animesh

Though I agree that there are very few people who visit temple because they wish to attain God. Most of them go to temples for other reasons. Example: some woman wants a child, somebody wants to do well in an exam, somebody goes to temple because someone in his family (e.g. mother) is not well (there was a time when I used to go to temple for this) and for multitude of other reasons. I do not know whether it should be considered good or bad to go to temple with all these desires. But even if it is bad, I have absolutely no right to condemn people who do so because I have myself done this.

If we want to achieve God, there is nothing wrong in wishing to achieve him. We can not say that we should achieve God and that wishing to achieve God is bad. Because these two statements contradict each other. I opened this site because I wished to see the latest postings; I am typing this comment because I wished to do so. Before doing anything we have to wish to do it. So long we are conscious we are always doing something. This means that so long we are conscious we are always wishing something. Since wishing something is a must, we can not say "don't wish anything". So we should make distinction between what to wish and try for and what not to. If achieving something is good, then wishing to achieve that is also good. If achieving God is good, then wishing to achieve Him is also good.

You are right. Blind affection is definitely bad. But, what to do? That happens whether we like it or not. Should Kaikeyi be blamed or not is definitely a subjective issue. But most of the people who blame her talk as if she was a kind of woman who should always be hated upon. But a large no of people do what she did. Somebody for children, somebody for money, somebody for oneself and so on.

I agree with you. Kaikeyi was just a medium. Lord Vishnu (as Rama) himself wanted to go to forest. After all he was born to destroy evil people. We must not forget that Kaikeyi loved Rama very much. I don't know whether this story is true or not, but when I was in school I read that when Rama was all set to become king, then devatas went to Brahma. Devatas were really afraid that if he accepted the throne, how would he be able to destroy Ravan and his associates. Sarasvati was near Brahma. She made Manthara provoke Kaikeyi. In fact, I belive that this also must be a lila of the Supreme God himself. So Kaikeyi accepted the suggestion of Manthara because Rama himself wanted that. Even if we disagree with this, it is not correct to just blame Kaikeyi. Because any mother, out of affection towards her children, will think of the well being of her children. Kaikeyi thinking the well being of Bharat was quite natural.

Here also we see the greatness of Krishna. After taking milk from Putana, Krishna gave her salvation and considered her as mother because she had given milk to him like any other mother. Krishna gave her salvation knowing fully well that she had come there with the intention of killing him and not of feeding him.

Dear Viji, You hsve mentioned about Sati Pratha. I firmly believe (and I am sure you will agree with me) that this bad system and many other such things happen because some self-proclaimed scholars of scriptures misinterpret scriptures. They do not tell people what is the essence of our holy books. Common folk believe them because they consider them to be highly knowledgeable. It is true that now Sati system is not as much prevalent as at the time of Raja Ram Mohun Roy, but now also some people consider this as good. They claim that it is mentioned in our holy books. I do not consider myself as an authority on our holy books, but I do not believe that they consider sati system as good. If they consider it as good, then why is it that the three queens of Dashrath did not become satis after his death? Why didn't Satyavati become sati after Dusyant's death? If you think, you can recall many other such incidents. In the time of Raja Ram Mohun Roy, the so called scholars of vedas sanctioned sati system. Worst part is that they used to call the women who became satis as devis. Just imagine that the women were forced to become satis and after their death people used to call them as devis, put flowers on their bodies and worship them. This is nothing but extreme hypocrisy. There are very few people like Raja Ram Mohun Roy who can stand against such bizarre incidents. Even Gautam Buddha had to take birth because many people had made worshipping of God as almost impossible for common folk.

