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

Purusha sooktam verse 2

Verse 2

(purusha) purusha (eva) alone (idam sarvam) is all
of this, (yad bhUtam) that which was, (yac ca bhavyam) and
that which is too be. (uta) Moreover (amRtatvasya) of
immortality too (IshAna) is he alone Lord. (yad) That
which (annena) as food (atirohati) shows itself, that too is
purusha.

This is the standard translation given. While this might be the correct translation. There are some who have slightly different translations to this. One translator has given a meaning for atirohati as "grows immensely", so that the last part of the verse would mean that purusha grows immensely by food. I leave the discussion open here . I have another doubt with regard to the translation for the words (idam sarvam). As opposed to the translation given below, when the verse is chanted it sounds like purushaevadagum sarvam. evadagum - what does that mean? If I were to follow that the svaram and the tone is to determine the meaning then evadagum might mean something more. Why this doubt? Isnt the meaning obvious. Again I repeat what Lord Krishna had to say. That he is not this material manifestation.
So while translation may be correct I will personally favor such a meaning at a more deeper level
"Purusha is the one who pervades or permeates everything,what was and he is the lord of immortality,and is beyond anything which grows by food"The last part may be translated in different ways such as he grows immensely by food etc. But somehow that did not satisfy me.
He is certainly beyond anything which grows by food, since the purusha does not need any food to grow or sustain? ati means beyond
yad anena rohati could mean that which grows by food and therefore loosely it can be translated as he is beyond anything which grows by food.
My translation may possibly be fanciful and just a play of words. I leave my thoughts open and I will continue to ponder on this verse!

My take on Purusha sooktam - Introduction and Verse 1

Scholars seek to ascribe multiple meanings to this exalted hymn from the vedas. Having gone through a number of translations of this hymn, I feel more satisfied with translation attempts by Sri vaishnavaites. What makes their translations praiseworthy, is the fact that they have a deep foundation in not only sanskrit scholariship, but are heavily moved by devotion when seeking to represent its meaning. I am not going to deviate from such translation attempts but I would like to view the translations in the light of my slightly different philosophical viewpoint. Thats the only difference which you will find here.
For the source of this translation please refer to http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-1.html
I have with due homage to their seers represented the translation as it is in their website in my blog. But I have lent intepretation colored by own philosophical view, to this. I feel that translations and interpretations of such great verses should not be bound by copyright as the source and inspiration to any translation, has come from the common ancestors of entire mankind . In this sincere view I am representing this translatioN. However should anyone have objection to my representation of this translation, from a legal standpoint, I will sincerely pay heed to the advice of the genuine people concerned.

My justification for the need of an ellaborate contemplation on the meaning of vedic verses
1. The upanishads and vedanta in a more comprehensible language prove beyond doubt that the seers of those times had contemplated on nature of god at the very deepest level. If the internal evidence in these works are to be accepted then it must be acknowledged that the source for all this is in the vedas itself as represented by the innumerable hymns including the purusha sooktam. So such powerful understanding of god must have come from equally deep and rich verses
2. It is already recommended that while reciting vedas , knowing its meaning brings maximum benefit. While this is not possible to do so now due to the difficulty in grasping the meaning by modern humans, one should certainly be open to listening or chanting mantras, while simultaneously contemplating on the mantras. Remember that there is qualification to the kind of person who must chant the mantra. But I feel that it is wrong to say that-listners can never seek to derive the same benefit from the mantras as the chanter.
I however personally feel that merely contemplating on the meaning is not the key. The secret is to be able to study the effect of the mantras and dig at the source of its meaning. I can assure that there is certainly spiritual power in these mantras, and the way they are chanted makes a difference. Further the person who chants these hymns also can make a big difference on the power unfolded by the mantra. Finally, to be able to study the effect of such mantras, one must himself be a qualified person. Normal mortals like us can only open our minds to the translations produced by great seers like syanacharya and interpret them from a reasonably open point of view, and hope to learn to visualize the power of these mantras in due course of time, as we progress spiritually.


verse 1-
(sahasra) Thousands (SIrshA) of heads has (purusha:)
the great being. (sahasra) Thousands of (aksha) eyes has he,
(sahasra pAt) and thousands of legs. (sa) He (vRtvA)
manifests (bhUmim) the world. (atyatishTat) He stands
beyond (daSAngulam) the count of ten fingers.

