Avinash

If God is everywhere and in everything, then He can as well be behind evolution also. So, don't worry.

How should one recite Sundar Kand of Ramayan? I mean, should I just pick up Ramayan and read Sundar Kand? Or, should some other things also be done? If so, then what are those? Is it important to have a pundit to do the recitation or can one recite himself? Can only Sundar Kand be recited or must the whole Ramayan be recited from beginning to end? I find it easier to read Tulsidas Ramacharitmanas than Valmiki Ramayan in Sanskrit. So, is it OK to recite Sundar Kand from Ramacharitmanas? Or, is it better to recite Sundar Kand of Valmiki Ramayan?

Yes, I have read the story in Uttar Khand that Ravan assumed victory over Yama. But I also read in some places(though not in Uttar Ramayan) that Ravan kept death as captive. Who was this death?

Hi Govindaraja, There are people who are biased towards people of same religion/caste. They should not do it but they do. Such people exist not only among Brahmins but in other castes also. It is just that you have come across Brahmins who do so.

Thank you. But I wanted to know from where Hanuman Ashtak is taken.

"Let noble thoughts come to us from all side" is taken from Rig Ved 1.89.1. In Sanskrit it is:- "Aa no bhadraah kratavo yantu vishwatah." Tomorrow I will post the same in Sanskrit font because that font is installed in another operating system of mine.

Both Hindi and Sanskrit use the same script called Devnagari script. How you write depends on how you pronounce. The picture you have attached assumes that the pronunciation is "maneeshaa". Of course, for the same pronunciation also, you can write in different styles. It is just like writing something in English in different styles i.e. handwriting.

Manisha, I remember that long back I translated your name into Sanskrit. May be the picture you have attached is the one that I posted at that time. In any case, the slant at the bottom of characters is OK. There is nothing wrong in that. However, if it is possible to post an image of that, then it will be good. This is because slant should not be so much that letters become different.

I asked this question because the answer to it is neither in Valmiki Ramaan nor in Tulsidas's Ramacharitmanas. I was wondering if the answer is in some other book. If yes, then which?

Hi Them, You have cited your personal experiences. Did you try to have these experiences by doing yoga or some other way? Did these just happen?

You have written that Tadka was Ravan's maternal grandmother. This means Tadka's husband should be Ravan's maternal grandfather. Ravan's maternal grandfather(i.e. mother's father) was Sumali. Sumali's brothers can also be considered as maternal grandfather. So, Malyavan and Mali were also Ravan's maternal grandfather. Which of these three (Malyavan, Mali, Sumali) was Tadka's husband?

"Ko nahi janat hai jag mein kapi sankat-mochan naam tiharo" This line is present in Hanuman Ashtak. I did not find this line anywhere inside Hanuman Chalisa. So, from where is Hanuman Ashtak taken? Is Hanuman Ashtak a part of Ramacharitmanas(Sundar Kand may be?). Or, is it independent?

Mareech (who became golden deer) was Ravan's mama(maternal uncle). Was he Ravan's mother Kaikasi's own brother? Or, was he Kaikasi's cousin?

I have read it written in many places that Tadka's sons Marich and Subahu were Ravan's maternal uncles, which means Tadka was Ravan's maternal grandmother. But I read in Valmiki Ramayan that Tadka's husband was demon Sund. This means Sund was Ravan's maternal grandfather. But how is it possible? I am aware of only three grandfathers of Ravan - Malyavan, Mali, Sumali. I have also read that Tadka was Sumali's wife. But Valmiki Ramayan says Tadka was Sund's wife. So, how do we reconcile these differences?

I read Valmiki Translation by Gita press. It nowhere mentions about boon to Vali that he would get half the strength of his opponent if Vali saw the opponent. May be it is written in some other Ramayan(Adhyatm Ramayan perhaps?) Yes, this is interesting way of looking at things. I read this in a few Internet pages. Let x = Vali's strength before he sees the opponent y = opponent's strength When Vali sees the opponent, Vali's strength = x + y/2, oppnent's strength = y(does not change) For Vali's new strength < opponent's strength x + y/2 < y Or, x < y/2 So, it is exactly as you said. And it is quite possible for Hanuman and may be many others to have strength more than double of Vali's.

