Sanathana Dharma - 6

Upto part 5 I was trying to present a reasonable argument to support the view that we should submit ourselves to the Universal laws that govern all aspects of life to live in harmony with the society and to derive maximum benefit from life( not all of which being known to us). That this cannot be man made and whimsical was also discussed. That these set of laws at its application level might seem contradictory when we compare religions and sects. Infact there is nothing wrong even if we admit that some ideas and concepts in different religions are also opposed to each other so much so that only one of it can be held truly valid.
But that is when we examine at a superficial level.
   "Those that commit sin and not seek repentance will burn  in eternal hell
   " Those that commit sin will get punishment in their next rebirth till the time they seek atonement

If we look at the above two statements there is a direct contradiction. But if you examine the purpose for this admonishment and the spirit there is actually the same spirit. So at the superficial level an eternal hell does not exist. But when the religion branches out in time , it starts composing stories of an everlasting hell . So yes there may be ignorance in understanding the spirit and it might cause some blind beliefs and arguments with other religions, so much so that this point itself becomes an argument for conversion. It may be so. But one can see that there are two facts behind this ignorance
           1. Sins have to take their toll and it can be for a very long time
           2. That there is redemption through atonement and repentence
Whether there is a rebirth or some continuance can be a contradiction when literally interpreted. But if one views that there is only Dharma which gets mis-understood to be taken up in different contexts , one feels safe that religion is after all guiding but with mis-understanding creapt at some point.
However people might argue that Eternal hell was spoken by none other than but by the founder of the religion. This is where I object. I say , "you might say that your religion was founded at some time. But my view is that your religion just like mine was never founded by anyone. Further I say there was a time when men amended the religious concepts to suit their requirements. But since God is there as an active principle, he is always correcting the path of humans, to the extent that humans have their consciousness and goals evolved" ... To be contd.

Sanathana Dharma -5 man made laws -

Part 4 of my post is here

http://reconcilecomplexity.blogspot.sg/2012/10/sanathana-dharma-part-4.html

I discussed that the requirement of different people is different. Some would agree and say that therefore Organized religion be banned as it tries to create a standard set of regulations.

The requirement of people may be different but we cannot cater to all the requirements just as the craving for icecream of a little kid cannot be catered to all the time. There would further be no progress if we have laws that can be changed at a whim nor will it work out if each allows his own rules. The former means there is no respect for a law and the latter means that there is nothing but individualism. Individualism is opposed to unity of the world. Some would therefore say that there should be a compromise between freedom and restriction.

Is there any scientific rule to distinguish what can be allowed as a choice and what should be restricted. I will not be surprised if people are busy preparing mathematical models on this subject. Needless to say any model is good only as much good the information that we have. We have some well documented works on human behavior for last 200 years of the known 100000 years of human history. This is a far from anything comprehensive. Some would say sufficient sample. I would say not. We are dealing with only 7-8 generations of humans , and many historical events and circumstances have never occurred during this period. Nor can we conclude that certain circumstances not believed to have been possible , have never occurred. To get to a scientific basis would not be to postulate laws on limited information( for which there is no sufficient scientific law to explain if it is anywhere near to being comprehensive) but use a different approach from studying and deriving laws of human psychology from the current state of nature and consciousness itself. Even here the state of human nature has never been comprehensively predicted . We have best been able to summarize some behavior outcomes to a few decision points.

To not deviate from my discussion, what I intend to say is that the conventional belief that religions carry forward some laws which have been in existence for more than a millennium, cannot be dismissed outright and they need to be treated with respect as they bear the stamp of a long human experience to circumstances.

Sanathana Dharma dictates that humans are governed by laws which cannot be altered and are not subject to imagination and they do vary in time and place. The variation in application cannot be divised without understanding the core principles involved . At one level laws are eternal and at another level they seem practically different. The difference is because of the limited scope under which a particular human operates and may not be considered a limitation in the universality of the law. That every now and then one cannot restate and create a new law seems crystal clear to anyone who observes the chaos in society and the failures in such attempts. That people and the adminstrators try to universalize a local application and meet with failures is also clear.