In accordance with Sayanacharya, we may take the meaning of this verse to represent the manifestation of god in all that lives. The word Sahasra may just mean a thousand or might mean uncountable. But we need to understand that there is a subtle difference between what purusha is and what he is not. As in Bhagwat Gita, Lord Krishna says that the ignorant mistake him to be the material manifestation. If we were to go by this understanding and go by a more literal translation then the verse should mean-that the purusha has thousands of heads,thousands of eyes and thousands of eyes and he extends the world by ten fingers or limbs. Some interpret the last part of verse to mean that the divine purusha cannot be measured by the 10 finger counting system. This interpretation is certainly true if it can be proven from ancient scriptures that dasangulam is used to refer to a counting system. If we rewrite the interpretation as extends beyond the 10 fingers, we are closer to this meaning.what this particular verse does not mean, is whether we ourselves are a limb or a head or an eye of the purusha. The verse indicates the powerful facet of this purusha with these huge number of dimensions and who has huge physical and mental resources at his disposal.This way I must acknowledge that the scholars of dvaita, advaita and vishitaadvaita can each interpret something according to their own viewpoint. Why use the word -thousands?, is there a word for uncountable which would have been more suitable? The grand darshan or vision of the thousand headed vishnu was granted to arjuna, as described in bhagwat gita. so that there must have been something to the head and limbs of purusha which is different from an individual or a normal human's head! So the verse certainly should not be interepreted to mean that our heads are the head of the lord , our eyes are the eyes of the lord, etc as some people intend to do when they translate.

There are two possibilities in my view though I feel more comfortable with the second possibility
1. the word for thousand - sahasra may mean just thousand or thousands if we were to go by a literal translation. which means that the divine purusha has delibrately manifested himself with only those many heads, eyes and limbs as is needed to be present everywhere in the world.
2. the word for sahasra might mean something more. Is there a clue? It can be understood from the teachers of the vedas that the swaram or the manner of recitation of the syllables define the meaning intended to be conveyed. I can vouch that having heard the recitation of this verse, the word sahasra is given a special stress during the recitation of the verse and this swaram has to determine its meaning. Further the same word sahasra is recited with different swaras according to its position in this verse.Maybe sayancharya might have been aware of the meaning based on such recitations, in which case, his interpretation must be given more importance. I however would like to leave the interpretation of sahasra open for understanding through devotion and meditation rather than just forcing it to subscribe to someone's religious views.
Coming back to the last part of verse. I feel that by merely stating that the lord cannot be counted by 10 fingers is stating an obvious assumption of people with regard to god. No there is something deeper. lets see how this verse is chanted. atya thistat is prounced as though it is somehow separated from dashangualam or 10 fingers. so we must first state this- the purusha stands extended beyond the material world. this seems to be implied. then we state the next part of the verse. dashangulam. Though I leave the meaning of this verse to readers, I would like to bring forward a view that dashangulam refers to 10 members and not just 10 fingers. Thus in such a view, the purusha is beyond the constituent 10 members or properties or elements of the universe. Here is an interpretation that I have brought from the following website
http://www.vjsingh.info/int3.html
according to this
quote
"
The phrase 'dashangulam' in the verse stands for the universe and the heart. The word angulam (finger) is here used as a name for limbs or members.
It signifies the finite world. The entire universe is composed of ten parts, viz., fiver great and five subtle, i.e., altogether ten elements.
The phrase may also be taken to mean five vital airs (<>pranas) the four inner senses, the manas, etc.., together with the outer senses, and the jiva as the tenth or agan,
it may mean the jiva's heart which also measures ten finger breadths."

