Avinash

What you have written in the last post has something to do with how we define love. Same statement can become literal or figurative depending on how the words in the statement are defined. If we define love in such a way that love should exclude hate (as seemed from your first post in this thread), then the literal meaning of 'love is everywhere' is something which we know is not true (in fact you yourself indicated this in your first post). On the other hand, if we deine love in such a way that even hate becomes a kind of love (as indicated in your previous post), then the literal meaning of 'love is everywhere' is something which we know to be true. Since we would like to close this discussion, I think I should not answer what I think of the statement 'hate is also a form of love'. Thank you.

You may find the following threads relevant: - http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/spiritual-discussions/48086-brother-avinash.html http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/spiritual-discussions/43031-believing-scripture-divine.html http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/spiritual-discussions/42707-what-essential-beliefs-hinduism.html

Now that you have got the answer to the question you raised in the beginning of this thread, let us tackle your another question. As with any other statement, we should take "I am the light" also in its proper context if we want to learn what it means. The statement "I am the light" is taken from B.G. 7.8. The verse says: - "O son of Kunti, I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man." If you read this verse and later verses in that chapter (7) of Gita, you will find that Krsna is calling Himself as the source of everything. Indeed in 7.6, He says: - "Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both its origin and dissolution." So when Krsna says, "I am the light in the Sun and the Moon.", it means He is saying that He is the source of the light as of everything else that exists.

In the last post you have talked about my beliefs. But this topic is different from the topic in the first post of this thread. In the first post, you wrote that God is love and God is everywhere should mean love is everywhere. I merely tried to point out why we should not make the conclusion that you have made. It has nothing to do with whether I believe in these two statements (postulates) or not.

I do not have any problems in questioning my beliefs. I always question my beliefs whether they are related to spirituality or science or anything. Suppose somebody asks me questions on Huygen's wave theory of light. I will answer based on what that theory says. It does not mean that I believe in that theory. Suppose somebody asks me whether light is longitudinal or transverse wave according to Huygen's theory. I will answer longitudinal. But in reality I believe light to be transverse wave. Then why should I answer longitudinal? This is because the question is not what I believe. The question is what Huygen's theory says. In some cases, what I believe is the same as what the theory in question says and in some cases, it is different. Similarly, when you are asking questions on 'God is love' and 'God is everywhere', then I am not answering based on what my beliefs are. Rather I am answering based on what people mean when they make the statements like 'God is love' and 'God is everywhere'. When I used the word 'faulty logic', I am not talking about finding faults in my logic (or my beliefs). Rather I am talking about finding faults in the statements 'God is love' and 'God is everywhere'. In the first post of this thread, you tried to show problem with these two statements. I am not claiming that the two statements can never be wrong. I am also not claiming that one should never question the beliefs in these two statements. All I am saying is that the two statements are not wrong because of what the conclusion you have drawn. There is a difference between saying that 'a statement is not wrong' and 'a statement is not wrong because of what you say'. See the difference?

I started observing ekadashi fasting only from 17 Oct. So, I missed many. I think 30 Dec is the ekadashi you are talking about because that is the last ekadashi of this year.

Yes, heard about Vaikuntha ekadashi a lot. But didn't want to break my rule of observing complete fasting on all ekadashis. Of course, started this rule quite recently (for the last few ekadashis). But want to continue this. From the posts on this thread I find that 1 Dec is ekadashi. Just now I checked the calendar in http://vcal.iskcongbc.org/. There also 1 Dec is mentioned as ekadashi. So, doubt clarified now. You have mentioned Vaikuntha ekadashi. This reminds me of a story in Brahm Vaivarta Purana (not having that Purana with me now as one of my colleague's wife has borrowed it from me). In that Purana, Bhima says to Krsna that he can fast on only one ekadashi. Lord Krsna mentions one ekadashi. I wonder if it is vaikuntha ekadashi.

In some web pages it is written that the next day for ekadashi fasting is 16 Dec and in some it is written that 1 Dec is also the day for ekadashi fasting. Please reply fast if 1 Dec is the day for ekadashi fasting or not.

Yes, it is true that the statement 'God is love' is by definition. But the people who use this definition do not mean that God is just a concept (or feeling) called love. But the conclusion you have drawn would be valid only if 'God is love' meant God is another just another word for the concept (or feeling) called love. Let me take an analogy. If a person becomes highly successful, then we often say that he has become synonymous with success. As per dictionary meaning of the word 'synonymous', when we say 'X is synonymous with Y', it means that X and Y are two words to mean the same thing. Suppose that a person X is so successful that people often call him synonymous with success. Consider the following argument:- X is synonymous with success. In other words, X means success. I want success. This means I want X. But when I say I want success, do I really mean that I want X? No. So, what is the fallacy in the argument? The fallacy is in assuming that the word synonymous in 'X is synonymous with success' means literally the same as (as defined in dictionary). But this assumption itself is wrong. Likewise, 'God is love' does not mean that God is just another word for love. When a person says something and you want to prove his statement as logically faulty, then you must derive the same meaning of his statement as what he himself means. If two people use the same statement to mean entirely different things, then anything can be proven wrong.

