[Jagannath] Why are you all sleeping?

March 25, 2000

Namaste Narasimha,

Jaya Jagannatha!

First I must notice that you just ignored most of my arguments from my last message in this thread for which probably you couldn't give any arguments against and as far as I can see you never provided a single reference to scriptures for what you wrote so far. I must say that is pointless and frustrating to debate with you when you cannot back up your words from any relevant shastra and what you write represents only the opinion of P.V.R. Narasimha Rao which you are taking as absolute truth but unfortunately it doesn't have much to do with truth and reality, especially because as I said you cannot back up any of your statements with shastric references.

In your last message you even went further to the extent to suggest to others that they should just blindly listen to your conclusions without providing any argumentative statements with reference to relevant shastras and thus leading others towards darkness of ignorance. And this is coming from person who is repeatedly saying that we should be open minded.

> (1) Irrespective of how you read it and understood it,> 4.2 in Gita relates to karmaakarma vikarma vichakshana> yoga. It deals with the supreme science of distinction> between action, lack of action and unattached action.> This is a very important subject, > Otherwise, why did he specifically mention "raajarshis"?

Translation of the verse 4.2 of Bhagavad Gita by Srila Prabhupada is: "This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost."

What this verse has to do with distinction between action, lack of action and unattached action.? As I said many times before your logic is very strange so please explain how do you connect verse 4.2 of Bhagavad Gita with your above statement. Why Krishna specifically mentioned "rajarshis" I explained in my previous message but it seems like that you even haven't red it.

> He did not talk about knowledge of all Veda and Vedanga.> He only talked about karmaakarma vikarma jnana - which> is vitally important to everyone and esp raajarshis.

Are you sure that you are talking about chapter 4 of Bhagavad Gita and not about chapter 3?

> (2) The interpretation based on 4.2 saying that any> parampara must start from god is only an interpretation.> Sri Krishna did not say it.

It requires little bit of intelligence and logic to understand this point. First question is if parampara doesn't have to be started by God that why did Krishna descend and made arrangements to speak Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna and in that way start parampara again, or maybe you don't consider Krishna to be a God? Krishna did not say it but he showed it by His action and as I said it requires little bit intelligence and logic to understand this.

Second proof that parampara has to start with God is the example of Brahma. At the beginning of creation Brahma found himself surrounded by darkness in the water of Garbodaka ocean he heard word "tapa" indicating that he should perform austerities.

"While thus engaged in thinking, in the water, Brahmaji heard twice from nearby two syllables joined together. One of the syllables was taken from the sixteenth and the other from the twenty-first of the sparsa alphabets, and both joined to become the wealth of the renounced order of life." (Srimad Bhagavatam 2.9.6)

After many years of meditation Brahma finally got darshan of Lord Visnu from whom he received knowledge (this is described in 2nd canto 9th chapter of Srimad Bhagavatam). You know that Brahma is first created being in this universe and he received knowledge directly from God which he passed down to his children. If Brahma didn't received knowledge from Krishna or Visnu he would not be able to pass down any Vedic knowledge, so there wouldn't be any paramparas now. This proves also the point that all knowledge present in this universe is ultimately coming from God and it has to and can be only given by God only and no one else because Vedic knowledge is perfect and therefore can be given only by perfect person which is only God Himself and that is the main reason that Krishna appeared to start parampara and speak Bhagavad Gita on Kuruksetra and that's why God always has to start the parampara. Srila Prabhupada also writes:"The original creature of this universe, known as the adi-kavi, or Lord Brahma, was instructed by Krishna through the heart. After receiving these Vedic instructions from Lord Krishna Himself, Brahma distributed the knowledge by the parampara system to Narada, and Narada in turn distributed the knowledge to Vyasa. In this way Vedic knowledge is perfect. If we act according to Vedic knowledge, there is no question of being involved in sinful activities." (purport on verse 4.8.27 of Srimad Bhagavatam.

When Vedas were stolen Lord appeared as Hayagriva who brought back the Vedas: "At the end of the millennium, ignorance personified assumed the form of a demon, stole all the Vedas and took them down to the planet of Rasatala. The Supreme Lord, however, in His form of Hayagriva retrieved the Vedas and returned them to Lord Brahma when he begged for them. I offer my respectful obeisances unto the Supreme Lord, whose determination never fails." (Srimad Bhagavatam 5.8.16)

From this above examples we can see that Lord Krishna is always very eager to keep Vedic knowledge intact for our benefit and if it is lost or broken He revives it.

> Even knowledge passed by Him in a parampara got broken> in time. Srila wrote that it happened because of breaks> in succession. He may have written thus to simplify the> matter, but Krishna did not mention any break in the> succession. He only said that the knowledge passed by> him in paramapara "eroded in time".

What does "eroded in time" means? Doesn't that means that parampara was one way or other broken?> Knowledge can erode even in a "bona fide" succession> starting from God or an avatar, due to the limited> intelligence of human beings. What the teacher has in> mind when saying something can be significantly> different from what the student understood.

The point that knowledge can erode in bona fide parampara is separate issue. The point is that God has to start the parampara, none said that it cannot erode one way or other. If there is qualified teacher and qualified disciple, then the student will understand the knowledge from the teacher exactly as it is passed down to him by his teacher.

