kali Goswami tulsidas writes The age of Kali is a store house of impurities and vices but it has many virtues too. Final emancipation is possible in the Kali age without any exertion. Moreover, the same goal which is reached through worship of God, performance of sacrifices or the practice of Yoga in the Satyayuga and in the Treta and Dwapara yuga, men are able to attain through the name of Sri Hari in the Kali age. No other age can compare with the Kali age provided a man has faith (in its virtue); for in this age one can easily cross the ocean of transmigration simply by singing Sri Ram's holy praises. Glories of Nama –smarana is extolled by nardmuni. Narshimehta became Ghelo (mad) Mira became bavri I have no real taste, but I feel for me there is no other way, but the chanting of holy names of the lord. there is no restriction. Jai Shree Krishna

pranam yes on the face of it but remember God is above respect or disrespect Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam No there is no loss in chanting Lords name in vain or other wise. Kansa was constantly thinking of Krishna as an enemy and was saved, so what harm can be if one remembers the lord even if in vein, but it would be better done with love. Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam And never mind the other exalted personalities of hindu past, yes. See, the virtue of tolerance has no proviso, I know it is easy said then done because I would be the first one to say to tolerate injustice would be a crime. But I am also guided by the example of great virtue of following the truth, by Raja Harishchandra, he never wavered from his vow to the bitter end . Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam I did not say there was anything wrong with Arjun’s attitude, but he never acknowledged him as a satriya even though he was a great warrior, he always reminded him of his apperant low birth. In other words his guna karma was not enough for him to be recognize as satriya by a person no less than Arjun, that is the point. Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam all I see no end to this argument, traditionalist knows correctly and supported by Vedas, maintains the truth that the verna is birth established or else the system will have no real authority, without any bias, to referee a verna of an individual. On other hand those who are new to this tradition argue on the bases of guna karma and to large extent it is true but a very difficult task for humans to be a perfect judge. This is the job of Yamraja. It is the final exam the death and a new beginning from then on. Any change of verna in the middle is froth with danger and confusion, yes there are exception and the classic example is Visvamitra but this is rare and an exception to the rule. It is quite clear guna and karma plays an important part in establishing this system. After all if we believe in karma then it is at the end of ones life time we have to accept our new beginning. yam yam vapi smaran bhavam tyajaty ante kalevaram tam tam evaiti kaunteya sada tad-bhava-habitat 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) 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. Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam All Wow is this Hindu site? Lighten up guys this is very unlike hindu sahbyata, on this auspicious day of Ram navami, least one can do is be polite to each other. Differences are healthy and should be respected but to fight over it is no Dharma. Calling names only reflects on ones own character and above all brings disrepute to what ever one follows. Jai Sri Ram Jaya Ram Jay Jay Ram. Jai Shree Sita Ram

Pranam I am out of here before I loose my sanity by constantly hearing abuse to DevAdhi Deva Mahadeva. You have not proved anything, nor does the Gita verse which is nothing but condemnation of jivas material desires. I can provide from the same Bhagvatam eulogising Lord Shiva but what’s the point when I see people like you can not even be civil to your own fellow Vaishnvas, Sri Vaishnva can not stand Madhvacharya they in turn can not accept GV and the gaudiyas fighting amongst them self. Enough to realise this is not Dharma. I realise now it would be too much to expect from people like you to respect Lord Shiva. There is no such entity as Demi God in Vedas. As a plural noun, devA refers to the Gods ~ especially the 33 prime Deities ~ and deva can refer generally to any image of Divinity or Deity. And there is only ONE Mahadeva, who is certainly not a “partial” deity! Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam I detect a serious Hindu phobia, now you want to blame Hindus for Iskcon failures, just go ahead, we can take it, after all we withstood worse form of atrocities and abuse then you can ever imagine in keeping the Dharma intact. What’s wrong with holi I wonder, a past time of Prahlad Maharaj his triumph over Holica. Your statement is nothing sort of racial abuse, you prefer your temples to be filled by white faces, it pains you to see Indians at the temples, why don’t you put a sign up saying no Indians, problem solved. Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam that’s ok, its your choice. We can talk about reality for eternity, unfortunately it is beyond the realm of words, that is something one has to realize and experience for one self I can not leave you with misconception about my view of that reality, I do not hold polytheistic view, if you hold Arjun’s Divya Darsan as polytheistic then so be it. And if that’s is not enough Others, who engage in sacrifice by the cultivation of knowledge, worship the Supreme Lord as the one without a second, as diverse in many, and in the universal form.BG.9.15 "They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title they call him Agni, Yama, Matarisvan." RV (Book 1, Hymn 164.46) "He in his might surveyed the floods containing productive force and generating Worship. He is the God, and none beside him. What God shall we adore with our oblation?" RV (Book 10, Hymn 121.8) Nor do I hold ultimate Advaita as my goal, what ever that may be, all I know is that he is one without a second, nothing can exist out side of him. Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam I am not looking for defination of demigod, if you are able to provide me from Vedas defination of Devas that be appreciated. Problem is you want to build walls my friend, when non exists. If vaishnav, shaiva, dwaita, adwaita, wants to build walls I want no part of it, all I want to do is my Bhakti that is why I am a Hindu. Knowing the whole field of dharma (cf. kurukshetram) the wise guru understands that many different paths are valid for different individual circumstances, but that (when all true paths are considered) there is ultimately no difference at all. And Hindu understanding has always been tempered by this overriding thought of ultimate unity. Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam Sorry very poor choice of Sloka, Krishna here is speaking of Jivas not condemning devas. You want endorsement here it is Brahmaa, the creator, in the beginning created human beings together with Yajna and said: 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) At last we agree on some thing but then if as you agree there is no demigod how can you reduce them to anything less? Mind bogles. In any case I take the words of Arjun and the Vedas against yours in relation to supreme lord vayur yamo 'gnir varunah sasankah prajapatis tvam prapitamahas ca namo namas te 'stu sahasra-krtvah punas ca bhuyo 'pi namo namas te 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)BG RV 1.1.2 Agnih purvebhih rshibhih ido nutanaih uta sa devan a iha vakshati Agni ancient seers adorable new seers too. Agni, adored by the ancient seers is adored by the news sages too. He brings the deva’s here. Agni is the divine will and is jatavata ( knows all births) What to speak of Deva Dhi Deva Mahadeva. Hardly a defination of finite being you like to reduce them to. Shame on those who try denigrate the Vedas. Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam If you are trying to provoke me to stoop to your level its not working, this kind of tactics, a bully uses, to deflect from the real truth, well you are not going to sway me from it, I will repeat my position here, Krishna does not condemn Deva worship any where in Gita, besides devas are not demigod ie. Half God. Veda does not speak of such entity In the Bhagavadgita (or in any Hindu scripture), Lord Krishna NEVER uses the term “demigod” ~ the word only appears in misguided (and misleading) translations. As an adjective, deva means “heavenly, divine, or highly excellent”. As a noun, deva means God or Deity (cf. Latin DEVS ) ~ and deva is a common name for Lord Indra. As a plural noun, devA refers to the Gods ~ especially the 33 prime Deities ~ and deva can refer generally to any image of Divinity or Deity. Sanskrit DEVA is exactly cognate with Latin DEUS, which plainly indicates GOD. The prefix DEMI- means HALF, so that DEMI-GOD means HALF-GOD or PARTLY GOD. Why use such a belittling term for ANY Deity? Gods are Gods! Indra is the King of Gods, Agni is the God of Fire, Sarasvati is the Goddess of Knowledge ~ there is NO half-measure about it. And there is only ONE Mahadeva, who is certainly not a “partial” deity! Agni is Fire ~ the perfect conception of Fire ~ and wherever the nature of Fire is present, there is Agnideva ~ the Fire God ~ the Lord of Fire ~ Fire in its essence ~ the very Self of Fire. Terms such as “controller”, “administrator”, or “demigod”, are all rather pathetic titles for such a Deity. And Lord Indra can not adequately be described as the “controller of rain”. There is one Sun, but there are many Days ~ and all are Adityas. One God with many aspects ~ all equally divine ~ By Sarabhanga. Jai Shree Krishna

I will not stoop to your level and call you names, i have nothing further to say to you, just ponder on two of your quotes and if you still think I confused you i am sorry. Jai Shree and good bye

