shvu

The most widely used "British translation" of the Rig-veda is by Ralph Griffith and not by Muller. Muller has translated the main Upanishads and the only instance where he mentions meat eating is in Brhadaaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.18. This verse is interpreted to refer to meat-eating by Shankara himself [pre-Islam] in his commentary and so intentional distortion by Muller or interpolation by Islam kings is ruled out here. The problem here is, Indians forcibly try to suppress any possible evidence of meat-eating in scriptures to maintain their vegetarian image. Yaajnavalkya's comment that he finds the flesh of a calf tasty or Agastya eating goat meat or Manu Smriti advocating meat eating are not talked about or else they are tried to be projected as interpolations. Allegations that Islam kings interpolated texts or British, *Marxist* scholars intentionally distorted our scriptures are attempted in order to try and retain the *vegetarian* image. If the Braahmanas were so conscious of Ahimsa, where was the need for the Buddha to rebel against animal sacrifices and preach Ahimsa? The Arya Samaj people consider only the mantra portions as Sruti. The Braahmanas and the Aranyakas are believed to to be commentaries on the Mantras written by humans and therefore are prone to errors. Perhaps this was because they could not try and get around references to meat-eating and in the Shatapatha Braahmana. Contrary to this, all schools of Vedaanta consider all portions of the Vedas as Sruti without discrimination. Coming to interpolations in texts such as Manu Smriti, one can aknowledge the possibility only if, 1. There exist multiple recensions of the Manu Smriti. 2. Or there exits only one recension, but early references to Manu Smriti cannot be traced to the present version. If neither of the above are true, then there are no grounds to believe the Manu Smriti contains interpolations. This is how it most probably was, always. All four views ( the traditional view, the Arya Samaj view, the Hindu Nationalist view and the historical view) are different and we should be aware of the differences. Cheers

You can e-mail me at shvu@hotmail.com

If I remember correctly, it is a prayer from the Mahaabhaarata. Cheers

I never heard of any Indian calling Krishna as Krsta. There is no reason for anyone to be doing that unless he has trouble with his pronunciation.

You can find the relevant Bhavishya Puraana quote here along with more Info about the Gaudiya poition on Jesus. http://www.hknet.org.nz/Jesus-Went-To-India.htm Cheers

This is from another thread... This is a whole different topic deserving to be on a separate thread. I would like to know which portions of Shankara's BSB are considered to be interpolated by you and on what grounds. Also, I would like to know what changes Aurangzeb made to the Manu Smriti and any other Dharma Shaastras. Thanks

It is perhaps the "Prabhupada said so" approach. Prabhupada attested Jesus as an avatar and so he was an avatar. Prabhupada did not speak of Sai Baba (I think) and since Sai Baba is not related to ISKCON, he cannot be an avatar, period. A confused stand I have seen in ISKCON, is the inability to reconcile beween the original Indian Vaishnava sectarianism and the necessity to preach to people of other religions. Hence, they have no issues stating Allah is none other than Krishna, but are held back from saying the same about Shiva. Therefore, according to ISKCON, Shiva is a demi-god, while Allah is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, which implies it is better to be a muslim than to be a Shaiva, worshipping a demi-God. Cheers