> So the obsession to prove that one's parampara started> in God is pointless. It doesn't matter.

You may call it an obsession, but it is a fact and that's why Krishna came down again to this planet to start parampara again and reasons why I gave above and below. Could you please back up your statement that "to prove that one's parampara started by God is pointless" from relevant Vedic scriptures?

> (3) So I suggest that [other] SJVC members should not> worry about this parampara being "bogus" or "from God".

Were you not the one who was propagating open mindness on this list? Then why are you now suggesting to others how they should think? You can present your arguments and others have their own intelligence and can make their own conclusions. With your statement appears that you are trying to say that members of this list are less intelligent than you or that only your conclusion is valid one.

> Based on our Karma, Maha Vishnu gives us a Teacher we> deserve. We should respect him as God. After all, Guru> is one's Brahma, Vishnu and Maheswara. Searching for the> start of the succession in God, beyond one's guru, is an> unnecessary exercise.

This above statement shows your close mindedness. If you know philosophy you would know that parampara has to be started by God just like there are 4 bona fide or recognized (started by God) Vaishnava paramparas. The disciplic succession from Lord Brahma (who received knowledge from Krishna) is called the Brahma-sampradaya, the succession from Lord Siva (Sambhu - who received knowledge from Lord Sankarsan) is called the Rudra-sampradaya, the one from the goddess of fortune, Laksmiji (Laksmi is expansion of Radharani who is part of Krishna's hladini shakti and of course Laksmi has received knowledge from Narayana), is called the Sri-sampradaya, and the one from the Kumaras (who have received knowledge from Lord Visnu) is called the Kumara-sampradaya. 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. Don't you want to find out whether your mantra and initiation is useless or not? I personally think that is worth taking the trouble. If you think that it is unnecessary exercise it only shows how much you care about them (mantra and initiation).

> (4) Whether I consider Chaitanya Prabhu an avatar of> Vishnu or a saint with Vishnvamsa is immaterial.> Chaitanya Prabhu taught us to pray to Krishna. As long> as we both pray to Krishna as Chaitanya Prabhu taught,> the rest does not matter.

Narasimaha you are just repeating yourself. The rest matters a lot and I gave you some very solid reasons why it matters. If you want to blindly ignore them than go ahead but you don't have to suggest to others to go in that direction and push them in ignorance.

> (5) There is certain ambivalence in Vedic teachings. You> may not like it, but I do. And, that's the way things> are. Dharma sookshmas often seem like contradictions.> That is especially true for a person under the temporary> (or permanent) influence of Mars or Rahu.

First can you please provide reference in the scriptures for your above statement about Mars and Rahu.

If I am running Rahu dasa does it mean that shlokas from the shastra that I am referring to all of a sudden have no more meaning that they used to have. Narasimha, you are just giving childish excuses and you are again trying to use false logic.

> Also you talked about bhakti being important etc etc.> Please note that bhakti (devotion) may mean different> things to you and someone else. If someone doesn't share> your definition of bhakti, that doesn't mean he is a> fallen person.

I only referred to Narada Muni from Narada Bhakti sutra verse 25 in which Narada Muni said that bhakti is superior than karma, jnana and yoga and it is not my definition at all, so I don't understand why are trying to say that it is. Please send your complains to Narada Muni.

> Hanuman was the greatest bhakta of Rama. But he was> ready to fight a war against Rama on a particular> occasion.

So what's the problem with that? Bhisma who is one of the greatest bhaktas of Krishna, was fighting against Krishna.> (6) Why did Krishna say what he said about women?> > Well, as Sanjay said, don't think that you clearly> understood what illustrious commentators of Gita said> (let alone what Krishna Himself said!!).

Look, even if I haven't understood what commentators on Gita said I have only referred to them (Srila Prabhupada). If Srila Prabhupada says that 2+2=4 and he understands it and if I repeat that 2+2=4 but without understanding does that mean that I am also not telling the truth? Does it means that 2+2 does not equals 4 any more? Narasimha, this was just another poor attempt of false logic.

> We should never jump to hasty conclusions based on our> little knowledge.

That why I am referring to previous acaryas and scriptures while you are not. I am not trying to make conclusions based on my intelligence but rather I refer to scriptures and other acaryas and their comments, while you failed to provide any of these. You are the one who is making hasty conclusions based on your knowledge and what you say represents nothing but only your opinion. Narasimha, your above statement was part of "attack is the best defense" strategy, but it didn't work.

>See how humble Sanjay is despite his> vast knowledge. It is indeed hasty to think, based on> one's limited understanding, that one has Krishna on> one's side!

yatra yogesvarah krsnoyatra partho dhanur-dharah

tatra srir vijayo bhutirdhruva nitir matir mama

"Wherever there is Krsna, the master of all mystics, and wherever there is Arjuna, the supreme archer, there will also certainly be opulence, victory, extraordinary power, and morality. That is my opinion." (Bg. 18.78)

Thank you for reminding me on this wonderful verse. That's where Bhagavad Gita ends and that's where I am ending this message.

OM TAT SAT

Dina-natha Das.