karthik_v

You are very right JRDD. I met J N Das, the person behind Foodrelief, once in India. He is a yound American and unbelievably committed. The kind of austerities he goes through should be seen to be believed. He spent a few months in rural Tamilnadu sleeping on where ever he can find a place and going on foot from one village to another, teaching the kids to sing Hare Krishna and surviving on milk and bananas.

I think this is same as ISCOWP. If so, then this is a wonderful organisation. They take excellent care of cows. They are also very transparent. Every year they send out their P&L statement and account for every dollar donated by each donor and how that money was used. Once you donate even a small amount, say $21, they send regular newsletters with details and even actual photos of the cows and their bio-data. I request every member to help them protect cows.

Valid. I am also against any biased versions of history. But, what we shouldn't forget is that the Europeans had an agenda and wrote history to suit that. Second, somebody doesn't become a suspect just because he is a Hindu or opposes the western models. Would you call Bisht, S R Rao, B B Lal, Elst, Renfrew etc., as biased? What is needed is transparency and objectivity, which the likes of Max Mueller and Witzel lack.

You are right. I am aware of that. But, many historians falsely claim that the Aryans came from Iran into the Gangetic plains. Talageri has shown that this is wrong and it was the other way round that the migration occurred. Second, they claim that the Aryans were nomads, who didn't know navigation. This verse shows that they are wrong. Could you kindly point out which syllable I left out? Thank you.

Those who propound the Aryan invasion theory (AIT) claim that the Aryans were nomadic tribes that came from Iran and Afghanistan into India. Never mind that they haven't substantiated their line of thinking with any evidence. Many scholars, of late, have demolished the theory. There is one feature which hasn't been highlighted though. In Rg veda, there is a mention of whale. Please consider this verse: tasmAdashvA ajAyanta ye ke cobhayAdata: gAvoham jagnyire tasmAt tasmajjatA ajAvaya: RV 10:90:11 Translation: tasmAd = From that ajAyanta = were born asvA: = horses and beings with eke ca = only one and ubhayAdata: two rows of teeth gAva: = Cattle jagnyire = were made tasmAt = from that jAta = were born ajA: = goats and Avaya: sheep. The key word is ye ke cobhayAdata:. This actually breaks up into eke ca + ubhayAdata:. The translations are given above. There is only one genus of animals that has only one row of teeth. The whales with their baleens. Now that is the key. whales live in the oceans, not rivers. Since there is no ocean in Afghanistan, you are left only with India and Iran. But RV also talks of Saraswati flowing into the ocean. there is no Iranian river that fits that description. So, it leaves us with just one option - that the Aryans were indigenous to India. They were functionally describing the flow of Saraswati into the ocean. They were into maritime trade as they were very familiar with the whales. And that buries the AIT.

Dear Avinash, Historians vary in their opinions as history is a very subjective field. If we want to know about the life in ancient India, there are only 3 ways of doing so: One, go by traditions that don't contradict. Two, go by the literarture that have no contradictory recenssions. Three, go by the astronomical and geological markers in those treatises. I am tempted to quote UC Berkeley mathematician Seidenberg who felt that to write about India's past you need to be a mathematician, astronomer, Sanskrit scholar and a geologist. At best a historian can edit the book, if he is a good editor. Perhaps a journalist is better at it. Witzel depends on the translations of vedas by Oldenberg. For years, he used to crow that nobody ever refuted Oldenberg. What he never told was that Oldenberg's translation was in German, not English until 1999! So, which Hindu scholar will care to learn German, grab Oldenberg and repudiate? Another story which Witzel never told is that Sri Aurobindo, who was a scholar not only in Sanskrit but also Latin, Greek, French and German, repudiated all such translations in his works Secrets of the vedas and Hymns to Agni. He never addressed them individually, but attacked all their points. Sri Aurobindo also goes on to explain as to how these western scholars applied mundane meaning for the verses, while there was another profound substitute. For example Go means cow as well as light. Asva means horse as well as spiritual energy. Now, these western translators picked up the mundane meaning leaving out the profound. Sri Aurobindo shows why that leads to conflicting situations in many parts of the vedas. On the other hand, his commentary is based on traditions and when the profound meaning is applied, it is consistent. Swami Dayananda Saraswati did the same over a century ago. Sadly, India having been a slave nation, we look up to idiots from Harvard or Oxford, who cannot speak Sanskrit, to translate our vedas. So, to answer you, we choose what comes from a tradition and from a wise man. I am not insisting that you read only Srila Prabhupad's writings. He never wrote on vedas. Do read Sri Aurobindo or Swami Dayananda Saraswati though. You will know that the only thing that sustains Witzels is their position. Not knowledge.

