Harimedia Forum

As the old Greek saying goes: "The fish stinks from the head down", which simply means leaders are responsible for everything and anything in their society. That includes everything that goes right, and anything that goes wrong. US President Harry S. Truman said it in a different way "The buck stops here." Good leadership and guidance are the most important functions of any society of people. Simply put, bad leadership is responsible when a community or society is lead astray.

As Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks (Read online) outlined. There are three components for successful leaders: taking individuals and bonding them into a cohesive whole, convincing the individuals that they are part of something even larger than the whole and pursuing a culture and tradition of excellence.

"If you have pursued a course of excellence in all that you do... that excellence becomes better than the sum of its parts," Brooks said. "It begets excellence." Brooks said investing in people and demonstrating a genuine interest in them was vitally important for any leader.


> indiadivine.org: Interpretations of Bhagavad Gita (1948)

“Preaching of Bhagavad-gita is not, therefore, a proposition of mental speculation and putting in different mental interpretations of speculative empiric philosphers. It is one without a second concrete fact for the amelioration of the sufferings of humanity especially and animality generally. It must be presented in the bona fide method of spreading the knowledge, strictly in the line of transcendental chain of disciplic succession.”

While reading the article published by Prabhupada in 1948 one can understand, or maybe not, it all depends on ones own point of view or perspective, why one could be also led astray in the society he founded. But when one reads the guiding principle of a leader above from Gen. Vincent Brooks one can also understand why he was such a successful leader while in charge of his society. It seems Prabhupada wanted to be also more a kind of social reformer than a guru or schoolmaster of the old (Vedic) times in India, using Krishnas words spoken to Arjuna in the Bhagavad-gita also for the purpose of spreading his own teachings and understanding of needed social reforms in society.

The Communists, especially Lenin, were doing the same using the theoretical studies of Marx and Engels, like Marx's analysis in Capital, for their purposes in the social revolution of the society as they understood it. I was born and lived until the age of 14 years in Romania, a former Communistic country. So I know very well what what was going on in this countries at that times, believe me.

Dear Harsi, I ( as much as you ) am jallous to Russians who ( unlike the ordinal mortals like ourselves ) live your Einstein-quoted miracles as their way of life ( or at least they declair it openly ). But I am not a German either, so I can't successfuly suppress the sentimental part of my personality ( and everyone else's including your's, otherwise what's the source of this Hari-katha, you opened it at the first place ) by equating with brainwashing everything which isn't explicable. So let's see if expressions about Hari are as enlivening as His own expressions. If some of the exegerations you and Nanda-grama both use in the disputs make Him smile at, at least you somehow entertain Him, so may be that's the reason why we all feel inspired to take part in this individualized kind of sravana-kirtana. ,, tarko pratista, srutayo vibinna...,, I forgot the verse ending with ,,...mahajano yena gatha sa panta,,

aradhya wrote:But I am not a German either, so I can't successfuly suppress the sentimental part of my personality by equating with brainwashing everything which isn't explicable.

Dear Aradhya it seems you mean what I wrote in regard to Prabhupada. In this regard there is mentioned on the internet the life story of Narayana Guru where it is written

<< Born in Ezhava/Thiyya (Ezhavas were a middle rung caste and have to face social injustices), he revolted against the brahminical dominance and thereby transformed the social face of Kerala. Narayana Guru is revered for his Vedic knowledge, poetic proficiency, openness to the views of others, non-violent philosophy and most importantly his unrelenting resolve to set aright social wrongs. Narayana Guru was instrumental in setting the spiritual foundations for social reform in the current State of Kerala (erstwhile states of Travancore, Kochi and Malabar district of British India) and was one of the most successful social reformers who tackled caste in India. He demonstrated a path to social emancipation without invoking the dualism of the opressed and the opressor.

In contrast to certain other reformers who critized Brahmins and upper caste Hindus for the conditions of the lower castes, Narayana Guru stressed on the upliftment of a community through its own efforts by the establishment of schools and temples. In the process he brushed aside the Hindu religious conventions based upon Chaturvarna. His transformation of the social face of Kerala relied on emphasizing the Advaita philosophy of Sankara. >>


It seems Prabhupada and other people in India used the knowledge of their scriptures and of their philososphers as the people outside India used that of their pilosophers when they intendet to change the social face and reform the society.