At this juncture there can be a question. What is the so called original Sanathana Dharma laws? Today the situation in the mind of people is different. There just seems to be deviated religions and wrongly applied principles. Obviously the concern deserves attention as no-one wants to accept religious laws under the notion of improperly applied principles( the discussion here pertains to what is commonly discussed today as the corruption of religion)

Sanathana Dharma - Part 4

 The part 3 of this series is found here
http://reconcilecomplexity.blogspot.com/2012/10/sanathana-dharma-part-3.html

My attempt here is not to present anything new. But use my modern ideas and jargon to elaborate on the age old concept of Dharma.

Sanathana Dharma we must understand teaches us not only that life is all about living harmoniously with the living and non living world but also to uplift oneself to discover the true nature of oneself.
So far I have written about living harmoniously with the world. For this there is a way. But no way should be so as to cause confusion and sadness in an individual.

 No way should be something that an individual cannot practice.We could take a step forward and say that ways of righteousness must be so defined as suits the individual and must be based on time and circumstances. Just as we proclaim this, we must realize that laws are laws. If force of gravity is inversely proportional to the distance from the object then it is so. In the same way , nature's laws cannot be twisted to suit us. What can be done is to create those circumstances by which the laws when they act do so favorably to us. It is the circumstance that we place ourselves in, that gets changed and we can beneficially create that circumstance. There is obviously a limitation but there is also a freedom. Thus we must say there is a degree of freedom within that limitation. 

When the requirements of humans was limited the stipulations that an individual had to lead was simpler. As people started being more and more different the positive recommendations so that they can bring about a favorable circumstance in their life became more different and more complex. Thus though the end goal became the same the way of life, the rituals and religions started branching out to suit differential temperament. This is the reason why religions are different not because one religion is completely right and another is completely wrong.

In a sense the parent Sanathana Dharma is the same . The branches have come about to cater to the varying times and varying requirements of people.

To give an example-
A person is happy with a meal and shelter provided to him and a reasonable life span that supports him.
 He can even stay hungry for some days but would not like to kill an animal for that. He can live in a jungle but does not covet another's land .
What kind of recommendations would you provide to that person for further upliftment and contentment?

Now there is a person who cannot be happy even if you provide him a mansion and provide him with hundreds of counsellors.

There is another person who needs to pray to God to be happy. But there is someone else who not only needs prayers but needs music during prayer. There is another person who does not want to pray but wants to meditate.

We can in this manner show that the choice of people is different and no-counselor can make things completely suitable. We need to work at the level of the society's consciousness. The society the man is born in has a certain consciousness and influences individual behavior.What ever we propose must allow an individual maximum freedom to progress but should also be something that is acceptable for everyone around that individual. Reason for that is we cannot divorce ourselves from our family and society unit. In that case there must be a consensus on what should be applicable to all individuals in the planet. Then there should be a consensus on what should be applicable to an individual country , individual society , to a sect and to a family.

That is the concept of Samanya Dharma and Visesha Dharma as is preached in Sanathana Dharma. Thus every religion must within its codes have some special specifications and also a universal specification. This way it is easy to reach a pact and work together for complete progress. The idea of a single set of rules and edicts and a single prescription for way of leading life is applicable only if all humans have the same level of consciousness and same level of requirements!

Sanathana Dharma - Part 3

The previous part of this series was covered in http://reconcilecomplexity.blogspot.com/2012/10/sanathana-dharma-part-2.html

There are some things which all humans must note.
We need to lead ourselves in a way which must give us more wisdom and contentment. Many people can intuitively perceive that we must all live in harmony with nature and other humans. While we set about creating our own rules to live in harmony with others we must understand that there is limitation to self-made rules.

The very concept of self-made rules and concepts created out of consensus with just some people is akin to selfishness inherent in us. It only serves our ego and is opposed to the principle of universal harmony. On the other hand if we consult the views of everyone( regardless of their wisdom and motive) and compose a hotch potch set of regulations for society it is likely to be chaotic .

If we select a panel to set the order for the society the question will arise, who is the personal who will select the members of the panel who set the rules for the entire society. Should it be based on some degree. While a degree might imply some knowledge on a subject, that need not be a pointer to commonsense and wisdom. Even if it is perceived so by society, there is much to question as none of these degree holders have come up with a long lasting stable set of rules for society. In the same way any kind of criteria we use could always be put to question by others opposed to that criteria or that set of people. There may be merits even in the words of an illiterate but there is no easy way to pick and choose the right from the wrong.

