Becoming a Business Tycoon to Serve Krishna
ASK BVKS | February 27, 2012 |
If a devotee runs his business with the attitude that he wants to make millions of pounds to propogate the Hare Krishna movement, Is it Bhakti?
Also, if he prays Krishna to empower him to become the world's leading business tycoon so that he will share a part of his profit to open prasadam resturants/Prabhupada bookstores (shops with Prabhupada's books) etc., would it be OK to pray?
Above all, I would imagine that setting an example (simple leaving and high thinking) as a leading businessman is a good thing. Is it correct?
March 27, 2011 |
English; Kolkata, West Bengal, India
August 29, 2011 |
Question: How does anartha nivrtti happens? Only through one's own efforts or it happens only due to mercy of guru and Krishna? Or both? On our own, we find it difficult to give up certain habits or certain non devotional activities. Living out side the temple (away from devotees) worsen the situation. Ones own efforts save him or only mercy?
December 15, 2012 |
June 24, 2016 |
English; Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India
July 3, 2015 |
Question: 1. Why does Krishna say here that one cannot repay his debt to his parents even if he serves them for a full lifetime of a hundred years when in S.B 11.5.4 Narada muni says to Vasudeva–“One who has taken shelter of Krishna’s lotus feet, is not indebted to demigods, great sages, ordinary living beings, relatives, friends, mankind or even one’s forefathers who have passed away.” So how are we to understand this statement and how should we take this comment in SB 10.45.5?… Expand>
Translation: With one’s body one can acquire all goals of life, and it is one’s parents who give the body birth and sustenance. Therefore no mortal man can repay his debt to his parents, even if he serves them for a full lifetime of a hundred years. (S.B.10.45.5).
1. Why does Krishna say here that one cannot repay his debt to his parents even if he serves them for a full lifetime of a hundred years when in S.B 11.5.4 Narada muni says to Vasudeva–“One who has taken shelter of Krishna’s lotus feet, is not indebted to demigods, great sages, ordinary living beings, relatives, friends, mankind or even one’s forefathers who have passed away.” So how are we to understand this statement and how should we take this comment in SB 10.45.5?
2. Is this comment applicable to only a Krishna conscious father and mother or a materialistic father & mother also?
ANSWER BY HH Bhakti Vikāsa Swami:
"All right. Karttik Kumar form Bangalore is quoting Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.45.5, spoken by Kṛṣṇa.
janitaḥ poṣito yataḥ
na tayor yāti nirveśaṁ
pitror martyaḥ śatāyuṣā
Translation: With one’s body one can acquire all goals of life, and it is one’s parents who give the body birth and sustenance. Therefore no mortal man can repay his debt to his parents, even if he serves them for a full lifetime of a hundred years.
So there’s that verse which Śrīla Prabhupāda quotes three times, I believe, in Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. Because Arjuna’s whole proposition was not to go against the family.
na kiṅkaro nāyam ṛṇī ca rājan
sarvātmanā yaḥ śaraṇaṁ śaraṇyaṁ
gato mukundaṁ parihṛtya kartam
O King, one who has given up all material duties and has taken full shelter of the lotus feet of Mukunda, who offers shelter to all, is not indebted to the demigods, great sages, ordinary living beings, relatives, friends, mankind or even one's forefathers who have passed away. Since all such classes of living entities are part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, one who has surrendered to the Lord's service has no need to serve such persons separately. (SB 11.5.41.)
So this appears to be contradictory because Kṛṣṇa says you can’t repay your debt to your parents, even if you serve them for a full lifetime of a hundred years. But then Kṛṣṇa says: “If you take shelter of Me, then you are not indebted.”
Well, one statement is qualified by another. This is common – that (there is a) general truth, (and) there are exceptions. Sri Lankans are good people. OK, we can accept that as a general proposition. Well, this one is not good - some of them are not good. So it’s a general case, but it’s qualified.
Actually, one can repay the debts. One repays the debts to the parents by having children. That’s the understanding. So the children, they will offer pinda to the Pitris.
DEBT TO THE PARENTS
What is the debt to the parent? - That you were given a body by them. So you can’t exactly repay, but you create more bodies. So there is a way to repay, but the mood of this is that what you were given is so valuable that we feel we can’t repay. We shouldn’t think: “OK, I repaid them, and then leave them alone, forget them.” That’s the idea. Gratefulness should be there.
