Avinash

Agree. I agree that finding solutions for other problems are more important. But I will not call astronomy as useless because different streams of science are interrelated. Advancement in one leads to the advancement in another. Is there any non-scientist who knows abut atoms more than scientists? Yes, it is a theory. But nobody can see everything with his eyes. We need to develop theories. I can say that what is written in Bhagavatam is also theory. They can explain and they have discovered quarks. Of course, they have not seen quarks but they have seen effects which point towards existence of quarks. Not only atomic, any science is based on theory. They never claim to know everything about atoms. But is there any human being who knows everything about atoms? Fine. But I can say the same about other beliefs also including the belief in scriptures. What belief is not a model? Can you prove that what is written in scriptueres is not man-made models?

If you want I can explain how a star is formed; how the Sun was formed; and why Sun is a star. I can even search and post relevant URLs here. But, will you then believe that Sun is a star? I think not. Rather, you will say that you do not believe in all this theory even if you are not able to find a single mistake in it.

Could you write the story behind her birth?

In Valimiki Ramayan, it is written that Janak found a girl child while ploughing field and he named her Sita. This means that Janak was not the biological father of Sita. Then, whose child was she? How did she come to be inside Earth?

As I have read, this purport is not by Sri Prabhupada but by Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti Ṭhakura.

yas tu narayanam devam brahma-rudradi-daivataih samatvenaiva vikseta sa pasandi bhaved dhruvam Could you give word-by-word meaning of the above?

Also check moksha. It is true that ksha is sandhi of k and sha (murdhanya), but there is a single letter for this.

Please check nirmal. That is written incorrectly in Sanskrit. Avinash

The children of Devaki whom Kamsa killed were the sons of sage Marici in a previous birth. Because of a curse, they were born on Earth. Since Kamsa killed them in their childhood days, they did not have to suffer the consequence of the curse for long. Moreover, by killing the children, Kamsa's cup of evil was full and it was the right time for Lord to appear.

Yes, goddess Kali (pronounced kaalee) is also known as Kalika (pronounced kalikaa).

It seems from the picture that Aniruddha, Vasudeva, Sankarsana, and Pradymna are expansions of Balaram. Is that correct? Whose expansion is Narayana? There are two arrows which point towards Narayana. Is Maha Sankarsana an expansion of Sankarsana or Narayana? One arrow indicates Narayana and another indicates Sankarsana. Whose expansion is each Purusa avatara? The arrow starts from the rectangle which contains Aniruddha, Vasudeva, Sankarsana, and Pradymna. Does it mean that these four together expand into purusa avataras?

Ved Vyasa wanted somebody to write Mahabharat. Lord Ganesha did the job of writing down whatever verses Ved Vyasa spoke.

How do you pronounce Kaylz?

May be you are right. But what basis shastric do you have for making such a claim? As per Siva purana, worshipping Siva can be done for liberation also. You do not believe in Siva purana. But you have not told why. Saying that it was spoken by Romaharshana is not good enough. That way Bhagavata was spoken by Romaharshana's son to Saunak and other sages. Yes, they do. But I have found many people worshipping Krsna also for material things. I have come across many Vaishnavas who pray in front of Krsna's statue and saying, "Krsna, give me this, give me that." There is eternal salvation in worship of Shiva as per Shiva purana. Let me know the proof that this purana is not authentic. Shastric basis for such a claim? As per Shiva purana, Uma is the Goddess of spiritual world. Note:- Let me repeat a clarification here. I am not trying to prove that Shstras prove Shiva to be greater than Vishnu. I have not such intention. If somebody quotes from Shiva purana to show that Shiva is shown as greater than Vishnu, then I will quote from Bhagavatam, Vishnu Purana etc. in which Vishnu is shown greater. I am just trying to discuss logically.

Contact me if you want my services in developing any software that can run on Windows platform. It can be on any domain and any technology.

People do give references from shastra e.g. Siva Puran though it is a different matter that you do not consider this puran as authetic. Romaharshana explained this purana to sages. Going by your logic, Bhagavatam was written by Suta swami (son of Romaharsana). I agree Vyasdeva calls Bhagavat Purana as spotless but he nowhere says that there are cheating processes in other puranas. Inside Bhavatam, it is written that Bhagavatam is spotless. Inside Siva Purana, it is written that Siva Purana is spotless.

