BinduMadhav

Atanu, my good man, {And neither comes without grace..} You are mistaken about the word Grace, in religious terms. Grace is something bestowed by Lord Krishna on mortals like us, not because He has to, but because He condescends to. It is a Judeo-Christian term.

Dear Guest, {There is no point you guys sweating on Shiva vishnu debate. Sorry Shiva and krishna debate. Krishna is above vishnu right...., ram is above vishnu & below krishna right...oh vaishnavas?...} Your post is cool; and has some truth. So let's all accept the following order for supremacy of gods: Supreme Lord Krishna/Vishnu: Paramatma, Parabrahman or Supreme God. Sri Lakshmi/Andal: Vishnu Shakti, inseparable from Lord Vishnu. Siva: Greatest Vaishnav, First in line among demigods. Very dear to Lord Vishnu because of his Bhakti for Vishnu. Goddess Ambika: Siva Shakti, inseparable from Siva. Then all other gods and goddesses. What say thou, Atanu?

Dear Maadhav, This is indeed very nice. Good job. This is how we should all be. {is it wrong/sinful for a girl to marry a guy younger to her in age ,both being SHRI KRSNA devotees now? No. it is just a vedic tradition. do our shastras call it a sin? No. will our merciful LORD SHRI KRSNA reject the girl and the boy entry in HIS kingdom inspite of their total dedication of their marriage to THE SUPREME LORD??? No, no, no.}

Dear Ratheesh, As you say, there are some problems with the caste system. It is somewhat a broken system. But the problem is within ourselves. Here are my points: (a) It is a misconception that the Brahmins have usurped the power from all other groups. Most Brahmins just want to do Svadhyaya and Pravachana (refer to Taittareeya Upanishad). All they are interested is in intellectual pursuits related to Ishvara and Brahman. It is possible that the Brahmins influenced the thinking in the older times because they were the bookkeepers and most of the brain of the society regarding God. That is probably their only crime. (b) In the modern times, Brahmins don't tread the path of Brahma. Most people can't even remember any of the Shlokas of Sandhyavandanam. Most people are so busy surviving that the caste system is now passe. © The only place where it is still thriving is in the country side where you will find severe and strong divisions along the caste lines. A non-Brahmin, these days, possibly cannot get the job of a priest (although that too is changing) but he/she can get practically any other job. If you think the system is broken, well, start a revolution. It will take another 5000 years to do it, but perhaps you can drop the caste system in that timeframe and the society might be that much better. Just don't forget to indulge in beautiful experiences of chanting God's names while you work towards your goal!

Dear Radhekrsna: {first of all,,BRAHMIN means a person who has realised the BRAHMAN/BRAHMA JNANAM and spreads the good word to the people around him.} That is good. I agree. {the LORD is not partial toward the the people who take birth in brahmin families...HE has given EVERYONE a chance to become a brahmin.} You are right in that the Lord is not partial. But the Upanishads state clearly that according to Vasanas and Purva-Samskara's, the soul is born in the family of a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra. Once the soul takes shape in a body, the person has to carry on the Dharma assigned to him/her. There are a few instances of extraordinary people like Vishvamitra changing from a Kshatriya to a Brahmana (or, Brahmarshi, for that matter). But such instances are rare. Take for example, the warriors such as Drona and Kripa. They were Brahmins and they died Brahmins. They did not bother to change to become Kshatriyas. On the other hand, Bheeshma was extraordinarily knowledgeable about the scriptures and he was one of the few who recognized Lord Krishna for who He was: The Supreme Lord Himself. But did Bheeshma ever try to change to Brahminhood? No. And what about Lord Rama and Lord Krishna? Did they ever aspire to become Brahmins? Not at all. Don't get carried away by emotions. We cannot afford to do that. The scriptures state that and that is what I am stating. A non-Brahmin, especially a Shudra, cannot become a Brahmin by changing over. But again, I have great respect for people of other castes who are vegetarians, good to others, worship the Lord and exhibit other good virtues. Again, I don't understand why anyone wants to be given the title of a Brahmin. The title does not mean a thing. Of course, there are new schools of thought that declare everyone as a Brahmin.

thiruvengadam wrote: "very disappointing what u have posted doesnt give pride to a saivite.....iam a very strong saivite and also a great admirer of ur posts but ur recent post didnt please me.....i thought ur main aim is not to proclaim that saivaism is The Only path as the vaisnavites proclaim but to make clear to vaisnavites that God is every were and He appears in the form in which u like Him the best just to please u.........." Dear Tiruvenkatam, I started reading Rajasekar's posts due to curiosity (and out of a sense of guilt since I called him a demented fool). But your post does not make sense at all. Rajasekar is right in that the dictionary meaning of Krishna is 'dark skinned'. What he fails to mention is that the Lord also has other names like 'Achuyta' (One who never falls), Anantha (Infinite), Govinda (Lord and Protector of cows) and thousands of others. Lord Krishna is the True Lord of the universe with no second. He has created Brahma, Siva and all other demigods, as well as all the other creatures. It is impossible to fully understand Him; therefore in Sandhyavandanam, we use Lord Krishna's several names like Sri Keshava, Narayana, Madhava, Govinda etc etc. Each of these words has a meaning. Krishna also has a dictionary meaning. I don't understand what you are saying here.

