Avinash

The very fact that you have started this thread proves that you have concern that you might do something wrong (may be by mistake). It is possible that the concern is huge and it is possible that it is not. But one thing is certain that there is some concern regarding this in you. Therefore, use your conscience. When you do something wrong then, at least for sometime, you may feel that what you are doing is wrong. Many people just dismiss such thoughts. Do not dismiss them. Listen to your consicence. Do not always go by what society considers as right or wrong. I am not trying to say that if you follow society, you will always do but things. Even though I am asking not to always go by what society says, I am not suggesting that you must do against what society says. It is just that many people do many wrong things in order to earn the label of "social". Also, one must not think that it is OK for him to do wrong things (like stealing) if, in future, he has serious money problem. The word "serious" is vague. What kind of problem will you consider as serious? If I keep in my mind that I will be justified in stealing if, sometime in future, I face serious money problems, then I may steal even if I have money problem, but not so serious that I can not tolerate that problem. Since the seriousness of a problem can not be quantified, I may justify my action by saying that I had serious problem. If nobody catches me when I am trying to steal, then I will give the justification to myself. People try to give justification of their wrong deeds not only to others, but also to themselves. Their conscience tells them that they are doing something wrong. If that can not think of some excuse, then they will remember for a long time that they did something wrong, and therefore, they will continue to have guilty feeling. You may ask one question here:- If I say that I should not do wrong things even if it is very much needed, then is it not possible that there will really be a situation when I will need to do something which is otherwise considered as wrong? The answer is that if you are really in such a situation that you are justified in doing what is usually considered as wrong, then you will not feel bad in doing that.

Your post should be in "World Review" forum. Anyway.

This is 30,000th post in Spiritual Discussions forum. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Your post was no. 29999

Here is why I made that interpretation:- His post was, "If you ask me, it is easy to hide the true facts. Hence the wisdom of realising the fact that HE is always sleeping with OPEN eyes..!!" What is the connection between hiding the true facts and sleeping with OPEN eyes? I can guess that aince somebody is sleeping with OPEN eyes, one can not hide true facts from him. Even though people do not sleep with eyes completely shut (may be there are some), we can not say that they are aware of what is going on around them. Even though their eyes are partially open, they can not notice if you try to hide true facts from them. This is a very common knowledge, so this must be known to the guest also. Therefore I do not think that he was using the word "HE" as a pronoun to an ordinary male mortal when he tried to make a connection between hiding the true facts and sleeping with eyes OPEN. The only one who sleeps with eyes OPEN is, as per Puranas, Visnu. He is mentioned to be sleeping using his yoga-nidra. It is mentioned that even though He appears to be sleeping, He knows all the things that are going on in the universe. Many people who participate in this forum have some knowledge of Puranas. So, it is very much possible that the guest was also aware of Visnu appearing to be sleeping but completely aware. ___ Well this is just an interpretation. I think I have done enough advocacy, even though I am not an advocate by profession. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

To the guest who wrote the post titled "No more lesbian katha":- Is it you who wrote the post titled "Ahhhhh such men"? You are saying that you were talking about Vaisnavis. But it was not clear from your post "Ahhhhh such men". It seemed as if you were talking about women in general and men in general. If you were talking only about the women who have become "staunch rahmacarinis", then I agree with you that it is wrong on the part of some men to accuse them of being lesbians. But I would not say that these men make such accusations because they want to have sex with her and they can't. May be this is the reason. Or, may be there is some other reason. Whatever be the reason, I agree that they are not justified in making these accusations.

One guest wrote, "If you ask me, it is easy to hide the true facts. Hence the wisdom of realising the fact that HE is always sleeping with OPEN eyes..!!" Another guest wrote, "What the heck does THAT mean? Women are not sleeping with open eyes?" To the second guest: - I may be wrong, but I feel that when the first guest used the word "He", he was not using this as a pronoun for man. Rather he was using it for God. Perhaps, he is trying to say that even though God may appear to be sleeping, He is, in reality, wide awake (what we call as yoganidra). I repeat that this is what I could understand from his post. May be he really meant what you understood. Or, may be that he meant something neither of us understood.

Well, the yagas accepted cow sacrifice and there is mention of beef being served in the myths. Let us not degenerate to the absymal depths of regimented religions which were meant to address people of lesser intelligence, nomads and warring tribals. Are you saying that the yagnas were meant to address people of lesser intelligence, nomads and warring tribals? Or, is it something else that you are trying to convey?

A mother whose 5 year old has just been abducted, RAPED and murdered, "showing off" , come on. Grow up!!!! The woman who Theist and Gauracandra think was showing off, is not the mother of the child. It was some other woman. I did not watch the proceedings. So, I can not say whether she was showing off or not. But it appeared from your post that you were thinking that Theist and Gauracandra were accusing the deceased's mother as showing off. So, I just wanted to clarify.

I have met many talking humans! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Let livingentity prepare acceptance speech first. PS: The guest who gave the answer as 44 is also a good lateral thinker.

Congratulations to livingentity for getting at the right answer. Livingentity, You are given the award of "Mathematician of Audarya-fellowship". /images/graemlins/smile.gif

When I wrote "two times", then I was using it for the complete operation. In other words, perform the operation of subtracting 2 from 23. Do this operation not once but two times.

I'll wait for some more answers before telling the right answer.

I will ask you a very simple problem. Subtract 2 from 23 two times. What do you finally get?

It is said that sometimes people do wrong things because of bad situations. I agree that it is true to some extent. But, I have found that very often people try to justify their wrong deeds by saying that they had necessities. As an example, consider stealing because of poverty. From my personal experience I can say that it is possible to go without any food for days and without any house to live and still not steal food/money or do any other wrong thing. I am not saying that people can never be forced to do wrong things because of the situation they are in. But, in majority of the cases, I have found that a person can be principled even in bad situations.

