Jahnava Nitai Das

Falwell: Muhammad not a terrorist Monday, October 14, 2002 Posted: 11:28 AM EDT (1528 GMT) LYNCHBURG, Virginia (AP) -- The Rev. Jerry Falwell has apologized for calling Islam's founder a terrorist, saying he "intended no disrespect to any sincere, law-abiding Muslim." In a recent interview with CBS' "60 Minutes," the conservative Baptist minister said he had concluded from reading Muslim and non-Muslim writers that Muhammad "was a violent man, a man of war." "I think (Prophet) Muhammad was a terrorist," he said. Muslims were outraged. A general strike called to protest his comments in Bombay, India, turned into a riot, and five people were killed. On Saturday, Falwell issued a "statement of reconciliation." "I sincerely apologize that certain statements of mine made during an interview for the September 30 edition of CBS's `60 Minutes' were hurtful to the feelings of many Muslims," Falwell said. He said he made the remarks in response to "one controversial and loaded question" at the end of an hourlong interview. "That was a mistake and I apologize," Falwell said. From JNDas:The title claims falwell says Muhammad is not a terrorist, but I don't see anything in the article that says that. In the article he justs says he was wrong to have made the statement. I'm not sure if he actually changed his view or not.

Does Shankara teach that Brahman becomes covered by illusion? If so, his philosophy is mayavada. You can word-juggle your way out of it, but in essence it is true.

In Hinduism there are several special places for worship. Besides temples, everyone's house has a special room called a "puja room" in which pictures or deities of God are kept and worship is held daily. The worship in the home usually consists of offering various items to the picture or deity of God, such as incense, flowers, oil lamps, camphor lamps, fruits, food, water, etc. Besides worship in the home, there are special historical places of worship, or pilgrimage places, throughout India. These locations are connected with the pastimes of God when he descends to earth to reestablish religion through His divine incarnations. In places where God has appeared on earth, temples are constructed and people travel there on pilgrimage to worship and remember the Lord. Yours in service, Jahnava Nitai Das, Bhaktivedanta Ashram & Bhaktivedanta International Charities http://www.foodrelief.org

I would suggest you begin your studies of Hinduism by reading the "Bhagavad Gita", which is the most important scriptural text for Hindus. According to the Gita true religion is that which is inherent in the soul. It can not be changed, and it is universally the same for all living entities. The external faiths are material reflections of the inherent spiritual quality of the soul. We must rise above the material bodily designations and realize our true identity as a spirit soul, part and parcel of God. As far as the four Vedas are concerned, they are not very relevant today. Bhagavad Gita is more important for understanding the philosophy of Hinduism. Please take up a serious study of the Bhagavad Gita. I am sure you will find the answers you are looking for there. Yours in service, Jahnava Nitai Das, Bhaktivedanta Ashram & Bhaktivedanta International Charities http://www.foodrelief.org

Hinduism is known as sanatana dharma, or the eternal path. It is not just a religion or faith, but is the constitutional function of the self. Faith can be changed from one religion to another, but the eternal function of the self cannot be changed. In simple words that eternal function of the self is service. Everyone engages in service to others, regardless of their religion or belief. This is the true essence of Hinduism, or more properly Sanatana Dharma. Yours in service, Jahnava Nitai Das, Bhaktivedanta Ashram & Bhaktivedanta International Charities http://www.foodrelief.org

The 'hamsah soham' mantra belongs to the category of nada upasana. There are three categories of upasana, namely pranava, nada and shabda. In pranava upasana the mantra is recited internally. In nada upasana the mantra is recited with the movement of the lips, but in an almost inaudible sound. And in shabda upasana the mantra is recited loudly. Ultimately the mantra is meant to be recited continuously. Actually you do not recite this mantra, but rather the mantra becomes your breath. When one attains siddhi one no longer breaths, but only recites the mantra. Of course in the beginning it is not possible to recite the mantra continuously, so one should do it in installments. Fix a time period each day that you can perform the mantra sadhana. Sit peacefully and meditate while reciting the mantra with your breath. As you goe on, you may increase the length of meditation and also begin to recite the mantra while carrying on your daily duties. Hamsah is the actual mantra, and it is reversed when one exhales, forming so 'ham. The original source of the mantra is from the Upanishads in the verse: sacidananda svarupo 'ham sivo 'ham sivo 'ham. For sadhana the verse is condensced to "hamsah soham". In meditation one should identify oneself as qualitatively one with Brahman. Generally this sadhana is practiced by Shaivites or Avadhutas, but in recent times it has been adopted by various yoga paths, since it is connected with the breathing (pranayama). The Avadhutas who practice this sadhana are called as 'hamsas". As one advances towards perfection in this sadhana one will experience many things. One will begin to hear sounds, such as the sound of the ocean, the sound of a vina, or a tingling sound. At first these sounds will be internally caused by one's own body, but they represent cosmic factors linked with each body. The sadhaka should just ignore the sounds and continue his sadhana and meditation. Yours in service, Jahnava Nitai Das, Bhaktivedanta Ashram & Bhaktivedanta International Charities http://www.foodrelief.org