Dear Shyam, {..Appaya Dikkshita had written these works under the name 'Sankara' just as he wrote 'Srikanta bhashya' under the name Srikanta. infact all these works do not find a place of mention in the earliest advaitin works nor do they expound Advaita siddhanta anywhere.} I totally agree with you. Many scholars have opined that Sankara's Sivananda Lahari, Soundarya Lahari and others are not original works of Sankara. I did not know, however, that Appayya Dikshitar had written them. It sounds very logical since Appayya Dikshitar was a staunch Saivite as well as a worshipper of Goddess Uma and he hated Lord Vishnu. He also wrote a book called 'Sivaadhikya'. Perhaps Atanu Bhai has read that thoroughly.

Dear Atanu, {As usual your post is condescending as if you are the great teacher who knows all.} Hypocrisy, thy name is Atanu! You say, "Bindu baby", or, "for the sake of this discussion I come down to your level." and you says I am condescending? My good man, you are exceedingly interesting. "First you have to show scripture to support your claim that Shiva is a demi-god." Srimad Bhagavatha Purana states it clearly, as does Sri Tulasidas's Ramacharita Manas. Where Lord Vishnu is physically present, every other god is a demigod. Didn't I define the word 'Demigod' for you earlier? {You have said that Moksha is granted by Lord Krishna alone, assuming that the self of Lord Krishna is not mahesvara. You are wrong. } Well, you are wrong. I have not only said Lord Krishna is Maheshvara (Great Lord) but also Parameshvara (Supreme Lord). There is none other than Lord Krishna. You have provided a whole lot of information without understanding or contributing any original idea. If you are in love with Siva and you cannot go past Siva's image of a Yogi meditating on Sriman Narayana, then so be it. But don't say I did not warn you. Srimad Bhagavad-Gita admonishes people from worshipping Kshudra-Devatas although, unfortunately Lord Krishna does not define a Kshudra-Devata. Here-in comes the difficulty. Which is why worshipping Lord Krishna in his beautiful human form is the best way. That way, you won't go wrong. On the other hand, if one wants to meditate on Sriman Narayana (Parama Purusha), that is OK too. Also, Srimad Bhagavad-Gita states that people with Asuri-character worship Kshudra Devatas. Whom do the Asuras worship generally? Siva. All the quotes you have provided from the Vedas are wonderful but all that can be set aside in front of Lord Hari. {Shiva never sleeps. Lord Vishnu is supported by Adisesha and goes to sleep on Adi Sesha.} Poof! That shows your knowledge. Lord Vishnu is not asleep, He is in Yoga-Nidra.

thiruvengadam wrote: {no saivite ever compared a born, lived and died person equal to Vishnu and nor will they compare anyone to be born with Visnu....so whom do u oppose and to whom do u contradict?} Here you go...another rebel. If you consider Lord Ramachandra as not a reincarnation of Lord Vishnu, I really don't think you can consider yourself a true Hindu. As far as Lord Krishna is concerned, He IS LORD VISHNU. So there is no doubt about it. On the other hand, if you want to start another school, there is another 'Guest' on this forum who thinks 'Bhakti Yoga' is actually pursuit of knowledge.

Dear Guest, {I consider bakthy as quest for knowledge, awareness, realization.} Unless you are starting an entirely new school of thought in Hinduism, you are mistaken about this. Quest for knowledge, awareness and realization is called Gnyana Yoga. True Bhakti Yoga is living with 100% love towards Lord Krishna and all His creation. To take one step higher, Bhakti Yoga is living as a service to others while being in total love with Lord Krishna. Rajashekar is right about one thing. One cannot live with Bhakti alone; Karma is being performed all the time we are trapped in this body. But he is mistaken in that the Karma being referred to in the Gita is actually the Yagnas/Yagas such as Rajasuya, Ashvamedha, Vajapeya and others. The person along the path of Bhakti Yoga is defined in the 12th Chapter of Bhagavad-Gita. If you are interested in reading further, here is the website to Srila Prabhupada's Gita-As-It-Is: http://www.asitis.com/12/1.html.