The animal kingdom is less governed by self-regulation. They live and eat as they please. They are also at easy disposal. The mighty lion and tiger of the jungle are at the mercy of nature and humans. If they kill indiscriminately they would perish. But nature presents them with a limitation, since they cannot go beyond a particular set of activities and a particular mode of life, once the condition is unsuitable to their life, their population reduces.

Humans on the other hand have the ability to stretch  the limits. If a particular way of life is no longer suitable we can use our intelligence to extend the boundaries. But if we go too far too fast things are no longer under control. Thus there is a definite need for regulation  to live harmoniously with everyone and given our ability to improvise we can live in a system that is more orderly.

We can only seek to identify the patterns of the past and understand the circumstances of the present to create our stable system. For this we need the co-operation of a majority of humans.
This is what Sanathana Dharma is all about.

As we rephrase the same definitions of Sanathana Dharma in different ways, we must understand that Sanathana Dharma is about getting the big picture and not confine to narrow aims which are self serving. If we trust nature to give us wisdom, then we must at an individual level create the environment for others to grasp the significance of this. We must figure out a way for changing the behavior of people. The right direction will automatically be established if every one has the right motivation. This cannot be a one day wonder. It must take thousands of years for order to be established and thousands of years for this established order to change under pressure. So we can figure out that people's adherence to the right way of living also can possibly change with time but there is a difference that can be made at the micro level starting from the individual and extending to his family to his community and to his nation and to the world.

Having said this let us visit some questions which I raised in my previous post and give my take on them
1. Believe that as long as they do not interfere in others life, anything they do is fine - If we accept the concept of Sanathana Dharma that entire world is related to each other in effect and in cause and no one is isolated , we can say that such an attitude is wrong. A society which seeks to establish its goal in such a manner will self-destruct. It will only boost ego and egoistic society will neither live harmoniously within and with others. This kind of society is opposed to Dharma and such a society cannot be!
2. People with an agenda but find life unfulfilled because others do not accept their agenda - Any right set of actions will create positive ripples in the environment. If there is some progress one should not feel disheartened. But when people devise their own agenda with scant respect to history or past experiences or previous knowledge , it is no different from the blind trying to be the leader. Whether or not others follow this leader is immaterial. We know that this kind of leadership will not go too far.
3. People whose ideas are accepted by people but the positive impact of their ideas is short-lived or never
      able to take shape- I have the same thing to say about this as the one previous. There is a limitation to self-devised ideas. One should accept with humility that one is not all knowing. If that were the case the individual would always come up with a solution to every problem. No doctorate in human psychology can enable an individual is able to lead a completely stress free life. One must understand that ideas born out of limited knowledge of history and specific to circumstances and a period of time is bound to be short-lived.
4. People who act on the basis of established beliefs and who believe in some eternal religion like
       hinduism,   Christianity, Islam but yet not able to achieve what their religion says can be established. - To cut things short, we see people who believe in Sanathana Dharma conduct Yagnas for rain and similar such prayers. If man's life is itself contrary to nature and one side they pray and on the side they cause destruction, how fruitful would their prayers. Life is more than just a bunch of rituals . One should correct one's way of life and then hope for effects to take shape. If you pray to Jesus for the victory of America in Iraq, and on the other hand kill an innocent child how do you expect God to help. This is where people do not see the big picture.

Thus Dharma regardless of the religion to which you belong is seeing the big picture and positioning yourself as a part of your society and not as a whole , will enable you to constructively act. This kind of Dharma as one can understand is independent of the sect in which you are born. There are works of nature to which all of us must subscribe. This is what Paramacharya of Kanchi meant when he said that all individuals of all religions by default belong to Sanathana Dharma and are under its purview. Different religions including modern hinduism or christianity are but its branches.

Sanathana Dharma - Part 2

The first part in this series can be referred here
http://reconcilecomplexity.blogspot.com/2012/10/sanathana-dharma.html

The basic concept which I was discussing in part 1 is the existence of an eternal law which operates on all aspects of our life be it physical or be it emotional.

If there be such a  law that governs every aspect of universe then there should be an implication of believing in such a principle.