When did I say that Siva prays to Himself? Where is it written in the scriptures that Rama worshipped Siva as being a great devotee of the Lord? What about Siva puran? There is a difference here. In prayers to Hanuman, Hanuman is mentioned as devotee of Rama. But, in prayers of Siva by Rama, where is it written that Siva is mentioned as a great devotee? Again, what about Siva puran? What about Bhisma's statement in Mahabharata in which he says that Krsna became great by the mercy of Siva? What about Krsna praying to Siva for a son? I have read entire Bhagavat purana several times. I accept that in Bhagavat purana, Siva prays to one or another form of Visnu. But what about the verses in the scriptures where Visnu prays to Siva? One clarification. Since I have posted that Visnu is mentioned as worshipping Siva in some places in scriptures, you may be thinking I consider it as proof that Siva is greater than Visnu. But I have no such intention. If somebody claims Siva as greater than Visnu, then I will ask him to explain Siva praying to Visnu. In some places, Siva is shown greater than Visnu. In some places, Visnu is shown greater than Siva. I want to know how you reconsile the two.

Krsna, You have quoted from scriptures to prove that Lord Visnu is supreme. But how do you explain the following? 1. In Mahabharata, Bhisma says that Krsna became so powerful with the grace of Lord Siva. 2. Krsna worshipped Siva to grant him a son. 3. When Lord Visnu and Lord Brahma were arguing over who was supreme, then Lord Siva appears in the form of a pillar. Later both Visnu and Brahma accepts Siva as supreme. 4. Rama prays to Siva to help Rama win in war against Ravana. Where is this story written?

Yes, as per quantum physics, graviton is considered as exchange particle for gravity though, as you mention, it has not been detected. However, as per the theory of relativity, gravity is a curvature of space and time and it does not need any exchange particle. Efforts have been made to combine general theory of relativity and quantum physics. It has been suggested that graviton arises because of the collective effect of tweaking the underlying structure of spacetime in a certain way. Bosons are made up of quarks and anti-quarks. Non locality and Hiesenberg uncertainty principle will throw some light here. The uncertainty principle allows virtual particles to do many things which other particles cannot. The exchange particles are virtual particles.

I am not sure about other, but when I say I disagree with you, it does not mean that I find your statement offensive. It is just that I find some logical fallacies in your argument. You have pointed out some similarities between the names Yasha (of Vishnu Yasha) and Yahshua. It is debatable if the similarities are really significant. But, even if they are, it does not prove that Jesus is Kalki. I am saying this because S.B. mentions Yasha not as the name of Kalki but as the surname of Vishnu Yasha. Vishnu Yasha, as per S.B., is not Kalki's name but the name of the Brhamin in whose house Kalki incernation will take place. You may have some valid points in believing Jesus = Kalki. But I do not agree with the points you have raised so far. If you raise some other points, then I will ponder over those.

It is important what mood we are in when we chant. If I chant Krsna, Krsna, then I think how He is the source of everything, I think about His various incarnations, His message in Gita. But when I chant computer, computer, then I just think what we can do with a computer. To give another example, suppose I chant "money, money, money". It is true that God is in money too. But will I get the same feeling when I chant "money, money" as I get when I chant "Krsna, Krsna"? I personally don't think so.

I do not like what some women advocate in the name of liberation. They point towards many bad habits that some men indulge into and claim that women also should have the right to do so. Once I was watching a discussion pogram on TV. The topic was if it is fine to take alcoholic beverages and to smoke. One woman participant (a TV actress) answered that it was perfectly fine. She claimed that she liked drinking and smoking. When some other participants pointed the negative effects it can have on health, then she answered, "I am a modern woman. I believe in women-liberation. When men can drink and smoke, why can't I?" I once read a news-article. Some women had been caught stealing. They said, "If men can steal, what is wrong in women doing so?" There are many such cases where some wrong things done by some women have been praised in the name of liberation. If some men have done some wrong things, then it is not proper to say that women also should be allowed to do so. Rather we should say that men also should not do so. It is true that some men steal. But are they really allowed to so so? No. Then why should women be allowed? We should not say that somebody else is doing something bad and, that is why, we'll also do. Rather we should say that we do not do such bad things and others also should not do. Let me not talk only negative things. Many good things are also being done in the name of liberation. Example: - education. There should be equality. The first thing we should do is to go through constitution. Search for gende-sensitive words like man, woman, boy, girl, husband, wife, father, mother etc. and replace those by gender neutral words like person, spouse, parent etc. except in those places where the difference is purely due to bilogical reasons and is made by nature. One example of the exception could be giving birth. We know that women can give birth and not men. Therefore, if somewhere the constitution talks about the scenario where a woman gives birth, then there is no need to replace the usage of the word woman by person. But, in all other cases, use gender-neutral words.

I have started a software firm.

I posted the translations in Sanskrit forum as duni had posted the same question in that forum as well.

Here are the translations. The first one is Kevin and the second is Nathalie. As you said Nathalie is pronounced like Nata-lee with a of Na as a of at. I am assuming that ta of Nata is pronounced like ta of tata.