Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

chandu_69

Members
  • Content Count

    571
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by chandu_69


  1.  

    and we wonder why the great mystics and ascetics most always talked in parables and metaphor?

     

    Maybe they just didn't want to spill the beans in front of the unbaptized.

     

    Very true.Seeing the 'intellectual' thoughts freely bandied about in this forum I am coming around to the view the sages were indeed correct in putting restrictions on the uninitiated.


  2.  

    You can get the original Vedas and translations here.

     

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/

     

    A collection of sites about Vedas.

     

    http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Hinduism/Religious_Texts/Vedas/

    The translations are faulty and sometimes highly misleading.Having said that there is still no authoritative translations available.

     

    Your own signature is the best illustration of a translation gone awry(rigveda Rg Veda I-89-1)


  3.  

    First of all, you have to look at the translation of this verse, BG 13.34.

    yathā prakāśayaty ekaḥ

    kṛtsnaḿ lokam imaḿ raviḥ

    kṣetraḿ kṣetrī tathā kṛtsnaḿ

    prakāśayati bhārata

    SYNONYMS

    yathāas; prakāśayati — illuminates; ekaḥ — one; kṛtsnam — the whole; lokam — universe; imam — this; raviḥ — sun; kṣetram — this body; kṣetrī — the soul; tathā — similarly; kṛtsnam — all; prakāśayati — illuminates; bhārataO son of Bharata.

     

    ,The word 'lokam' simply means 'this world' or 'this place', refering not necesarily to Brahmanda, but to our earthly realm.

     

    examples of translation of this word: http://vedabase.net/l/lokam

     

    exactly my point.


  4.  

    What does Vedas say?

     

    If the Earth was created before the Sun (which btw both the Bible and Koran says), it basically proves that it´s the Sun which revolves around the Earth, and not the other way around, as we are "taught" in the "schools"!

     

    Any reference?

    The vedas say, perhaps in in poetic hymns, that it is not Known,for certain.

     

    rigveda book 1:129:6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?

     

    And then it describes the minor details with reference to earth

     

    1:150:3 Dhātar, the great Creator, then formed in due order Sun and Moon.

    He formed in order Heaven and Earth, the regions of the air, and light.

     

    So, It can be deduced that the order is sun-moon- Earth.


  5.  

    Was Krishna wrong when He told Arjuna that the sun alone illuminates the entire universe?

     

    Now what are we gonna do? ;)

    I don't know how this "entire universe" thing came.

     

    The word used is LOKAM.

     

    There are many Lokam(s).

     

    For example verse 9:33 also used the word Lokam.

     

    ki‰ punar brhma‹„ pu‹y bhakt rjar£ayas tatha

     

    anityam asukha‰ LOKAM ima‰ prpya bhajasva mm.

    iN THIS VERSE lokam is world.Temporary world.

     

    verse 9:20 also has lokam(surendra-lokam)...The world/planet of Indra.


  6.  

    Agree about indiatv's corruption.

    But i dont think this is bogus. Sunal is a ratiionalist with a strong mind thats why the tantra didnt effect him.

     

    Strong mind helps you in not getting influenced by cheap tricks.The socalled tantrik is nothing but a fool.Can any tantrik kill somebody on a livetv show and escape from prosecution?.

     

    As said by kali_upasaka it is not possible to find a genuine tantrik these days.


  7. Originally Posted by ---

    what kind of a tantric uses a mantra like lingalingalinga....???? obviously this show was an insult to hindus by the communist controlled anti hindu media ...

     

     

     

    Yes, it is amusing, the word used.

     

     

    tantra is real including abacharic rites and if someone wants proof ......i would suggest to find a mantra to kill and try it themselves .....

    Tantra may be real, but it is not possible to find a real tantrik.


  8. Tantra might be true.But the chances of finding some one who actually suffered from black magic are next to impossible.Most of the socalled victims of black magic actually suffer from variety of physical and mental problems.

     

    It is also established that almost all the 'victims' have poor will power.

     

    It is safe to assume that in this age, black magic practitioners cannot move a hair on your body.


  9.  

    Now if you are incapable of grasping simple english, that means, of the two options (British and Muslim kings), Indians chose the latter. Evidence?

    Indian chose what?. You have very little common sense.When was the last time the ruled have a choice?.

     

     

    Sepoy Mutiny where Hindus and Muslims fought together to oust British rule and one of the firsr things they did was to put Bahadur Shah back on the throne.

    The bengalis might have been ok with Bahadur Shah.So what?.Does that negate what i wrote earlier?.

     

    The indian soldiers employed by british were also protecting their masters interests vi-a-vis Indians.Does that mean Indians in general wanted british rule?.I see that logic and detail is not your forte.

     

     

    None of which matters to our local fundamentalist, Chandu. His sole intent is to malign Muslims and show them as the root cause of all evils. He is fine with the British moving the Kohinoor to UK,

     

    Hmmm, too many speculations?.When did i say muslims are root cause of all evils?

