Kulapavana

what is the use of a long life if one does not serve Krishna?

since your body belongs to Krishna you have no right to destroy it. ksatriyas will fight to death but only for the righteous cause. nationalism is NOT a righteous cause, it is part of Maya, or illusion. such "martyrs" only become tools for shrewd politicians greedy for power. and if they kill innocent people in their suicide, their future destination is indeed most hellish.

just be patient and tolerant, good luck!

"Einstein suggested the existence of an energy inherent in space that came to be called the "cosmological constant," since it occupied space throughout the cosmos, at a constant strength everywhere"

 

They are right about this one - everything rests on Krishna, like pearls on a thread...

The Dallas Morning News

Published: November 9, 2003 Author: TOM SIEGFRIED

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. – The Elegant Universe is an excellent title for a book, and a PBS special.

 

Unfortunately, it's not all that accurate. Just as real life is never as neat and clean as it is in novels and movies, the real universe defies the simple pictures that popularizations paint of it. In fact, the universe is a mess.

 

"This is a preposterous universe," University of Chicago physicist Sean Carroll told a group of science writers last month at a seminar in Knoxville. "Most of us could have done a better job of designing a universe if we'd been given that as a homework assignment."

 

One major sign of the universe's messiness is its makeup. The list of its ingredients turns out to be a recipe for disaster. Only about 3 percent of the total mass-energy mixture is in the form of ordinary matter, the sort that planets and people and stars are made of. About 26 percent is some exotic sort of matter, a species not yet identified (and almost surely a species that has not yet been discovered). And the 70 percent remaining is even more mysterious – it's an unknown form of energy that took command of the universe a few billion years ago, forcing space to expand at an accelerating rate. Hence the disaster – the universe seems to be blowing itself up.

 

The repulsive ingredient is usually called "dark energy," because it doesn't shine like light. But it may be a form of energy that already has a name. Einstein suggested the existence of an energy inherent in space that came to be called the "cosmological constant," since it occupied space throughout the cosmos, at a constant strength everywhere.

 

But let's face it, "cosmological constant" is a geeky name and it takes too much ink to explain it every time you use it.

 

Dr. Carroll prefers a more descriptive term, derived from the dark energy's properties. Since it is presumably the same strength everywhere, it's like a very smooth fluid. And since it exerts a repulsive effect on space – essentially trying to stretch space out – this energy generates a sort of cosmic tension throughout the universe. So Dr. Carroll is pushing the label "smooth tension" in place of dark energy.

 

Whether that name catches on or not, the idea of a universe dominated by a dark smooth cosmic repulsive tension remains disconcerting to many cosmologists. For one thing, it makes the future of the universe almost impossible to predict. At the moment, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, suggesting that it will keep on expanding forever and ever. But perhaps the smooth tension is only smooth in space and not in time – that is, it might be the same everywhere now, but could change strength in the future. If its strength diminishes, maybe the universe will stop expanding and collapse someday.

 

Or perhaps there's yet another ingredient in the cosmic recipe, a tiny hidden anti-tension that can't outcompete the repulsion now, but will someday grow strong enough to counteract it.

 

Furthermore, Dr. Carroll pointed out, there's a small chance (maybe about 2 percent) that these efforts are misguided, and that the recipe for the universe has been miswritten.

 

"Maybe there is no such thing as dark matter, and maybe there's no such thing as dark energy," he said at the seminar, organized by the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing. "We only detected them through their gravitational influence, and maybe we don't understand gravity as well as we think we do."

 

So far, though, efforts to change Einstein's theory of gravity to explain the dark items in the universal recipe raise other problems.

 

"It's just very hard to out-Einstein Einstein," Dr. Carroll said. "Probably there really is dark matter and dark energy out there."

 

In any event, most physicists hope to construct theories that would specify the universe's ingredients more precisely. And theorists have at least one excellent if rather elaborate idea. If you allot them enough extra dimensions of space and time beyond the usual four, the theorists can produce some very elegant equations that might someday make sense of the universe.