>> Man forges his own destiny. >> Every man is the architect of his own fortune.
Its interesting this people katha seems to make to me more sence nowadays maybe because its often better understandible than the Hari katha in the Gita.

aradhya wrote:So let's see if expressions about Hari are as enlivening as His own expressions.

Since you are writing His with a capital letter I guess you are meaning Hari (Sanskrit: हरि) mentioned in the Vishnu sahasranama of Mahabharata

So let's see and analyze what He (Hari, another name of Krishna) said ones to Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra as outlined in the Gita.

I quote: "Therefore the doubts which have arisen in your heart out of ignorance should be slashed by the weapon of knowledge. Armed with yoga, O Bharata, stand and fight."

Actually the whole goal of Krishnas conversation with Arjuna was this, to persuade him to fight that damned battle of Kurukshetra. Or how do you see it, Aradhya? And Krishna being an expert in convincing someone to do what He considered important reached his goal. Arjuna took up his bow Gandhiva and did what his "general" ordered him to do.

My boss at work is doing things in a similar way. When he calls me or anyone of his employees in his office, to let us know his opinion on how to do things better or wants to complain about me or something like that, he does also not "go like a bull at a gate" as the proverb goes, and does order me to do this or that, rather will first let me take a seat in his office, offer me maybe something to drink first, and than will explain to me a lot of things about this and that until I am so bored or saturated about his conversation" with me that I will ask him myself to please let me know what the point of all this is. Than he will eventualy come to the point and let me know what he wants from me or what he wants me to do better.

Krishna seems to follow, for whatever reasons, the same strategy in his talk to Arjuna. But what does this have to do with me, one may ask. And here or "this is the parting of the ways" as the phrase goes. Some people are of the opinion that what He, Krishna, spoke to Arjuna would be equally important for me also. Others, like me, say this conversation is a part of history wherefrom I may well can draw my own conclusions for my actions in life but it depends on me what I do with them. And there is nothing wrong in doing like this. Why should it be otherwise?

Now Prabhupada writes that Krishnas talk to Arjuna in the Gita would not be "a proposition of mental speculation" where any "interpretations" of the text would be allowed. Its content would have to be presented in a "bonafide way" and "strictly in the line of transcendental chain of disciplic succession." So "quot homines, tot sententiae", there are as many opinions as there are men, as the latin phrase goes.

As the line of time( moment after moment, from past to the future) is illusion, any event in any time can concern me directly. It depends on what how much I tone myself on what another person tells, how much I perceive and feel, how my heart is opened. Even words of accidental man or some advertisement on the street may be great signs for me and I can get spiritual knowledge owing to it. But only if I'm ready to speak with God. If I want to hear Him, HE will speak with me through Gita, through Hari, through you, Harsi, through any person and any event. And if I want to know what I should do now, He will find some way to tell me it.

Dear Nanda-grama, where has disappeared the torpedo ( your message about Harsi's envy ) precisely centered to his subconciousness. Did you pull it back hoping he would be scared and give up the role of dry racionalist? He is fearless maharatha, Stasis felt that on their own skin while he was defending the dignity of all of us, so he will not give up ( he is not so Greenpeace as he is pretending to be while accusing Krishna to be war-instigator ), so you just missed to make a score. Instead of hitting him to the ground, now you have to shoot him with flowers in order to pacify him (with your last message). He started an interesting kind of Hari-katha ( if I unintentionly made an offence mixing our Hari or Vishnupad or Robert or whatever with our Krishna by improperly using capital letters, then let them both excuse me), but he switched to the battle of Kuruksetra ( it's safe to talk about the past, especialy if one is a nonsupersticious fellow, but it's risky to make psyco-analises about a contemporary person, especialy about the patron of this very web-site). So, both of you starwariors, please don't misunderstand me, I encouraged your so called fight as an external projection of my own (and everyone else's, I suppose) internal brain-balancing between thoughts and feelings. So don't take it to heart if I went too far!