At the outset, let me make something clear to avoid any possible confusion. By miracles, I mean divine magic. For instance, wine magically turning into water or a huge mountain being lifted up on a little finger for 7 days and 7 nights. Such acts violate fundamental laws of nature and defy logic as we know it. Since, by experience, we have observed that such things do not happen in real life where everything conforms to the laws of nature, we call such impossible occurences as miracles. Hence, I would define a miracle as an extraordinary, unnatural occurence, which violates the laws of nature. Having said this, let us look at what Einstein said. The first part is plain enough, so let us look at the second part. The other is as though everything is a miracle. If everything is extra-ordinary, the term extra-ordinary loses it's meaning and so everything is ordinary again. This statement contradicts itself. Hence, I would not pay much attention to such statements which prima facie, seem corloful, but when analysed are found to convey nothing meaningful.Unless Einstein had a totally different perspective of what a miracle is, in which case it is not worthwhile to ponder over his statements without knowing what his perspective was. Is seeing or not seeing miracles, a matter of choice? If water turned into wine, the wine and hence the miracle is there for everyone to see. If it did not, the water is there for everyone to see. There is no choice in this matter. I have in fact, scrutinizingly studied the people myself and the people around me and and based on my observations and study, it is impossible to turn water into wine by waving one's hand. This is how science works. One does not have to look at all the crows in the world to say "crows are black in color". Can you find someone to prove the existence of miracles? Until then, facts such as, "water does not turn into wine" hold precedence. That is the point. We are not discussing God here and whil we are on the topic, it is possible for someone to believe in God and yet not believe in miracles. I just don't see God occasionally violating his own laws, for such a violation would make him imperfect...in my opinion. My philosophy has room for anything and everything than ever dreamt of, but I choose to stick to facts and choose not to place my trust in old religious books, which like I said before, abound in hyperbole. Not having made a critical study of our Indian religious books, you really will not understand what I am talking about here. Lastly, I have no problems with people believing in x, y or z to be an avatar or in believing that avatars can magically create sarees of infinite length. What people wish to do, is their own business. Cheers

Such an assertion is based on the simple fact that there are no miracles in real life. This has been and can be observed in our day to day life. That is the basis for even doubting the birth of avatars who perform miracles,for otherwise, why would anyone be dubious about these personalities, in the first place? There are many people who have never come across any miracles themselves, but nonetheless, firmly believe they are possible...which is simply faith. Since, faith in unnatural occurences takes second place to facts and reality and also given the fact that authors of religious books are inclined towards hyperbole, it is more reasonable to consider them (Raama, Krishna) as ordinary humans...although they may have possessed extraordinary skill in archery or brilliance in politics, both of which are realistic. There are also those who believe they have witnessed miracles. But once again, this is not something they can prove to others and so remains an individual belief, once again taking second place to facts and reality that can be commonly observed by one and all, without exception. Cheers

Since I do not have access to the eleventh book of the RV Samhita, can you please provide the specific verse and also let me know where this recension is available? Saayanna wrote a commentary on the RV during the 14th century AD or perhaps even earlier. Do you know if he commented on the eleventh book? Thanks

Jesus is a divine character only in the Bible. Even if there was a historical Jesus, he would have lived as an ordinary person like anyone else (i.e, minus all the magic attributed to him). But since there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a historical Jesus, this discussion isn't of much use to anyone. The same applies to Raama and Krishna. If they existed, they were normal people like anyone else. Over time, they were turned into religious personalities and elevated to the position of avatars of Vishnu. Still later [by the time of Nimbarka], there was a role-reversal between Vishnu and Krishna, with some sections of North Indias looking upon Krishna as the Supreme being and Vishnu as one of his extensions. So much that the Brahma Vaivarta Puraanaa [16th century] has stories where Krishna humbles Vishnu. A point of interest is the current trend of worshipping Bachchan in a temple in Calcutta. This gives us a clue as to how in the past, ordinary humans (viz., Raama, Krishna and others) became divine personalities with time. Another such example is Raadha. While completely absent in earlier stories of Krishna, by 12th century AD, she had already become his consort and his soul. Shirdi Sai Baba is another good example. But all this is irrelevant to those who have belief. As far as they are concerned, their icons are real and divine and a simple thing such as no evidence is not going to bother them. Cheers

This is a new one. Where does one find Muslim propoganda in the Vedas? The Rig-veda Samhita has 10 books. Which is the eleventh book you are referring to? The Krishna Yajur again has only 7 books, while you are referring to an eight book. Can you verify this? If you pulled your info out of one of the many Hindu propoganda sites which carry articles by the likes of Rajaram, Chaturvedi, etc, I suggest you drop that and start looking at proper, real sources for information. Cheers

Out of curiosity, what changes did Aurangzeb make to the Dharma Shaastras? Thanks