There is a possibility that such an interpretation is true because the word 'anga' in sanskrit may also mean limb or member and not just refer to a finger- example usage is the word "vedanga"

Ayodhya : What is the correct solution

Yesterday, September 30, 2010 was another day chance missed. The Indian Allahabad High Court Bungled by declaring that only 2/3 of land must be given to the Hindus and only 1/3 of land must be given to Muslims. It was a great opportunity missed.
Why?
It would have been the new beginning to religion in India. And a solution that could have changed history of religion was missed. But I hope that atleast the Supreme Court changes its views and provides the right solution

Let us consider the facts first
1. Hindus worshipped in the place for many centuries and they dont pray at any xyz place, and this itself is proof that the place was sacred to the Hindus
2. Evidence has been broughtout to show that Mosque was built on a temple( whether on ruins or on a temple where people continued to pray will always be debatable)
3. Mosque was there for centuries in that place and that place was important to the Muslims too

Now the solution
Hindus recognize that God has form and also a formless attribute. Muslims believe that God is formless. Even those Hindus who believe that God cannot be formless, also believe that God can have a form yet he can be prayed to within the mind.

So the solution is here. The Court should have ruled that the place of worship must go both to the Hindus and the Muslims. They must together discuss within a specific time frame on how they would like to Build a religious structure, where both can pray together- where neither muslims or hindus are disallowed and where there are common code of conduct for conducting prayers. This would have been revolutionary - This does not mean that there is a call for a new fusion religion. But whoever cares to pray there should be able to pray in his own way, silently, without noise at that place. The cleanliness of that place is to maintained in a way acceptable to both

The fact is neither are our saints so revolutionary in thinking, nor are our courts so far sighted when it comes to interpretation of religion. Also I found that the three judges expressing dissenting views in public is a shame.

Hinduism allows silent prayer to God and so does Islam. The solution was to grant both of them the right to pray without causing disturbance. This would be the most revolutionary and correct judgement.

My answers to the preachings against Hinduism - Part 1

This is part of the series of Blogs and I hope that these answers will atleast help hindus resolve the doubts raised in their minds by christian missionaries. The intention of this blog is not to run down on Jesus, which is what an ordinary christian would assume. But it is to free the public from the propaganda that belief in christ is somehow essential for every one who wants to be the beloved child of god.