Thank you for writing with your question. Sri Sanjaya, the saintly disciple of Vyasa Muni, was able to see the entire battle of Kurukshetra (including the conversation between Lord Krishna and Arjuna) by the power of his mystic vision. Sanjaya was an assistant of Dhritarashtra, who was blind from birth. Since Dhritarashtra was unable to see, he asked Sanjaya to describe the battle as he saw it with his mystical vision. On the first day of the battle, Sanjaya saw and heard Lord Krishna's conversation with Arjuna, and he repeated it word for word to Dhritarashtra. The scene of Dhritarashtra inquiring from Sanjaya about the battle was in turn seen by Sri Vyasa Muni by his mystical vision. He chose to include this discussion (which includes the narration of the Gita) between Sanjaya and Dhritarashtra in the Mahabharata. Thus the Bhagavad Gita begins with the words "dhritarashtra uvaca" or "Dhritarashtra said..." It begins with the king asking Sanjaya what was occuring on the battlefield. And Sanjaya replied by narrating the conversation between Lord Krishna and Arjuna. Later Vyasa Muni wanted to put the Mahabharata in written form, and for this he took the assistance of Sri Ganesh. Lord Ganesha broke one of his tusks and used it as a pen. Vyasa Muni spoke the Mahabharata (which includes the Gita), and Lord Ganesha transcribed it. Yours in service, Jahnava Nitai Das, Bhaktivedanta Ashram & Bhaktivedanta International Charities http://www.foodrelief.org

I have heard from many different Indians (common people) that cavities are caused by worms in your teeth. Does anyone know where this idea originates from? Is it due to a bad translation of something? Are there any scriptural texts that speak of this?

It was only a matter of time before someone demanded politically correct religious texts. They will probably want to rewrite them every 15 years or so to keep up with whats right and wrong. The Puranas and Itihasas themselves state that there are different versions of each text containing different numbers of verses (for different classes of people). Multiple versions is not proof of interpolation. These are aural traditions that have been put into writing only recently (in the last few thousand years). There are multpile lines of tradition, which have preserved the texts in the form they have received it. A spiritual book receives its value on the basis of the author. Because these texts are divinely revealed, they are worshipped and followed. That is of course a matter of faith. Those who do not consider these texts divinely revealed will not find much use for them. What will be the value of a rewritten spiritual text? Nothing. It will have no value to the religious, as it is not divinely inspired. It will have no value to the atheist, as it is not even a historical document, it is just a modern fiction novel. Spiritual books only have their value because of belief that they were divinely inspired. Take for example the book of Mormon. It is a recent addition to the bible. It only has value among the Mormon community because they believe it was divinely inspired. Other Christians couldnt care less about it. When you choose to rewrite a spiritual text for political correctness, you are creating a text that has no authority, and thus it will have no following. It will be useless. If you actually think the present Ramayana is not good, then write your own. See how many people read it, follow it, and worship it. You speak against conversions, yet you want to force all Hindus to convert to your brand of Hinduism, a rewritten Ramayana, etc. You even spoke before of banning religions that convert people. What would you require their followers do? Convert to your beliefs? You are holding on to a hypocritical position. While pretending to be promoting freedom of religion you are actually standing for religious fanaticism. Only your way is the right way and all others should be banned and forced to convert. You may avoid using those words, but the conclusion is obvious.