Dear Viji, > Again some one mentioned that dowry problem etc arise mainly because of women. In one of the threads I mentioned that there are many problems in society like dowry and that even women support it. It seems you have misinterpreted what I am trying to say. I am not assuming that dowry problem arises mainly because of women. I wrote this statement in the thread "Controversial but interesting". I will just reproduce a portion of what I wrote there: "Even if the laws laid down by Manu were bad at that time also, then also we should not blame only Manu. He was the person who wrote these. But the general mindset of the people then must have been against women taking part in devotional service. There are many bad things prevalent in the society now e.g. dowry system. Assume that somebody likes this system very much and writes in a book that dowry must be given, then that person should be blamed but we should not blame him only because many (in fact almost all) people willingly or unwillingly go for dowry. Even women (from boy's side) support it." Please read this once again and decide what exactly I am trying to say. All I am saying is that just because Manu wrote something which we do not consider as good, then also it is not fair to blame only Manu. Similarly if somebody writes in a book that dowry must be given, then we should not blame only that person because many people induldge in this (even if they do not mention this in a book). I have written that women from boy's side also induldge in this. But I have nowhere written that they are the sole responsibilities. It is bad that men from boy's side ask for dowry. It is bad that women from boy's side ask for dowry. And I fully agree with you that the youth themselves listen to their parents. If they can not listen to their mother when she asks to stop drinking and smoking, then they can as well not listen to her when she asks to accept dowry. I think now it must be clear to you that I wrote those comments in the context of Manu Samhita. For your kind information, I am 25 yr old, my parents are no more. When my mother was there she never asked me not to smoke or drink. This is simply because I never smoked or drank. Now also I do not do that.

Dear Sumeet ji, " One who meditates on the omniscient, primordial, the controller, smaller than the smallest, yet the maintainer of everything, whose form is inconcievable, resplendent like the sun and totally transcendental to material nature." (BG 8.9) This verse asks us to meditate on Supreme God. After that it talks about the qualities of Supreme God. One of these qualities is "inconcievable form". This means that the Supreme God has inconcievable form and also that we should meditate on Supreme God. But it does not mean that we should try to imagine something inconceivable when meditating. That is definitely not possible. By the very meaning of the word "inconceivable", we can not imagine that. We have to imagine something which we can conceive. But we must not think that that is the actual form of the Supreme God. As an example, suppose that I want to meditate on Krishna playing flute. What form shall I imagine? It may be a form which I have seen in a picture or on TV in some serial etc. But can I claim that this is exactly how Krishna looked? When I do meditation, then I just imagine letter "Om". Because we have to imagine something. Just like the material world exist and is full of material forms why cannot when a transcendental world exist it can be full of transcendental forms ? It is really a very interesting idea. I understand what you are getting at. I think you are right. Transcedental form is definitely a possiblility. We can only imagine some form which we have seen or a combination of forms which we have seen. Suppose I imagine a form in which a human being is having horns. It is true that I have not seen anybody having such a body. But I have seen human beings and I have seen many animals having horns. So, I am just imagining a combination. But transcedental form must mean something which can never be imagined using our current senses. If you describe any form to me and ask "Is this an example of transcedental form?", my answer will be "No". No matter whichever form you describe, my answer will be "No". May be we can imagine such a form only if we have divine senses. Could this be the reason that Arjuna needed divine eyes to see the universal form of Krishna? Sorry for digressing from the topic, but now that I talked about universal form, I just have one question in mind. When Duryodhana wanted to captivate Krishna, then Krishna showed a form because of which the soldiers of Duryodhana could not dare touch Krishna. Was it the same universal form which Arjuna saw?

Dear jndas, This is really interesting. You have given very good explanations. I agree with you, but I would just like to add one thing to what you have written: - The meaning of caste in the past (i.e. at the time Bhagvatam was written or before that) is not the same as the meaning of caste at present. In the past people used to do different kinds of works as per their casts. Example: Brahmanas used to perform pujas and teach people, kshatriyas used to protect their motherland etc. Of course there were exceptions but general rule was like this. But at present a person of any caste or religion is entitled to do any kind of job (teacher, engineer, doctor, politician etc). So, the rules which were applicable in the past need not be applicable at present. I am not saying that the rules were bad. They were good for that time but it is not necessary that they are good in present time also. As an example, there was a time period which we know as "Samantvaadi kaal", when enemies used to attack and after killing the king used to misbehave with queens and princesses. If at that time, it was wise to keep ladies in protection of male not to allow them to be alone unless they were powerful enough to protect themselves. But it does not mean that now also women should not be allowed to go out and do jobs. Similarly, Manu Samhita or any other rule book may have been applicable in the past. But it is not necessary to apply them in present time.

