Avinash

In SB, it is mentioned that Kalki will be born in the house of Visnu Yasa. Visnu Yasa is a single person. Here Yasa is not used for Kalki. Proofs have been given to claim different people as Kalki - Bahaullah, Muhammad, Jesus.

I sent a private message to you. Please check that.

Suchandra, Sorry, but please recheck your transliterations as they are not correct.

Some may not like what I am going to write here. But, seriously, why do you think it is important to try to convince atheists of your position? You are saying that atheists call theists as fools for believing in God. But then theists also call atheists various negative words for not believing in God. If you are not discussing any spiritual thing with an atheist and then he starts bashing your beliefs, then it is correct on your part to argue with him why you think you are right. But, other wise, there is no point going to an atheist yourself and saying that he is wrong. Likewise, if you are an atheist and some theist tells you that you are wrong for not believing in God, then fine, argue with him. But, when he is not saying anything, then keep your beliefs/non-beliefs to yourself. Any discussion can proceed only if there is some common ground on which both parties agree. To give an example, I have seen here many theists discussing spiritual matter and they quote Prabhupada. The common ground is that they may disagree on many things, but they do agree that Prabhupada was right. Let us consider a scenario. One person believes that Prabhupada is always right. For another, just because Prabhupada said something, it does not mean it is correct and for him his own guru is always right. The first person will keep on quoting Prabhupada and the second will keep on quoting his guru. Will this discussion really progress? When it comes to spiritual matters, can you think of a common ground on which both theists and atheists will agree?

With utmost respect Shakti-Fan, let me say that you have taken things completely out of context. When gopis did not give importance to the explanation given by Uddhav, it does not mean that Uddhav was saying something wrong. It simply means that gopis did not consider that knowledge as any use for them. There is a big difference here. You have written Agreed, but if we go by the position of the gopis, then the gopis would not have said any non-jnanic or non-philosophical things about the reality of space and time. They would have just not given any importance to such things. Of course, they might have said something poetic about space and time but that space and time would not have been the same as what we are talking about now. The position of gopis may be higher so far attaining Krsna-prema is concerned, but it does not mean that philosophical aspects are bad. If that were the case, Lord Kapil would not have explained philosophical things to His mother Devahuti; Lord Krsna would not have preached philosophical things to Arjuna in the beginning of Mahabharat war and Lord Krsna would not have given philosophical knowledge to Uddhav just before leaving this planet.

It has to be. All the particles that the physicists have found can decay. If soul is made up of these, then soul also has to decay. But it is against what our scriptures say. This means that soul is finer than even the fines particles that physicists have found. This means that soul is not physically a part of the organ called heart. To give an analogy, consider a cylinder open from both ends. There is some small object in the space inside the cylinder. We can say that the object is inside the cylinder. But if we move the cylinder to somewhere else, then the object will not move. This is because the object is not a part of the cylinder's body. Soul has to be more subtle than even the subtle matter. You are making an implicit assumption that soul exists in space. If it exists in space, then by the theory of relativity, it must exist in time also. But what if it is not bound by space and time? Quantum Physics says that space finer than around 10^-35 meter has no significance and time less than around 10_43 second has no significance. What it really means is that our whole concept of space and time becomes meaningless at scale smaller than these numbers.

I listened to the song and noted down its lyrics on a piece of paper. I will type it onto my computer. Have you seen the lyrics of the song somewhere in any script?

Now that we are at it ... Guest1111 wrote that he would like to be able to sing the Stotram better. So, the sound is important here. Therefore, the word "transcription" is even more accurate (though I admit that if I had read the word 'transliteration', I would have got what he really was asking for).

I just now checked the first post of this thread again and found that Guest1111 had written transliteration. First time, I had read it as translation.

Let me give an example to explain what I meant by root forms. In English, you have to remember go, went, gone (all the three). But do not do that for learning Sanskrit. Memorise only the root form. In this example, the root form is 'go'. Of course, go is an English word. To get an example from Sanskrit, consider the word 'path', which means 'to read'. Do not try to memorize various tense equivalents of 'path'. Rather just memorize that 'path' means to read and learn the rule of how to get various tense forms of a word. By part of speech I mean what we call 'kaarak' in Sanskrit - karta, karam, karn, sampradan, apadan, sambandh, adhikaran, and sambodhan. In any Sanskrit text book, you will see these mentioned. As you are already aware, pariikshartham is a combination of pariiksha and artham; pariiksha means test or examination and artham means for the sake of. Therefore, pariikshartham means ;for the sake of examination'. From the knowledge of English, we know that 'for the sake of examination' can also be written (at least in the given context) as 'for testing' or 'to test'. So, you should not try to find the equivalent of even words like 'to'. Rather see what the Sanskrit word actually converys and what words in English convey that meaning.