1. "Jesus was the first person to emphasize that love not hate is the ideal." - The life of many vedic rishis like vasistha and the later saints like Buddha and Mahavira is sufficient to prove that neither was Jesus the first person to emphasize love against hatred, nor was he unique in this matter. Infact it can be easily seen from the life story of these saints that their love and affection to people was not only free from hypocracy , greed, want of some heavenly glory etc but also extended to animals. Those who are filled with hatred will choose to pick up those examples who are imperfect and highlight their flaws at the expense of good qualities. But atleast in this regard the characters I have mentioned do not have the flaws which the missionaries would like to find.
2. "Jesus can only truly cure the sick and provide solace to desolate sections of society" - This is not true at all. We have a recent example in India, the Sai Baba of Shiridi who has performed miracles and cures at the same level of Jesus Christ, and he certainly not even a christian. There have been more examples even in the past including the likes of Tiruganasambandar. Just like among the christians, the hindus too have amongst them more charlattans and fake gurus than true saints. However the great saints of India, have never attached much importance to miracles(whether or not they performed them). The reason being that miracles and healings could only provide temporary solace to the Individual. Until the individual understood that material desires amount to nothing, and the only purpose of a long life was to reach atleast a more disciplined and sustained experience of spirituality, before making the journey to next life. The fact that praying to a God cures a person of a certain problem does not really prove that the saint or deity is all knowing. Further if failure in getting expected relief even after prayer to God is to be taken as a standard for deciding if that God is powerful ,in that case, even christianity has failed someof its more sincere followers. Similarly the chirstians like to argue that non christians could be cured of their problems only if satan decides to help them or only if they somehow unknowingly win the grace of christ. Not only can this argument be applied against the christians, there have been plenty of examples available to prove that even those who are cured of certain diseases at a certain stage continue to suffer again at a later point of time due to a certain other health problem or disease or pain at the time of death. Thus the christian cure is not a gurantee against future occurence of a more fatal health disorder.
3. "Jesus worked for the lowest sections, while Hinduism worked against the lowest castes"- This feeling is widely received by the affected sections of the society. But we need to see if the so called component of Hiduism called varnashrama as it was deviced really exists in the current society of India. The next question to ask is if the socalled varnashrama is responsible for the social inequalities. This question has been sufficiently addressed by aurobindo, ISKCON and Vivekananda that I direct the readers to their explanation of these questions. But if the flaws of the Indian society is to be taken as proof of the failure of the Indian rishis and Krishna , then how would any logical person accept the argument that christianity was somehow better when it was able to spread mainly due to imperialism and not until the christian world became millitarily powerful and not until they managed to enslave the africans, native americans and conquer India, and not until they tortured thousands of goan hindus. The christians would retort that Christ never preached inequality but Krishna and the rishis did. My answer is -If the Rishis were so fond of spreading inequality then why did they throw off all comfort and embrace the forests and why did they allow even scorpions to bite them , but refused to kill them. Krishna 's view on Varna is however sufficiently explained by ISKCON and the actions of Ramanujacharya, that I dont even think I need to defend it.
4."However inspite of the good qualities of the saints of other saints,Jesus was alone perfect". This is again a repetitive argument. Please ask the Christians to enlist the good qualities of Christ and compare these qualities with Vasistha, Buddha and Mahavaira. I think any logical and well read hindu would see that there is really no logical foundation to the argument in favor of a unique christ. An alternate christian tactic is to divert the attention by starting a discussion on Krishna's so called flaws . Even if we allow the accusations to pass, the uniqueness in terms of good qualities of christ would remain unproven. I again see no reason to defend Krishna's actions as they need to be seen from a spiritually matured point of view and it would be apparent that even if the so called actions of Krishna of stealing butter as a child, playing and teasing the village girls, use of cunningness against the wicked were all taken true, these actions in no way prove Krishna to be a wicked or a criminal person. A patient reading of Srimad Bhagwatam is sufficient to understand the incidents according to the prose of the work and not according to the imagination of the accusers. However incase there are people who want to still debate on this I redirect them to vaishnava forums who have answers to each of these silly questions.
5. "Christ was born to a virgin"- The argument here is that this is a unique incident. A little reading of pagan deities reveal that this belief is not unique to christ. Some christians like to quote vedas and say that it refers to a virgin son and that it is really a prophecy of christ. If this is to be taken as a prophecy which was fulfilled 2000 years after it was made, then in that case one cannot dismiss the other verses of vedas which are contrary to christian understanding of god. Rather one must conclude that christian understanding of god, is only a subset of the vedas -more comprehensive understanding of god. A more rational argument is that vedas also pointed to deities born to virgins and this again makes Jesus non unique. I dont need to go so far back in time, even the renowned saint Sadasiva Brahmendra was believed to have born to a virgin mother just over a few centuries back. There must be a logical reason to only accept that one incident alone was true, and really speaking there is none. Being born to a virgin proves or disproves nothing . Finally there is really an alternate christian legend which explains that christ had a brother. This leads us to suspect that this virgin story was superimposed by the early church by amalagamating the pagan legends in the many lands it conquered.
6. "People have been blessed with the vision of Christ". I am not sure whether any christian is really aware of this-"But people of other religions have also had these visions."
7. "Christ said that I am the only way". If he indeed said this, then he was not a fair person because he does not say what happened to people of his grandfather's generations and other earlier generations before him ? There are people who could argue that somehow christ mysteriously saved those deserving people who did not worship him. If that is the case, then we should all try to become a deserving person rather than focussing on accepting christ(and not be deserving at all). End of argument.
The vedas put a fullstop to all these motivated arguments of the missionaries by a simple proclamation
"Truth is one, the sages call it by different names".
Let us all focus on becoming good individuals rather than trying to superimpose the rituals and labels we follow on others.