I think it is acknowledged by most that animal sacrifices occured in the past, but there were no slaughterhouses where animals were killed solely for food. Also, all acharyas (of any line) of the last few thousand years agree that animal sacrifices are forbidden in the age of Kali. And regarding killing of cows, there are hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of verses that establish the sanctity of the cow and forbid causing any harm to it. As has been pointed out before, the very word for cow is aghnya, "that which cannot be killed". Ramayana states a killer of a cow should be killed. Sacrifice was not the mere killing of an animal, not until the Kali yuga when the priests were no longer qualified and lacked mantra-shakti. It is because of these unqualifications that Buddha preached against the animal sacrifices of the Vedas. Regarding ahimsa, the Vedic version is always to not cause harm to anyone.

"A killer of a king, a killer of a brahmana, a killer of a cow, a thief, a murderer, an atheist, or a younger brother who marries before his elder, all will go to hell." Valmiki Ramayana 4.17.36 The Puranas and Itihasas are full of such statements condemning the killing of cows. Should we believe the Muslims foolishly added one word into Manu Samhita saying killing of cows is allright, while leaving the hundreds of verses found in the Puranas that say the killing of cows is sinful? If they could interpolate the texts, they could have removed those verses to create a consistant interpolation. Rather, it is more logical to conclude that the single use of the word goghna in Manu Samhita and its context may be misunderstood today.

Here is another perspective on the word "goghna" found in Manu-samhita. This was originally published in Deccan Herald and is by Sandhya Jain. Fortunately, there is now clinching evidence why the Marxist claim on cow-flesh rests on false premises. As already stated, the allegation rests mainly on literary sources and their interpretation, and we are in a position to trace the source of the mischief - the Vachaspatyam of Pandit Taranath and his British mentors. Pandit Taranath, a professor of grammar at the Calcutta Sanskrit College, compiled a six-volume Sanskrit-to-Sanskrit dictionary, which is used by scholars to this day. The Vachaspatyam is a valuable guide for scholars because there are certain words in the samhita (mantra) section of the Vedas that are not found later in the Puranas. What most Sanskrit scholars have failed to notice is that Taranath artfully corrupted the meanings of a few crucial words of the Vedic samhita to endorse the meaning given by Max Muller in his translation of the Vedas. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati has exposed this beautifully in "The True History and the Religion of India, A Concise Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism" (Motilal Banarsidass). The British idea was that Max Muller would translate the Rig Veda "in such a scornful manner that Hindus themselves should begin to reproach their own religion of the Vedas," while a Hindu pandit would "compile an elaborate Sanskrit dictionary that should exhibit disgraceful meanings of certain words of the Vedic mantras." As Hindus would not question a dictionary by a Hindu pandit, the British would be able to claim that whatever Max Muller wrote about the Vedas was according to the dictionary of the Hindus. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati focuses on two words - goghn and ashvamedh. "Goghn" means a guest who receives a cow as gift. Panini created a special sutra to establish the rule that goghn will only mean the receiver of a cow (and will not be used in any other sense). But Taranath ignored Panini's injunction and wrote that "goghn" means "the killer of a cow." He similarly converted the ashvamedh yagna from 'ritual worship of the horse' to the "killing of the horse." The Swami proves the British hand in this mischief through the patronage given to Taranath by the Government of Bengal in 1866, when Lt. Governor Sir Cecil Beadon sanctioned ten thousand rupees for two hundred copies of his dictionary. This was a king's ransom in those days, as even in the 1930s the headmaster of a vernacular primary school received a salary of twenty rupees a month. Today, ten thousand rupees is the equivalent of two million rupees.

I don't have the sanskrit texts with me, but George Buellers translation from Sacred Books of the East series disagrees with the translation you hint at: Regardless, the prior verse states: It is speaking of the remnants of sacrifice. The go-medha yajna is spoken of throughout the Vedas, so there is no contradiction or evidence that this is interpolation. Only a person qualified with spiritual knowledge should eat the remnants of sacrifice, otherwise they will suffer in their next life:

I think it works, but it doesnt update it on your "My Home" page right away. Just try leaving it changed and go browse the forums and see what happens. If it doesnt work,email me the picture and I will do it.

It may have been the persons karma to receive the slap, but your action was not based on karma, it was based on free will to act. Whether you slap him or not, someone will slap him. But you made the choice to slap him, thereby creating karmic reactions for yourself.