Ha, so groundless that you have not replied to any one my objection. No so fast, see below your quote Now you never quoted from Srimad Bhagavatam but sloka was from BhgvatGita, this error was pointed out to you but you are not clever enough to acknowledge that. I made a small error, being a Guajarati we refer to Bhagvatam as Bhagvat, such a wonderful past times of Lord Shree Krishna narrated by Sukhdev Goswami to Parksit Maharj and Bagvat Gita literally translated as song of God. You quoted sloka from Gita and clearly referred to it as Bhagvatam not once but twice, so grow up. Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam LoveroftheBhagavata ji You are absolutely correct it is not worth arguing but then I can not sit ideally by when at every opportunity some of this so call learned guys and I don’t mean the present cbrahma, who cant even tell a difference between Gita and Bhagvat (sorry I don’t mean to hurt your feelings), but those high fliers who have no ideas or respect for Vedic Hindu culture, which is so diverse and beautiful, therefore it hurt when they abuse Hindus. There is a distinct lack of vivek in them, that in it self would not bother a lot of us, if only they got along with their sadhna, but no they have to have a dig at Hindus at every opertunity,when would they get of their high horse. Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam Hardly a proof coming from someone who can't tell difference between Gita and Bhagvat. you are not worth my time discussing something, as it is obvious you are incapable of understanding it. Again you are twisting my words, what else can I expect from likes of you. I can never question Bhagvat Gita nor did I call it an error. Are you able to tell the difference between me questioning your opinion and translation thereof and my actual holding Bhagvat Gita to highest esteem. In that case be an adult and find me from the sloka that you provided that says FRUTIVE, and while you are at it quote from Vedas that devas are half God and remember that opinions are no proof. Unless you can do this please do not expect me to respond, goodbye and be happy in your opinion. Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam Please gets your facts right, it was Bhagvat Gita sloka you quated. Sloka that had an error, besides it does not prove Deva means Half God. and opinion on the said sloka does not constitue facts. Please dont go hungry on my account. instead chant an extra round of Hari naam and pray that we dont make judgement on Devas whose position we have no right to question. Learn that Deva doen not equate to Half God. Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam Did i say that? Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam What! You have not answered any of my objection, so what circles are you on? That does not make it right, prove to me from Vedas that devas are half god. Opinions have no value if you cant substantiate with Vedas after all devas are intergal part of Vedas. Who you trying to convince with that, first get the sloka right, I ask you again where does it say furtive ? i know my benifit, i dont follow blindly on opinions. It is clear from this you can not think for your self, therefore any argument you put forward, you will deflect it on some else’s opinion, it is obvious I can not have any straight answers from you. This make no sense at all, for if I read it correctly, you are claiming Lord Krishna is basing his sloka on the statement of prabhupada that the worship of devas are materialistic. Stop making statements you cant defend. Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam I have already answered to you regards Lord Krishna's words, fact that you have ignored it completely is because you have no answer to it. sloka you have provided has an error you have failed to address. purport and opinion when so biased i have no time for it. Give me refrence from Vedas that Devas are half God then i concede. Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam In a nut shell you. This is your opinion since you are saying it One I refuted your claim that Krishna is minimizing Devas worship What you call as authoritative translation, I can produce translation by other acharya which does not correspond with the one you produced. Where in the sloka it says furtive ? Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam Read my post again, i was responding to your opnion. So anybody who rejects this sloka and translation obviously has serious issues or Krsna Himself. this i responded to and i believe it is your opinion, unless or course you dont have one. so are you going to minimize Krishna's words i quoted? Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam It is not my wish to comment on Sadhus, but if you bring them up for discussion then be prepared to hear criticism. Anyway I shell refrain from my personal opinion on this. You on other hand I have no problem to counter your opinion. Such threats are common in Abrahamic religion, fatwa’s are issued for daring to criticize or to have a different of opinion, not so in Vedic Hindu dharma. As to your opinion of Krishna minimizing the practice of deva worship could not be far from truth. I see no such reference but I can quote this and let us see how you minimise Krishna’s opinion Brahmaa, the creator, in the beginning created human beings together with Yajna and said: 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) I rest my case Jai Shree Krishna