Jahnava Nitai Das

It is made up of bija mantras, which are not exactly translatable into solid words. Om indicates the absolute truth, namah means "to offer obeisances", and hreem is another bija mantra, which can indicate any of several deities.

Without getting into all the details, Krishna is Rama, They are the same person. Besides that, He is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

And this forum is not linked to prominently from the main page, it is kind of hidden. The number of messages would be 100 times more if it was prominently featured on the websites front page.

As far as converting, the ritual isn't as important as the practice and belief. So in that sense, the priest has given good advice for you to study the scriptures and just start applying the teachings in your life. There are some rituals that you may undertake, but they vary according to which path of Hinduism you follow. So first figure out your path and practice it, later a guru will come who can initiate you.

Krishna's standard (as He mentions it in the Gita) is that every single action binds us in this world unless done as a direct sacrifice for Him. There are so many ways to convince ourselves that our actions are actually for some higher noble cause, but the truth is usually more like a 50/50 split (a little for Krishna and a little for us).

It is a big topic which will take this thread off course, but 95% of the Vedic mantras are lost, thus in Kali yuga it is necessary to take guidance from other scriptures such as Puranas and Pancharatras.

It appears this may be the official George Harrison forum: http://www.georgeharrison.com/board/index.php They even have a spiritual discussions forum.

I haven't made any such statement, so this type of discussion is pointless. It's failure of comprehension. That's why Vedic study begins with siksha, vyakarana, nirukti, etc., (vedangas). First comes grammar, definition and comprehension - then comes philosophy, logic and discussion.

This is a nice book. Very similar to autobiography of a yogi.

Please give me your email address so I can contact you. Just use the contact us link at the bottom.

Prophecy of the Golden Age from Brahma Vaivarta Purana: http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism/articles/24/1/Prophecy-of-the-Golden-Age

In many cases they are all correct on various levels. Even within the Gaudiya line there are commentaries by Acharya's that were written only a few hundred years apart where each acharya says that a word means the opposite as the other. For example the commentaries of Baladeva Vidyabhushana and Vishvanatha Chakravarti differ on a number of key points. It doesn't mean one is wrong, but that there are many ways to view the absolute truth.

Specifically it states they do upasana to the avyakta (unmanifested). Nothing is mentioned about developing love for the nirguna brahman. Upasana comes from the words upa and asana which literally means "to bring one's seat close" to an object for the purpose of worshipping it. Again my point was specifically about "love of nirguna brahman" and how it is pointless, as there can be no reciprocation of the love. Reciprocation of love would require perception of duality. Krishna affirms this in the twelth chapter of the Gita when He states: kleso 'dhikataras tesam avyaktasakta-cetasam avyakta hi gatir duhkham dehavadbhir avapyate "For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied. " Why is it troublesome? Because there is no reciprocation.

Love of nirguna brahman is pointless, as the nirguna brahman, being beyond duality by definition, doesn't even know you exist, what to speak of care about you or reciprocate with you.

It also offers free pop3 access (for using Outlook Express), something which charges for. And I heard you can chat (like instant messenger) from within your mail box, but I have never seen how it works.

Of course it's more than just the neckbeads, its dependent on one's bhakti. If you have devotion for Lord Vishnu (Krishna), He will deliver you personally to Vaikuntha.

I believe it is probably a misunderstanding of the statement that Garbhodakasayi resides in the universe which is half filled with water (Garbhodaka). It is possible they interpreted this to mean He was physically standing in the water, when in reality He is lying on ananta sesha.

Vishnu is not offended by who you pray to. But He is happy when you don't pray for material things, and aim only for unalloyed devotion to Him. If you pray to Shiva for a nice wife, big house, good job, etc., it isn't going to please Vishnu nor Shiva. But if you pray to either of them to develop Hari Bhakti and become free from samsara then you will please both of them.