 

Alas, the theorists will need some help from other physicists and astronomers trying to find out through experiment and observation what the universe contains. Dozens of efforts are under way to capture an example of that exotic matter that makes up 26 percent of the universe, or to learn more about the properties of the dark energy, or to measure the dim cool light left over from the big bang for further clues about the universe's properties. Other projects hope to produce samples of the exotic matter in a particle accelerator and even to make measurements to prove that those extra dimensions of space really exist.

 

Over the next decade or two, then, fans of the cosmos can expect some intriguing headlines announcing progress in showing just how preposterous the universe really is.

 

"We really live in the most exciting time in the history of cosmology," said Dr. Carroll. "There's no reason to believe that the fun part is over yet. The fun is actually only just beginning."

 

E-mail tsiegfried@dallasnews.com

In my opinion the brutality and extent of animal killing nowadays far surpasses any ethnic "holocaust" on humans from the past. It is quite possible that we will witness much worse human-on-human atrocities in the future, as a reaction for such large scale brutal killing of animals. People who have no sympathy for animal suffering do not much sympathy for other people as well.

A Jewish merchant (works for Gujaratis too... /images/graemlins/wink.gif with his mule had to cross a raging river on an old and flimsy rope bridge. Looking at the dangerous passage he makes a deal with God: Lord, if I cross safely I will donate 10 pieces of silver to your temple! As he safely got almost to the end of the bridge he mutters: That bridge was not so bad afterall, this was worth 2 pieces of silver at the most! At that moment the bridge shakes violently and the mule bolts... the merchant quickly yells: I was only joking Lord! Ten pieces as I have promised!

(no pun intended - cross my heart!)

 

Can you imagine what an "ISKCON legend" this sort of event would turn into if he was a "guru in good standing"?

just find some good flowing water, find the right curse in Atharva Veda... and let them have it! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Source: www.lewrockwell.com

Published: November 7, 2003 Author: by Richard Poe

November 7, 2003

 

Guns and Communism

 

by Richard Poe

 

A gun store clerk told me recently that many young men come into his shop offering to sell their entire gun collections. They dump the weapons on the counter and announce, "I’m getting married and my fiancée says it’s either me or the guns."

 

The anti-gun ideology has burrowed its way into the tenderest corner of Americans’ hearts – the place where love resides between man and woman.

 

"There is nothing so good and lovely as when man and wife in their home dwell together in unity of mind and disposition," says Odysseus in Homer’s Odyssey. "A great vexation it is to their enemies and a feast of gladness to their friends."

 

America has vexed her foes and gladdened her friends for over 200 years. But today, the foundation of America’s strength – the family – has come under attack. An invisible wedge has sundered man from woman. Thus divided, we cannot defend our rights.

 

That wedge has a name. It is called Marxism.

 

"A Comfortable Concentration Camp"

 

Most historians agree that modern feminism began in 1963, with the publication of a bestselling book called The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan. The conventional account holds that Friedan was a suburban housewife who became bored with her life, realizing that her marriage was nothing more than a "comfortable concentration camp." Three years later, in 1966, she founded the National Organization for Women (NOW) and became its first president. Friedan’s struggle to break free of the deadening routine of childrearing and housekeeping was held up as an example for other women to follow.

 

This story, while widely accepted, gives a misleading view of Friedan’s life and motivations. In 1999, Smith College professor Daniel Horowitz (no relation to my former boss David Horowitz, by the way) published a book called Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique. It revealed what had previously been known only to the small circle of hard-core leftists who knew her; that Friedan had never in her life been a normal housewife or, indeed, a normal anything.

 

Hardline Stalinist

 

Beginning in college, Friedan – then known by her maiden name of Betty Goldstein – was already a hardline Stalinist, active in the communist movement. Though Jewish, she supported Stalin’s 1939 nonaggression pact with Hitler. When orders went out from Moscow to all Communist Parties worldwide to treat Hitler as a friend, many communists couldn’t stomach it and broke ranks with Stalin. But Friedan was among the loyal few who obeyed.