Atanu wrote: {It is futile to talk with kinds of bindu since they are blockheads.} What is this? I am a blockhead? Oh no! This cuts me to the quick. I am badly hurt. Never knew that I was so sensitive myself until Atanu abused me like this (grin). I am deeply dejected and depressed right now:-) I will have to find a copy of Bhagavad-Gita and delve into it to get over it. Good bye, cruel world!

{Hopefully someone will be able to answer this. I am trying to learn about Hindu beliefs. Respectfully yours} According to Hinduism, yes. We are all born with good and mis-fortunes according to our Sanchita Karma. But just because someone is born with disability does not mean others should treat such people with disrespect. In this universe, everyone deserves love, consideration and help. Especially the disabled persons need to be helped out by normal people in all possible ways. This is the Samanya Dharma of everyone around such a person.

Vinayakan wrote: {Birth is not mentioned by the Lord. Caste by birth is jati. Jati is human made. Jati is not in our scriptures. So every one can become a Brahmin. And every Brahmin by birth is not automatically a Brhahmin.} Dear Vinayakan, Bhagavad-Gita says: 16:24 One should understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated. This means clearly that switching one's 'Dharma' from that of Shudra to one of Brahmin is not advisable. 4:13 According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And, although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the nondoer, being unchangeable. This means that the four divisions of human society is created by the Lord. On the other hand, Lord says that according to one's Gunas, He directs in whose Yoni one should take birth. On the other hand, I don't understand why anyone would want to become a Brahmin. 9:32: O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth - women, vaisyas [merchants], as well as sudras [workers] - can attain the Supreme destination. So why bother to become a Brahmin? A true Brahmin's life is not easy. There are many restrictions on a Brahmin. Shama, Dama are all the qualities of a Brahmin. He has to control the Ari-Shadvargas (Kama Krodha Lobha Moha Mada and Matsarya). He cannot consume alcoholic beverages, eat meat and many others. In the case of people like me, it has become a way of life for us. I don't do Agnikarya, but that is due to lack of facilities. Like this, there are innumberable restrictions on a Brahmin's life. There is no reason why a Shudra should want to become a Brahmin. These days, it is not even status.

{You have full right to debate. But you are not debating by calling him demented fool.} You are right. The gentleman called Atanu (who calls himself Om Namah Sivaya) wrote the same thing in another thread. Rajasekar, please accept my apologies. You are certainly confused (since you say that Bhakti is not a path), and you ARE WRONG; but I have no right to call you a demented fool.

Dear Atanu, You don't believe in firmly facing the music, do you? {You are truly poor.} That is much better. Let's keep the arguments about who is poor between you and me; not my Guru and yours. {And mind you I am not calling you demented fool like you called another debater in another thread.} Well, I regretted writing it a few hours after I wrote it. I should not have called Rajasekar a demented fool. A confused person or a person without knowledge is not necessarily a demented fool. I will add an apology to that thread later. But he is wrong. {Rama Devi -- Lakshmi is Vishnu's power and she is under control of Lord Shambhu.} Let's not compare Sri Lakshmi, Lord Vishnu and Siva to ordinary mortals like ourselves. I will check the authenticity of this Shloka later tonight. But saying something like "which man will entrust his Devi under control of another man? If you have Devi (power of cognition and desire), will you entrust it to me?" sounds quite immature to me. {Bindu baby, howesoever you try to act fatherly and mature but you come across as poor immature.} My dear fellow, I don't think you are capable of ticking me off so easily. If you think I come across as immature, so be it. I have no problems with you thinking me immature or poor. You remind me of a professor I had. When I asked him a difficult question, he would say, "We will come to it later". Only the later never would come. Have you looked at my questions (in proper order)? What is your answer, my good Atanu? By the way, I love all the quotations you keep providing me. Apparently you have a website that you refer to. Can you provide all your references? It won't help me, but it may help others.

{So does your (advaitic) religion preach that Love for God is the ultimate goal of live? } Could this be true? That the Advaita school teaches that Love for God is the ultimate goal of life? Hmmm. If this is so, I think Advaitic people cannot be so bad. Now, if only all Advaitic people accept Lord Krishna as the Supreme Lord, then better and better.

{He knows. And yours is not away to debate. } What do you mean by saying 'He knows'? Are you agreeing with him? And why are you saying that I don't have a right to debate?