I like your comments. They breathed new life into our discussions on this forum. Regarding your usage of the word maharatha one can read online

"The characteristics of a maharatha are that he can fight single-handedly against 10,000 bow weilding archers and is expert in the science and practice of warfare. An atiratha can fight with innumerable warriors up to 10,000. A ratha can fight alone against one opponent and a ardharatha cannot defeat even a single opponent."

Actually my intention is not really to fight against anybody, although I must admit that I am not someone who easily surrenders to the words or orders of someone else if they are not making also some sence to me. My purpose is more to discuss certain subjects with the intention of opening a whole new view of thinking on this issues which were often and for long time time taken for granted or as absolute because they were issued by this or that person considered ones self realized or divinly inspired, or the only real mystik, or whatever.

In my opinion everyone of us has a by ones very nature a capacity to understand and to see reason, you can call it also ones common sence, wherefrom one can derive ones conclusions to guide and act in life. As the proverb goes " A fault confessed is half redressed." One does not really depend on what others are saying or revealing to oneself although this may well be an important source of inspiration if it makes also some sence to oneself.

In my opinion this should be the whole goal of any educational system if spiritual or so called material or secular to help one to sharpen ones own "build in" capacity to understand and to see reason in this regard or to bring sb. to his / her own senses if you want to say it like this, ones own inborn common sence. We are all divine beings and of the same nature as the Supreme divine Being so why we should or would have to surrender to anyone if it does not also make some sence to us also. Of course one can appeal to sb.'s common sense if one considers something so important.

And if you say that what was thought by Prabhupada or anyone else of the past is defective and you should listen and follow therefore to that what is being said or thaught by Hari (Robert Campagnola) or anyone else of the present, you are in my opinion, just presenting and offering "New wine in old wineskins or bottles" as the proverb goes, if you are not appealing also to someones own inborn common sence wherefrom he/she can draw also his/her own conclusions. In other words "Don't buy a pig in a poke" (idiom) rather open the poke and see if its content may make also some sence to you. If not whats the use of it.

Now of course "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" or as the German proverb goes "Was Hänschen nicht lernt, lernt Hans nimmermehr." (What little Hänschen does not learn, learns big Hans nevermore). Therefore for someone who is set in one's old ways or thought patterns from the time in Iskcon such a thing as "Every man is the architect of his own fortune" may be hard to comprehend or may not make any sence. I like to use proverbs, idioms or quotes in my comments in order to illustrate a point the way they are also commonly used in writing or in speaking to someone. The way this things were or are used in certain religious groups such as Iskcon or the Jehovah Witnesses are in my opinion a missuse of them in order to give ones speach or writing a touch or tang of authority but not to help the other person to come to his own senses so called. Because everyone has a mind of one's own

Prabhupada knew also that "A tree must be bent while it is young", therefore he was appealing and was presenting his teachings and conclusions about God and Krishna also more to the young generation who he knew would be more open to new ways of thinking. You may know the story in the Lilamrita where he tells the story of how the Indian family in Chicago he was living in 1966 were organizing a public lecture for him to speak but in the audiance were only old people. He was telling also to one of his disciple the story how before his comming to the West another man and sannyasi from the Gaudhya Math was coming to London and was giving some lectures to some organized gatherings of old Indians and left afterwords back to India saying there to his society that to spread their spiritual teachings and understandings to the West was impossible. Now the problem occured or is that we former youngsters are also getting older and older, next year I am reaching also the 50is, and a new generation of youngsters is taking our place.

What should or by whose teachings should one be guided through life, if by anyones at all or rather ones own sanity and reason?!

aradhya wrote:... while accusing Krishna to be war-instigator

It seems that He was not only that but also urged Arjuna to kill his own brother, Karna.





In the Mahabharata one can read the story about Karnas death. Here it is written how on the seventeenth day of the battle of Kurukshetra, the much awaited duel between Karna and Arjuna took place.

During the battle, when Arjuna's arrows struck Karna's chariot, it moved back by a few feet. However, when Karna's arrows struck Arjuna's chariot, it moved back only a few inches. Krishna praised Karna for this. But, Arjuna got astonished and asked him the reason for his praise, In response, Krishna told Arjuna that Karna's chariot bore only the weight of Karna and Shalya. On the other hand, Arjuna's chariot bore the weight of the entire universe since Krishna and Hanuman were on the chariot. Despite this, Karna was able to move it.