So far vocabulary is concerned, it is a must that there has to be some memorization. But memorization need not and should not be as much as in English. In English, just by knowing the root form of a word, you cannot tell how it sounds in past tense; you have to memorize both. But while learning Sanskrit, memorize the root forms of some simple (i.e. not compound) words. After that learn sandhi and samaas to see how words should be combined to form compound words. When you learn sandhi and samaas, then on seeing complicated word, you should be able to break it into individual simple words to know its meaning. Also, learn the tenses (lat, lot etc.) in Sanskrit and what rules should be followed to find the forms of a verb in various tenses. If you follow these rules, then memorizing only some words, you will be able to know the meanings of many more words. To understand the meaning of a sentence, you should see the meanings of individual words in it with correct part of speech and tense. After that translate only a small part of the sentence, which contains only subject and verb. Then insert the translations of the remaining. I have underlined "with correct part of speech and tense", because those who newly learn Sanskrit often ignore this and mostly face problems because of this. Consider the sentence you gave: - "panditaH shishyabuddhi pariikshartham prcchati" When I read the above sentence, then I paused to translate it into English and only after I had translated I read the remaining part of your message. The translation that I came up with is: - "The scholar asks to test the student's intelligence." As you can see, this translation is the same, in meaning, as the translation you posted though, of course, the wordings are different. Here is how I came up with the translation: - panditaH - scholar (part of speech is karta i.e. subject) shishyabuddhi - compound word meaning intelligence of students pariikshartham - for testing (or to test) prcchati - it is a verb. The root word has meaning 'to ask' and the word 'prcchati' is to be used in present tense with a subject, which is third person singular. What is the subject? The scholar What is the verb? Asks Then insert the translations of the remaining words keeping in mind correct tense and the parts of speech, as appropriate and you will come up with correct translation. Sanskrit Bharati is good for beginning.

No, the two are different. For changing language (say from Sanskrit to English), we have to consider the vocabulary and the grammar of the target language. But when we change script (say from Devanagari to English), then we have to consider how to something is written in the alphabets of the target script. Please PM me for my email id.

I thought you wanted English translation. But now I know that you just want it to be written in Roman script. Let me know where I can hear this song. Then I can write it in Roman script.

I just translated what you wrote. "devakinandana nanda-kumara vrndavananjana gokulacandra kandaphalasana sundara-rupa nanditagokula vanditapada" Meaning:- Salutations to the feet of the son of Devaki and Nand, the eyeliner of Vrndavan, the moon of Gokul, whose seat is made of roots and fruits, who is of beautiful form, who is the delighter of Gokul.

samjnaka or samyaka means 'proper'.

What kind of help do you want? Do you want these four words written in Devanagari?

The time to start and end fast is given in calendar. For ending fast, two time instants are given i.e. you should end fast between these two. For example, it may be given in the calendar that you should end fast between 6 AM and 9:45 AM of the day of dwadashi (the day after ekadashi). As I have noticed the start of this time-interval (6 AM in this example) is the time of sun-rise. You should check ekadashi timing for your local area. So, we should not choose any time. Time is given in calendar. In the story of king Ambarish and Maharshi Durvasa, it is written that Durvasa came to meet Ambarish on the day on which Amabrish had to break fast (i.e. he had kept fast the previous day). Durvasa left saying that he would come after some time. Ambarish did not want to eat anything because he first wanted to give suitable hospitality to Durvasa. But the time to end fast (9:45 AM in my example) was nearing. On the advice of his counsellors, king Ambarish broke the fast by sipping a little water. You have asked about my spiritual life. I don't think that my experience will be inspiring. As I can tell by reading the posts of others, I can say that majority of the others in these forums are far more staunch devotees than I am. But, since you asked let me answer. So far bhakti and jnana are concerned, these did increase. I can guess a reason for this. It is said that on the day of ekadashi, you should spend time thinking of God. When I started keeping ekadashi fasting, then I wondered, "If I can keep complete fast, which is often considered very difficult, then why can't I folow the other rules of ekadashi. So, let me meditate on God's name and also spend some time in reading scriptures." I will guarantee that Vairagya will increase with the passage of time if you keep fasting. There may be some kind of attachment, which may seem completely unrelated to fasting from food and water. But even that kind of attachment will reduce because of fasting. This is because fasting takes lots of resolve. Still, if you keep fast, then you will face very little to no difficulty in getting rid of the other kinds of attachments. I can say this from my experience. Now I have become such a person that I can comfortably live in various kinds of situations. If you give me cushion, I will sleep on that. If you ask me to sleep on floor, I will do that also. When I say I will do that also, it does not mean that I will feel problems but I will not say it to you. I will really not feel any problem. I have noticed this also from my experience.