Trust me, Atanu, you have not hurt my feelings at all. {You are hurt by my calling you and your Guru poor?} Did I say I am hurt? I suggested to you that you leave my Guru out of the picture. You know nothing about me or my Guru. So why would you want to speculate? What you can speculate about is God. We and all others are doing it on this forum. That is because God does not so easily get 'hurt'! Man has been speculating about God since Satya Yuga. When Lord Krishna said, "I am God, worship Me", all speculation ceased. But speculation about the nature of Lord Krishna itself does not need to stop. From your posts, it seems that you have a long way to go before you answer questions in a straight-forward manner. Again, my logic is this: 1. Lord Krishna says that in order to achieve Moksha, we have to worship Him, not others. 2. We all want to achieve Moksha. You too, right? So why do we want to worship any other god? I will provide an answer for YOU. The only saving grace for you is a refuge in Advaita philosophy. According to Advaita philosophy, there is no difference between Lord Hari and any demigod like Siva. "Sarvadeva Namaskarah Keshavam Pratigacchati". Why could you not provide a simple answer? Why did you not tell me that this is not a "My daddy is bigger than yours" kind of argument, but that you think my 'dad' is the same as yours?

You keep posting such notes saying: "Samkhya teaches how to get out of the hole". That is wonderful. Why don't you explain how Samkhya teaches us how to get out of the hole?

{Bottom line: CASTE is a system created by Man!} In Bhagavad-Gita, Lord Krishna Himself says that He created the Varnashrama Dharma. So I don't see how you can say that man created the caste system.

Dear Ratheesh, You are right about Lord Krishna. He is called Neela Megha Shyama, with the color of His skin resembling dark cloud. But you are not right about Siva's skin color. In Rudram, he is depicted as having the hue of an early morning sun. But you are I disagree on our interpretation of scriptures regarding the caste system so I won't go its details here. Very briefly, the caste system is sanctioned in the scriptures. Dropping the caste system is akin to dropping Sanatana Dharma itself. So no Hindu is prepared to do that (I hope!) The Varnashrama Dharma has resulted in some problems, yes, but it worked for us until the advent of Muslims and Europeans.

Lord Rama had many great qualities. He carried out the Dharma in the most perfect way, treated His brothers as children and loved His family like no one else can. For his wife, Sri Sitadevi, He went after the golden deer, although He knew that there is no such thing. But these are not the qualities that enable us to see God in Him. What makes me believe Sri Ramachandra as God Himself is His extraordinary actions and extraordinary knowledge of everything including human psychology, weaponry and others. He was totally undefeated. Even Lakshmana used Rama's Godliness to kill Indrajit. This leads me to believe that Lord Ramabhadra is Lord Vishnu/Krishna Himself.

{it was composed by the great sage VALMIKI,,,all of us know that valmiki WAS not a brahmin,he was a thief,etc} Be careful there. Valmiki was not an ordinary mortal. What Valmiki, Kaushika (who became Vishvamitra), Vasishtha (who married Arundhati, a non-Brahmin girl), and others were no ordinary mortals. If you (or the person about whom we are discussing) are like those great souls, sure you can do what they did.

Bhakti is NOT A PATH? What nonsense? This guy is a demented fool and he has no idea what he is talking about.

Jai Krishna-.-bhaktya-smaranaupasaka Bholenath Ki Dear Atanu, The more I read your posts, the more I like them. I am seeing scholarly knowledge in you. What needs to happen, as the next step, is going beyond Gnyana and reaching Vignyana. {You and likes of you do not touch my raw nerves Bindu. You just make me compassionate – towards haughty delusion. } Very good. That is the right spirit. True Krishna-bhaktas always are compassionate towards others. Like Siva. {Poor Rudra? You are pitiably deluded by some incomplete Guru and You and your Guru are truly poor and will remain so like Chitraketu.} Tut tut. My dear fellow, this is not becoming of you. Calling me poor is OK, but calling my Guru poor is truly bad. You know nothing about my Guru, so let's leave him out of the picture. {And this guy bindu calls Mahadeva a demi God. Eternal Bhagwan Sambhu becomes laughable to the likes of Chitraketu. Is Shiva bothered. No. Vishnu only punishes them. } I started out with a good feeling towards you, my good chap, but this is not good at all. You want Lord Vishnu to punish me? Why? This is pure illogic. Let me explain why. Assuming that I have made a big blunder in assuming that Lord Vishnu, the Supreme Lord of the universe, is equal to Siva. What is Lord Vishnu? Along with being the Supreme Lord, He is also immeasurably mature and all knowing. Me, I agree that I am finite and very immature compared to Lord Vishnu and even Siva. Why would an infinitely powerful, Omnipotent, Mature entity want to punish someone who might be on the path of learning? You almost talk like Christian preachers who threaten of eternal hell for people who don't believe in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Before we continue to debate (and make no mistake about it, I like debating such issues), I would like to make one point clear: No abusive talk. Do you understand? All the quotations from Saivite scriptures does not mean a thing. My opinion is that you still don't get it. I have no problems explaining it to you again, but I need a response from you first.