Karna cut the string of Arjuna's bow multiple times. But, at each instant he found that Arjuna was able to tie back the bow string in the wink of an eye (in an extremely short time). For this, Karna praised Arjuna and remarked to Shalya that now he understood why people called him the greatest archer in the world. Though the duel was initially held at a stalemate, Karna was hampered when his chariot wheel sank into the ground in loose wet soil (BhoomiDevi's curse thus came into effect). He also found himself unable to remember the incantations for divine weapons, as his teacher Parashurama had foretold.





Descending from his chariot to remove the wheel, he requested Arjuna to wait until it is set right as per the rules of battle. Krishna told Arjuna that Karna has no right to refer to the rules at this point, after having violated the same himself while killing Abhimanyu. He urged Arjuna to kill Karna while he was helpless (The Brahman's curse came into effect here). Lord Krishna told Arjuna that if he did not kill Karna at this critical juncture of the war, he might never be able to kill him and the Pandavas may never win the war. Thus, Arjuna fatally injured Karna using a divine arrow.

Following the war, funeral rites were performed for all the fallen. Kunti then requested her sons to perform the rites for Karna as well. When they protested, saying he was a suta, she revealed the truth of his birth. The brothers were shocked to find they have committed fratricide. Yudhishtira in particular is furious with his mother, and curses all women to never be able to keep a secret from that point on.


> Karna Story


Lord Krishna went to Gandhari to tell her Karna had died. Karna was the oldest son of Kunti and although he knew who he was, he still fought for Dhuryodhana. Gandhari told Lord Krishna, "you knew what was going to happen and you still could've prevented the war". Gandhari cursed Lord Krishna: "just as my entire family perished, your family will die the same way".

After the 18-day Mahabharata war at Kurukshetra ended, Lord Krishna asked Arjuna to step down from his chariot. When Arjuna did so, Krishna took Arjuna some distance away from the chariot. Then he signaled to Lord Hanuman seated on the chariot to get up. The moment Lord Hanuman jumped off the chariot, Arjuna's horses were burnt alive and his chariot exploded into pieces. Seeing this, Arjuna was shocked. Krishna then told him that the deadly astras of Bheeshma, Drona, Karna and Ashwattama had caused the destruction of Arjuna's horses and chariot. It was the divine presence of Lord Hanuman that maintained the chariot in a proper condition by postponing the effects of their divine weapons. Read more >
____


> KARNA & SALYA -PARVA


"Karna pleaded with Arjuna that he could give him time to retrieve the wheels of his chariots. That was the rule of the righteous war. Krishna laughed and said, "talk of righteousness does not behove you. You have been the part of evil Duryodhana's all sinful schemes, you never protested against the insulting treatment given to Draupadi in their court, rather you were a party to aggravate it by your insulting remarks. You cannot forget the recent killing of Abhimanyu. Do you think that was righteous. You talk of righteousness, I cannot check my laughter."

Krishna's words hurt Karna deeply. He knew the words of Krishna were true. Yet he went to retrieve the wheels of his chariot from the ground. But Arjuna's arrows rained incessantly. He came up again and resumed fighting. Arjuna sent Agni, Varuna and Vayu astras. Now Karna was finding it difficult to remember incantations to invoke appropriate astras to make these ineffective. Yet Karna could not be hurt seriously. Again he was trying to retrieve the wheels of his chariot from the ground. Krishna prompted Arjuna to make haste. Karna should be killed without any loss of time. Arjuna sent an arrow, which was like Vajr, the weapon of Indra. It cut the head of Karna. Karna's head rolled on the ground. A light left Karna's body to go to the heavens." more...

www.istb.univie.ac.at >>



> Satyammktg.com: Lord Krishna – The Greatest Manager

Arjuna chooses Krishna over Krishna's army, much to Duryodhana's delight


Mahabharat was the biggest battle fought in ancient India between Pandavas and Kauravas, and had each and every other king/ruler fighting from either of the sides. Duryodhana representing Kauravas
and Arjuna representing Pandavas, reached at nearly the same time to Krishna for calling him to fight from their side. Krishna asked them to choose between him and his complete army. Since he alone
was capable of destroying the world, leave alone the opponent, he would not raise arms and play a non-combatant role. Arjuna choose to have him and Duryodhana was happy to have gained his mighty army.