This is where Scientists are likely to be pessimistic. We described in part 1 that every behavior can possibly be studied as some kind of science based on a known set of laws, Scientists would not necessarily be averse to it. But the moment we start talking of implications of believing in the existence of a universal law that should govern an individual behavior there will be a lot of tension. It is not difficult to see the reason. Science as we know today emerged from the conflicts that arose with religion in the medieval ages in Europe. Religion as was known in those days tried to stifle creativity which is the bed rock of modern scientific progress. It tried to stifle questioning of age old concepts. Such a questioning led to a more rational explanation of the universe and allowed people to establish principles that has helped in material progress.

However if there were a law that governs human behavior and action and the resultant impact of actions and thoughts, there must be sufficient thought given to understand this. The solution does not come from dismissing the existence of such a pattern but understand it rationally. One cannot dismiss something just because we may later find it inconvenient.

So talking about implication, the implication is this- Nothing , not even the freedom to exercise a thought can be viewed in isolation from our surroundings. We are dependent on nature and nature is also known as the sum of its parts which includes us.

So my proposition is that we start there.
1. An Eternal law governs the whole of living and non living world.
2. That the eternal law needs to be understood to have a beneficial impact on oneself and others.
3. That we need to act in a spirit of co-operation with nature as it were which includes us as one of its parts

This is what concept of Sanathana Dharma is all about . It starts there!
How do we live life rightfully for our own sake and for the sake of others. How do we factor in the whole nature in our actions!

Once we understand that it is not insane to believe in such things we should immediately review the kind of life that is being led today.

We commonly see people who
  1. Believe that as long as they do not interfere in others life, anything they do is fine
  2. People with an agenda but find life unfulfilled because others do not accept their agenda
  3. People whose ideas are accepted by people but the positive impact of their ideas is short-lived or never
      able to take shape.
  4. People who act on the basis of established beliefs and who believe in some eternal religion like 
       hinduism,   Christianity, Islam but yet not able to achieve what their religion says can be established.

If we understand what Sanathana Dharma is all about , we can correctly understand the problems with the way people deal with things. This is what I intend to explore in the next post!

Sanathana Dharma

There are countless articles on this subjects.

I hope to share my take on this topic. My thought process on this subject has developed due to the inspiration of Paramacharya of Kanchi, and some other great thinkers and saints.

Sanathana Dharma would mean the "Eternal Dharma".

Dharma is a unique indian word which can be loosely described as the principles that should govern an individual's life.

Should there be one?

Today science is trying to postulate the laws that govern the universe. It seeks to explain the behavior of all matter. Why is it looking for such an answer? The reason is that there is a principle that governs the property of all matter.

Moving from the realm of matter to the realm of thought we are slowly transcending to an area or a domain that is not exactly in the same class of objects as the materials dealt with by science. We are talking about psychology.

Human , animal psychology!

But it is not just that we can say. The behavior response to a circumstance from a plant can also be studied.

What I intend not to discuss is the similarity or difference of thoughts from matter. What I would like to point out is that the subject of psychology should also be governed by certain laws as which governs matter. It is not difficult to see why this seems possible. Every thought, every living being is not unrelated to its circumstance. Any idea holds its dependency on a previous idea or activity in the world. From birth to death, from the time in the womb to beyond, any kind of development in the mental and physical activity of a living being is dictated by the circumstance and by the thoughts and information received by it.

No scientific information or invention is possible without a source of information or without a surrounding circumstance. Thus thoughts by themselves can be shown to be never be independent of their circumstance. If one were to therefore refer back to the linked references one is likely to speculate that it may be possible to construct a particular behavior under a particular circumstance. This is thus something that pertains to a law of psychology.

We can also see that just as in the case of non living matter no part of a living matter is independent of circumstances in the universe. This seems to be a common experience.

Looking at the entire picture, we could suppose that all living and non living matter in this universe is part of the universal law which creates the circumstances for the matter to operate. If we could say that the primeval or elementary laws that governs the atoms must have been consistent since the beginning of universe the same may be said about living matter too. There does not seem to be an evidence to the opposite. Any new kind of rule that emerges in the universe must be as a consequence of these elementary laws that operate.

