[Jagannath] Why are you all sleeping?

March 26, 2000

Namaste Narasimha,Jaya Jagannatha!>I no longer think the time I am spending on this thread is worth it.

Yes, it is clear that you cannot support your statements by quotations from any relevant scriptures and you are not willing to do so in the future, so there is no point in debating any more. The standard is that when debating about the shastra relevant quotes are used to back up one's words, otherwise debating is pointless as we could see from this debate. You never provided any reference to any shastra and even you were misleading others and suggesting that only your opinion is correct. From all my statements from this thread you would pick only few of them on which you thought that you can argue and provide some arguments, but again these attempts were failure. The worst thing of all is that you would twist my statements and present them out of context and then with use of false logic you would try to say that I am wrong and you are right and then suggesting to others that they should only listen to your conclusion.>I>was hoping for a productive exchange with you, but it is not>happening. I will answer a couple of points and this will be my last>post in this thread. Hope somebody benefitted from this exchange and>may God bless everyone.

What productive exchange means for you? That everyone should just listen your own opinion as supreme? I was hopping that at least as a SJVC guru you will understand the meaning and relevance of parampara system for SJVC and in general. Due to your stubbornness attempts for any debate are futile because you just refused to accept statements from shastra and to use shastra to back up your words which also proves my point they you are not living up to the standard of guru since you don't know and what is even more unfortunate you are refusing to know what shastras are saying while you are giving misleading statements.

>You are misusing strong expressions like "leading others towards>darkness of ignorance". I will be surprised if this belligerence makes>your gurus either proud or pleased....

No, you are misusing your position and with your wrong statements you are leading others towards darkness in ignorance and that is a fact.

If my belligerence makes my gurus proud or pleased depends on one's mission in life and purpose that person is trying to achieve. Krishna would have been pleased by Arjuna if Arjuna had belligerent attitude from the very beginning of battle on Kuruksetra. My opinion is that for establishment of truth (satya) is worth to fight.

>Yes, you are right - what I wrote is the the opinion (or, rather,>understanding) of P.V.R. Narasimha Rao. I wish you also realized that>what you are writing is the understanding of yourself and not>necessarily what Krishna meant.

I don't know how many times will you ignore this statement of mine that I have quoted Srila Prabhupada from Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam. Whatever I write represents his opinion that he expressed in his commentaries and purports and my opinion is the same since I am coming in the same parampara. Srila Prabhupada knew exactly what Krishna meant because he was on that level of yoga with Krishna. Not everyone is necessarily in darkness like you are trying to prove.

>You should remember the above especially when writing things that can>offend others (e.g. statements on women).

Narasimha, as a person born and brought up in India you know exactly position of woman in Vedic society, you may want to ignore it but that's your problem. As I said before shastra is eternal and always applicable it is only consciousness of individuals that is degrading due to influence of Kali yuga. If someone feels offended by Krishna's words what can I say? Some things were also difficult to accept for me but I knew that the problem was in me, not in shastra so I didn't try to put blame on shastra for my shortcomings.

>Being a little more prudent>and a little less belligerent will help. Don't assume that you exactly>understand what Krishna said, when quoting Him to support a>controversial statement that offends some fellow students.

Frist part of your message I answered in above paragraph. Secondly I didn't send quotation from Bhagavad Gita 9.32: "O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth—women, vaisyas [merchants] and sudras [workers]—can attain the supreme destination." This quotation was send Robert Koch and there is nothing wrong in it. It is quotation from Bhagavad Gita and he referred to it as a relevant verse in particular situation, something that you never do and that proves his qualification to be a guru and your disqualification to be a guru in any sense anywhere.

>As for the allegations that I am not backing up my statements with>Sastric references:

It is not allegation, it is a fact and please don't twist the facts any more by use of your false logic.

>I don't need to give a reference to support my>statement that Guru is one's Brahma, Vishnu and Maheswara. It is only>too well-known.

You have given many more statements besides this one. This is only one of many. So if it is too well know please provide scriptural reference. What is a problem with that?

> I don't have to give any reference to say that your>conclusions from a verse you quoted are questionable (the verse you>quoted itself is enough of a reference).

I have quoted many verses not only one. As usually you will pick only one thing that you think that you can argue about put it out of context, use false logic and think that the job is done.

>What good is it to quote sastras if one has a myopic view of them?

Opinion of the shastra is what matters and not your own or mine opinion. If someone makes a statement and can back it up by shastra it means that his statement is in line with shastra and therefore represents the truth. If someone makes a statement and cannot back it up by shastra means that his statement is wrong because it is not in line with shastra and therefore doesn't represents the truth..

