shvu

The search feature is real cool. http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000492-2.html There was a person named LakSri who used to post for sometime then. Search for LakSri's first post on this page. Cheers

Apte's sanskrit dictionary. I can get the full list of meanings for Madhu when I get home. I think it is also available online somewhere. I will also check up Soma tonight. Cheers

Yes, a Vegetarian translation makes more sense when we look at the big picture. btw, didn't Shabari offer him a half-eaten fruit? Madhu in sanskrit also means "a sweet intoxicating drink" and "Soma juice". Cheers

You are back ! I was actually missing you on these forums. I quoted a couple of lines from the review to show (as mentioned in FA), neither of the 2 gentlemen are historians or achaeologists, but are actually Sadaputa Dasa and Dhrutakarma Dasa from iskcon (Point 1). Now have I read FA? No. Will I read it in future? Certainly not. In the past, right on these forums, there were Iskcon folks who were complaining about scientists who supported evolution and archaeology, about how they were wasting their time, etc. Obviously this view is taught in iskcon and is not the outcome of 8 years of research by the authors (Point 2). Based on Point 1 and Point 2, isn't there enough Information to say whatever I said? Yours respectfully, (No offense to anyone)

A description of this book... ISKCON researchers have compiled evidence supporting the Vedic picture of the age of the human species. by Michael Cremo (Drutakarma Dasa) Modern science tells us that anatomically modern man has been around for only about 100,000 years. The Vedic writings say he has been here a lot longer. Now a book from the Bhaktivedanta Institute takes a new look at the scientific evidence. That evidence, says the book, has been fudged. The motive of this book is quite clear. And of course, in true Gaudiya fashion, what the gentleman means by Vedic is not the Vedas of course, but the Srimad Bhagavatam. Cheers

Read this review of FA. http://www.skeptic.com/04.1.lepper-review.html A sample from the review : Cremo and Thompson have little understanding of history and almost no understanding of the disciplines of paleoanthropology and archaeology. In the introduction, Thompson is identified as a generic "scientist" and "a mathematician," while Cremo is "a writer and editor for books and magazines published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust" (p. xix). In the first place, RT is not an archaeologist nor a historian, having never investigated anything or dug at any site. Insteead, he has collected second-hand information, stressed on whatever suits his agenda and criticized the rest. Not a difficult job vis-a-vis spending years in foreign lands, digging, researching and analyzing. Being familiar with the kind of material RT has come up with, in Vedic cosmogony and also being aware of his iskcon background, I can safely make a guess about the worth of FA. The motive is a big giveaway. Similarly there exist a group of people who are very sure that Egyptian Archaeologists are *hiding* facts. Why do they think so? Because they like to think the pyramids were built bt Atlanteans or even better by someone from outer space. Anything sounds interesting so long as it is not rational. Why are the scholars *hiding* facts? Because they are biased, prejudiced and don't want to to take away the glory of the Egyptian civilzation by acknowledging that the GP was built earlier than the rise of Egyptian civilzation. How do these critics know this? They don't, of course. They are just guessing this is what must be going on. After all, how can the GP be only 4000 years old? It sounds so dull and boring. That is how. There will always be a group of people to criticize science and it's findings, but almost in all cases, it is based on fancy with the critics not having a shred of evidence and relying on half-baked claims. Just like John Anthony West who roped in a geologist from the US (I forget his name) and set out to show the Sphynx is older than believed. The geologist stated he observed erosion patterns on the Sphynx making it older than believed, but he never did convince anyone. What finally happened was while this geologist says the Sphynx must be a 1000 years older than believed, John Anthony West believes it is atleast 10000-25000 years older ! And all this with absolutely no evidence. And yet, he has his own fan following who agree with him. Apparently they require no evidence and are content enough, believing in fanciful claims. Cheers

Debates are carried out between people and it all comes down to the calibre of the people in question. While there are Advaitins who lost to others there are others who lost to Advaitins too. The point is, Advaita did not vanish like Puurva-Mimaasa and Buddhism and has stood it's ground (Keeping in line with the rules of debate, that is). Because here we are discussing Advaita being word jugglery (or not), etc. That is not what the scriptures say. And what the scriptures say summarily overrides everything else. Brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati (To know Brahman is to become Brahman), tattvamasi (You are that), aham brahmasmi and so on. Advaita very clearly draws from the Vedas to show the purport of the Vedas is, there is no duality. All that exists is Brahman and since I exist, I am that too. Very simple. And since this is what the Vedas say, traditions which state the soul is somehow different from Brahman are false. Cheers

Go to www.dejanews.com and search for their names, chaitanya, etc. That should be fun reading. Those were the days when Iskcon folks strongly mantained the Maadhva connection and *scriptural proof* of chaitanya's divinity. I must say Shrisha Rao and HP Raghunandan did a good job of clarifying things. Cheers

Religion also says man started off from one couple. Won't the above reasoning hold good in this case too? Cheers

They would never say that. Back then, there was a strong tradition of polemics. There were rules and according to rules, the loser had to convert over to the winner's System. This is how a new founder would bring in promiment personalities from other camps into his own. This is how Shankara defeated Puurva Mimaamsa. This is also how Raamaanuja and Maadhva laid foundation for their traditions. This being the case, if Advaita was not founded on sound logic, it would have vanished long ago, under the criticism of these two schools. Exactly what will establish this? Will quoting from some specific source achieve this? Please let me know. Cheers

With due respect, I would take the material in Forbidden archaeology with a lot of salt. Tha author has an ISKCON background, which means, to him the Bhagavatam is a source of history and facts. Using the Bhagavatam, he has come up with a lot of ideas about how history and archaeology must be flawed. Why? Because current history and archaeological discoveries do not tally with the SB. To know more about what I am saying, read Vedic cosmogony or a similar title by the same author, where he discusses moon landing, gravitation, etc among other things. While 99% of fossils may never be found, it does not mean we can reconstruct the missing paast using sources like the Bible or Srimad Bhagavatam. Cheers

