Sarasvati

Don't they get the leather for the mridangas from cows that have died of natural causes, or is that yet another myth?

Rati, I agree with you. Those Afghanistani dresses are ridiculous. Sari is such a perfect dress: it covers the body sufficiently, yet is elegant, beautiful and comfortable (unless you go jogging or something). I personally like even the small blouses (cholis). I have understood that the Vedic culture was known for its sense of beauty. Like, even the warriors going to the battlefield were dressed up well. In Kali-yuga, everything is ugly. Soldiers are ugly, buildings look like some monstrous blocks dropped from outer space, furniture is sleek, boring and cold. Et cetera.

My dear grandson (70+), I just remember hearing about a very sweet pastime. Srimati Radharani was born (ie. appeared in this world) blind (or at least she refused to open Her eyes). Only after a year Krishna appeared. When Radhika's parents went to visit Mother Yashoda to see the new baby, Radharani crawled to the cradle and for the first time saw (or opened Her eyes). Now, I might have mixed up the pastime, and it was Krishna visiting Radharani's house as a one-year old baby, and as He bent over Her cradle, She opened Her eyes for the first time. I'm sorry that I don't remember where I heard this story - it was somebody's lecture... I've understood it's a well-known pastime. I'll try to check out the source if I can.

Well, of course showing too much of the body looks cheap. That's exactly why the veil is so attractive. Anyhow, I wouldn't say that the only part of the body we can show is the face and the hands. When dressed up properly in a sari, a girl shows at least her arms and neck (I mean throat). The British (during the Victorian era) considered the sari a very indecent dress. Yet Prabhupada introduced sari to us.

Yes, you are right, Avinash. And thanks to everyone - the answers have been most helpful and interesting. Nectar :-) Hugs to all of you :-) I'm looking forward to reading even more information, if anyone has any.

I don't know about all that. But I remember when my daughter asked me first time why all her Muslim girlfriends wear a scarf on the head. I answered that they wear it for the same reason that we put the end of the sari on our heads in the temple. She said immediately,"But we put it on because it's pretty. Why do they wear an ugly scarf?" I think it was funny. We often hear the truth from a small child's mouth. To me, it seems that Indian women wear (and used to wear in ancient times) a veil because it is extremely attractive, whereas Muslim women cover their heads (as my daughter later concluded) because "their men like to stare at them otherwise. Why do their men like to stare at them, Mommy?"

Thanks. But what I need to know is Srimati Radharani's age, ie. was She 9 or 10 during Rasa-lila? Was She about 15 or 16 when Krishna left Mathura? These are details I need for a kids' story. I somehow couldn't find the answers in the Krishna-book - perhaps I didn't read carefully enough.

I need to know how "old" was Srimati Radharani when a) Rasa-dance took place, and b) when Krishna left for Mathura? I've understood She was a year older to Krishna during Their pastimes. Am I correct? I just need these details for a writing project.

Which religion? Christianity with its story of Adam and Eve. Vedas talk of the progenitors (in plural) of mankind. It is a much more complex story than that of the Bible.

This is off the point, but: Rati (since you asked), I was raised in the West. Accidents do happen, sometimes twice in the same family.

Thanks for your sweet letters- I feel better already :-) And Avinash, by all means call me Daadi Amma, if you wish :-D After all, my cousin-sister became a grandmother when she was only 34, so there is always a possibility.

Nice topic. Radharani is just as much God as Krishna is, only that She is Goddess (feminine, whereas Krishna is masculine). Perhaps due to our Christian upbringing we emphasise the male aspect of God over the female aspect. It is a pity because together They make the Complete Whole. When I first came in contact with the devotees, I was told that Radharani is "the best devotee". Well, yes, but She really is the Supreme Goddess.

Rati, where is the justice if one group of devotees has always lived in the spiritual world (talking about jiva-tattva devotees now, not sakti-tattva like the gopis who are expansions of the Goddess)when another group has always lived in the material world? How did we deserve it? Was God whimsical? I don't see the logic.

Rati, where is the justice if one group of devotees has always lived in the spiritual world (talking about jiva-tattva devotees now, not sakti-tattva like the gopis who are expansions of the Goddess)when another group has always lived in the material world? How did we deserve it? Was God whimsical? I don't see the logic.

When I joined these forums, I thought this is a place to discuss Krishna. Frankly, the discussion on marijuana has greatly disturbed me. Who is the moderator here? And yes, I've been learning Krishna consciousness "for decades" too. When will we have a group of "devotees" proclaiming that it is OK to eat meat, and cracking jokes about it? The way things are going, I wouldn't be too surprised.

Yes, this material world is perfect - just not for our enjoyment. It is perfect for the purpose that it is made for. We can re-learn to love Krishna here.

Yes, this material world is perfect - just not for our enjoyment. It is perfect for the purpose that it is made for. We can re-learn to love Krishna here.

I sort of like the Amish. They try to do "simple living and high thinking" in their own way. They are not particularly sinful people, I would say, except that they eat meat, of course. It's a pity if they are dying out. Perhaps they should also start preaching like we do. No problems with in-breeding then.

Well, if the topic is still "Krishna Chat" (a casual conversation with Krishna)then, yes, a devotee can ask questions from Him. She may ask, "Would You like to have a mango, Krishna?" or "Can I fetch You a glass of water?"

What about, "How can I serve You, Krishna? How can I serve You, Radhika?"

Well Prabhus, I read through this discussion and wished I hadn't. For me, it seems to be more of an emotional issue. I can't bear to think that I never was with my Lord and Lady. Furthermore, it is such a comforting thing to know that there is a place for me in the spiritual world - a place in which I naturally fit - and that our stay in this material world is not just a cruel game to achieve a good position in the end. "If you get to be a Manjari, you'll know you've done it well. If a Sakhi, you're still OK, cowherd boy is like 88% right, but a blade of grass, well buddy, perhaps you didn't chant your rounds with enough spontaneous love." This is all nonsense. I believe we have a pre-destined position in the spiritual world which we'll get when we are ready. Not that Krishna consciousness is like some school where we are trying to achieve a degree. You can call me a sentimentalist, if you wish.

And how do we define "a succesful religion"? By the number of its followers? Then we could just take a leaf out of the Christian & Muslim books. Or by purity? By love to God & Goddess? What is success? Let's define that first.

There seems to be two discussions going on - one about the family size, another about Muslims. Well, just my $0.02 worth: I've met nice, tolerant Muslims. They can be just as wonderful people as anyone else, boys. About the family size: yes, it's true that there are large families in our movement, but it is not particularly encouraged as it is in the Mormon community, etc. The very fact that most grihasthas have only few children is a proof of this. Harikesha Maharaja (during his reign in Europe)actually adviced his disciples to have maximum two children. So there you go. Of course, things are changing. But most of us are coming from a culture that undervalues the importance of large families.We bring that attitude to Krishna Consciousness. It is not that long ago that grihastha-life was still considered "maya". Traditionally, Vaishnavas used to have large families, such as Bhaktivinod Thakura had.

I think this is such an interesting topic. I can also see that in Iskcon we do not encourage people to have large families. How is it that in our movement grihasthas usually have 1-3 children, whereas family-people in other religious groups that forbid/discourage contraceptives usually have 4-10 children per family? In my opinion, it would strengthen our movement if we took a positive attitude toward larger families.

I think we all know that only God can create a religion. Shouldn't we start from that?