 

"Friedan’s secret was shared by hundreds of her comrades on the Left," writes David Horowitz, "though not, of course, by the unsuspecting American public – who went along with her charade presumably as a way to support her political agenda."

 

Friedan later married a fellow leftist, Carl Friedan, and devoted her life to the cause of Marxist revolution. Friedan spent her married years working as a "labor journalist" – a professional propagandist for the Left. Her full-time maid did the housework. As her ex-husband Carl later noted, Friedan "was in the world during the whole marriage" and "seldom was a wife and mother."

 

The "Woman Question"

 

The conventional account implies that Friedan developed her feminist views in a spontaneous, trial-and-error fashion, based upon her experience with the "comfortable concentration camp" of middle-class married life. In fact, Friedan had no need to invent this philosophy. Feminism – or what we call feminism today – had been a standard feature of Marxist thought at least since the publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1848. David Horowitz observes:

 

Not at all a neophyte when it came to the "woman question" (the phrase itself is a Marxist construction), she was certainly familiar with the writings of Engels, Lenin, and Stalin on the subject and had written about it herself as a journalist for the official publication of the communist-controlled United Electrical Workers union.

 

In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had shocked the world by calling for the abolition of marriage and family, which they viewed as oppressive institutions. They wrote:

 

What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property. It exists in all of its meaning only for the bourgeoisie… and will vanish when capitalism vanishes. Are you accusing us that we want to end the exploitation by parents of their children? We confess to that crime… The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but an instrument of production.

 

Marx and Engels argued for free love, in which everyone would have sexual access to everyone else. They mocked the "moral outrage of our bourgeois," who found the notion scandalous.

 

Our bourgeois find their main amusement in mutually seducing their wives.

 

The bourgeois marriage is in reality the community of the wives. One could at best accuse the communists that instead of a hypocritical, hidden one, they want to introduce an official, open-hearted women’s community.

 

Of course, Marx and Engels were men. One has to wonder whether the notion of communal lovemaking appealed to them for reasons other than ideological. Be that as it may, generations of Marxists dutifully strove to put the curious teachings of their founding fathers into practice. Few went so far as to embrace the extreme of free love. However, a deep ambivalence toward marriage and family was instilled in every Marxist heart.

 

A Rude Awakening

 

In the November 19, 1990 issue of Newsweek, a freelance writer named Kay Eberling ruffled many left-wing feathers with a column entitled, "The Failure of Feminism." She wrote:

 

To me, feminism has backfired against women. In 1973 I left what could have been a perfectly good marriage, taking with me a child in diapers, a 10-year-old Plymouth and Volume 1, Number One of Ms. Magazine. I was convinced I could make it on my own. In the last 15 years my ex has married or lived with a succession of women. As he gets older, his women stay in their mid-20s. Meanwhile, I’ve stayed unattached. He drives a BMW. I ride buses.

 

Eberling had accepted the feminist teaching that men were disposable, easily replaceable, and perhaps not even necessary. But in practice, it turned out to be women who were left out in the cold, once men were released from the traditional obligation to protect and provide for them.

 

Worse is Better

 

For women like Eberling, feminism proved to be a disaster. But for the left-wing ideologues who invented the movement, Eberling’s suffering was irrelevant.

 

There is a saying among activists of the Left that "worse is better." The more alienated and unhappy people feel, the more susceptible they are for recruitment into the revolutionary cause. For that reason, many leftists deliberately promote policies that they know will cause misery, suffering and chaos.

 

On April 7, 2000, I attended a conference entitled, "The Legacy and Future of Hillary Rodham Clinton," held at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C. and co-sponsored by David Horowitz’s Center for the Study of Popular Culture.

 

Betty Friedan was one of the panelists. Instead of talking about Hillary, as expected, Friedan launched into a discourse on the future of feminism. "Modern feminism has transformed our society for the better," she said.

 

During the question-and-answer period, a woman in the audience stood up to confront Friedan. She was Mallory Millett – whose sister Kate Millett had written the 1970 feminist bestseller Sexual Politics. Mallory had been converted to feminism by her sister but later renounced it.