The idea of Sanathana Dharma must be seen in this way. The eternal law that an individual must be subject to is what Dharma is all about. Such a thing should be eternally in operation subjecting both living and non living matter. While we can speak about laws , can an individual show a behavior contrary to a law. The answer is no but we can show that following and creating certain circumstances around oneself one can help to create a situation that is more beneficial to one's contentment and thought process . Acting in another way, is likely to create an environment around one's mind which is likely to be less satisfactory. To say that the effect of all circumstances and thoughts is the same and has no effect on the individuals' own behavior and character development is nothing short of advocating that there is no such thing as a law of human behavior. It can easily be recognized that every circumstance in the world has a particular behavior syndrome associated with the living beings of the world who are part of that circumstance.

What constitutes this Dharma is a separate discussion!

Pointless comparisons between Krishna and Christ

The objective of this blog is not to dispute the divinity of either krishna or christ. But it is to respond to people who are ever comparing the two. It is most certainly an objection to the fanatics who want to show how krishna( who belonged to a much earlier era and lived at a different period) does not meet the standards of christ. I am not going to be probing any of the beliefs of the christians in bible and I assume that the modern bible may be indeed recording the real life of christ.
I present a few common arguments made against krishna and provide my answers.

1. Krishna was not born to a virgin but Christ was - I can understand the angle from which this point is stated by christians. It is their belief that if he were not born to a virgin then somehow his divinity is lost. Let us proceed by the assumption that christ was born to a virgin. Fine! Here we need to stretch ourselves and accept that occassionally,in human history, unusual things happen. This defies conception of modern science. Fine! But then in that case none of the miracles in krishna's life can be dismisssed as implausible either, by the same set of standards. Can a woman be a sinner if she is not a virgin after marriage? It is merely an assumption by christians that she is! There is no basis for such a belief . The Hindus believe that the reason unwedded or extramarital sex is to be prohibited is that it prevents a proper lineage in the family to be passed on. It is more of a practical law that prevents disintegration of the family. It may be a divine law or otherwise but it assumes importance because of its practicality. Thus this law is very much followed by the hindus as much as they abstain from meat or alcohol. Millions of hindu women remain virgin until marriage even if it means that they need to wait for 40 or 50 years for getting married or even if it means that they must stay unmarried for life. So hindus are certainly following moral life here and they need no tutoring on this. Its great that christ was born to a virgin but somehow his mother was impregnated by the holy ghost according to some. During the same period as krishna , another person karna was born to his mother kunti who was a virgin. The great sage Vyasa in that period having born to his mother satyavati immediately grew up to an older boy ready to travel with his father for education. These are miraculous events and one can easily see that each of these events are equally likely or unlikely.
On the other hand the reason why krishna was born to devaki and vasudeva( his mother and father) was because they were granted boon of being the parents of vishnu's incarnation. If krishna were to be born to a virgin then he couldnt be a true son to his father vasudeva. Also there is nothing to prove that sexual affair between married parents is a sin. It can easily be argued that the only reason that sex is ever considered a sin, is that it has a possibility of abuse , and of perpetuating a wrong lineage(if done illegally). In fact jesus had to pass through the genital tract of his mother. One can easily see that this kind of thing may be called impurifying . So this whole argument is a needless one. Joseph was not present with Mary for a long time,so if jesus wanted to be born to her, he could only be born to a virgin. Because a divine being cannot be born in an illicit affair. If one is looking for miracles at the time of krishna's birth there are plenty of them recorded. Further to assume that God can be defiled by the simplistic acts of humans is ridiculous. This is what the whole virgin argument does. This argument can in no way distract from hindu claim of krishna's divinity
2. Claim that Krishna did not heal people and cure the sick and bring the dead back to life - Krishna did bring sandeepani's son back to life. He did save draupadi from being abused even though he was not physically present at the place where she was affected. Then again parikshit was born dead and was brought to life by krishna. Now we can see that krishna's power did not necessarily have limitations. Jesus was supposed to be like a wandering mystic healing people and bringing back the dead. Krishna's life mission was different. It had a clear agenda to inspire people in devotion. hindus are aware that through devotion to the lord of universe one is able to connect with the divinity that pervades this universe and there is a gradual process of mental and emotional clensing which happens till the point is reached when the individual soul meets the divine lord. Krishna's whole life was to inspire devotion through his eternal charm and beauty and it is this everlasting charm and beauty that has kept vaishnavism flourishing to this date.
To cure a few sick people God need not incarnate on earth at all. He can cure them from whereever he is. The point of coming onto visible earth is to provide inspiration for devotion. There is a group of hindus who with good reasons reject this whole concept of faith healing, not because it is not possible, but because it is wrong. There was no need for krishna to make healing the only purpose of his life because he could do the same wherever he is. Had he made healing and cure of the dead as the main motive of life, it distracts from the real purpose of life, not to run away from suffering but to conquer it. Suffering is caused by one's own actions. Christians believe that too in some way. Hindus believe that through surrender to god, one can be cured of suffering, but they add that the individual must make the best efforts to keep away from unwarranted wrongs if one has really surrendered to god. christians have somewhat a similar belief but there are many who believe that surrender to christ is the only means of being freed from sin. Krishna does not say that, he only says that the kind of being one worships results in prayer being granted according to the nature of the divinity in the being. At the same time, if at all any kind of wish or prayer is fulfilled it is because of the power of the one supreme lord of universe. In many ways we can contrast the teachings of krishna and christ but it is easy to see that the entire purpose of their lives were different. krishna established order in the world before leaving it. This is considered proof of krishna's great mission. Christ and krisna therefore have a different kind of mission, and it is pointless comparing these aspects to establish the divinity of one and rejecting the divinity of another on the basis of comparison of few superficial aspects such as way of life.