Max Mueller, who couldn't understand Sanskrit, was the Boden Porfessor of Sanskrit at Oxford. Harvard is a great place for sciences. That doesn't mean every humanities school there is great. Most of these Indology departments are vestiges of 19th century anti-Hinduism. If you are interested, I can produce the critique of Witzel's not so knowledgeable writings. I think I did it once before. For heaven's sake, don't get carried away by reputations. Especially, in the fields of humanities. There was a time, not so long ago, when Witzel was cut to pieces in IndianCivilisation, and he ran away.

Dear Jijaji, I have a lot of regard for you for coming up with some informative posts in the past. This time I am disappointed that you have, of all, chosen to post from an anti-Hindu garbage site like dalitstan. Anyways, regarding Tirupati Balaji and other cases, the author just presents claims; not evidences. I am sure that you will agree that claims don't constitute evidences. Tirupati, going by epigraphic and hagiographic records, has been a Shaivite, Buddhist (for a brief period) and Vaishnava shrine at many times. During the periods of Azhwars (latest 5th century AD), it was a Vaishnava shrine. Then, it was a Buddhist shrine for a short while. Thanks to the decline of Buddhism, it again became a Vaishnava shrine. Not one record talks of that shrine being ever desecrated by the Hindus.

Dear Jijaji, I have a lot of regard for you for coming up with some informative posts in the past. This time I am disappointed that you have, of all, chosen to post from an anti-Hindu garbage site like dalitstan. Anyways, regarding Tirupati Balaji and other cases, the author just presents claims; not evidences. I am sure that you will agree that claims don't constitute evidences. Tirupati, going by epigraphic and hagiographic records, has been a Shaivite, Buddhist (for a brief period) and Vaishnava shrine at many times. During the periods of Azhwars (latest 5th century AD), it was a Vaishnava shrine. Then, it was a Buddhist shrine for a short while. Thanks to the decline of Buddhism, it again became a Vaishnava shrine. Not one record talks of that shrine being ever desecrated by the Hindus.

Dear Jijaji, This is another nonsense propagated by leftist historians and their western bosses. There is absolutely not one epigraphic or literary evidence that the Hindus ever destroyed even one Buddhist shrine. This detailed link should be pretty educative: http://www.stanford.edusia/Events/shourie.htm Our left historians like Romilla Thapar have been caught lying on this and have been exposed for the same.

Dear Jijaji, This is another nonsense propagated by leftist historians and their western bosses. There is absolutely not one epigraphic or literary evidence that the Hindus ever destroyed even one Buddhist shrine. This detailed link should be pretty educative: http://www.stanford.edusia/Events/shourie.htm Our left historians like Romilla Thapar have been caught lying on this and have been exposed for the same.

They were not true Muslims. Taloban are the real Muslims, because they have displayed the true violent spirit of Islam.

Dear Jijaji, This is a very old news from the anti-Hindu Frontline. Let me address a few things. First of all, horse-seal was only a foot-note in that book by Rajaram and Jha. It was not a part of that book. Second, NSR and NJ had clearly stated that they haven't had access to the original photograph. So, Witzel just picked up a footnote and countered it. Second, if the unicorn can become a bull, it can as well be the Indian horse, with 34 ribs. Third, Witzel, is by no means an authority. He has been exposed for his pathetic grasp of grammar. He has been exposed for inventing non-existent vedic verses. He has been exposed for translating uttara as right. He once critiqued Talageri's book without reading it. The gentle Talageri had to point out that the book is still in print and soon to be released. So, don't take these frauds too seriously.