Please suggest me a really good book that teaches Sanskrit grammar. The book can assume that the reader knows English and wants to learn Sanskrit. Or, it can assume that the reader knows Hindi and wants to learn Sanskrit. It can be either. But I prefer second one(Hindi to Sanskrit). This is because English to Sanskrit will assume some transliteration scheme like ITrans or some other. But I find Devanagri far easier to read than these transliteration schemes. It should cover all the details of grammar - pratyay, vibhakti, sandhi, samaas, kaarak, lakaar, and any other related thing. If it has good vocabulary, then better. So, any good book?

As I understand, you are talking about boon to Vali that he would get half strength of the opponent whom he saw. Lord Rama was fully capable of proving this boon as wrong and thus easily kill Vali in face-to-face war. But He did not want the benediction to be proved wrong because that would have been an insult to His devotee who gave the boon to Vali(I think Lord Brahma). This is what you are saying. Right? But, if this is the case, then no one - not even Hanuman should have been able to defeat Vali in face-to-face war. But after the war, Lord Rama says to Agastya muni that Hanuman was more powerful than Vali. He asks as to why Hanuman could not save Sugreev from Vali. In answer, Agastya does not say that Vali was more powerful. Rather he accepts that Hanuman was more powerful. Then, go goes on to talk about the curse Hanuman got in his childhood. How could Hanuman be more powerful than Vali, given the boon that Vali received?

Rama hid behind a tree and then shot an arrow to kill Vali. But why did He hide? Why did he not indulge in face-to-face war? The answer usually given is that if Vali saw anybody, then Vali would get half strength of that person. But is that really the reason? Is it true that if Vali had seen Rama, then Rama would have lost half of His strength to Vali and thus Vali would have won? Or, is there some other reason? Let me make it clear that I am not asking whether it was right on Rama's part to kill Valui hiding behind a tree. That may be a good topic but that is not the intention of this thread. Here I only want to know what Rama did so.

Let me add an analogy, which is often given in Advaita. Consider Sun and mirrors. Sun's reflections are formed in the mirrors. If Sun is Brahman, then the reflections are individual human souls. In reality, the reflections exist because of Sun. No Sun, no reflection. In that sense Sun is all there is. What does mirror signify here? A mirror signifies the illusion because of various human shortcomings. If there are no shortcomings i.e. if Truth is realized, then it is found that in reality everything is Brahman. But, together with shortcomings, saying that an individual human self is Brahman is wrong - just as saying that a reflection is the same as the Sun is wrong.

Yes, that is correct. Advait Vedanta does say that in reality, everything is Brahman. Therefore, the real nature of Bob (in your example) is Brahman. Now the question is as to why advaita-vedanta.org says that "human self is Brahman" is a wrong conclusion? This is because here the term "human self" refers to human self on which illusion is superimposed. This human self is not identical with Brahman.

If you go through that web site, you will find the answer to your question there iself. Consider the argument (1) Bob (Jiva) = Atman (Self) Consider the name "Bob". One meaning is the person Bob including his body, his shortcomings, his social life, his likes and dislikes etc. etc. This is what people generally mean when they refer to a person. This is the sense in which you are also using the name "Bob". But when Advaita Vedanta says Jiva = Atman, it means that the real nature of an individual is Atman. Let us take a parallel with Bhagavad Gita. Krsna says to Arjun, "There was never a time when I did not exist or you or any of these kings. There will never come a time when any of them will cease to exist." This means Arjun, Krsna, kings in the war are eternal. As an example, consider any of the kings. As per the Gita shloka, the king is eternal. Does it mean that his body is eternal? No. What it really means is that the soul of the king is eternal.

Health, as defined by WHO, is neither spiritual nor non-spiritual in itself. What we do for a good health and what we do after having good health determine whether health is spiritual or not.

And did he keep Yama captive? But then, how could Yamraj perform his duties of awarding heaven/hell to other mortal beings?

I have read that Ravan kept death as captive. Who was this death? Is it Yamraj (lord of death) or somebody else?

In the following the first is Bethany and the second is Joshua. Note: I am assuming that 'a' in 'Bethany' is pronounced as short 'a' - like 'o' in 'love'