Srimad Bhagavatam 2.7.11 says: "The Lord appeared as the Hayagriva incarnation in a sacrifice performed by me [brahma]. He is the personified sacrifices, and the hue of His body is golden. He is the personified Vedas as well, and the Supersoul of all demigods. When He breathed, all the sweet sounds of the Vedic hymns came out of His nostrils."

In Bhagavad Gita 3.15 Krishna says: "Regulated activities are prescribed in the Vedas, and the Vedas are directly manifested from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Consequently the all-pervading Transcendence is eternally situated in acts of sacrifice."

Here in these 2 verse it is said that the Lord who is the Absolute Truth is also personified Vedas, that the sounds of Vedic hymns came out from his nostrils and that Vedas are directly manifested from Him. What it means is that when you refer to Vedas to back your statements up you are referring to the Absolute Truth or the Lord Himself and if you are not referring to the Vedas than you are referring only to your own mental speculation which represents only your own opinion. I hope that you can see the difference between the two. If you cannot understand this essential point I can only say that all your knowledge that you acquired so far was just waste of time and is useless.

>What matters is one's understanding. Depending on our Karma, Maha>Vishnu gives us the level of maturity we deserve. THAT will decide thel>level of our understanding and not how many books we possess and quote>and how many gurus we read or listen to.

Proper understanding can be only gained if one is initiated and has mantras from bona fide parampara started by God Himself for which I provided reference from Padma Purana in my last message that you obviously just ignored.

What also matters is that Krishna fulfills all our desires and if you want to be remain in darkness of ignorance then you will. If you want to know the Absolute Truth then you have to have desire for it.

>As I said, Srila may have mentioned a break in succession to simplify>matters. The verse only says the knowledge passed on by Him in a>succession was eroded in time. It can be because of the limited>intelligence of human beings.

When you write a reply to my message it would helpful if you read my message first, so that I don't have to write same things several times.

In my previous message I asked doesn't word "eroded" means that parampara was broken one way or other. Please see meaning of word "erode" in dictionary.

>Second, you said that my statement - that Krishna was talking about>karmaakarma vikarma vichakshana there - was strange.>Well, please do read the rest of chapter 4. After saying in 4.2 that>this knowledge was eroded in time, Krishna goes on to explain it>further. He clearly talks about the distinction between karma and>akarma there. He talks about who kartritva belongs to and how to>engage in karma and still be above it. So all your allegations are>pointless. Do read the rest of chapter of 4 and understand the>context, instead of fighting in a vacuum over 4.2. I will quote a>couple of sample verses. This will also partly answer your allegation>that I am not quoting sastras. ;-)

What Krishna said in 4th chapter in the verses 17-20 is to do with knowledge of what action is, what forbidden action is, and what inaction is. This is in reference to transcendental knowledge and how one should understand properly what action is, what forbidden action is, and what inaction is.

While in the 3rd chapter of Bhagavad Gita Krishna explains how person can act according to his guna and karma without attachment to results which should be offered as a sacrifice to Vishnu - which is Karma yoga. So I don't understand if Krishna talks about action you immediately take to be karma yoga while you are ignoring whole 3rd chapter that talks about karma yoga.

>You quote a verse that literally says "knowledge passed on by Me in a>succession was known to saintly kings, but this knowledge was eroded>in time" and get into some contrived notions that a parampara not>starting in God is "bogus" and claim that this conclusion comes from>the verse and, to top it all, allege others of "illogical" statements!>I just don't know what to say, Dina-natha.

I will repeat again what I wrote on the beginning of this message: "The worst thing of all is that you would twist my statements and present them out of context and then with use of false logic you would try to say that I am wrong and you are right and then suggesting to others that they should only listen to your conclusion."

And sure enough you are doing it again.

I wrote that knowledge has to come down in parampara and therefore referred to verse 4.2 from Bhagavad Gita. I also wrote that the knowledge has to be given by God and that Krishna made arrangements to speak Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna because the parampara that Krishna was referring to in verse 4.2 of Gita was broken or "eroded" so He had to came down again to start the parampara.

Apart from this I have also provided 2 important reasons why knowledge has to be given by God and that is that Vedic knowledge is perfect and it can be given only by a perfect person which is only God.

Second reason is that in the Padma Purana it is said:" sampradaya-vihina ye mantras te nisphala matau: if one does not follow the recognized disciplic successions, his mantra or initiation is useless".

As usual you have ignored all my arguments and put things out of context twisted them around and hope that I will swallow it, but I am sorry it doesn't work that way.

OM TAT SAT

Dina-natha Das