karthik_v

Krishnas: My point here is, leave Biblical interpretation to the Christians. That raises an interesting question: Which Christians? - The ones that are mainstream today [that is the descendents of Constantine's tradition], the one's who followed Origen, the one's who burnt the books...which ones? I don't see how we can objectively show that Christianity is bona fide, from a Vedic standpoint. But I am happy to be proven wrong. I would agree with this. We cannot show that Christianity is consistent with the vedic as we cannot show that advaita isn't. I don't think of it. Why should I? Does it suddenly become acceptable because Bhaktivinode (allegedly) did it? Another good point. It only shows that nobody is perfect. Everyone, including the acaryas, has his share of defects. If any, this only goes to show that dogmas and blind following must be repulsed.

Please Theist prabhuji, Please don't curse me. Is there a way I can atone for this sin? Anything except crucification or conversion to Christianity is fine

Even Jesus' crying Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani [Mark 15:33], seems to be a plagiarism by the early Christian writers from similar words spoken earlier by King David: Eli, Eli, lamah azovtani [Psalm 22:2]. For your reading pleasure: http://outreachjudaism.com/whojesus.html Looks like even the so-called seperation that Jesus felt from his father, seems to be only a vicarious indulgence by the Christian plagiarists

Did Jesus really exist? Did Mark, Matthew, Luke etc., ever meet Jesus? Or were they just frauds? Also, read the hilarious piece on the absurd cruelty of Jesus towards 2000 pigs, as portrayed by his disciples. Decide yourselves: http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html

Dear Shashiji, Please consider the following arguments and then decide for yourself if there are contradictions in the accounts relating to the crucification of Jesus and his subsequent resurrection. Also, add to this the fact that Jesus finds no mention in the annals of the Romans or in the writings of the contemporary Hebrew, Greek and Roman historians. The only mention of Jesus in the Hebrew records is a passing one [without his name] and it talks of the crucifcation of a small-time apostate. Also, consider the argument that the cult of Jesus suddenly finds a mention a good 80 years after he was gone and it hinges on his resurrection for its survival. I leave the decision to your faculties. Please consider the following 3 parts in the url below: 1. The date of Jesus' crucification 2. Can Both of These Stories Be True? http://outreachjudaism.com/resurrection.html#true And also, Crucifixion/Resurrection Chart in the url: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/crucifix.html

Theist prabhuji, I am quite surprised that BVT ate meat even while practising spirituality. I have been very critical of Swami Vivekananda for having eaten meat. Sure, eating cow's meat is terrible, but eating any meat is bad enough. I must thank you for presenting that interpretation of Jesus's crying during crucification. It doesn't sound out of place for sure. Yet, my recent readings [which have been only a few months] on Christianity suggest that they assigned only literal meanings - nothing more. I am not against miracles either. I am just pointing out that it is impossible to tell miracle from propaganda, for we have not been witnesses.

Theist: What do you think of Bhaktivinode Thakurs eatting of flesh foods? Is this true? What was the context? [not that I think that any context can justify meat eating]. Shvu: If we set out to compare the level of purity in devotees, since the other folks did not walk on water, bring dead people back to life, etc, one can say Jesus was a *better* devotee than them. What we call the Bible today has conflicting versions of the same incident, within the same book. For example, the versions of Matthew, John, Mark etc., contradict each other even on critical events like his crucification. So, why should I take the miracles described above seriously? Just like the rest of the Bible, they were also invented over 2 centuries after 30 CE. They have been embellished ever after. If you were to look for "miracles", then I would say that Sai Baba has a better track record than Jesus or anybody for that reason. Sai's devotees even claim that on instances he has brought the dead back to life. Do we take them seriously? Then why do we attach any more importance to the Bible that is so self contradictory? Let us not forget that religion has been a big business over centuries - more so with Christianity. "Miracles" were an essential sales promotion gimmick to convert the gullible. If Jesus had really performed miracles then why did he have to cry miserably "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" [Mark 15:33] which means, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

Now there are less than 0.5% Jains in India, but till the 5th century CE they were in good numbers. Especially in Tamilnadu, between the 2nd century CE and the 5th, they were a very violent bunch. Their approach was to convert the king first and then force the population to follow suit. Saivites in particular, took the brunt of their conversion.