Please cite your evidence, otherwise don't bother posting it. Simply you saying Bhaktisiddhanta said this and that is meaningless. By the way, you just copied and pasted a segment of a letter from Bhagavat Maharaja word for word. Chaitanya Bhagavata Madhya Lila, 16.99 (If someone has a copy, they can check the bengali and see what it says exactly): "Placing His hand on His beard and knitting His eyebrows, Advaita Acarya, the master of Shantipura, loudly roared. Then He began to dance." It appears Narayana Maharaja also accepts He had a beard: After some time, however, when Sriman Mahaprabhu was in His youth, Sri Advaita Acarya went to Santipura and also started explaining the meaning of visate tad anantaram as “aham brahmasmi: all souls will merge in Brahman.” Hearing of this, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu went to him and pulled His beard and beat Him, until Srimati Sita devi, Advaita Acarya’s wife, came and protected Him. Prabhupada also said the same thing: The Panca-tattva can all be golden. The Deity of Lord Caitanya is very nicely done so there is no need to change the color. Yes, Srivas Pandit has sikha. Vaisnava must have sikha. Advaita Prabhu has a full white beard. He was an old man. He was practically older than the father of Lord Caitanya. He was an elder gentleman in the town of Navadvipa, elder of the brahmana community. ALL SHOULD WEAR TULASI KUNTI BEADS, NOT LESS THAN TWO STRANDS. THREE, FOUR STRANDS OR MY GURU MAHARAJA HAD FIVE STRANDS. Only Lord Caitanya and Lord Nityananda wear crowns and nosepins. Lord Caitanya and Lord Nityananda can be decorated with all kinds of jewelry. - Letter to Govinda Dasi November 20, 1971

I will have to look into the reason, but some people consider that section to be interpolation. It is possible that Gita press has taken this stance.

Sorry, I typed it too fast. It is fixed now.

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1077&stc=1&d=1144824960 http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1076&stc=1&d=1144824960 http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1075&stc=1&d=1144824960

To set the proper example: yad yad acarati sresthas tat tad evetaro janah sa yat pramanam kurute lokas tad anuvartate "Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues." Krishna says in the Gita that even He performs work (though not needing to) to set an example for others. na me parthasti kartavyam trisu lokesu kincana nanavaptam avaptavyam varta eva ca karmani "O son of Pritha, there is no work prescribed for Me within all the three planetary systems. Nor am I in want of anything, nor have I a need to obtain anything—and yet I am engaged in prescribed duties." yadi hy aham na varteyam jatu karmany atandritah mama vartmanuvartante manushyah partha sarvasah "For if I ever failed to engage in carefully performing prescribed duties, O Partha, certainly all men would follow My path." utsideyur ime loka na kuryam karma ced aham sankarasya ca karta syam upahanyam imah prajah "If I did not perform prescribed duties, all these worlds would be put to ruination. I would be the cause of creating unwanted population, and I would thereby destroy the peace of all living beings." Please see third chapter of Bhagavad Gita.