Krishna pleads with Dhritarashtra one last time to restore to the Pandavas their rightful kingdom. But they refused to give to the pandavas even so much land as would fit in a palm of the hand.
Thus not Krishna was the real war-instigator rather Dhritarashtra and his sons. I wonder that no one of you took Krishnas site or tried to protect him in this regard...


(Mahabharata story)

Kunti makes a journey to reveal to Karna her secret in a last chance attempt to have him side with the Pandavas.

Dear Harsi, thank you for reminding us of these timeless stories as a proof that ,,Historia est magistra vitae,, could be taken vice-versa as well, namely that one's subjectiveness always defends one's own side of the (hi)story. Now, if that's a common truth, why wouldn't it be appliable for the summum bonum as well? So even ethic's pragmatists have no reason to ignore Krishna's interpretation of the facts for the happy-end of the pastimes relats to all of their participants by the definition of the term summum bonum. A tautological kind of proof ?! Then we have no other choise but to turn to an always accessable mystic: ,,...mahajano yena gathah sa panthah,,. You tried ( some two months ago ) to do something like that (asking Hari a question he positively answered to, but he rightfully rifused to be involved in politics by comments about some contemporary global issues that you kindly provide for us on a regular bases). So, now we must read between his lines in order to get the desired answers (a quite a mistical accomplishment for a nonpersistent persons like myself, nevertheles due to his good will sometimes I get mistical revelations of that kind as well, so everyone can do it!)

The opinion of each one of us is inevitably subjective. I guess that of Krishna in the Gita as well. To see things from Krishna's perspective is indeed not so easy. But why should it be necessary at all, Aradhya? Since Krishna spoke this words to Arjuna have past more than 5000 years, a lot of time. Everything changed since than, the organization of society, the cultures, the languages, the technical progress, in fact everything.

Ok now you may say "We accept the authorities or Mahajanas—mahajano yena gatah sa pantha. Something that just springs up out of nowhere, this technical progress and knowledge of today, cannot be accepted as authoritative. The question is why anything should be "accepted as authoritative" at all. What is or should be the right meaning or the sense of the word "authoritative." During the Communist time those people in charge of the societies of the Communist block had the same concocted understanding. The Communist understanding of mahajano yena gatah sa pantha. You must follow and accept that "authoritative" knowledge left beyond by this and that Communist "mahajana" and their understanding of Dialectical materialism. Prabhupada was teaching his understanding as published in his books and in "Dialectic Spiritualism" which you had to accept as "authoritative" when you were a member in his society.

"This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of religion. It is everlasting, and it is joyfully performed."

That was the whole understanding. But is this knowledge and so called king of education for you really comprehensible, reasonable or for you open to a critical scrutiny. No, because you would be a so called "conditioned soul" which would have four defects: (1) bhrama ('the tendency to error'), (2) pramada ('inattention'), (3) karanapatava ('the inadequacy of the senses') and (4) vipralipsa ('the desire to deceive'). Any conditioned soul would have these defects.

In this way there was a tendency to choke off or to nip in the bud every attempt by anyone to put into question or open to a critical scrutiny anything which was so called spoken or revealed by this or that so called guru, sadhu, mahajanas or by Krishna as revealed in this or that scripture of the past. Everything with the hammer or sword of Damocles hanging over you of the so called "authority". In fact the organizational understanding and the spreading or propagation of knowledge in the so called Society for Krishna consciousness (ISKCON) and that of the societies in the Communistic block were the same. You present and propagate someone and someone's understanding, knowledge and view of things as authoritative, which you were not allowed to put into question or open for scrutiny otherwise you would draw or have to accept certain kind of consequences.

In the Communist societies the consequences were that you lost your job and position in society or went to jail or labor camp and in ISKCON you were defamed or discredited as being "in maya" (in ilusion) or "spaced out", you would just speak "prajalpa" (nonsence) or you would have "fallen down" from "somewhere" as if you would have really been ones on any higher "dimension of existence" or higher spiritual consciousness. What all this societies had and have in common is the disregard of you personally, your individual freedom and ability of your own to come to understand and to evolve in life in your own individual way. That is my "tautological" or universal unconditioned truth which is always valid.