Suppose I ask you the following question:- What is the proof that x multiplied by x is the square of x, where x is a number? What would you answer? The correct answer is that it is by definition. We have defined 'square of a number' as the number multiplied by itself. Since it is by definition, it does not require any proof. Likewise 'God is a being' is by definition. That is how the word 'God' has been defined. When atheists say that they do not believe in God, it does not mean that they have some other definition of God. They also define God the way theists define. But they say that a being as per such a definition does not exist. To give an analogy, suppose a scientist says that he does not believe in the theory of Big Bang. It does not mean that he does not agree with the supporters of Big Bang over how to define the term 'Big Bang'. He agrees. But he says that the theory is wrong. Likewise, atheists also agree that the word God is used to mean a being with various qualities that theists talks about. But they do not believe that such a being exists. When atheists use the word 'God' they do mean a being who is eternal. But they do not believe in the existence of such a being. Asking the proof of 'God is a being' is the same as asking the proof that x multiplied by x is the square of x.

Yes, you can say that. If God were just a concept then even atheists would believe in God because they do believe in the concepts that theists often associate with God, e.g., they do believe that love exists.

If we do not take 'God is a being' literally, then we would have to assume that God is just a concept. By concept I do not necessarily mean love; it can be any concept or a combination of many concepts. By the word 'being' I do not necessarily mean a living being which is one of the living beings that we know of. All I mean is that God is a being with consciousnes (i.e. not just some inert matter). He can be with form and formless both. He can be in various forms simultaneously. (I am sure you have a question on this but I will wait for your question before giving an answer).

That is correct. To my statement that God is a being you asked When I wrote 'God is a being.' I meant that God is not just a concept. Love is a concept. If we take 'God is love' literally it would mean that God is just a concept known as love. But I am trying to say that this thinking is wrong. If you ask how I am so sure that God is not only a concept, the answer is based on the definition of God. Even atheists do not consider God as just a concept. Of course, atheists do not believe in God. But when they say that they do not belive in the existence of God, it does not mean that they do not belive in the existence of love. Many atheists do believe that love exists, but they do not believe that God exists. Theists belive that there is a being whom we call as God and they associate many qualities with such a being. Atheists belive that no being having these qualities exist. In brief, the answer to the question "How am I so sure that God is a being" is that this is by definition. Is it possible (at least in theory) for a person to be both completely honest? I am not sure that such a person exists or not. But, at least in theory, it is possible. If a person is completely honest, can we say that he has no place for any other feeling? Not at all. He can be completely honest and can also have other feelings. When we say God is full of love, it does not mean that love is some object which is present inside God's body as if something is present inside a container. When I wrote "God loves all of creation" you asked I was merely explaining the meaning of the statement 'God is love'. I was only trying to explain that the way theists interprete 'God is love' does not lead to the conclusion that you drew in the first post of this thread. Both Attaining God is also known as liberation (or mukti). Different people have different beliefs as to what liberation (i.e. attaining God) means. A few months back, I explained this to another poster in another thread. I will try to find that thread and post its URL here.

You have written:- God is love. Love is everywhere. The above two conclude that love is everywhere. The problem with the above conclusion is taking figurative statement as literal. Not only in statements related to spirituality but otherwise also we often make figurative statements. As an example, suppose that you have one son and one daughter. You love them equally. You may say, "For me there is no difference between my son and my daughter. They are equal." Does it mean that your son and your daughter are identical? Not at all. It simply means that you give them equal importance. The conclusion made by you is valid provided God and love are two different words to mean exactly the same thing. But this is not true. God is a being. Love is a quality. How can a being with indentical with a quality? Rather the statement "God is love" means that God is full of love. He loves all of creation. It also means that if you want to attain God, then love one another.

Your choice. But I personally feel that you should write your experiences somewhere. Who knows? Memory can fail anytime.

I have not come across any incident in which a person at the time of death claimed seeing yama or yamadootas. But I do remember an incident in which a child claimed that she was seeing her deceased mother. The child died of cancer when she was only six years old. When she was only about two year old, her mother passed away. Her aunt (mother's sister) took care of her after that. She always addressed her aunt as her mother and never asked or mentioned about the mother who gave birth to her. But, just before her death, she frantically told everyone to move aside. She said that her mother had come. People pointed towards her aunt and said to her, "This is your mother." She replied, "Yes, she is my mother. But my other mother has come. Do not block the way." And she was very happy that her mother had come to visit her.

What were you doing on the third wednesday of the August month ten years back in the current life? You must answer this from memory and not from some diary.

How did you know that the planet was Neptune and not some other?

Seems good http://acharya.iitm.ac.in/sanskrit/tutor.php

This thread should be in Sanskrit forum. Anyway ... We thought the questions were related to English grammar. Genitive case indicates possession. So, you are right; rAmasay and sivasya are examples of genitive case. Dative is used in the sense of 'for the sake of'. So, you are again right. Just make one small correction. It should be rAmAya and not ramAya i.e. longer a sound after r if you are talking about Lord Rama (pronounced rAma). But if you are talking about ramA (i.e. Laxmi), then ramAya is fine. (May be it was just a type.) Again, correct.