All the eighteen puraanaas were in existence long before 1000 AD, but not in their present form. There was an old Brahma Vaivarta which appears to be almost entirely lost. Of about 1500 lines quoted from the Brahma-vaivarta by the Nibhanda writers, only about 30 can be found in the present BV. Interestingly, quotes from sixteenth century writers are also not to be found in the present version. Since none of the early Nibhanda writers [except Devanabhatta] quote from the Brahmavaivarta, it appears to have been unavailable for a long time, after which it was probably rewritten/recovered around 700-800 AD. According to JC Roy, "Since about the 10th cenury AD, this work began to be changed by the interfering hands of the Bengal authors who recast it to it's present form and contents during the sixteenth century". Chapters 4.8 and and 4.26 are believed to be older than 500 AD. Cheers

The achievements and success of Mohammad speaks volumes in itself. How can we doubt this influence to be anything but the act of an Avatar?? The Buddhist also battles vigilantly against his inner enemies such as lust and anger for it is the nature, action and attitude of the mind in this life that will determine his destination after death. Cheers

The achievements and success of Mohammad speaks volumes in itself. How can we doubt this influence to be anything but the act of an Avatar?? The Buddhist also battles vigilantly against his inner enemies such as lust and anger for it is the nature, action and attitude of the mind in this life that will determine his destination after death. Cheers

Unfortunately, unlike in christianity, when it comes to Hinduism, there are no standard answers to most of your questions. Hinduism is like a big mall with many stores selling different wares. Therefore, depending on their background, different folks will give you different answers. For instance, one person will tell you that God is formless, another will tell you that God has a human form and both answers are correct as far as Hinduism is concerned ! Just thought I would give you a heads up. Cheers

Bollywood is just like it used to be. The fraction of movies which are bold in portraying sex is negligible. Besides, such portrayal is not new. Raj Kapoor was bold back in the sixties with his "mera naam joker". Count in Tarzan, Ram teri, Ganga Maili, etc and you will see what I mean. If anything, the overall quality of Hindi cinema has come down. Uptil the 80s, more than 50% of the movies released every year were hits. Now the number of hits per year is not more than 8%. Apparently, people don't have a clue as to where they are going wrong. Cheers

Since AOL is allocating dynamic IPs, isn't it possible that AOL may allocate one of the banned IPs to some other AOL user and this person may not be able to access the forums?

Also, by Aditi Chaturvedi, the same gentleman who has taken the time to write the above articles, is the below article. http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/aditichaturvedi/dpp1.html This should give some insight into the man's perspective of the world and it's people. Anyone/Anything he dislikes is Pro-Islam and Anti-Hindu. btw, sword of truth is a well known Hindu propoganda site. Cheers