 

"I would like to charge Better Friedan with a question…," she said. "If you think society is so much better off in the last thirty years, explain the deterioration of the family and the ruination of the children."

 

"I do not see great evidence of the deterioration of the family at all," Friedan responded. "What happened to the family is that… we don’t have a single model of the family anymore. We have single-parent families and we have traditional families…"

 

"And children run wild," Millett retorted.

 

"No, and there is no evidence of children running wild. This is, you’re making it up," Friedan sputtered.

 

"They’re shooting each other in the schools," said Millett.

 

"The children in this country are doing better than they ever did," Friedan insisted.

 

The Bourgeois Enemy

 

In Friedan’s view, the skyrocketing divorce rate and the rise in single-parent families in recent decades were not bad things at all. On the contrary, they represented a widening of women’s choices, a major step in the right direction.

 

Of course, as any child of separated parents can tell you, the dissolution of a family is a heartbreaking tragedy. Yet it is easy to see why left-wing radicals such as Betty Friedan welcome and encourage this development. As the power of the family declines, the power of the Left grows.

 

Marx and Engels intuited more than 150 years ago that the family was the basic building block of the "bourgeois" order – by which they meant the peaceful, orderly community of hard-working, tax-paying, middle-class citizens. Marxists have always recognized the middle class as their enemy. Wherever communist regimes have taken power, middle-class people have been systematically exterminated by the millions.

 

The problem with the middle class – from a Marxist point of view – is that it has a strong stake in preserving stable, democratic government and in resisting revolution and disorder. That is why, when the British government feared a communist uprising in 1919, some officials suggested that the lower classes be disarmed, while the middle classes – stockbrokers, clerks, university students and the like – be provided with weapons. The British government felt confident that the middle class would be its ally in any revolutionary outbreak.

 

Disarming the Middle Class

 

Left-wing strategists have long understood that the "bourgeois" classes oppose them. For that reason, the disarming of the "bourgeoisie" has been a longstanding project of the Left.

 

This goal was clearly expressed by the socialist writer H.G. Wells in the 1930s. Wells believed that mankind was moving inexorably toward a global, socialist government that he called the "new world order." He believed passionately in this movement, but he knew that many would resist it.

 

Eventually, Wells predicted, "We shall find ourselves almost abruptly engaged in a new system of political issues in which the socialist world-state will be plainly and consciously lined up against the scattered vestigial sovereignties of the past."

 

To ensure the success of global socialism, Wells advised that all potential pockets of resistance be disarmed. "Life is conflict and the only way to universal peace is through the defeat and obliteration of every minor organization of force," he wrote. "Carrying weapons individually or in crowds, calls for vigorous suppression on the part of the community."

 

Divide and Conquer

 

In a stable, middle-class society, men and women work together to provide a good home and education for their children and a secure retirement for themselves. Working as a team, they achieve a high rate of success. But in a society where men and women are locked in ideological combat, the system breaks down. Energies are consumed in power struggles, infidelities, divorce, and child-custody battles and finally in managing the parade of lovers, therapists, and angry bill-collectors who enter one’s life after divorce.

 

This is bad news for the families involved but good news for the Left. After all, "worse is better" when seeking revolutionary change. Frightened, lonely, aging divorcées – or soccer moms who fear divorce, since they see it happening all around them – make far better recruits for the Left than women happily ensconced in stable, loving families.

 

More to the point, angry young men deprived of a father’s discipline, bursting with hormones and unrestrained by traditional notions of courtship, marriage and "gentlemanly" conduct run wild in the streets, wreaking exactly the sort of violence, havoc and chaos that dictators need to justify their crackdowns.

 

Enough is Enough

 

On April 19, 1994, Bill Clinton appeared on an MTV broadcast entitled, "Enough is Enough" to push his anti-crime and anti-violence agenda. Speaking to a group of 200 young people, ages sixteen to twenty, Clinton promoted a number of extreme measures, including his new plan for allowing police to conduct random gun searches in public housing projects without warrants. Clinton explained:

 

[W]hen we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly…

 

But it assumed that people would basically be raised in coherent families, in coherent communities, and they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare.