Even Scoch has clearly shown that the pyramids are over 5000 years old. He has shown that it is fresh water that caused the weathering of pyramid stones. There are more updated views of Hancock here: http://www.grahamhancock.com/news/index.php?archive=1

Even Scoch has clearly shown that the pyramids are over 5000 years old. He has shown that it is fresh water that caused the weathering of pyramid stones. There are more updated views of Hancock here: http://www.grahamhancock.com/news/index.php?archive=1

I am producing an article by an eminent Indologist, Dr. Kalyanaraman on Dwaraka finds. For those unaware, recently, Indian geologists discovered a 9000 year old settlement complex off the coast of Gujarat. Hindus believe that to be Lord Krishna's city. Read on: By Dr. Kalyanaraman: I suggest two hypotheses for consideration and further validation in the context of the finds of a neolithic settlement submerged in the Gulf of Khambat: 1. That this neolithic settlement is a precursor to the Sarasvati Sindhu Valley CIvilization, exemplified by the stone structures at Dholavira, in the Gulf of Kutch. 2. That this neolithic settlement is relatable to the bharu-kaks.a described in the Great Epic, the Maha_bha_rata and to R.s.i Bhr.gu and his lineage described in the R.gveda (yes, R.s.i Bhr.gu, the preceptor of the asura-s; were they mleccha-s speaking Meluhhan?). The hypotheses are elaborated in the folowing two pages which collate and evaluate the marine archaeological and textual evidence: 1. Bhr.gu, va_run.i, son of Varun.a: Provenance of Bhr.gu: Gulf of Khambat http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/khambat/bhrgu01.htm 2. Submerged city in the Gulf of Khambat: neolithic precursor of the Sarasvati Sindhu Valley Civilization www.hindunet.org/saraswati/khambat/khambat01.htm

I am producing an article by an eminent Indologist, Dr. Kalyanaraman on Dwaraka finds. For those unaware, recently, Indian geologists discovered a 9000 year old settlement complex off the coast of Gujarat. Hindus believe that to be Lord Krishna's city. Read on: By Dr. Kalyanaraman: I suggest two hypotheses for consideration and further validation in the context of the finds of a neolithic settlement submerged in the Gulf of Khambat: 1. That this neolithic settlement is a precursor to the Sarasvati Sindhu Valley CIvilization, exemplified by the stone structures at Dholavira, in the Gulf of Kutch. 2. That this neolithic settlement is relatable to the bharu-kaks.a described in the Great Epic, the Maha_bha_rata and to R.s.i Bhr.gu and his lineage described in the R.gveda (yes, R.s.i Bhr.gu, the preceptor of the asura-s; were they mleccha-s speaking Meluhhan?). The hypotheses are elaborated in the folowing two pages which collate and evaluate the marine archaeological and textual evidence: 1. Bhr.gu, va_run.i, son of Varun.a: Provenance of Bhr.gu: Gulf of Khambat http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/khambat/bhrgu01.htm 2. Submerged city in the Gulf of Khambat: neolithic precursor of the Sarasvati Sindhu Valley Civilization www.hindunet.org/saraswati/khambat/khambat01.htm

Hari Bol Atma, I meant it as a joke. Not to hurt you or make fun of you.

Very interesting points Avinash prabhu and Gauracandra prabhu. I am reminded of a line from Koenraad Elst where he says: in no other culture, has the priesthood denied itself the material comforts, as did the Brahmins of vedic India. That is very succint. In varnasrama, hierarchy had nothing to do with material power. Instead, it were the Sudras and Vaisyas who owned land and wealth. Unfortunately, in recent centuries this got corrupted.

Yudhistra's curse?! :-)) May be because the Indian clerk included Indian Vaishnav as a varna, many devotees perhaps think that they should chuck out shudra to keep the catur varna concept intact!