So yes "Historia est Magistra Vitae" or "Historia magistra vitae est" which is in a more Latin spirit in this Latin expression, taken from Roman orator Cicero's De Oratore, which suggests that "history is life's teacher". The idea that the study of the past should serve as a lesson to the future is here very relevant.


Richard Westall's Sword of Damocles

I agree with you that any situation when somebody demands that I should accept a confirmation of some" authority" without questions is strange and not very spiritual. But look, Krishna didn't demand that Arjuna should bow Him and accept His words without questions, He acted as friend of Arjuna. He argued His thought during 18 chapters and then sayed: Do how you want! (this is I defend Krishna )
Also Hari doesn't say: Do this and that! Generally if you listen to his lectures attentively you can find than in 10 years he didn't create even one rule which you should follow. Quite the contrary he inspares us to be in progress independently, to get own spiritual experience.
This aspiration to be independent is very good thing , but in Russia there is such proverb: Не выплесни с водой и ребенка- Don't pour out the child together with water! Wish of independence can lead to loneliness. After all ,thre essence of Krishna consciousness is connection with God. When there is somebody besides me, with whom I can associate, share my feelings and if I want -to ask some advice. I think Krishna would not like if I would blindly accept all his words. I know He likes when I doubt in His words.
But likely, is the question in what you think- is Krishna God or not?

Dear Nanda-grama, your points are good ones, Krishna (The All-Atractive One, or precisely Radha-Krishna, The All-Atractive Two, by the way greetings to all of you celebrating today's birthday of Gouranga, The All-Atractive One Again) is that kind of God that doesn't care about authoritativeness but even enjoys to depend on associates. So, the question I put to myself is: am I a responsible person so much that I could allow Him/Them to depend on me? Since the answer to this question is obvious ( I am not sure if my obligations to my small family are executed well, so how could I be sure about The Gratest One) next question is: am I a duplicious fellow who hangs around Krishna in order to get something instead of sincerely loving Him/Them? But of course! So sometimes Krishna has to adopt His liberal mood to the needs of those who (for different reasons) exploit Him as an authority Who provids them accordingly. Nitai-Gaurapremanandeee....Hari-Hariboool!

To associate with one another means to accept one another as one is, not as one may become sometime...


Mayapur.com


When we read about Caitanya Mahaprabhu one can find out that He was not trying to change anyone. During His travelings through India He sometimes embraced the people He met and respected the spiritual, religious and cultural diversity of everyone. Thus His example shows that He was in favor of cultural and religious pluralism and His example did not show the sort of exclusivism some of His allegedly followers are exposing today all over the world. It seems He was also not preferring one religious faith over another and set the example that there should be no pre-condition for individuals to associate with one another. Aren't we all one? But we aren't all the same. Diversity is the one true thing we all have in common.

"People may use religious agents as a moral compass, forming impressions and making decisions based on what they presume God as the ultimate moral authority would believe or want. The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing. This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God's beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing."

"Many people, from Rousseau to Twain to Voltaire, are credited with the line: "God created man in his own image and man, being a gentleman, returned the favor." One can read in this regard on the Web


> Humility as taught by Caitanya Mahaprabhu

"Before Mahaprabhu, there were practitioners of this faith, but never on such a grand and public scale. His followers were from all walks of life and from different religions. He did not discriminate, love of God is for everyone. From the days when He started this tradition to the present, devotees of the Gaudia-Vaisnava philosophy regard Caitanya Mahaprabhu as an incarnation of Krishna, God.

Though He traveled widely and spoke countless times to the public, He only wrote eight verses, called Siksastakam. Here in these eight short stanzas one can find everything needed for the perfect spiritual life. Of these eight, it is said that the path to true love of God runs through one very in particular. If all of Mahaprabhu’s instructions were to be summarized into one verse, the third verse would be it."



Being humble like a blade of grass,
being more tolerant than a tree,
expecting no admiration
yet showing others veneration,
one should glorify Hari (God) constantly.

.