3. krishna's life was filled with imperfections whereas christ's life was not- This is a spurious argument when we cite individual cases of krishna's supposed misdeeds.
i. krishna stole butter from the neighbours- Claim is this is bad example to set for people. It completely misses the fact that krishna was playing around with people and teasing them as a child and actually gave joy to the people.Neither is the fact that he stole butter hidden nor is the fact the fact that people were overjoyed by the pranks of a naughty child hidden from hindus.Stealing is a reprehensible act, and no true devotee of krishna ever does that even in his dream. Further to this there was a purpose to these acts and that was to teach the people to share the food they have and not to hide it away from others. Krishna not only stole the butter but shared it with his friends. Critiscism also misses the basic fact that the whole village community lived like an extended family and krishna did not steal food from any stranger. There are more beautiful and detailed explanations to this story but it should suffice that when determing whether something as right or wrong the following things need to be investigated
a. who are the parties being affected by a "so called crime"
b. what is the conclusion of the affected parties at the end of the episode
c. what was the intention behind the acts
No hindu has ever been shy of the story of krishna stealing butter including the most honest of people and the legend as described in bhagwatam describe how the people of the village felt blessed by krishna. Further to this - the same krishna protected the villagers from the wrath of Indra( the lord of the angelic beings) by stressing the importance of hardwork as opposed to blind prayers.
ii. krishna played pranks with women and stole their clothes-
the facts stand
a) the girls secretly admired krishna and undertook a long ritual for getting married to krishna. They were so committed in their prayer that they took bath naked in the cold river of yamuna and only the last day of that period of prayer did krishna make his entry
b) krishna was not a stranger to them nor is the description of the story mentioned in anyway that the girls felt humiliated and insulted by such an act. On the contrary they were basically shy even though they harboured such a desire
c) a Prank is wrong only if it affects the parties concerned. krishna does not fit the bill here as well
Here there are likely to be two more objections
...krishna should set a moral example from desisting from such pranks. the fact that he did not indicates that he was not god- this objection is based on the assumption that to honour the desire of an individual is wrong. krishna however did not set any immoral precedent. Neither were the girls molested nor were they strangers nor was there a sexual act nor is krishna described to have been infatuated by the ladies nor was he said to have done something the girls did not wish for. Finally reading the episode between the lines cannot be justice. One must read the whole episode and find out the real intention behind the play. The ultimate climax of krishna's play with gopis was the following
1. the gopis(his lady friends) lost any form of sexual feelings for krishna and realized him as the divine lord
2. the gopis lost jealousy , pride, greed, lust and realized the presence of krishna everywhere
3. the gopis develop true devotion to god
If one just quotes a small part of an episode without reading the full episode one is bound to lead to absurd conclusions. The entire episode happens in a logical sequence and once one reads the full episode one can see and understand why each episode happened the way it did. krishna's stealing of the clothes was not just to thrill the ladies but it was his way of bringing out the feeling of these ladies into an open unabashed manner. he brings the feeling out and slowly purges the base qualities in the desire. the desire for krishna was not wrong, the infatuation was.the ladies are filled with infatuation even before krishna was involved in stealing the clothes but their infatatuation only leads to them realizing that krishna is really unattainable through infatuation, and one by one all their worldly feelings are transformed into pure divine love for god. It is easy to cristiscize but to this date there has been no one other than krishna who could remove all forms of lust and base qualities from his devotees.
c. krishna married, christ did not - this is again a presupposition that an incarnation of god should not marry. if he can be the son of someone, he can be the husband of another.
d. krishna had thousands of wives- if god can have one wife he can have thousands. Infact the reason he had more than one wife was that there were many who equally desired him and if at all god can marry someone who loves him he cannot be partial.the common hindu is wedded to one wife- not to speak of the fact that most do not undergo even divorce. but there is reason for the general tendency to have only one wife- that is one must not neglect resposibilities to one's partner. hinduism sees possibility in both polyandry and polygamy within the framework of marriage. But it is no where a common practice . this cannot be accepted as an imperfection because krishna does not impose restriction on his wives and their freedom, all the women he married desired him, and he is supposedly present at the same time in everyone's house and showered equal love on all. the legend actually recalls the above fact. Marrying more than once is wrong only to the specific repurcussions of the act. people may dismiss krishna's amazing simultaneous presence at the homes of all his wives but they are willing to believe that he had 16000 wives and no wife was forced to marry him nor was the freedom of any wife restricted in any way. we certainly dont have a jealous and admonishing god here. if one holds strict conventions on right and wrong without understanding the purpose why something is called right and something wrong , one is ever likely to critiscize krishna.
e. krishna could have stopped the war from happening if he was god-
firstly krishna was the one who went on a peace mission to stop the war. Infact to prove his point he showed his divinity to the blind king who was momentarily filled with wonder, but fell back to his ignorant thinking. the reasoning of the king and his sons was not correct and their act was an unjust proposition. the pandavas could have accepted the unfair agreement and desisted from war totally. It would have only saved the royal family from death but not the world from an unjust king and his aides. if the accusation is that a god can prevent death and wars then this accusation is no different from the accusation of atheists " that if there were a god, he could have prevented death". krishna's bhagwat gita answers this question well enough.the message here is death is something that should never be feared as fatal.it has a purpose. so no incarnation of god ever completely stopped war and death whether it was christ on his heavenly throne or on his earthly life . the argument is spurious. if one is to accept this argument then that means that everyone should tolerate all the injustice meeted out to them and resist in no way even if the welfare of public is not being served through this silence.