Here is what Rajan Parrikar once wrote, based on his interactions with ISKCON folks. Note: This is a general statement and *should not* be taken in a negative sense, to mean that all Hare Krishna's are this way. It only suggests some areas of improvement for certain types of individuals. //////////////////////////////////////////////////// Vidyasankar tries hard to shine some light into the singularity of the collective Hare Krishna cranium and, not surprisingly, fails. The HKs, in general, are not self-thinking individuals and they have very little use for the methods of rational discourse. Their minds work much like digital switches. They are either ON or OFF. Mostly, I might add, OFF. I knew the dudes for quite a few years in Boulder, Colorado and have read their literature, interacted with them, seen their ways and finally disagreed with them on many issues. In short, I know what I am talking about when I speak of the Hare Krishnas. Let me first list some of their virtues: 1) Nice, friendly, personable fellows. 2) They make excellent food and are enthusiastic about sharing it with others; In particular, their semolina halva gets a solid A. 3) They sing besura bhajans and pronounce them as "baajaans." They have only one vice: They don't know what the hell they're talking about. Of all the things that bothered me, none was as troubling as their "our way is the only way and all others are wrong" rhetoric. This attitude runs totally counter to the Hindu tradition of allowing for a multiplicity of views and instead sounds more like the Christian missionary or Islamic way of doing business. I have respect for Prabhupada; however, he doesn't have the sole lock on the truth as the HKs proclaim. But at least the fellow had some substance to him (his sense of personal discipline etc). He also had an opinion on everything ranging from sex to salvation to quarks to Begum Akhtar. The organisation he founded is today a ragtag and bobtail outfit peopled by a bunch of mostly unintelligent and supremely ignorant dummies. Ignorance, per se, wouldn't be all that bad if only the Krishnas hadn't their truckload of arrogance to go with it. HK dudes, don't get hyper about all this. I have some words of advice for you fellows. All for free! Learn to countenance diverse viewpoints, debate them civilly and rationally, read a book or two written by a non-Prabhupada:-), don't pretend you know Sanskrit merely because you can read it in the English transliteration, eschew your tendency to argue with the "mayavadis" ad infinitum ad nauseum, before you criticise Sankara make sure you have read AND UNDERSTOOD at least ONE LINE of his exegesis ("because Prabhupada says so" type of argument will fetch you zero points), tone down the sycophantic praise of Prabhupada, don't ambush people at airports with your books, stop telling young Hindu couples to abstain from sex except to conceive (remember how you have had your fun; let people have theirs), before you preach your lofty stuff practice it yourself, learn to build bridges of understanding, tear down the walls of your ignorance, cement the bonds of love and compassion towards all, preach the gospel of love. Finally, VERY IMPORTANT: Go easy on the ghee. I hate to run that extra mile the next day to burn off the extra calories. Let us try and do things the Sattvic way around here." Hari bol! //////////////////////////////////////////////////// Cheers

Other than one South Indian recension, no manuscript of the Mahaabhaarata lists Buddha among the avataars of Vishnu. The Harivamsha, an extension of the Mahaabhaarata, lists ten avataars of Vishnu, with the ninth avataar being Vyaasa and not the Buddha [Chapter 1.41]. The Maarkandeya Puraana, Vishnu Puraanaa, Vaayu, Brahmaanda and Kuurma believed to be among the oldest Puraanaas, do not list the Buddha as an avataar of Vishnu. Agni Puraana 2.16, lists the ten popular avataars of Vishnu including the Buddha and specifically says he was the son of Shudhodana. Hence, there is no doubt that there was an opinion among some sections that Gautama Buddha [aka Sidhaarta] was an avataar of Vishnu, born to delude Daityaas. The general idea is that the Buddha came to be accepted as an avataar around 400 AD, for he finds mention only in later spurious insertions. According to the Varaaha Puraana 48.22, the Buddha was worshipped by some to attain physical beauty. Now the puzzle is, why do the details of the Buddha in the Bhaagavatam differ? While there exist lists giving different details of the Buddha who was believed to be an avataar of Vishnu, there is no list that says there were 2 different Buddhas who were both avataars of Vishnu. And the mystery continues... Cheers

If only a part of your posts was relevant, why did you post the rest of the stuff?

With due respect, this is the kind of attitude that breeds racism. Who has decided the set of rules that will determine which culture is tamasic and which isn't? During 09/11, there was a lot of help rendered by people of Western countries to people who were total strangers. On the other hand, during the earthquake fiasco of Gujarat, many Indians on the pretext of collecting donations, made a lot of money. Which culture was being tamasic here? The native americans have produced no literature and have developed nothing. By your logic, they are also tamasic and deserve to be enslaved by "non-tamasic" cultures. Now it gets more interesting...what literature have you produced? What development have you made? If the answer is nothing, does this make you tamasic? I understand, you have a dislike for Afro-americans. Now you are using statements by others to justify your attitude. If you will excuse me for saying this, such an attitude is not becoming of a devotee. Widening our perspective to see everyone on the same level, helps a lot. Cheers

Real Video, as far as I know, provides the best compression in terms of size. But I do not have the exact numbers as it has been a while since I played with it. Also, as someone has said above, creating streaming content is only one part of it. Finding an inexpensive, affordable way to host our material is the real problem. if hosting facilities are not available at this time, it would still be a good idea to go ahead and store video, for it may come in useful sometime in the future. Cheers