Q. BG 17.14 mentions worship of the parents. Is there a method etc.? What is 
the context we should understand the verse?

A. "Prajna" is translated as "worshipable personalities" in wbw of BGAII. 
Parents are given as examples. SP says in p.: "These should be given proper
respect." Previous acaryas don't elaborate on the nature of this worship in 
their commentaries to this verse.
Prahlad M. and Bali M. come to my mind as the examples of etiquette toward 
esp. nondevotee superiors. As for devotee parents, the best example is the 
Lord Himself in His lila. See e.g. the talk of Sri Caitanya with His mother 
when leaving home to take sannyasa in CBh 2.28 or His praise of her in CBh 
3.4 or 3.9.

"The family members of a devotee also share the effects of a devotee's 
service unto the Lord. Maharaja Prahlada saved his demon father by his 
personal devotional service. A devotee son in the family is the greatest 
boon or blessing of the Lord." (SB 1.19.2 p.)

This is from a protracted email exchange on parents. Nondevotee hindu family 
objecting to the son's bhakti - the dharma vs paradharma conflict:

> Now what if people say something like like Parents can never do something
> bad (sentimentally), this is often something that happens when we are
> discussing some philosophical point where we point out Krsna is the only
> or supreme father, what is the purpose of the parents or something.

That's not true. Sastras are full of erring parents. Dhristarastra is a
prime example. He was practically always wrong, out of his sentiment toward
adharmic sons.
The purpose of parents is to give us a material body and teach us how to
live. We're indebted to them for that, as dharma sastras repeatedly say.
But we're not a property of parents. As grownup children we're responsible
for our own actions, not them. Ultimately, we're supposed to transcend the
material level and with that only devotee parents can help. Otherwise we'll
get another parents in the next life, etc.
There's no use of arguing with irrational people like your sister. Best to 
avoid talking with her until she brings a reasonable argument. It seems
to me she has a bad conscience (and karma) in regard to you and wants
to supress it as per 'give a dog a bad name and hang it'.
Everything is an interplay of karma, our free will and Lord's will (esp. 
for devotees). On fate, free will and law of karma:

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/library/Fwkarma.zip

In short, decisions are not karma, circumstances are. Read SB 11.3.6
p.

Re who is brainwashed see SP's essay Who is Crazy in Vedabase. If Christians 
claim that Vaisnava sadhana is brainwashing, then Christian monastic sadhana 
is much greater by austerity criteria.

deprogramming-related video:
krishnatube.com/video/180/De-programming-the-Hare-Krishnas-Ted-Patrick--1979

brainwashing-by-state-education-system-related book: John Taylor Gatto - 
Dumbing Us Down

> Just curious as there are many verses in the Vedas stating that
> parents have to be honored etc are there verses stating that if one
> does not honor the parents devotion doesn't count?
>
> Besides Srimad Bhagavatam 5.5.18 is there anything else that proves
> devotion also helps everyone. What about a verse that states only
> devotion to Krsna or Vishnu can be most pleasing etc

Relationship to parents is on the level of dharma, preliminary to
Bhagavad-bhakti - paradharma. So they shouldn't be in conflict. But when
parents are antidevotional, then the example of Sukracarya being
disobeyed by Bali M. applies.

> Various pastimes also show that Lord Ram is
> showing that when we listen to the parents even though it may appear good
> results like sita getting kidnapped, dasarath dying due to seperation are
> lilas to show us what life is like in the material world even though you
> are as ideal as you can be.

yes. Dharma itself only minimizes duhkha. Our goal is to be completely free
from it.

> Touching of parents feet. What is the purpose of that?  Is
> there sastric reference to that?
>
> Is it important for us devotees to follow?

The idea is to touch feet of Vaisnava elders.
For one positive occurrence see the end of Krishna Book 44.

SP asked Brahmananda to touch the feet of his mother when she came to
take part of his initiation: 770111tt.ida, SPL 6.51.

Dharma sastras enjoin that women and students should touch the feet of
superiors.

Manu samhita is not karma kandiya but dharma sastra. On the level
of dharma there are such recommendations (applicable to most people,
esp. in Kali yuga) but even dharma sastras give a choice of naisthika
brahmacarya.

Apastamba dharma sutra 1.1.4.29: The student who thus entirely fixes
his mind there (in the teacher's family), has thereby performed all
acts which yield rewards (such as the Gyotishtoma), and also those
which must be performed by a householder.

