Avinash

Here is the translation of Gandhi's quote "Be the change you want to see in the world." The translation is:- "yat parivartanam tvam samsare drashtum ichchasi tat parivartanam bhava" Note:- The subject in the quote is you. I have assumed it is single "you".

Hope I am not too late. Here is the translation:- "yat parivartanam tvam samsare drashtum ichchasi tat parivartanam bhava" Note:- The subject in the quote is "you". I have assumed it is single "you".

The word soul is used in English in various sense. Sometimes we say, "He is a great soul." What we really mean is: - He is a great person. "The man became a living soul." simply means that the man became alive. It does not say that soul comes from body.

Here is Sita in Sanskrit:-

As per scriptures of Hinduism, it is not a completely personal religion. It also has its set of do's and dont's (though, as I explained in the previous message, these do's and dont's are not always applicable). However, many people try to justify their personal likes and dislikes by saying that their religion allows them to do so. But Hinduism does not allow them.

Suppose a religion lays down strict do's and dont's. One of the dont's is "Don't tell a lie." Consider the following situation:- Somebody has suffered a few heart attacks. Doctors have told his family members that if the patient is told anything which willl hurt him, then it is almost certain that he will not survive. There is one news, which the patient's family is trying to hide from him because if he comes to know this, then he will be shocked. In order to hide it from him, they may be forced to lie. If they do not lie, then they will cause his death. If they lie, then they are doing something, which is a "don't" in the religion. This means that telling lie is not always bad. But, we know that in most of cases, it is bad. The above is a very simple example I have given. Life is far more complicated. We are often in a situation in which no matter whatever we do, there is something negative in it. Therefore, strict set of "do's" and "dont's" will not be practical.

Thanks a million. So, Valmiki Ramayan Uttar Kand says that Lanks was built by Vishwakarma for Rakshasas. But, in a few places in Internet, I read that it was made for Lord Shiva. But those pages do not cite the source. Is there any scripture(e.g. some Purana), which says that Vishwakarma made Lanka for Lord Shiva?

But who made Lanka and for what reason? If it was a gift to Kuber from Siva, this means before Kuber, Lord Siva had Lanka. Was Siva the first to have Lanka or before somebody else had it even before?

I have read two stories related to the formation of Lanka. One story says that Viswakarma built Lanka for Lord Siva. Another says that Vishwakarma built it for the rakshasa brothers Malyavan, Mali and Sumali. Which story is written in scriptures? If different scriptures contain different stories, then let me know which scripture contains which story?

Bhagavatam mentions Narad as an incarnation. Is Narad a complete incarnation?

I think you are talking about making so called "corrections" in sacred books e.g. editing Prabhupada's books. Right? But Bhaktivinod Thakur's message that Theist has quited as has some other meaning of "correction and development". Here correction means correction in our own perspective. Development means our spiritual development. You are talking about "correction and development" of sacred writings. But Bhaktivinod's Thakur is talking about correction and development of reader. I guess Theist also means what I mean. But waiting for his clarification.

Earlier I thought Maha Vishnu is completely alone. After that I read some posts where it is written that Maha Vishnu resides on Shesh Nag. Let me know whether He resides on Shesh Nag or not? Please post any relevant URLs. Thanks.

This is how I understand it:- Suppose I go to another country where I see an animal, which is completely different from the animals found in India. When I come back to India, then I try to explain that animal to my friend. I do not have any photograph or any video recording of that animal. My friend never saw any animal of that kind. So, how do I explain? I will explain using analogies. For example I can say that it has marks on its skin as in a Leopard. It does not mean that the marks are exactly like a leopard's. It is just that out of all the animals, which both my friend and I have seen, leopard's marks come closest to the marks on the animal I wish to describe. I can give various analogies to explain the animal to my friend. The picture that he will get based on my analogies will not be how the animal exactly is. But I cannot give any closer description, which my friend will understand. He will know how exactly the animal looks only if he looks at it with his own eyes. Likewise, various analogies to describe achintya bhedabheda("ocean drop and ocean" analogy and other analogies) are just that - i.e. analogies. These analogies give very approximate meaning of bhedabheda. Actual meaning will be known to a person only when he realises it.

May be scriptures have been changed. But what do current scriptures say(even if they are changed)?

Was Ravan born with ten heads? If no, then how and when did he get ten heads? If yes, then why was he born with ten heads? Any specific reason given in scriptures?

In Sanskrit, strength is called as shakti. Tomorrow, I will post shakti in Devanagri script(script used in Sanskrit). Currently I do not have appropriate font.

As Theist pointed out, your friend can register with any user name. It need not be his real name. Now, let us come to email id. There is option to hide email id from other members but, of course, not from admin. I personally do not see any reason to be anonymous from admin. But your friend may have a reason, which I am not aware of. If so, let him create a new email id.

I understand that material science is not sufficient to explain spiritual topics. But I was wondering if material science can explain the apparent contradiction that something can be larger than the largest and subtler than the subtlest. If something is very large, then how can it be very subtle? It seems to be contradictory and hence impossible. But Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows this:- Heisenberg's uncertainty principle talks about various pairs of physical quantities. But the quantities that concern us now are position and momentum. The principle says:- For a given particle, the more precise is its momentum, greater will be the uncertainty in its position and vice versa. Consider any such particle. As an example, consider a photon. Suppose that the momentum of the photon is very precisely determined. Then there is huge uncertainty in its position. What this means is that the effect of the photon is instantaneously affected over a very large space. In this sense the photon behaves as if it is very large. When you use a particle deterctor to detect the photon, then it can be found anywhere in that large space. But when you find its position, you find that it is present at a single point. This means the photon behaves like a very minute particle. So, the same thing can be very large and very minute in this world itself. What to talk about spiritual things then?

Thanks. So, B.G. 8.9 says God is smaller than the smallest. From Internet search, I found a verse in Kathopanishad. Kathopanishad 1.2.20 says:- The Atman is subtler than the subtlest and larger than the largest. I think the above verse was in my mind. It is in Kathopanishad but I was wrongly under impression that it is Bhagavad Gita.

If not about soul, then does it say so about anything/anybody else? If not smaller of the smallest, then it may be "finer of the finest". I remember that there is some similar verse in Gita. But which verse?

Bhagavad Gita says that soul is smaller of the smallest and bigger of the biggest. Let me know which verse says this. Thanks.

Jahnava Nitai Das started this web site. Earlier he was moderator. Now, he has kept somebody else to do that job. Sometimes he posts here.

Ashwathama will hold the position of Ved Vyas when next Manu comes.

Ravan kidnapped Sita. Rama's army consisted of Rama himself, younger brother Laxmana and vanars. Why did Bharat not send army to help his elder brother?

What is the source of this story? Is this written in some purana?