Dear Guest, you have yet to fulfill the two requirements for participating in this thread. I will relist them for you: 1) All above verses that unequivacally state eating meat to be sinful must be dealt with directly verse by verse. 2) Counter scriptural evidence must be provided with original sanskrit stating eating meat to be sinless. Verses without sanskrit provided will not be entertained, as someone's english copy and paste from anti-hindu websites carry no weight in these forums. You have attempted point two while skipping point number one. I will now deal with the verses you cite, but if you wish to participate in this discussion you must complete point one. First, this verse does not say there is no sin ("papa"), it says these people should not be faulted (dosha). Karmic reactions will always be there, but since these activities are being performed under the jurisdiction of Vedic sacrifice (as mentioned throughout this chapter of Manu Samhita), therefore these people should not be condemned. Furthermore, the verse is making a distinction between pravriti marga (the path of bondage) and nivriti marga (the path of liberation). For conditioned souls on the path of material bondage, these actions are natural and so they shouldn't be condemned since they are at least engaging in this activities through yajna. A more accurate translation would be: na māḿsa-bhakṣaṇe doṣo na madye na ca maithune pravṛttir eṣā bhūtānāḿ nivṛttis tu mahā-phalā "It may be considered that meat-eating, intoxication and sex indulgence are natural propensities of the conditioned souls, and therefore such persons should not be condemned for these activities. But unless one gives up such sinful activities, there is no possibility of achieving the actual perfection of life." The verse from Manu samhita comes from the same section addressed previously that is speaking of the ritual known as pitru yajna wherein flesh is offered to the forefathers. Taking a single verse from the chapter to distort the message of Manu is the usual technique of Christian and Muslim missionaries trying to convert Hindus to their faith. The Srimad Bhagavatam (11.5.11) directly explains this verse from Manu Samhita (5.56): loke vyavāyāmiṣa-madya-sevā nityā hi jantor na hi tatra codanā vyavasthitis teṣu vivāha-yajña surā-grahair āsu nivṛttir iṣṭā loke — in the material world; vyavāya — sex indulgence; āmiṣa — of meat; madya — and liquor; sevāḥ — the taking; nityāḥ — always found; hi — indeed; jantoḥ — in the conditioned living being; na — not; hi — indeed; tatra — in regard to them; codanā — any command of scripture; vyavasthitiḥ — the prescribed arrangement; teṣu — in these; vivāha — by sacred marriage; yajña — the offering of sacrifice; surā-grahaiḥ — and the acceptance of ritual cups of wine; āsu — of these; nivṛttiḥ — cessation; iṣṭā — is the desired end. "In this material world the conditioned soul is always inclined to sex, meat-eating and intoxication. Therefore religious scriptures never actually encourage such activities. Although the scriptural injunctions provide for sex through sacred marriage (vivaha), for meat-eating through sacrificial offerings (yajna) and for intoxication through the acceptance of ritual cups of wine (sura-graha), such ceremonies are meant for the ultimate purpose of renunciation." Foolish people take the Manu Samhita verse in isolation from the chapter it comes in, in isolation from the overall teachings of Manu, and in isolation from the teachings of scriptures and sadhus, and blindly conclude that engaging in meat eating, illicit sex, and intoxication is sinless. Now after reading the complete statements of Manu (provided below) and the explanation given in the scriptures, understand the context of this statement from Manu regarding "meat", "liquor", and "sex". As the Bhagavatam states above with the words vivāha-yajña surā-grahair, the process by which these three are engaged in is through marriage (vivaha), through yajna, and through ritual offerings of wine. And as has been pointed out before, even this pitru yajna has been forbidden in the age of Kali (citation below). But people who want to eat meat need to find some justification to satisfy their minds that they are actually following dharma. So they search through anti-Hindu websites for verses that convince them eating meat is sinless. Ask yourself why no Hindu saint is citing these verses, or why no Hindu websites are quoting them? The reason is simple, because they are distorted and taken out of context. This is exactly the reason I have suggested people need to learn Hinduism from a guru or sadhu, because self study will result in confusion and ultimately misrepresentation, which will eventually lead one away from the path of dharma. The example here is very clear. We have someone who is completely convinced that he knows the scriptures, and his conclusion is that it is sinless to eat meat, engage in illicit sex, and take intoxication. His conclusion is exactly opposite to what the scriptures teach, but because he has not received this knowledge from a guru he is bewildered by maya. Further details