(29. The Sutra refers to a naishthika brahmakrin or professed
student, who never leaves his teacher's family, and never enters any
other order; and it declares his merit to be equal to that of one who
becomes a householder. Manu II, 243, 244; Ygsh. I, 49, 50.)

Similarly, Vaikhanasa dharma sutra 01.03.(113.8-9): brahmacarinash
caturvidha gayatro brahmahprajapatyo naishthika-iti.

See also: www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/brahmacari.htm

> Is there a story from the bhagavatam regarding this young boy
> carrying his parents on something that resembles scales because the
> parents are blind and God gives him darshan because he is pleased
> with the boy or something?
>
> The reason im asking this is because sometimes hindu pandits will
> state some garbage like pleasing the Parents is equal to Pleasing
> God and they will narrate stories such as this as a scare tactic
> etc. So how do we deal with pundits like these?

I'm not familiar with this story in SB. There're many folk stories.
As I said, always ask for a sastra quote to anything which isn't
readily recognizable as siddhanta.

> Also what if someone states something silly like, because of your
> parents you are here (meaning existing) and because of them you are
> a devotee. Although bhagavad gita states that we have always existed
> and will never cease. As for devotees, well that is our inherited
> nature and there is no loss or diminuition in this endevour. I mean
> I have a brother and sister and they are not devotees (not in the
> iskcon sense of chanting, reading, associating etc)

Yes. We're devotees in this life because of continuation from previous
lives or ajnata sukriti, not because of parents. They're often against
their children who want to become devotees.

> Also, i know we have gone through this before, but I was curious as
> to what is the importance or how important is it to take care of
> your parents when they Old. I am sure or certain that it is part of
> our duty especially if our parents are devotees that we take care of
> them but ultimatly taking care of them means to help them out of the
> cycle of birth and death. Now what if someone states that God is
> happy when we take care of our parents, its something that pleases
> God the most or no matter how much bhakti you do if you are not
> taking care of your parents or being nice to people then your bhakti
> doesnt count.

Material care doesn't please God the most, spiritual one does.
Imho, it depends on the measure of our surrender. Sannyasi doesn't
have to take care of anyone related to his previous life. Yet we have
examples of Adi Sankara and Sri Caitanya taking care of their mothers.
SP also provided for his former wife and family before taking sannyas.
So we should follow their example. Mahajano yena gatah.

> It is said that Narshimadev wasnt happy with that avatar as he didnt 
> have any parents to come from. Is that correct or another sentimental 
> statement.I have never heard of that but let me know what you think.

Neither did I. He wasn't happy without parents so He killed Hiranyakasipu? 
That's hilarious. If someone can think like that he can believe anything 
bogus.

> what I should say to lets say a pundit who keeps
> repeating pleasing the parents etc....

I mentioned the Sukracarya example. This pandit seems to be of the same
sort. If parents oppose Sri Visnu, they shouldn't be followed, just like
Sukracarya. Yet they should still be respected. That's all I can say to
this.

It's not about forcing some beliefs in some stories on people. It's about
the lessons learned from those stories. What's the use if someone believes
something but doesn't learn his lesson from it (vijnana)?

You may simply say that people have different experiences. If some people 
can't admit their four imperfections, they have a problem.

> What if some sentimental hindu or pundit states that if you do bhakti but
> satisfy the parents or please the parents it makes your bhakti null.

Satisfying parents and satisfying Krsna - what's better? Karma or akarma? We
have to choose. Ideally there's no contradiction if the parents are
devotees. They should answer why they're differing from Krsna, the original
parent of everyone.

If you analyze the situation you can come to realization that there's no
need to be emotionally engaged in this. It's subtly harmful to think
negatively about others. SP said: "Let them talk all nonsense."

> What if they say something like God did not give birth to you.

See BG 18.14.

> Because of your parents you have a chance to realize God.

If they're devotees.

If they are pure devotees (tadIya), pleasing them is even better than
pleasing Krsna acc to Siva in Padma P. (tasmAt parataram devi tadIyAnAM
samarcanam). 8)

>  Also what if someone states something like, without your parents giving
> you birth you woudnt have the opportunities that you have now, so you owe 
> a debt to your parents. Ofcourse b.g 2.12-13 states we are eternel but 
> what is the best way to answer that argument.

This we discussed before. Material duties listed in dharmasastras are for
those living material life. For devotees there are spiritual duties,
including to give their parents some spiritual knowledge and other benefits.
Pure devotees fulfill these automatically, yet sometimes they act as normal
devotees (madhyama). Examples are Sri Caitanya or Adi Sankaracarya. See
the previous letter and don't ask this again. Thanks.