4. krishna did not save people from sin- this is purely a theological argument . the concept of sin as preached by modern church even it was advocated by jesus has not been proven to be true. it is an assumption possibly coming from the teachings of jesus. krishna saves all his devotees provided they act in a god conscious manner. this idea has been presented well by prabhupada the founder of iskcon and one may read it for a detailed understanding of the saving grace of krisna.

5. krishna did not have all qualities of god- well vaishnava literature lists down an exhaustive list of attributes of god and they show krishna satisfying all of them. somebody brings different scales and shows different definitions and such readings conveniently fitting one person and rejecting another. if the scale of vaishnavas were to be used against jesus, then he would fail to qualify. it can easily seen that humans want a rigid definition but god cannot be circusmcribed to a limited circle. when krishna invokes his power to save parikshit he says- if I have never done anything unrighteous may he be protected. vaishnavas take that as proof of his correct nature.when one reads the narrative of srimad bhagwatam one can easily see that but for rigid definitions of actions( without examining whether these definitions can be held universally valid- the way to examine that is to understand the purpose behind rules) there is no way krishna can seen to be doing something improper or there is no real instance when he was immoral or when someone was unjustly affected by krishna.

Of late the main accusations against krishna that I have seen are regarding his many girl friends and wives, his stealing of butter as a child, his encouragement of war. I have briefly provided the lines of argument in support of each these acts. People are free to discuss with me on specifics