I have not read Manu Samhita. So, I do not know what is actually written in that. But I must say that if any samhita i.e. law book is written at a time, then we must not think that those laws should be applicable at all times. As an example, many of the laws of Indian constitution may not be suitable (in fact may be extremely bad) after many years. At that time, if somebody tries to apply those laws, then it is his fault and not the fault of the people who have made these laws. Similarly, we should not think that Manu Samhita should be applicable at present also. If we try to apply these in present time, then it is our fault and not the fault of Manu. When laws are made then whether they are good or bad depends on the society at that time. When Manu wrote that samhita, then he wrote it for that time. We really do not know what was the type of society at that time. So we can not say whether Manu should be blamed or not. May be these laws were suitable in the society of that time. Even if the laws laid down by Manu were bad at that time also, then also we should not blame only Manu. He was the person who wrote these. But the general mindset of the people then must have been against women taking part in devotional service. There are many bad things prevalent in the society now e.g. dowry system. Assume that somebody likes this system very much and writes in a book that dowry must be given, then that person should be blamed but we should not blame him only because many (in fact almost all) people willingly or unwillingly go for dowry. Even women (from boy's side) support it. Summary: Manu wrote the samhita to be followed by people of his time. Without knowing the society of that time, it is impossible for us to praise or condemn Manu because of the samhita. If the samhita was bad even according to that time, then also it is wrong to blame only Manu.

Dear Girish ji, I would like to explain something using an analogy. Imagine that in your previous birth you were a very brave and high ranking officer in army. You fought many wars and won many accolades. Also imagine that you remember your previous birth. Sometimes you may tell to your friends how you fought all those wars etc. etc. In telling these stories, you will use the words "I", "me", "my", "mine" etc. at no. of places. But it is obvious that you are not saying that you fought those wars in the same bodily form which you have got in this birth. The bodies are entirely different. Only the soul is the same. Similary, when Krishna presents himself as the Supreme God and tells about many things he did in the past (eg. explaining Gita to Vivaswan), then he is not saying that he did all those things in the same bodily form which he was having when he was explaining Gita to Arjuna. He says these because he remembers all his previous births. He says this in a shloka (I will translate that into English): "Many a births both you and I have taken. I remember them all but you do not." So, if you consider Krishna as the Supreme God because of the same soul, then you are right. But you will also be right if you say that Narasimha, Rama etc. are Supreme, because all of them are previous briths of Krishna. But it is wrong to assume that the two handed form of Krishna is the original form of the Supreme God. Just like Rama and many other avatars, Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu. He took brith as son of Devaki like any other human being. But he was not an ordinary human being, he was an avatar of Supreme God or, in other words, Supreme God himself. Similarly, all other avatars of Vishnu were not ordinary human beings but Supreme Gods.

I firmly believe that all form of the Supreme God are equally worshipable. It is perfectly correct to call Krishna as Supreme God. But then it is also perfectly correct to call Rama as Supreme God (personally, I am very inspired by the life of Rama) or any other avatar or even Maha Vishnu, Garbhodakshayi Vishnu etc. The only difference is between their bodily forms. So, if we consider one form to be more superiour than others, then we are in a way treating God as just any other ordinary human being. That is definitely not what a true devotee should do. So, I feel that one should consider Supreme God as Supreme God in all his forms.

Dear Viji and Shvu, I agree with you two that any form of Supreme God is equally worshipable. I feel it is very easy to find this if we read shlokas in our holy books with open and unbiased mind. This is what I have mentioned in one of my comments in this thread itself. Please read this and tell me if you find me to be correct/incorrect?