It is true that Vedas prescribe animal sacrifice. But, we must see why. In other words, what do we gain by animal sacrifice. And do we really want to gain that? To take an analogy, various studies have shown that some kind of meat is good for health. I know many in this forum will oppose this and say that meat-eating can never be good for health. But I am not arguing over whether meat-eating is really good for health or not. What I am asking is the following : - "If it is true that meat-eating is good for health, does it prove that it is good to eat meat?" If you say no, then I can as well say that animal sacrifice is not good even though it is prescribed in Vedas. Let us see why: - Vedas say that demigods become happy because of animal sacrifice and they let us spend some time in heavenly planets. But is it good to kill animals just to get chance to spend some time in heavenly planets? It is similar to asking if it is good to kill animals if we find that eating meat is good for health? Let us see what Lord Krsna Himself says in this regard: - In Uddhava Gita Krsna says to Uddhava, "SB 11.21.23:Those statements of scripture promising fruitive rewards do not prescribe the ultimate good for men hut are merely enticements for executing beneficial religious duties, like promises of candy spoken to induce a child to take beneficial medicine." If you read this verse in context, you will find that Lord Krsna is talking about karma-knda portion of Vedas. Animal sacrifice is a part of karma-kanda. Lord Krsna clearly says that these rituals prescribed in karma-kanda do not prescribe the ultimate good. SB 11.21.26:"Persons with perverted intelligence do not understand this actual purpose of Vedic knowledge and instead propagate as the highest Vedic truth the flowery statements of the Vedas that promise material rewards. Those in actual knowledge of the Vedas never speak in that way." Here Krsna says that material rewards mentioned in Vedas do not constitute the highest Vedic truth. Spending some time in heavenly planets is also a kind of material reward because we do not stay in these planets for ever. The following verses of Uddhava Gita bring this point very clearly: - SB 11.21.29-30: Those who are sworn to sense gratification cannot understand the confidential conclusion of Vedic knowledge as explained by Me. Taking pleasure in violence, they cruelly slaughter innocent animals in sacrifice for their own sense gratification and thus worship demigods, forefathers and leaders among ghostly creatures. Such passion for violence, however, is never encouraged within the process of Vedic sacrifice. SB 11.21.31: Just as a foolish businessman gives up his real wealth in useless business speculation, foolish persons give up all that is actually valuable in life and instead pursue promotion to material heaven, which although pleasing to hear about is actually unreal, like a dream. Such bewildered persons imagine within their hearts that they will achieve all material blessings. SB 11.21.32: Those established in material passion, goodness and ignorance worship the particular demigods and other deities, headed by Indra, who manifest the same modes of passion, goodness or ignorance. They fail, however, to properly worship Me. SB 11.21.33-34: The worshipers of demigods think, "We shall worship the demigods in this life, and by our sacrifices we shall go to heaven and enjoy there. When that enjoyment is finished we shall return to this world and take birth as great householders in aristocratic families." Being excessively proud and greedy, such persons are bewildered by the flowery words of the Vedas. They are not attracted to topics about Me, the Supreme Lord. Also see what Krsna says to Arjuna in Bhagavad Gita in this respect: - BG 2.42-43: "Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this."

drkpp, While translating 'Ok, are you in love yet?", you have assumed that 'you' refers to a female. But, is it necessary that this is what the questioner asked?

Consider the English sentence "I kicked the ball." Here 'I' is subject, 'kicked' isn verb and 'the ball' is object. So, the order is subject + verb + object. When people translate this sentence into Sanskrit, then they usually keep the order as subject + object + verb i.e. "I the ball kicked". But often you will find other orders too like subject + verb + object, verb + subject + object etc. All of these are correct. Now, a question can arise as to how the meaning remains the same even on changing the word order when we know that in English changing the word order changes the meaning and sometimes makes the sentence as meaningless. The answer is that in English the relative place of a word (or a set thereof) in a sentence determines what part of speech it belongs to. In "I kicked the ball.", "the ball" is object. In "The ball kicked me.", 'The ball" is subject. So, the same set of words, viz., "the ball" can be subject or object depending on its relative position in the sentence. But in Sanskrit, the word itself tells what part of speech it belongs to. The Sanskrit translation of 'ball' is 'kandukah' if it is subject. If it is object, then it is 'kandukam'. So, wherever we see 'kandukah', we know it is subject; wherever we see 'kandukam, we know it is object. Even on changing word order, 'kandukah' remains subject and 'kandukam' remains object. Therefore, the order of words does not matter as much as in English.

dīpikā: Here it is. Do you want some other kind of image?

I can answer what the original poster has asked. But, before I do that, like Rukmini Devi Dasi, I would like to know why he asked that in 'Spiritual Discussions' forum. I find that the original poster has not come back.