I started complete fast from beginning itself and did not progress gradually. Though, for others, progressing gradually may be better. I do not think that we must fast from previous night. As I have read in caledndars, the ekadashi's timing is from sun-rise to sun-rise. One night before ekadashi I eat something and the morning after ekadashi I eat. In between I do not take any food and water. Including night-time, it becomes more than 24 hours of continues fast. First few times I did face some problems. Saliva used to start forming in my mouth a couple of hours before the sun rise of dwadashi. And in the night of ekadashi (starting from around 11 PM), I used to feel a kind of sensation in my palms as if some wave is flowing through my hands. With time these problems have almost vanished. To solve the problem of saliva formation, I sleep very little the night before ekadashi. Because of this I feel sleepy till the sun rise of dwadashi. Since I am comfortably sleeping I do not face problem. Of course, practice also helped. Some people say that you should lie awake on ekadashi day. I am not sure how important it is. If it is important for you, then of course, you need good sleep night before ekadashi. I also found from my experience that drinking water reduces the problem of saliva formation. Of course, I do not drink water on ekadashi day. But I had the habit of drinking very little water on other days also. In 24 hours, I rarely used to take only 2 or 3 glasses of water. Now I take more water (though of course not on ekadashi). The problem of the sensations in my hands got reduced with practice. Now it happens very little. When it happens I just rub my palms. One more tip I found from experience was not to be sitting idle on ekadashi day. First few times when I started keeping fast, I was under impression that I should take rest because I was without food and water. But I found that I was facing lots of problem because of that. I used to feel very unwell. Therefore, on ekadashi day also, I keep myself quite busy. I have found in some people that they eat a lot as soon as the time to end fast comes. But I want to say that it will create problems for your health. Let us assume that you have the habit of taking brekfast at 8 AM and the time to end fast is at 6:45 AM itself. After 6:45 drink some water. But take breakfast at 8 AM itself. And eat only as much as you usually eat. This is the rule that I follow.

I keep complete fast (i.e. without any food and water) on all ekadashis. Did it purify my body? Don't think so. I am sure that my body is still impure. More fundamentally, what exactly is meant by purified body? I have read that on ekadashis, you should not sleep. Sorry . That I am not able to follow. I can keep fast so long food is concerned. But I do sleep.

You have written that some of your friends have got the memories of their previous births. Did any of them verify that memory through some other means to make sure that what he learned from the technique was really what happened to him in previous birth? I am not saying that the technique has some fallacy. But I got this question in my mind and, therefore, decided to ask. Thanks.

Vaishnava Pronounce vai as va of value. sh is similar to sh of she but a little different. The difference is that while pronouncing sh in vaishava, you should touch upper part of inside of your mouth with your tongue and keep tongue slightly curled backward. na of vaishnava should be pronounced similar to the way na is usually pronounced ending in vowel a (a here is pronounced like a of abode), but keep tongue's position the way you keep while pronouncing sh in vaishnava. The last va is pronounced like normal v sound; end it in vowel a sound (again a is like a of abode). Note:- Hindi speaking people do not pronounce the last vowel a sound. Not only Hindi speaking people, majority of people (including English speaking) do not pronounce the last vowel a sound in a word.

It is not a joke, but since you asked: - Sri Prabhpada was once asked the same question and he said, "Yes, God can make such a stone." After a small pause he further said, "Then He will lift it." Frankly speaking I never understood this answer. If God is all powerful, then it is not possible for any stone to exist, which He cannot lift. However, consider the following two possibilities: - 1. God can make such a stone. 2. God cannot make such a stone. If we consider the first possibility, then it may be argued that God is not all powerful because there can be a stone, which God cannot lift. But Sri Prabhupada's answer indicates that God can make such a stone but then He will lift it. As I said I do not understand this answer. But there are many things which I do not understand. So, I cannot discard the answer just because I do not understand. According to the answer, God can make such a stone and He is still all powerful. If we consider second possibility, then it may be argued that we have found some limitation in God; there is something which He cannot do. But I beg to disagree. If God cannot make a stone which He cannot lift, then it does not say anything negative about God. Consider a mMathematician. You ask him to give a number less than 5 and greater than 20. He cannot give because such a number does not exist. Will you say that the mathematician's inability to find such a number shows limitation of his knowledge? I don't think so. The conditions 'greater than 5' and 'less than 20' are contradictory. It is not a limitation of anybody if he cannot satisfy contradictory conditions. Likewise, if God is all-powerful, then expecting Him to make a stone, which He Himself cannot lift it is expecting God to satisfy contradictory conditions (making such a stone is contradictory to His omnipotent nature). If God cannot do so, we cannot say that we have found any limitation in Him.

Yes, you are right. You have written 'Nomy' correctly.

So, God's phorograph is being used to advertise hashish and ganja.

Avinash's solicitor wishes to present an argument. Six is a winning number if 3 is a valid base. However commonly 10 is taken to be the base of number system. If so, then six is not a valid number. Before the opposing party jumps with joy in court, the solicitor would like to finish his argument. If only 10 is taken as valid base, then even 2 is not a valid base. But the computer through which both parties are giving their arguments is based on the base 2. If 2 cannot be taken as base, then computers do not exist, Internet does not exist, web sites do not exist, Audarya Fellowship does not exist, Good Clean Jokes forum does not exist, this thread does not exist, and posts in this thread do not exist. If the rival party accepts that all these things do not exist, then Mr. Avinash's will forego his claim of victory (when the contest does not exist, what does not victory mean?)