Hari Bol, I know that this topic has been discussed before. Yet, I came across a few nice posts from a couple of sources and I thought the readers may be interested. Those who have followed the teachings of Srila Prabhupad know that varna is not birth based and based only on guna. Lord Krishna says so: catur-varnyam maya srstam guna-karma-vibhagasah [bhagavad Gita 4:13] What does the Sanskrit word varna mean? The root word var means choice. You might have heard the word swayamvar. Swayam = Self and var = choice. In other words, swayamvar = [the bride] choosing [the groom] [her] self. So, varna = by choice [of guna]. So, a Brahmana is not by birth, but only by guna. What does Vajrasucika Upanisad say to this regard? VU is part of Sama veda. What does it mean? Vajra = weapon and suci = to clear. So, Vajrasucika = clearing [ignorance] [with] the weapon [of knowledge of the Supreme]. Now what does VU say about varna system? brahma kshatriya vaisya shudra iti catvaro varnas tesam varnanam brahmana eva pradhana iti veda vacananu rupam smrtibhir apy uktam [Translation: There are four varnas - the brahmana, the kshatriya, the vaisya, and the sudra. Of these, the brahmanas alone are foremost.] Then VU goes on to define as to who a Brahmana is: tatra codyam asti ko va brahmano nama kim jivah kim dehah kim jatih kim jnanam kim karma kim dharmika iti [Translation: Among life (jiva), body (deha), society (jati), knowledge (jnana), work (karma) and duty (dharma), what is it that makes a brahmana?] tatra prathamo jivo brahmana iti cet tanna atitanagatan eka dehanam jivasyaika rupatvat ekasyapi karma vasadan eka deha sambhavat sarva sariranam jivasyaika rupatvacca tasmat na jivo brahmana iti [Translation: Since the jiva is part of Brahman, and alive, does that make him a brahmana? No. The jiva is not a brahmana. There are innumerable jivas that have accpeted countless material bodies according to their karma, therefore the jiva cannot be called a brahmana] tarhi deho brahmana iti cet tanna acandaladi paryantanam manusyanam panca bhautikatvena dehasyaika rupatvaj jara marana dharmadharmadi samya darsanat brahmanah sveta varnah ksatriyo rakta varno vaisyah pita varnah sudrah krsna varnah iti niyamabhavat pitradi sarira dahane putradinam brahma hatyadi dosa sambhavacca tasmat na deho brahmana iti [Translation: Is the body a brahmana ? No. The body (comprising of the five material elements) of a candala, as well as that of all other men are subject to old-age and death. A brahmana is called white, a kshatriya red, a vaisya yellow and a sudra black only in respect to their different levels of consciousness (through their gunas). By burning one’s body one does not become free from the sin of killing a realized soul, nor is the reaction of such a sin transferred to one’s son. Similarly, one’s brahminical status is not based on the bodily condition, nor can brahminical status be transferred simply by seminal discharge and the procreation of chidren. Therefore the body does not make one a brahmana.] tarhi jnanam brahmana iti cet tanna ksatriyadayo’pi paramartha darsino abhijna bahavah santi tasmat na jnanam brahmana iti [Translation: Does knowledge make one a brahmana ? No. Since there were many kshatriyas and others who are well versed in the understanding divine wisdom, knowledge does not make one a brahmana.] So, after ruling out all the above, VU answers as to who a Brahmana is: anyatha hi brahmanatva siddhir nasty eva [Translation: A brahmana is he who is absorbed in the Supreme Self.] Again Krishna confirms whatever is stated in VU: samo damas tapah saucam kshantir arjavam eva ca jnanam vijnanam astikyam brahma karma svabhava jam [bhagavad gita 18:42] [Translation: Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and religiousness — these are the natural qualities by which a brahmana is distinguished.] Is the Sankirtana movement started by Lord Caitanya and taken worldwide by Srila Prabhupada, any different from what this Upanisad says?

J N Das Prabhu: That is very heartening. Why is that you conduct Krsna-Balaram yatra and not Jagannath? Any particular reson? Is it because, Krsna is better understood in that part of the world? I have read that one reason why Lord Jagannath is taken on a yatra is to give everyone, including those who are foreigners, a chance to pull his chariot, as they can't visit his temple otherwise. Is that right?

I want to add 1 more question as well. Even the pastimes of Lord Narasimha are re-enacted in every catur yuga. If so, who takes the place of Jai and Vijay, now that they have played that role thrice and are liberated?

J N Das Prabhu, Thanks for the explanation. I have another question. In case of Jai and Vijay, they appeared as demons thrice, before being liberated. Why is that Duryodhana never gets that chance and plays the eternal demon?

I have also heard that Duryodhana is part of the eternal pastime enacted by Krishna. At this moment too, Mahabharata is getting enacted in some universe and Duryodhana is against Krishna. A question for J N Das: Does it mean that Duryodhana is in reality an exalted or liberated person, who is just playing a role in Krishna's pastime?