Dear Avinashji, This is to be found in the commentary of Sayanacarya. A copy of his original manuscript is still preserved [i think in Gwalior] and so any chances of faking are ruled out.

Avinashji and J N Dasji, Thanks for the answers.

Pl. explain. Does marriage hymns talk about wife being burnt when husband dies ? I am sorry for not phrasing the sentence correctly. In the funeral hymns of Rk veda, there is no suggestion of Sati. In fact, I have read that in one hymn the widow is asked to choose whoever she wants after the funeral is over. I am yet to locate that Rk though.

Pl. explain. Does marriage hymns talk about wife being burnt when husband dies ? I am sorry for not phrasing the sentence correctly. In the funeral hymns of Rk veda, there is no suggestion of Sati. In fact, I have read that in one hymn the widow is asked to choose whoever she wants after the funeral is over. I am yet to locate that Rk though.

Talasiga: How did you become a Junior member? Weren't you a member before you went on hibernation? Reincarnation?

Very nice post. You have mentioned about Mahayug but not about Satya yuga. Are they one and the same? Is there a book from where I can find more information on the calculations you have provided, especially the ones regarding Krati and Truti. Thanks.

Avinashji, It was Sayanacraya not Sankaracarya. The former was a vedic commentator from the karma kanda school who lived in the 13th century CE. Here are the details from the Los Alamos Physics Archive paper: http://mentor.lanl.gov/PS_cache/physics/pdf/9804/9804020.pdf If you don't have Adobe acrobat then try to download any other format form the site by visiting this page: http://mentor.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9804020

Hari Bol, Theist prabhuji, I understood your post. Actually, I forgot to add a in my response. I too agree with you that first men have to follow the rules to perfection and then the women have to follow them. For one, I think that the modern concept of women's liberation is sheer exploitation of women. Well, prostitution would be an apt word.

Thanks prabhuji, for that beautiful quote from Quran and Hadiths. Insha Allah, it will happen. Till that fully happens, I suggest that we split the tongues of disobedient women with bAx Qatr [pronounced by kafirs as "box cutters"].

The accurate speed of light finds a mention in the commentary of Rk veda by Sayanacarya [13th century CE]. It is not mentioned in the vedas themselves, but since it finds a casual mention in its commentary, we can assume that the knowledge certainly existed way back, though to assert that it was there for millions of years is difficult. Not impossible either.

I have read that the funeral hymns and the marriage hymns of the Rg veda are followed ditto today. This means that they were also burnt. Yes, there were a few cases, the devotee being exalted, where the combustion was from within. Is there anything to suggest that it was the norm?

I have read that the funeral hymns and the marriage hymns of the Rg veda are followed ditto today. This means that they were also burnt. Yes, there were a few cases, the devotee being exalted, where the combustion was from within. Is there anything to suggest that it was the norm?

Even that is no guarantee that "sati" is approved in the vedas. Even in case of "bride burning" or "dowry deaths", the same funeral hymns are chanted. Does it mean that the vedas recognize "dowry deaths"? Sati will have a shastric basis only if the vedas explicitly approve them. I am not aware of any such approval. Often times, social mores got incorporated into dharma shastras. That doesn't mean that they existed forever. Also, just because an acarya didn't condemn it or even approved it, doesn't mean it has any validity. How many acaryas have condemned "bonded labour", "untouchability" etc., which existed in India for the past 300 years? Hardly any. Do these things have any sanction in the vedas or smritis? They were prevalent, yet, why didn't any acarya criticize them? Acaryas were certainly highly elevated, but except Krishna nobody is perfect. Every acarya had a few defects too. Seeing that doesn't lower him in my eyes. He was a product of the circumstances and was bound by maya to some extent. Often times, he might not have thought it feasible to condemn such widespread deterioration or even might have been an accomplice to that. Real dangers creep in only when we insist that an acarya is all perfect and that every word and action of his is final.

