Deathless

I think their idea of 'offense' is rather arrogant. They don't care in the slightest if you insult an Advaita Vedantist or a Shaiva , even to the point of mocking their faiths. But say one negative thing about a Vaishnava - even if the statement has nothing to do with Vaishnavism - and you go straight to hell. How very self-serving.

Wow. That was a quick de-conversion to re-conversion. Oh well. Follow your heart, that's all that matters.

None of this tells me why you call certain devas and devis demigods, but you don't call Vasu---DEVA--- a demigod, when the same word is used to describe both of them. If you are going to translate Deva, either translate it strictly as 'god' or translate it strictly as 'demigod'. It makes no sense to change the translation of the same term just because you feel that the other devas are worthy of less respect than Vasudeva.

It's spelled "demigod' not 'demagod'. And, were you looking under 'demagogue' or the prefix 'demi-' when you saw the etymology for Greek 'demos'? That makes no sense. Either you are a leader, or you aren't. You can't be half of a leader. All of these definitions apply to the devas and devis. So, why not just call them 'gods' and 'goddesses'? Why must you call them half of what they are? Well, since Hinduism has multiple devas and devis in it, I don't think it can be considered strictly monotheistic. Even if you do worship only one god. "Pagan"? "Heathen"? I didn't realize this was a Christian forum. Can we just stick to the correct term, 'polytheist' or 'pantheist'? Why does one god need to be better than another? Is that a universal law or something? It's more like, "Gods are gods, we shouldn't try to call them half of what they are." It seems to me as if the people who use this word are just biased against other gods. For example, notice that when you translate 'Vasudeva', you translate it as 'God of the Vasus'. But, when any other god is called a 'deva' you translate it as demigod. Why the deception? It's the same word, so why give it two different definitions? The term "God", as a proper noun, does refer to a singular entity. However, "god(s)" doesn't refer to an entity. It refers to a group of entities.

It doesn't matter if he just sits and makes no change whatsoever. He is still a government official who is officially running the government. Another thing, anarchy is the lack of any sort of governmental order whatsoever. Even if we go with your interpretation - that the president elect might not do anything, making it some sort of unofficial anarchy - it still isn't an anarchy. America will still have Congress under Obama. It will still have a House of Representatives and a Senate. It will still have state governments and courts. So, no matter how you feel about Obama, America, I'm almost certain, will not be an anarchy within four years time. That is, unless you think that Congress will be abolished, the Senate will be abolished, the House of Representatives will be abolished, all state governments will be abolished, and all courts in the United States will be shut down.

He also mentioned the Jordan and the Rhone,the Loire, and the Tagus. I don't see how it's unique. He just includes one famous river in a list of other famous rivers. I'm sure that many educated people knew of the Ganges at that time. He actually used the term 'gods'? I really have a hard time believing that. I guess I just don't see a reference to Islam in India as the equivalent of understanding Hinduism.

I suppose that makes sense. People have built up such a hype on Obama, who can say what and how they would feel if things don't turn out as they think they will?

It still isn't comparable to an anarchy. Just because someone dislikes the way their country is run doesn't mean they can make a reasonable comparison to unrelated types of government they also dislike. For example, I dislike the Bush Administration. I also dislike theocracies and monarchies. However, I would never equate the Bush Administration with a theocratic monarchy. That would make no sense, as that is obviously not the type of government that runs the United States. Similarly, it is irrational to compare the United States under Obama to an anarchy, as that is not the form of government - rather, lack-thereof - the United States will live under if it has some type of government official running it.

I had a nice lentil and rice pilaf the other day.

What a terrible suggestion!

It seems to me that a truly spiritual group of people would not care on what day God is celebrated, as long as God is being celebrated. What a shame that these people cannot see beyond their sectarian and cultural differences.

Just because Einstein didn't to a theory doesn't make it un- or anti-scientific.He meant it was more scientific in that it points to an energy that pervades nature, making it a more scientific philosophy, rather than just the worship of a specific deity, which is more of a religious philosophy.

Ranjeet, surely you realize that the initial poster posted this in 1999. Who are you so angry with? Someone who isn't even on here anymore? Om Shanti.

Okay? That's all nice and good and all, but I still don't see how a president could possibly make an anarchy. Leaders of governments can't make an absence of government. It's a contradiction in terms. I guess you really did mean to make 'no rhyme' or use 'your reasoning abilities'.

Who is on left of Krishna Dev in the picture? Is it Balbhadra?

The only gods I can think of that married as siblings were the first humans, Yama and Yami, who were the children of Surya (correct me if I'm wrong on that as I'm not positive that this is the case). Other than that, I can't think of any. Shiva has no family and his wife is Parvati, the daughter of Himalaya. Vishnu has no family and his wife is Lakshmi who was born from the ocean of milk. In all of their successive incarnations, they were never brother and sister either. Rama was son of Dasarath, Sita was daughter of Janaka; Krishna was son of Vasudeva, Rukmini was daughter of Bishmaka. Brahma was born from Vishnu's navel and his wife is Gayatri and she is the daughter of a sage.

It all depends on if the Hindu you are talking with is Shaiva, Vaishnava, Shakta, Ganpatya, or Advait. If the person is Shaiva or Vaishnava, they'll say Shiva or Vishnu was first. If the person is Shakta or Ganpatya, they'll say that Shakti or Ganapati was first. If the person is Advait, they'll say that God is ulimately formless and that such a question is unimportant as God has taken many forms, each of them having a certain role to fulfill. So, which one God took first has no special meaning, as all avatars are equally important. I hope that clears things up a bit. Isn't Narayan just a name for Vishnu? According to Vaishnavas he is. Shaivas think Shiva is center of universe, Shaktas think Shakti is center of universe, and so on.

Etymology of the Prefix 'demi-':demi- 1. half (From Latin dimidium, "divided in half", via Old French and Middle English demi- half) It has nothing to do with the "politics of the gods". Demi- is a prefix meaning "half". When you call a god or goddess a 'demigod', you are calling them 'half of a god'. Can you explain now? "It's this way because I've said so and wondering or questioning it is wrong." You sound very much like a fascist. Aye, aye captain bhaktajan. I'll never ask a question I don't already know the answer to again! How very silly.

Why do some people call the devas and devis 'demigods'? Do you use the same terminology for some people calling them 'demipeople'? If not, then why do you call some gods 'demigods'? Just wondering.

Didn't Malaysia's government just outlaw yoga due to a conflict with the state religion's -that is, Islam's- principles?

What exactly is a 'demigod', even? Are there 'demiasuras', 'demighosts', 'demipeople', and 'demianimals' as well?

Nirvana = Extinguished; Disappearance; Vanishing I must say that "Disappearance in Brahman" or "Vanishing in Brahman" is a far more fitting translation for Brahma-Nirvana than "Kingdom of God". A better way of saying "Kingdom of God" would be something along the lines of Bhagavan Rajya, in my opinion. However, that isn't what Krishna said.

Maybe you could use your fingers? Say one mantra per finger and then make tally marks on paper to see how many "rounds" you've done. Or maybe just ask your parents to buy you beads and string in order to make a "necklace" or "bracelet"?

All of this strikes me as being very true. It seems as if something internal should not have to be signified by something external, like clothing.

Yes, yes. I understand what a karmi is, I just don't understand how you dress like one. Is it just wearing normal clothing or what is it? When I put on jeans and a t-shirt am I 'dressing like a karmi'?