about Manu Samhita have already been given previously, and I will repeat them here: Someone has alleged the Manu Samhita declares eating meat to be sinless. Here is what the Manu Samhita actually declares. The verse above comes in the exact same section as these verses, yet these people mysteriously don't find them because these aren't listed on the Christian and Muslim websites that they get their Hinduism from: anumantaa vishasitaa nihantaa krayavikrayii | sa.nskartaa chopahartaa cha khaadakashcheti ghaatakaaH || svamaa.nsaM paramaa.nsena yo vardhayitumichchhati | anabhyarchya pitR^In.h devaa.nstato.anyo naastyapuNyakR^it.h “He who permits the slaughter of an animal, he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells meat, he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, must all be considered as the slayers of the animal. There is no greater sinner than that man who though not worshiping the pitrus or the ancestors, seeks to increase the bulk of his own flesh by the flesh of other beings.” (Manu-samhita 5.51-52) In ancient times particular animals were offered as a sacrificial offering to the pitrus, not as food. Foolish people being misled by anti Hindu sites read these descriptions and conclude that eating meat is sinless despite the fact that throughout the Vedic scriptures killing of animals is forbidden. Even the pitru yajna, which is one of the few ancient sacrifices involving flesh, is forbidden in the Kali yuga: asvamedham gavalambham sannyasam palapaitrkam | devarena sutopattim kalau panca vivarjayet || “Five things are forbidden in the age of Kali – horse-sacrifice, cow-sacrifice, acceptance of sannyasa, offering flesh to the forefathers (pitru yajna) and begetting a child in the womb of the wife of one’s elder brother.” (Brahma-vaivarta Purana, Krsna-jnama Khanda 185.180) Elsewhere in the Manu Samhita we find the following: yaGYaaya jagdhirmaa.nsasyetyeshha daivo vidhiH smR^itaH | ato.anyathaa pravR^ittistu raakshaso vidhiruchyate || "‘The consumption of meat is only for Pitru yajna,’ that is declared to be a rule made by the gods; but to persist (in using it) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas." So in the direct words of Manu, all of the Hindus who eat meat are Rakshasas - demons, not even human, what to speak of Brahmanas. More from Manu: yaavanti pashuromaaNi taavatkR^itvo ha maaraNam.h | vR^ithaapashughnaH praapnoti pretya janmani janmani || "As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it suffer violent deaths birth after birth." yo.ahi.nsakaani bhuutaani hinastyaatmasukhaichchhayaa | sa jiivaa.nshcha mR^itashchaiva na kva chit.h sukhamedhate || "He who injures harmless animals due to a wish to satisfy his senses, never finds happiness, neither while living nor dead." yo bandhanavadhakleshaan.h praaNinaaM na chikiirshhati | sa sarvasya hitaprepsuH sukhamatyantamashnute || "He who does not cause suffering and death to animals, but desires the good of all living entities, obtains endless bliss." yad.h dhyaayati yat.h kurute ratiM badhnaati yatra cha | tadavaapnotyayatnena yo hinasti na kiM chana || "He who never harms any creature, attains without an effort what ever he desires, succeeds in what he undertakes, and attains what he fixes his mind on." samutpattiM cha maa.nsasya vadhabandhau cha dehinaam.h | prasamiikshya nivarteta sarvamaa.nsasya bhakshaNaat.h || "Having well considered the disgusting origin of meat and the cruelty of slaying innocent animals, everyone should completely abstain from eating meat." na bhakshayati yo maa.nsaM vidhiM hitvaa pishaachavat.h | na loke priyataaM yaati vyaadhibhishcha na piiDyate || "He who avoids eating the meat from the Pitru yagna, does not eat like a Pisacha (demon). He becomes dear to all, and will not be tormented by diseases. " varshhe varshhe.ashvamedhena yo yajeta shataM samaaH | maa.nsaani cha na khaaded.h yastayoH puNyaphalaM samam.h || "He who during a hundred years annually offers an ashvamedha yajna, and he who entirely abstains from meat, obtain the same reward for their meritorious (conduct)." maaM sa bhakshayitaa.amutra yasya maa.nsamihaad.h myaham.h | etatmaa.nsasya maa.nsatvaM pravadanti maniishhiNaH || "‘Me he (mam sah)’ will devour in the next (world), whose flesh I eat in this (life); the wise declare this (to be) the real meaning of the word ‘flesh’ (mamsah)." Thus it is abundantly clear that Manu has forbidden the killing of animals for food. Only those who receive their knoweldge of Hindu scriptures from anti-Hindu websites, instead of from saints and gurus, fall for these absurd claims. It should be noted that all of the above verses come in the exact same section as the Manu Samhita verse that is always cited in favour of meat eating. Just see how taking a single verse out of context can mislead the innocent public.

I recommend the Ramayana published by Gita Press. The Ramcharitamanas is offered for free download by them, but I'm not sure if the Valmiki Ramayana is also downloadable. If not you can buy the Valmiki version from them for a very small amount, I think it is 100 rs. or something (for a very thick book).