Vegetarianism in Ancient India

Hello friends , there are many among you who have read contradictory tales of vegetarianism in India.On one hand you would have heard that many people in India were meat eaters and later became vegetarians. There is also an accusation that brahmins used vegetarianism to practice untouchability. There are others, who consider that vegetarianism arose out of a desire to defeat buddhism and jainism.
Unlike my other blogs , I will not flood my blog with quotations or make it too long. I will present a few facts and the reader can ask me for specific sources. Further I shall leave the reader to make their own inferences
Fact 1. Vegetarianism as a lifestyle in India predates Buddhism and Jainism
Fact 2. Majority of Indian Population were vegetarian most of the times.
Fact 3. Maintenance of Slaughterhouse were considered taboo
Fact 4. Domestic animals were not eaten except probably as sacrifical offerings conducted on rare occassions.
Fact 5. People from good family never consumed any unclean meat or meat not offered to God and this was consumed along with a prayer
Fact 6. It was acknowledged even by the meat eaters that animals had a soul and that they had a karmic responsibility to take care of animals
Fact 7. Meat consumption vanished not because brahmins wanted to prove themselves superior to jains, but because they were fully convinced of vegetarian ethics.
Fact 8. Meat was consumed in extremely low quantities by many brahmins and that too only during sacrifices and that is why vegetarianism quickly spread across brahmins during reformations.
Fact 9. Vegetarianism was the practice of most ascetic orders which included the buddhists, the jains as well as the brahmins
Fact 10. Yagna did not always involve sacrifice of animals
Fact 11. Yagna was not performed to relish the taste of flesh.
Fact 12. The smritis of Hinduism is clear about virtues of vegetarianism

A clearer picture of Ancient India

Clearer Picture of Ancient India-

What Ancient Indians already knew can be reconfirmed by the Indica of Megasthenes
Until the British came to India , the Indians knew this of themselves . Since today Indians don’t trust each other, I thought it was necessary to reconfirm some of what Megasthenes had to say about Indians. There is nothing strange or confusing about all this.
A vast majority of Indians, in pre British India, knew exactly about the nature of people who lived in the past in their own country. We can clearly see that the current situation in India was a result of subsequent changes.
Reference
http://www.payer.de/quellenkunde/quellen1102.htm

1. Identity of India is a very ancient concept- Quote “India , which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemōdos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus , which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile . 2 The extent of the whole country from east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000” (in Ind. Ant. vol. V. p. 86, c. 2).
2. India was a fertile and famine free land, and certainly not barbaric with people destroying and subjugating each other- Quote – “But, farther, there are usages observed by the Indians which contribute to prevent the occurrence of famine among them ; for whereas among other nations it is usual, in the contests of war, to ravage the soil, and thus to reduce it to an uncultivated waste, among the Indians, on the contrary, by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class that is sacred and inviolable, the tillers of the soil, even when battle is raging in their neighbourhood, are undisturbed by any sense of danger, for the combatants on either side in waging the conflict make carnage of each other, but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain quite unmolested. Besides, they neither ravage an enemy's land with fire, nor cut down its trees.”
3. Indians including the ruling class were indigenous people. Quote
“It is said that India, being of enormous size when taken as a whole, is peopled by races both numerous and diverse, of which not even one was originally of foreign descent, but all were evidently indigenous ; 23 and moreover that India neither received a colony from abroad, nor sent out a colony to any other nation. 24 The legends further inform us that in primitive times the inhabitants subsisted on such, fruits as the earth yielded spontaneously, and were clothed with the skins of the beasts found in the country, as was the case with the Greeks ; and that, in like manner as with them, the arts and other appliances which improve human life were gradually invented, Necessity herself teaching”
Quote – “For the Indians stand almost alone among the nations in never having migrated from their own country. From the days of Father Bacchus to Alexander the Great their kings are reckoned at 154, whose reigns extend over 6451 years and 3 months.”