 

What’s happened in America today is, too many people live in areas where there’s no family structure, no community structure, and no work structure. And so there’s a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there’s too much personal freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities. So that’s my answer to you. We can have – the more personal freedom a society has, the more personal responsibility a society needs, and the more strength you need out of your institutions – family, community and work.

 

Just in case any readers failed to get the point, what former President Clinton said was that the system of "radical… individual freedom" passed down to us by our Founding Fathers was no longer working. It had been designed for a situation in which people were raised in "coherent families, in coherent communities." But now that these structures were breaking down – as in public housing projects inhabited largely by single-parent families on welfare – violence and disorder were on the rise. In such circumstances, said Clinton, we can no longer afford the kind of "radical freedom" bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We must "move to limit" freedom.

 

And for those who might ask precisely how he meant to "limit" freedom, Clinton offered the specific example of his "weapon sweeps" policy, which allowed police to invade people’s homes whenever they wished, without search warrants, in order to find and confiscate guns.

 

Could It Be?

 

It is hard to find a better illustration of the "worse is better" principle in action. Widely known as the "first feminist president," Clinton helped channel tens of millions of taxpayer dollars into leftwing and feminist organizations such as NOW that are ideologically committed to weakening and breaking up the traditional family.

 

Yet in that MTV broadcast, he pointed to family breakdown as a chief cause of violence and disorder. Without "coherent families," said Clinton, the Constitution itself could not function. It would be drowned in a rising tide of chaos – a tide that could only be stemmed by massive, unrestrained police force.

 

Could it be that America’s first feminist president understood exactly what he was doing? Could it be that, given a choice between a "bourgeois" society of happy, prosperous families and an authoritarian police state, Bill Clinton actually preferred the latter?

 

I leave this question to each reader to ponder. As the possibility looms of a new Bill and Hillary co-presidency in 2004, the question gains urgency with each passing day.

"to block their sense gradification so the thing that would prove most functional would be the space in their heart that wants to become purified"

 

If you completely block their sense gratification while they still have material desires you would only succeed in making them suffer and be very bitter. Making someone blind, deaf and neutered does not lead to pure devotion /images/graemlins/wink.gif We have to volountarily develop higher taste. Try cursing them never to develop relationships with karmis or be burnt as by fire if they taste unoffered bhoga, etc. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

this verse describes our process perfectly. note the obvious indication of formal initiation from a living spiritual master. that is definitely part of the process of surrender

I'm pretty certain the reference to grains carrying sinful reactions on Ekadasi also appears in Bhagavatam, but I'm not sure where exactly. Maybe somebody with Vedabase access can do a search. There are references to it in Mahabharata as well, but you will need a full edtion and that is much harder to search.

there is more to exclusion of grains on Ekadasi than mere ritual. on this day grains carry sinful reactions as part of an ancient agreement. you can read about it the Bhagavatam.

 

"close to grains in nature" means that you can often subsitute buckwheat for grains, including flour.

"I would have "cursed" my kid to have all their sense gradification blocked, with their only success being things in line with that of becoming a pure devotees"

 

I understand your humour mother Pritaa, but this is not how a curse works. A curse (or blessing) alone cant turn one into a pure devotee, as this is the affair of the heart. Plus, I'm sure you never uttered a real curse in your life. Read Atharva Veda for your "Cursing 101" study /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Lord Brahma's body is subtle, therefore his "food" must be of subtle energy kind

the strength of the curse depends on the mystic power of the person pronouncing it. as most people have no mystic powers their curses are irrelevant. however, mothers do have some power over their childen and their curse (if sincere) will have some effect. in any case, cursing will cost the pronouncer dearly in good karma. Krishna can protect a sincere devotee from any curse, especially if this curse is detrimental in spiritual sense, usually by turning the curse into a blessing in disguise.

(I'm posting this article not to promote organic meat, but to show dangers of meat eating in general)

 

 

DEAD MEAT

 

The Meat of the Problem

 

Think about it.