The translation I use is by Maadhavaananda of the RK Math. The commentary looks fine to me. However I will try to verify this from alternate sources. The problem I have is vegetarians are also biased and tend to translate everything from a vegetarian perspective. For instance, remember the MaaMsa and Madhu translation posted in ths forum a while back? I found it more reasonable to accept that Rama, a kshatriya was not consuming meat and liqor while living in the forest. However, the translation posted was, Rama was not eating fruits and honey while living in the forest, which I feel is very unlikely. Thanks

That is my point too. This Psychic who has been performing on TV...did he ever say "Sorry, this soul I am trying to reach has already reincarnated. Here is your money back." Or does he have some way of knowing beforehand if the soul he is trying to talk to is still available for chatting? If he claims he can talk to any dead person, anytime, then he is definitely kidding...according to those who believe in reincarnation at least. Cheers

That is your background. When I view tattvavaada and other positions from an advaitic perspective they fall way short. This is how it is with everone. But the fact is, Advaita has withstood and successfully debunked criticism from several quarters over the centuries and stands strong even to this day, thus proving it appears attractive to many and is also based on sound logic. Again, this is from a deluded perspective as the Jiiva is incapable of imagining anything about Mukti. Any picture, good or bad, will invariably be false. Cheers

I have heard from more than one source that Yaajnavalkya mentions meat-eating in the Yajur (Shatapatha?). Also from the Yajur, the Brhadaaranyaka Upanishad(6.4.18) has a reference to beef eating. I checked Shankara's commmentary on this verse and he interprets this verse to mean meat-eating. Cheers

You can buy a sanskrit text at http://www.sriramakrishnamath.org. If you are aware of a Roman version of this book published by the Math, write to them and they will get you one. For old and used books, you can try www.abebooks.com Cheers

No. According to Sruti and the Gita, the Jiva was always existent which means it was *never* created. And since, it was never created, the question of *how* does not arise at all. Just like you cannot expect a Gaudiya Guru to answer a question like how you were created. Hope I was clear this time. Since there is no how, there is no *becoming* either. A "Liberated" state, Maya, anyone etc are all to the deluded Jiva which sees duality. All of Brahman, part of Brahman, etc again are all apparent and ultimately hold no meaning. The Jiva was not created does not mean the Jiva cannot perceive unreal concepts like a *divided* Brahman. For the simple reason that it is not Vedic. When Shankara talked about oneness, he drew support from the Veda, Sutras and the Gita to justify his position and so did Madhva when he talked about eternal duality. However no such attempt to draw support from an infallible source was made in this case, which goes against itself, making it an ad hoc hypothesis. No offense

Sure...To each, his own. Au contraire, it means nothing more can be said about it, that will be true to it's meaning. Krishna calls Maya his mysterious power, thereby *dodging* it himself. Imagine a strange and unknown place you experience in a dream. Where is this place when you wake up? Was it a real place at any point of time? What was it resting on? The same logic applies quite well in this case. Cheers

According to Advaita, the Atman (soul) is not different from Brahman. The duality is only apparent and vanishes when the truth is realized. Dvaita maintains that the Atman is eternally different from Paramatman, i.e this difference exists even after Mukti. IN fact, they have a concept of 5 eternal differences. A good point to know this would be http://www.dvaita.org Jiva = Brahman veiled in ignorance. There is no specific point at which Brahman becomes deluded because Jivas are not created at some point in time. The deluding energy is Maya, which Shankara describes as inexplicable. Krishna talks about this at some point in the Gita, but I cannot recollect the exact location now (VIIth chapter?). Cheers

Theist, Sorry for sitting on the long answer. I don't see myself having the time/inclination to pull out pages of quotes from Shankara. To summarize, the Jiva is never *created* at some point of time (btw, this is the position of all schoolso of Vedaanta) which implies ignorance or avidya is beginningless. Cheers

Rati, The concept of ghosts may go well with x'tians, but certainly not with any religion which believes in reincarnation. Assuming for a moment that psychic x can talk to any dead person, what happens if this dead person has already taken birth again? If questioned, this psychic (if a x'tian) will say there is no such thing as reincarnation. What would you say to that? Will that be sufficent to dismiss him as bogus or on the other hand, is that sufficient to dismiss Hindu concepts as bogus? Thanks

<BR><a href = "http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0204d&L=advaita-l&F=lf&S=&P=192"> Click here</a> to know more.<P>Cheers<P>

Believe me, they most certainly can and they do it all the time. I have heard amazing stories about such people who were later on exposed. The magician's magic on the stage is magical only to those who do not understand his tricks. This is the excitement that they rely on. This is what lures people to listen to them thereby giving them an opportunity to thrive. I am not saying conclusively that this guy is a fake, but I would be simply amazed if he is not. btw, one does not have to be religious to be ethical. There are religious folks, believers, who are corrupt and immoral while there are atheists who are fine, decent people. Being ethical and religious have nothing to do with one another. Cheers

This raises the question of what quaifies as scripture. If you are trying to unite eastern and western religions, then you must be willing to accept their holy books as scripture too and once you do that there is no way you can bring them together for they are as different as can be. Cheers

In your previous post, you were suggesting the scientist should ask with an open mind and should not be biased. Similarly putting aside my conclusions, wanting to see if whatever you said will work for me, I did call out sincerely. Nothing happened. I have done this before several times too and there was no answer then, either. btw, I am not an *impersonalist*(not sure what you mean by that). Cheers