Even that is no guarantee that "sati" is approved in the vedas. Even in case of "bride burning" or "dowry deaths", the same funeral hymns are chanted. Does it mean that the vedas recognize "dowry deaths"? Sati will have a shastric basis only if the vedas explicitly approve them. I am not aware of any such approval. Often times, social mores got incorporated into dharma shastras. That doesn't mean that they existed forever. Also, just because an acarya didn't condemn it or even approved it, doesn't mean it has any validity. How many acaryas have condemned "bonded labour", "untouchability" etc., which existed in India for the past 300 years? Hardly any. Do these things have any sanction in the vedas or smritis? They were prevalent, yet, why didn't any acarya criticize them? Acaryas were certainly highly elevated, but except Krishna nobody is perfect. Every acarya had a few defects too. Seeing that doesn't lower him in my eyes. He was a product of the circumstances and was bound by maya to some extent. Often times, he might not have thought it feasible to condemn such widespread deterioration or even might have been an accomplice to that. Real dangers creep in only when we insist that an acarya is all perfect and that every word and action of his is final.

Shvu pointed out the same. I got this from a friend and I have asked him if the numbering is correct. Once he responds, I will revert.

Excellent. Great acaryas like Ramanujacarya, Srila Prabhupad etc., gave that oppurtunity to everyone so that they can qualify themselves and rise. When a smriti says that molten lead should be poured into the ears of those who even inadvertantly listen to them, then we are denying oppurtunities. For example, Srila Prabhupad occasionally quotes the vedic samhitas and upanishads [which are part of the vedas as samhitas are], even while talking to shudra audience. In fact, those tapes are distributed to everyone. If we take Manu seriously, then SP was wrong. I would rather think as follows: There once existed a MS that was bonafide. It has been quoted by the acaryas. But, to take every line of today's MS as authentic doesn't gel. Did SP ever say that every line of today's MS is authentic? I have never come across any king in history deploying MS as his code. So, why do we presume a continuous tradition? Sha quoted many vedic verses that avocate non-discrimination. And that the vedas be listened to by all. So, I am more inclined to believe that MS injunctions that go against the shruti are interpolations. J N Das gave a nice anology of sweeper and surgeon. I agree that vedic recitation requires qualifications which must be acquired. Are those birth based are guna based? Second, why does it proscribe somebody listening to the vedic recitation?

Excellent. Great acaryas like Ramanujacarya, Srila Prabhupad etc., gave that oppurtunity to everyone so that they can qualify themselves and rise. When a smriti says that molten lead should be poured into the ears of those who even inadvertantly listen to them, then we are denying oppurtunities. For example, Srila Prabhupad occasionally quotes the vedic samhitas and upanishads [which are part of the vedas as samhitas are], even while talking to shudra audience. In fact, those tapes are distributed to everyone. If we take Manu seriously, then SP was wrong. I would rather think as follows: There once existed a MS that was bonafide. It has been quoted by the acaryas. But, to take every line of today's MS as authentic doesn't gel. Did SP ever say that every line of today's MS is authentic? I have never come across any king in history deploying MS as his code. So, why do we presume a continuous tradition? Sha quoted many vedic verses that avocate non-discrimination. And that the vedas be listened to by all. So, I am more inclined to believe that MS injunctions that go against the shruti are interpolations. J N Das gave a nice anology of sweeper and surgeon. I agree that vedic recitation requires qualifications which must be acquired. Are those birth based are guna based? Second, why does it proscribe somebody listening to the vedic recitation?