4. The society of India was not certainly demoniac and trying to enslave the low castes -The only way we can understand the contradiction with the present culture is to view the effect of politics and wars, and the result of the fight for limited resources. The quotation takes care of itself
“Of several remarkable customs existing among the Indians, there is one prescribed by their ancient philosophers which one may regard as truly admirable : for the law ordains that no one among them shall, under any circumstances, be a slave, but that, enjoying freedom, they shall respect the equal right to it which all possess: for those, they thought, who have learned neither to domineer over nor to cringe to others will attain the life best adapted for all vicissitudes of lot : for it is but fair and reasonable to institute laws which bind all equally, but allow property to be unevenly distributed.”

5. That land was not even under the control of Brahmins and
priests of that time is reconfirmed – Quote “The husbandmen themselves, with their wives and children, live in the country, and entirely avoid going into town. 46 They pay a land-tribute to the king, because all India is the property of the crown, and no private person is permitted to own land. Besides the land-tribute, they pay into the royal treasury a fourth part of the produce of the soil.”

6. Artisans were so respected as to be exempt from taxes-Quote
“Of these some are armourers, while others make the implements which husbandmen and others find useful in their different callings. This class is not only exempted from paying [S. 43] taxes, but even receives maintenance from the royal exchequer.”

7. Orderliness and little theft,drinking among Indians
Quote:
“The Indians all live frugally, especially when in camp. They dislike a great undisciplined, multitude, and consequently they observe good order. Theft is of very rare occurrence. Megasthenēs says that those who were in the camp of Sandrakottos, wherein lay 400,000 men, found that the thefts reported on any one day did not exceed the value of two hundred drachmae, and this among a people who have no written laws, but are ignorant of writing, and must therefore in all the business of life trust to memory. They live, nevertheless, happily enough, being simple in their manners and frugal. They never drink wine except at sacrifices.a Their beverage is a liquor composed from rice instead of barley, and their food is principally a rice-pottage.b The simplicity of their laws and their contracts is [S. 70] proved by the fact that they seldom go to law. They have no suits about pledges or deposits, nor do they require either seals or witnesses, but make their deposits and confide in each other. Their houses and property they generally leave unguarded. These things indicate that they possess good, sober sense ; but other things they do which one cannot approve: for instance, that they eat always alone, and that they have no fixed hours when meals are to be taken by all in common, but each one eats when he feels inclined. The contrary custom would be better for the ends of social and civil life.”
8.That the modern situation of labourers falling into bonded labour due to non payment of loan, was not a practice during that period.
Quote “The Indians neither put out money at usury, nor know how to borrow. It is contrary to established usage for an Indian either to do or suffer a wrong, and therefore they neither make contracts nor require securities”
Quote “Among the Indians one who is unable to recover a loan or a deposit has no remedy at law. All the creditor can do is to blame himself, for trusting a roque.”
9. Rigours of Brahmacharya and the virtue of abstinence from meat was not a new concept to Hinduism- Quote “The Brachmanes are best esteemed, for they are more consistent in their opinions. From the time of their conception in the womb they are under the guardian care of learned men, who go to the mother and, under the pretence of using some incantations for the welfare of herself and her unborn babe, in reality give her prudent hints and counsels. The women who listen most willingly are thought to he the most fortunate in their children. After their birth the children are under the care of one person after another, and as [S. 99] they advance in age each succeeding master is more accomplished than his predecessor. The philosophers have their abode in a grove in front of the city within a moderate-sized enclosure. They live in a simple style, and lie on beds of rushes or (deer) skins. They abstain from animal food and sexual pleasures, and spend their time in listening to serious discourse, and in imparting their knowledge to such as will listen to them. The hearer is not allowed to speak, or even to cough, and much less to spit, and if he offends in any of these ways he is cast out from their society that very day, as being a man who is wanting in self-restraint. After living in this manner for seven-and-thirty years, each individual retires to his own property, where he lives for the rest of his days in ease and serenity”