Everything we want to do, that can be done through the body. If you don’t have a body, you can’t do anything. If you are a ghost, for instance. If you are born in a subhuman body, then one cannot achieve the goal of life. So therefore, the human form of life is very valuable. But, if we fully dedicate to Kṛṣṇa, then we become free from the ordinary method of repaying the debt to the parents because we actually benefit not only the parents but even previous generation and even forthcoming generations. Kṛṣṇa delivers them all.
So therefore, one is not a debtor if he takes full shelter of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa takes care of all, the parents and everyone else. So the general case is that one cannot repay the debt to the parents. And of course, that’s very much part of Indian culture, especially in North India very well-known this story… What’s his name? Kumara Sampat, Sampat Kumar; what is it? Śravan Kumar. Very common picture to see him carrying, on his shoulder, the father and mother.
So, question number two. In one sense it is more applicable to materialistic father and mother. Inasmuch as, by Kṛṣṇa consciousness you repay the debt. Of course, you shouldn’t think that: “Well, (it) doesn’t matter about my parents.” A child in Kṛṣṇa consciousness shouldn’t be neglectful of parents. But, (one) may also, if one is fully engaged in preaching Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then (he) may not marry and look after the parents in old age. But it should be seen that someone looks after them - some arrangement is made - something is done. In Kṛṣṇa consciousness we shouldn’t take it as an excuse to neglect our parents."
English; Colombo, Sri Lanka
April 15, 2015 |
English; Rajpura, Punjab, India
July 28, 2016 |
English with Русский translation; Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
April 30, 2011 |
Question: 1) My question is that why god Krishna is coupled with Radharani in every temple and in every poster. What about his wives Rukmini and Satyabhama. Did Krishna loves only Radharani? What is that reason if my question is wrong? Please pardon me. 2) Why is it that only Lord Krishna in a deity form is worshiped with Srimati Radharani? Lord Balaram an immediated expansion of Lord Krishna, is not with a deity form with his wife in spiritual world?
June 8, 2011 |
English; Dallas, Texas, USA
February 6, 2015 |
English; Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India
August 25, 2014 |
English; Govindadvipa, Ireland
July 20, 2014 |
Question: Is it acceptable to depict the Supreme Lord and His pure devotees such as the Pandavas in modernistic, artistic styles? Are there standards for this?
English with Русский translation; Dobromysh, Tatarstan, Russia
October 20, 2016 |
Question: Do we need to have a Living Guru?
English; Gauragrama, Telangana, India
November 24, 2011 |
Question: I am getting bad dreams of ghost and negetive thoughts. My family suggested me to read Hanuman-chalisa but one Mataji suggested to me to wear Nrsimha-kavaca but another Mataji who is your disciple said that Maharaj told women not to wear Nrsimha-kavaca on neck. But I am feeling uncomfortable to wear it somewhere else. Please tell me what should I do?
April 14, 2016 |
English; Srirangam, Tamil Nadu, India
July 6, 2016 |
English; Baroda, Gujarat, India
March 4, 2014 |
English; Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
June 11, 2011 |
English; San Diego, California, USA
January 15, 2006 |
English with தமிழ் translation; Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
December 6, 2011 |
Question: My question is as follows. How can we distinguish between these (what appear to my understanding) two different outlooks regarding the matter of rejecting a guru. One point of view is represented by the verse from Mahabharata (guror apy avaliptasya..) and another point of view could be find in CC Antya 3.11 in Srila Prabhupada´s purport where… Expand>
My question is as follows. How can we distinguish between these (what appear to my understanding) two different outlooks regarding the matter of rejecting a guru.
One point of view is represented by the verse from Mahabharata (guror apy avaliptasya..) and another point of view could be find in CC Antya 3.11 in Srila Prabhupada´s purport where he says:
"Damodara Pandita was a great devotee of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Sometimes, however, a person in such a position becomes impudent, being influenced by the external energy and material considerations. Thus a devotee mistakenly dares to criticize the activities of the spiritual master or the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Despite the logic that "Ceaser´s wife must be above suspicion," a devotee should not be disturbed by the activities of his spiritual master and should not try to criticize him. A devotee should be fixed in the conclusion that the spiritual master cannot be subject to criticism and should never be considered equal to a common man. Even if there appears to be some discrepancy according to an imperfect devotee´s estimation, the devotee should be fixed in the conviction that even if his spiritual master goes to a liquor shop, he is not a drunkard, rather, he must have some purpose in going there. It is said in a Bengali poem:
yadyapi nityananda sura-badi yaya
tathapio haya nityananda-raya
"Even if I see that Lord Nityananda has entered a liquor shop, I shall not be diverted from my conclusion that Nityananda Raya is the Supreme Personality of Godhead."