     

    And when did i say i am ok with british moving the kohinoor?:crazy2:.

     

    Can't stomach facts? don't you?.


  10.  

    If that was true, with 800 years of Muslim rule, why was over 80% of the country still Hindu?? They should all have converted over, under the alleged opression.

    Cheers

     

    80% ? .Where did you get your figures.india was 40% muslim before partition of india.get your facts straight Mr kaiserose.

     

    The zeal to convert indians whole sale has ebbed.That is it.


  11. Continued the response regarding hindus happy with muslim rule.

     

    http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/temple_aurangzeb.html

     

    Some examples of accounts written by Muslim chroniclers(not by Hindus)

     

    "Mir'at-i-Alam" by Bakhtawar Khan

     

    Muhiyu'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb 'Alamgir Padshah Ghazi (1658-1707) General Order

    " ...Hindu writers have been entirely excluded from holding public offices, and ALL THE WORSHIPPING PLACES OF THE INFIDELS AND GREAT TEMPLES of these infamous people HAVE BEEN THROWN DOWN AND DESTROYED in a manner which excites astonishment at the successful completion of so difficult a task. His Majesty personally teaches the sacred kalima to many infidels with success. ... All mosques in the empire are repaired at public expense..."

     

     

    the full list is given at the above link

     

     

    and independent verification from

     

     

    http://kblibrary.bih.nic.in/Vol07.htm

    http://maapritonk.nic.in/histryvolume1.htm


  12. Will durant continued

     

    India before the advent of Islamic imperialism was not exactly a zone of peace. There were plenty of wars fought by Hindu princes. But in all their wars, the Hindus had observed some time-honoured conventions sanctioned by the Sastras. The Brahmins and the Bhikshus were never molested. The cows were never killed. The temples were never touched. The chastity of women was never violated. The non-combatants were never killed or captured. A human habitation was never attacked unless it was a fort. The civil population was never plundered. War booty was an unknown item in the calculations of conquerors. The martial classes who clashed, mostly in open spaces, had a code of honor. Sacrifice of honor for victory or material gain was deemed as worse than death.

     

    Islamic imperialism came with a different code--the Sunnah of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead, was a measure of the success of a military mission. And they did all this as mujahids (holy warriors) and ghazls (kafir-killers) in the service of Allah and his Last Prophet.

    Hindus found it very hard to understand the psychology of this new invader. For the first time in their history, Hindus were witnessing a scene which was described by Kanhadade Prabandha (1456 AD) in the following words:

    "The conquering army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people's wealth, took Brahmins and children and women of all classes captive, flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious Turks."

    That was written in remembrance of Alauddin Khalji's invasion of Gujarat in the year l298 AD. But the gruesome game had started three centuries earlier when Mahmud Ghaznavi had vowed to invade India every year in order to destroy idolatry, kill the kafirs, capture prisoners of war, and plunder vast wealth for which India was well-known


  13.  

    Contrary to what you believe, Indians were actually OK with Muslims ruling the country than the British. You see, the Muslim rulers made India their home and aside from stray incidents, had no problems with Hindus practising their religion.

     

    Yes, Indians were ok with whole sale massacres imposition of jizya tax, conversion at sword etc etc..Stray incidents, huh.

     

    http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/moghal_atro.html

     

    Will Durant(author of Story of Civilisation) wrote

    "the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history".


  14.  

    it is all about Attitude not about Name.. . it is limiting to think that the moksha giver will not give moksha because of a "name" and a "form" or cannot work through any variety of "name" or "form" it chooses to, moksha is given to everyone with right attitude to Divine.. it comes down to the same two things for everybody.. humility, surrender of the ego and devotion. .. there is no other approach.. one will see subtle distinctions in the names or forms without any differentiation in the supreme essence. .. with this understanding,..

     

    Thought that i should highlight some important points of an excellent post.


  15. The tantrums of Kali_upasaka is the result of the post number 116

     

     

    The idea that "all religious paths" are "valid paths" is incomprehensible and not accepted by any intelligent or even semi-intelligent homo sapien. Just see the stupidity of such a belief - if Islam is a "valid path," then even the suras which direct Muslims to murder non-believers are also valid. Razing Hindu temples to the ground and abducting Hindu women is also valid, as per your claims.

     

    The stupidity of his guru is exposed in bright and searing light

     

    Here is the stupidity in his own words

     

     

    Sri Ramakrishna said "There are as many ways as there are Men".

     

    Hinduism accepts all religious paths as valid paths. It is not tolerance, but acceptanc


  16.  

    Saiva worship is as old as Vaishnavism.

     

    Let it be.It seems nobody except you is interested to establish dates from "recorded history".

     

     

     

     

    Recorded history can not be compared with Puranic legends.

     

    Ohh i see.Can you date Rama avathar from "recorded history" ?.

     

     

    What others believe is superstition or worse.

     

    Oh yes, as you have just now explained that superstition with "recorded history".:rolleyes:

×
×
  • Create New...