10. The argument of kancha illiah that Ancient Indians somehow hated buffaloes is trashed by this quote. Neither there seems to be any reason to believe that beef consumption was widespread. JNU Scholars have tried to argue that Indians were reckless meat eaters can be disproved by this single quote Quote “
They eat flesh, but not that of animals employed in labour. It needs to be emphasized that in parts of India lay brahmins did eat flesh, but even there it was certainly not reckless meat eating with beef and a whole lot of other domestic animals. Once again even here we can see from earlier quotations, that they did not eat during brahmacharya and a specical category amongst them did not eat meat at all.
11. Genealogy of Kings existed as far as 6451 BC in India,
Quote – “For the Indians stand almost alone among the nations in never having migrated from their own country. From the days of Father Bacchus to Alexander the Great their kings are reckoned at 154, whose reigns extend over 6451 years and 3 months.”
12. That there was an ascetic sect amongst Brahmins whose principles seem similar to modern sanyasis . The fact that they followed the upanishadic thought is indicated here Quote–“ There is among the Brachhmans in India a sect of philosophers who adopt an independent life, and abstain from animal food and all victuals cooked by fire, being content to subsist upon fruits, which they do not so much as gather from the trees, hut pick up when they have dropped to the ground, and their drink is the water of the river Tagabena.a Throughout life they go about naked, saying that the body has been given by the Deity as a covering for the soul.b They hold that God is light,c but not such light as we see [S. 121] with the eye, nor such as the sun or fire, but God is with them the Word,—by which term they do not mean articulate speech, but the discourse of reason, whereby the hidden mysteries of knowledge are discerned by the wise. This light, however, which they call the Word, and think to be God, is, they say, known only by the Brachhmans them selves, because they alone have discarded vanity,d which is the outermost covering of the soul. The members of this sect regard death with contemptuous indifference, and, as we have seen already, they always pronounce the name of the Deity with a tone of peculiar reverence, and adore him with hymns. They neither have wives nor beget children. Persons who desire to lead a life like theirs cross over from the other side of the river, and remain with them for good, never returning to their own country. These also are called Brachhmans, although they do not follow the same mode of life, for there are women in the country, from whom the native inhabitants are sprung, and of these women they beget offspring. With regard to the Word, which they call God, they hold that it is corporeal, and that it wears the body as its external covering, just as [S. 122] one wears the woollen surcoat, and that when it divests itself of the body with which it is enwrapped it becomes manifest to the eye. There is war, the Brachhmans hold, in the body wherewith they are clothed, and they regard the body as being the fruitful source of wars, and, as we have already shown, right against it like soldiers in battle contending against the enemy. They maintain, moreover, that all men are held in bondage, like prisoners of war,e to their own innate enemies, the sensual appetites, gluttony, anger, joy, grief, longing desire, and such like, while it is only the man who has triumphed over these enemies who goes to God. Dandamis accordingly, to whom Alexander the Makedonian paid a visit, is spoken of by the Brachhmans as a god because he conquered in the warfare against the body, and on the other hand they condemn Kalanos as one who had impiously apostatized from their philosophy. The Brachhmans, therefore, when they have shuffled off the body, see the pure sunlight as fish see it when they spring up out of the water into the air.”
13. Brahmins of those times were certainly not money minded as there are in the modern times-
Quote – “Bragmanes neither love gold nor fear death.”
Quote – “They (the Brachmans) eat what they find on the ground, such as leaves of trees and wild herbs, like cattle”