 

The natural diet for a cow is grass. Grass is alive, full of live enzymes

which all help to produce a healthy cow. Old time country farmers used water

and natural manure from their chickens, cows and rabbits as fertilizer. The

grass did not have chemical fertilizers sprayed on it.

 

You hear the words “Natural Grain Fed Beef”. Well, what does this mean? It

means that the cow was fed a dry, dead grain with enzyme inhibitors rather than

a fresh, live grass. Then what happens to the animal? Right! It gets sick!

 

And then what does the meat industry do to solve this problem? You got it!

They give an anti-biotic which leaves residues in the meat of the animal.

 

Why not just feed the animal its natural diet? Well then you won’t have an

animal that weights as much and brings as much profit at the time of

slaughter. To increase the weight further, the animals are given steroids and

hormones which means you are not only eating antibiotics, but now you are also

consuming steroids and hormones when you have a meal of beef, chicken, pork,

farm raised fish or dairy products. So, many people are on a “money motivated,

health destroying, merry-go-round”.

 

For the last 30+ years the amount of Hormones, Antibiotics, and Steroids which

have been used to produce bigger and fatter animals has been on the increase

every year, so that today, these meat products are not only ineffective for our

nutritional needs, but are actually creating many physical diseases.

 

Perverted meat is THE “Reason WHY” most American children are starting to go

through puberty at the ages of 7, 8, and 9 instead of the normal 12 through

15. It is the cause of many “teenage” difficulties and is the origin of PMS,

and the problems women are having with Menopause. Altered meat is the reason

why so many men are coming down with prostate problems. It answers the

question why an increasing number of men and women are unable to have

children. The weight and obesity problems of Americans are a direct result of

the hormones used in the meat industry.

 

If you want to get off this “money motivated, health destroying, merry-go-

round” you need to do a few things you may not have yet done. First of all

pull up the website for eatwild.com and get even more educated. This site will

explain how the natural omega 3 and omega 6 in beef changes to the opposite of

what the human body needs when an animal is fed grain. Very interesting data!

Look for other sites and get educated on the subject.

 

About 35 years ago, the FDA passed rules and regulations for what did, or did

not qualify as CERTIFIED ORGANIC. At that time, they actually created these

Rules to suppress a young growing organic foods movement. But to our great

good fortune, their intention backfired and nowadays, the only saving grace in

the entire American food chain are those two words. Certified Organic! All

else is suspect and should be investigated before purchased.

 

So the next thing I can recommend to you in starting back on the road to

physical health is to research where you can obtain CERTIFIED ORGANIC meat and

eat and feed your family only meats that do not have hormones, steroids and

antibiotics. Watch out for labels such as “All Natural” or “Range Free” as

these names can be a cover up and the meat may still contain antibiotics,

hormones and steroids. Did you know that you can take beef, irradiate it, and

still call it “All Natural”??? Do you know that you can feed a chicken

antibiotics, steroids, and hormones, but because it lives in a barnyard

outside, it can be called “Range Free”??? This is ridiculous!

 

I recently heard an interesting statistic that in the year 1900 20% of the

people over the age of 40 had degenerative diseases. Today that figure has

risen to over 70%. What has changed since the 1900’s?

 

This suppressive treatment of our meats is causing an incredible number of

troubles in children, so that Psychiatrists are having a hay day inventing all

kinds of new mental diseases every year, justifying the drugging of our kids

with Ritalin®, Concerta®, Adderall®, Prozac®, and a multitude of other

extremely destructive, mind altering drugs. Some of these outrageous drugs are

being given to our 4 and 5 year olds for Gawds sake. The youth of America are

well on the way to being destroyed, and yet a media controlled by these vested

interest groups directs our attention on terrorism and violence only.

 

This is beyond criminal, and I actually compare the size of this evil act to

the holocaust in Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s. Why? Because over a million

people a year are dying with heart problems and a thousand other wasting

diseases. Because one isn’t killed instantly with these practices, they are

actually allowed to continue and even encouraged by such as the pharmaceutical

companies, medical doctors and especially the psychiatrists. After all, this

does create more business and money for them, doesn’t it?