In one shloka, Krishna says that there was never a time when he did not exist or anybody else. It is obvious that he was not talking about his bodily form. Because he is talking not only about himself but about everybody else (Arjuna, all kings etc.). So, if we say that Krishna was saying that his bodily form always existed, then we must be ready to accept that the bodily forms of everybody else always existed. In other words, if a person is reborn, then the two bodies are identical. But this is clearly contradicted by scriptures. Only the soul remains unborn. So we can safely conclude that all Krishna was saying was that "there was never a time when the soul of anybody did not exist". This is further confirmed by other shlokas. Those people who say that the Supreme God appeared in his original form as Krishna, do not call all forms of Krishna as original. Why is it that God had to appear in original form as Krishna but not as others like Rama, Narasimha etc. Some people might say that the work to be performed by Krishna was so big and important that he had to appear in his original form. But what about the works performed by different forms of Vishnu (Maha Vishnu etc.)? Are they any less important or big? I once again read all the shlokas of Bhagwat Gita. Fortunately, I have got knowledge of Sanskrit. I did not find a single shloka which sates that the two handed form standing before Arjuna was the original form of the Supreme God. But I did find many shlokas in which Krishna calls himself as the Supreme God. Now the question is: How do we correlate these two seemingly contradictory observations? I feel that these are not at all contradictory if we think analytically. We know that many forms of the Supreme God give birth to many other forms, e.g. Vishnu appeared as Rama. As respected Viji states, he has given birth to the Krishna form also. Similarly Maha Vishnu gives birth to other forms of Vishnu. But, we do not know of a single shloka which states that Krishna form gave birth to any other form of the Supreme God. But we should not forget that, in Gita, Krishna has been called as the Supreme God. Based on these observations, I conclude the following: - Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu like Rama was his avatar. But this does not mean that Krishna can not be considered as the Supreme God. All forms of the Supreme God can be considered as Supreme because no matter whatever form the Supreme God takes, he has got all the powers. He may not decide to use some of these powers if there is no need, but he has got the power. As an example, Rama never made it obvious that he was God, but he could if he wanted to. So, Krishna's form can not be called as more original form of the Supreme God than Rama's. Similrly Rama's form can not be considered as more original than Krishna's form. The same holds true if we talk of any other avatar, not only Rama and Krishna. If somebody feels that I am wrong, then please do not just say that I am wrong. I request you to kindly give the reasons. I will be very glad if somebody is able to point out the fallacies in my interpretation by siting shlokas from scriptures. This will help me correct my mistakes and improve my knowledge. Before closing, I would really like to ask what we mean by the original form of the Supreme God. As the word suggests, the original form should be the form that was there when the Supreme God was born. But this can not be true because he is unborn. We can talk about the form which is the origin of a FINITE no. of other forms, e.g. Vishnu is the origin of many avataras on Earth. But there is no meaning of talking about the form which is the origin of all other forms. Supreme God exists, in a cycle, not in a single form but in a large no. of forms. So, I accept that the Supreme God has got form (or better forms). But we can't call any one form as the ultimate original. Always remembering Sri Ramachandra, yours truly.

I feel that this forum should be used for healthy discussion. Nobody should expect others to belive in what he/she says blindly. Sri Gaurachandra has called Sri Shvu's usage of the terms "his fans", "lap it up" etc. as impolite. I wonder what he will call the usage of the words "rascals", "madness", "burning heart" etc in this posting. Sri Janardana Prabhu writes as if the people who do not believe in personal form of Krishna deny the concept of soul and super soul, but in reality, this is very far from the truth. If somebody says that Krishna did not appear in his original form, then he is not doing any insult to Krishna. As an example, even ISKCON people do not call all forms of Krishna as original. Does it mean that they insult those forms. Sri janardanaprabhu also has called all the translations of Gita other than that of SP as wrong without telling why it is wrong. It is extremely unhealthy to criticize others just because they do not agree with one's point of view. I really like the way Sri Shvu and Sri jndas discuss. They both make contradictory statements, but both of them discuss in a very proper manner, i.e., they give proper examples to explain their point of view. They do not simply make a statement and expect others to follow. This is why, in spite of their making contradictory statements, I like the way of thinking of both these people. When I first came to know about this site, then I was very impressed by it, but such kind of postings really disppoint me. If it is felt that all those who do not agree with what ISKCON people say are bad, then it should be mentioned very clearly in this site that "nobody who contradicts ISKCON people is supposed to participate in the discussion forum". Also, anybody taking part in this forum should clearly mention whether or not he is associated with ISKCON. If we are supposed to simply blindly follow what somebody else says, then I must say that the name "Discussion Forum" is a misnomer.