That would be because you have never heard of these places in the first place. This is just an illogical and cheap remark. Many sannyasis visit these temples to inspire and guide the devotees in these regions. Yes they are. I'm not refering to that. I am refering to ISKCON temples, with devotees initiated by ISKCON gurus. Yes. Besides Orissa, I know similar temples exist in Bengal and Bangaladesh. They may exist in other states, but I am not aware of them. In South they do not exist in this same manner. That is another topic, since the temples I am speaking about are actually directly ISKCON temples. But I would be happy if ISKCON took credit for our work in Orissa, but they don't. It seems they don't even take credit for the temples they themselves have established in these regions. 99% of the devotees in ISKCON dont even know such temples exist. They aren't being opened for publicity or to get a good name. They are being opened to provide rural devotees with oportunities to associate with one another and serve Lord Krishna through Srila Prabhupada's mission.

Those verses refer to the beginning of one's karma after universal disolution and re-creation. That doesn't identify the source of one's being situated within the purview of karma.

Our mere desire to enjoy separately from the Lord is the subtle root of all our karmic experiences. That desire resulted us being placed in a suitable environment where action and reaction is constantly occuring, eventually snow-balling into our unlimited sinful reactions.

I'm not sure of any websites that will provide this information. I can refer you to books where this is recorded, but most of them will be in sanskrit or tamil. We are currently working on a website that will contain all of the writings of Sri Krishnaswamy Iyengar on the Sri Vaishnava philosophy. For those that are not aware of this great devotee and acharya, he has written and published hundreds of books on the teachings of Ramanuja in the English language.

For example, in Orissa, ISKCON has hundreds of nama-hatta temples throughout the villages and tribal areas. You are probably unaware that they exist because they are never listed in a "list of ISKCON temples". One reason is there are no addresses in these areas. Another reason, is no one will ever come out there. Many of these temples are organized and ran by tribal devotees. They are very poor, so some are very small, just a few families congregating together to worship. Some others are quite big with hundreds of families meeting together, though they are also very poor. These temples may not be impressive to look at, just a mud or brick building, but the devotion of the devotees attending is impressive to see.

ISKCON has many temples in tribal areas. The question is have you gone there?

All of such references in other Puranas refer to the number of verses in the Bhagavatam as being 18,000 and the author as being Vyasa. One could speculate and say it is a general statement, that the main body of Bhagavatam (not the invocation verses) is by Vyasa; but there isn't any statement as such, so it would remain just as speculation. There are plenty of verses that say the Bhagavatam was written by Vyasa, and no verses that say it wasn't written by Vyasa. So the conlusion should be simple enough. As far as finer details, Vyasa had disciples whom he put in charge of sub-dividing and expanding his writings. They extracted the Upakyhanas and Upapuranas from the main Puranas. In addition to this it was their duty to propagate these books. There is the possibility that they wrote the invocations, but this is unlikely as there is no reference to this. The invocational verses of the Bhagavatam are some of the most important verses in all the scriptures. Would they have been written by someone other than Vyasa? It is possible, but unlikely.

Ramanuja himself performed initiation to non-caste communities in Melkote while he was in hiding in the forest. The natives of Melkote were tribals, but through pancha-samskara initiation he brought them to the position of brahmanas.

Did the article change? I didn't see anything about Manu's writings in there. Just someone complaining about having a statue of Manu in front of a couthouse. Some consider Manu evil, but the Bhagavatam and the Rig Veda glorify him. The Bhagavatam states he is one of the twleve mahajanas, great souls who are knowledgeable about the path of bhakti. Those who are intelligent are advised to follow the path of these mahajanas to advance in spiritual life. Further more, Manu is an empowered incarnation of the Lord, and is the father of mankind. One who follows Manu's rules is known as a manushya, others who disregard them are known as pashus.

They aren't. Vaishnava Diksha entails the performance of five samskaras, beginning with tapa, pundra, nama, etc. In traditional times, this often included giving a shalagram to the disciple for worship, which would require one to be brahminically situated. But this is not a requirement, as one may be given the form of the Lord to worship in its place. Where do you want a reference from? Within Bhagavatam? From other Puranas? From the Goswami's writing? From modern historians? I'm not sure what you are looking for. How do you define the Bhagavatam's "current form".