 

Here are some places you can get data to do your own research on this. I

strongly suggest you check these things out for yourself.

 

herbal remedies/

http://www.eatwild.com/

http://www.homesteadhealthyfoods.com/

http://www.holisticmanagement.org/

 

Buy only ocean caught fish. Eat less meat and consider other protein sources,

such as sprouted almonds, and my Total Nutrition Formula. Support only those

meat industries that go the extra mile to produce CERTIFIED ORGANIC products,

and this includes eggs, milk, cheese, yogurt, as well as the pork, chicken and

beef you eat. The time to make this change is NOW, before you and your family

end up as – dead meat.

 

Yours in health and love,

 

Doc

 

Ian Shillington N.D.

 

while buckwheat is technically not a grain (comes from a plant in the Polygonacea family) and therefore does not violate the rules of Ekadasi, some devotees consider it so close to grains in nature that it violates the spirit of partial fasting on Ekadasi.

they have been saying that for 2000 years, it is all part of their preaching strategy, to add a sense of urgency to your spiritual life.

It could all be just a publicity stunt to boost album sales. and if he joined ISKCON or anywhere close to it, we would hear about it from our sources first. who could pass up such wonderful news! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

...or maybe he DID get tired of living "la vida loca"? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

That is good news indeed. I'm encouraged to see ISKCON devotees with excellent stature like Krishna-kshetra prabhu (whom I know and greatly respect since 1980) to publicly denounce Danavir Mah. attack on Tripurari Mah. Gita. It gives me hope that we can all move closer to cooperation of various Vashnava groups preaching in the West.

Thanks Govindaram, that is a good quote in this context. Srila Prabhupada always showed mercy to people responsible for abominable actions, stressing atonement in this life over simple punishment. This purport brings that out nicely.

Source: EU Observer

Published: October 30, 2003 Author: Andrew Beatty

 

Poll controversy as Israel and US labelled biggest threats to World peace

 

 

 

Europeans believe the US contributes the most to world instability along with Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and North Korea (Photo: Marit Ruuda)

 

 

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Over half of Europeans think that Israel now presents the biggest threat to world peace according to a controversial poll requested by the European Commission.

 

According to the same survey, Europeans believe the United States contributes the most to world instability along with Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

 

The specially commissioned poll which asked citizens 15 questions on "the reconstruction of Iraq, the conflict in the Middle East and World peace", has caused controversy in Brussels.

 

The European Commission is coming under fire for publishing the results of a number of questions - relating to Iraqi reconstruction - while failing to publish the results which revealed the extent of mistrust of Israel and the United States in Europe.

 

A Commission spokesperson today (30 October) denied that the decision to withhold some of the results until next Monday was politically motivated, adding that some of the results not yet published are still "unstable".

 

He did, however, add that a decision was made to publish a preview of the questions pertaining to the reconstruction of Iraq, to coincide with the Iraqi donors conference in Madrid, which took place at the end of last week.

 

This admission has raised questions about whether the Commission sought to suppress the results which would have came at a particularly sensitive moment.

 

One pollster involved in the survey told the EUobserver that some questions being raised about the poll were unfounded.

 

"The questions were decided upon by both the polling organisations and the European Commission", the source said.

 

Israeli officials dismissed the results of the poll as propaganda.

 

According to Spanish daily El Pais, a massive 59 percent of Europeans said they believed that Israel is the biggest obstacle to world peace.

 

The poll, conducted by Taylor Nelson Sofres/ EOS Gallup Europe, was conducted between 8 and 16 of October.

 

Written by Andrew Beatty

 

that was a very moving post prabhu Krishna-lila. thank you for sharing it with us.

 

we never lose by taking up bhakti. NEVER! even when it may seem to us we have failed to achieve desired purification. the feeling of loss you have now over your companion will soon pass. Krishna knows exactly what you need both materially and spiritually and will send it to you in due time. have faith and be patient.

 

do not see any situation as permanent - things always change, and for a sincere person like yourself they are simply a series of events meant to take you closer to Krishna. Haribol!