The word "ego" is used in two very diferent ways. One, which is gound in many English dictionaries and which is used in technical articles, is the one propounded by the well known psychologist Friad. (He talked of "Id", "Ego", "Super ego", "Conscious", "Unconscious", "Semi-conscious" etc.). There is another meaning which is used in day-to-day conversation by many people. This meaning is "conceit". The actual meaning of the Sanskrit term "Ahankar" (or "ghamand") is "conceit" or "haughtiness". The Sanskrit term equivalent to the former meaning of ego should be "Swayam".

Sri ggohil has written that he is sorry to have raised this issue. I understand his concern. This discussion is really going in a direction which he definitely had not anticipated. But, I firmly believe that we can utilize the discussion on this topic in a very positive way. Why not we do the following: - Let us post those shlokas (and their accurate translations) from our holy books, which talk about personal form" and also those shlokas which talk about "impersonal form". I do not know whether we will reach any unanimous view or not. If we do, good. Even if we don't, still good. Because, at least, we will be able to know a lot about God from these shlokas. This is because any shloka will not tell only about personal or impersonal form but also many other things about the supreme personality of godhead. Also, based on these shlokas, Sri ggohil and the rest of us can make our own judgement about personal or impersonal form. Hare Rama

Hi, I will talk only those things about me which are related to devotional work. From my childhood days, I have always been interested in the vast literature of India. I was always amazed by the vast knowledge of our great ancestors. In fact, I always used to read about Lord Rama. I understand that both Rama and Krishna are same. But, still, I have always been very much a devotee of Lord Rama. I used to read stories about him at that age when others used to read Comics etc.

Hi All, I have found that many devotees of Krishna are using this site very frequently. From their answers, I have come to know a lot about some of them but not all. I would really love it if you all could provide more details about you like the details of works you do, your whereabouts. Also, if you do not mind, please tell some memorable (good or bad) parts of your life. Please do not take it wrong. I do not want to enchroach upon anybody's personal life. If somebody feels that I should not have posted this topic, let me know and I will sincerely apologize. I have posted this only because I got a sudden and strong urge to know all you people.

Hi everyone, First of all, let me tell that I am not at all a scholar in Gita, vedas or any other dharm granthas of ours. But I do know Sanskrit and I do have inclination towards knowing about such a vast literature of ancient India. Without wanting to cause any harm to anyone, I must say that I did find many words in translations in "BG As It Is" which are not there in Sanskrit shlokaas. But one can not claim that it is bad because sometimes, I may be necessary to clarify meanings. As an example, if after reading the actual Sanskrit shlokaas in Gita and without being biased, one can come to the conclusion that the view that talks of personal form of Krishna is true, then there is nothing wrong in mentioning it in the translation of a shlokaa even though the shlokaa itself does not contain these words. But if somebody adds words from his side only to tell his personal views which are not found by actual translations of shlokaas, then it is definitely bad. But, first of all, I really fail to understand why the discussion between "Personal" and "Impersonal" form of Krishnal is so important. In both ways, he is the Supreme Personality Of Godhead.

Dear Viji, Please read the purport given by Sri Prabhupada in text 26 of chapter 10 of "Bhagwat Gita As It Is". In that, there is mention of two Kapila munis.

Thank you, jndas ji. Now my doubts are really clarified.

I am really interested in this. I want to know the origin of Goddess Gayatri. I could not find it anywhere.

Somewhere, in this site itslef, I read that Maha Vishnu is a portion of portion of Krishna. If that is the case, then how can Krishna be an Avatar of Vishnu? Whole can not be an avatar of part!

Could you tell me about the origin of Goddess Gayatri?