As I have read in a few posts here, some participants are not able to login because of some technical problems. So, they have to post as guest. But I agree that there are also some who can register but still do not. It is always better to register if you can. Many people can post as "Guest". It is confusing to others. If, for some technical problem, you have to post as Guest, then always give your name at the end of your post. If you do not want to give your name, then write something at the end of all your posts so that others can understand that these posts are by the same person. Now, how about you registering? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It has already been replied in the "Letters to the Editor" forum of this portal. Visit http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat/cat/hinduism1/26295/0/collapsed/5/o/1

everybody is able to do anything they want at any time if we put our minds and hearts into it and believe. you make this world what it is. What if the wishes of two persons clash and both of them put their minds and hearts into their respective wish and believe?

As I have written, we can not claim that the verse 57.25 of Quran says that iron came to Earth from meteorites. It is just that it is your belief that iron came from meteorites, you are interpreting the verse to mean this. But, you may say that this is quite obvious interpretation. If that is the case, then consider the following vers: - "2:164. Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise. The verse says that God scatters beasts of all kinds through the Earth. If we interprete it to mean that, according to Quran, beasts on Earth come via meteories, then will you agree to such an interpretation? There are many other verses in Quran where it is written that God gave something on Earth. If you interprete the verses to mean that those things came via meteorites, then you will really find ridiculous things. Then, how can you claim that the verse 57.25 must be interpreted to mean that iron came via meteorties? Or, are you talking about some other verse? Since you did not mention the verse no, I assumed a verse which I think you are referring to. If you are referring to some other verse, then tell me the verse no.

ISLAM IT SAYS "THE WORLD ISN'T FLAT, IT IS ROUND". Where is it written in Quran? Just tell me the verse no. THAT IRON WASN'T A PART OF THE EARTH "WE" SENT IT. THE SCIENCE NOW PROVES THAT IRON WAS BROUGHT BY MATEORES ON EARTH, IT WASN'T A PART OF IT. Regarding iron, I could find the following in Quran: - "We sent our messengers supported by clear proofs, and we sent down to them the scripture and the law, that the people may uphold justice. And we sent down the iron, wherein there is strength, and many benefits for the people. All this in order for GOD to distinguish those who would support Him and His messengers, on faith. GOD is powerful, Almighty." The verse simply says that iron was given by God and that it is very useful to mankind. It does not say that it came to Earth via meteorites. Do you mean to say that those things which were there on Earth even before the first meteorite hit the Earth are not God-given? Then how does the statement that iron was given by God is equivalent to the statement that iron came to Earth from meteorites? Another important point. You are wrong in saying that Science has proved that iron did not exist on Earth before and that it came via meteories. Science does say that most of iron on Earth has come via meteories. But it is not that there was no iron before the first meteorite hit the Earth. Iron existed earlier also. Then more iron was added by meteorites. If there was no iron before, then what was the initial Earth made up of? THERE ARE ALOT MANY EXAMPLES. PERHAPS YOU CAN FIND THEM THROUGH A SEARCH ENGINE. If I use a search engine to find information on Quran, then I will find many pro-Islam sites and also many anti-Islam sites. So, I prefer to read Quran rather than use search engines. YOU SAID, YOU CAN FIND RIDICULOUS THINGS IN ANY RELIGION, WELL TRY FINDING OUT SOME IN YOURS. YOU'LL SURELY LAUGH. This is an assertion with no proof. I can simply say that you should try finding ridiculous things in Quran; you will simply laugh. Should this statement be considered as proof that Islam is ridiculous? No, it is not a proof. It is simply an assertion with no proof. Likewise, your statement also is an assertion with no proof. YOU SAID YOU'V READ "QURAN".. WELL IF YOU HAVE READ IT THEN YOU MUST NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS NOW. AS THE MODERN SCIENCE IS STILL RESEARCHING ON QURAN BECAUSE OF THE VAST KNOWLEDGE IT GIVES. Who are the scientists who believe that Quran contains scientific facts which were not known to scientists when Quran was written? IF YOU TAKE ANY MAJOR RELIGION OF THE WORLD. YOU'LL FIND THAT NO RELIGION TAKES "ANIMALS" TO BE SACRED. Just because other religions differ from Hinduism, it does not prove that Hinduism is wrong. Why can't it be other way round? TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH, IT WAS ONE OF THE EARLY BELIEFS OF THE DIS BELIEVERS, WHO USED TO WORSHIP ANIMALS. What do you mean by did-believers? Are you talking about those who do not believe in Islam? If yes, then before saying that dis-believers are wrong, you must prove why Islam is right. KAALI USED TO SEDUCE HER LOVER AND THEN KILL HIM You wrote that I should try finding the truth. But you yourself are posting things from here and there. Which verse in Hindu scriptures says that Kali used to seduce her lover and then kill him? Have you found this in some anti-Hindu site? If yes, then let me tell you that there are many anti-Islam site also available. WOULD YOU MIND PROVING THAT HINDUISM IS GOD MADE.. AND THAT IT IS FOR THE WHOLE HUMANITY. When I asked you to prove that Islam is God-made, then you tried to prove that Quran has many scientific facts which are still being researched by scientists. But, as I have shown, you have intentionally interpreted a Quran verse to show that, according to the verse, iron came from meteorites. But, that does not directly follow from the verse. I ask again. Who are the scientists who believe that Quran is very scientific? Do not just name those who are Muslims. Because it is highly likely (though not necessary) that they will be biased. It is a fact that many scientists the world over have been and are still doing research on the scriptures of Hinduism. They have found many knowledgeable things. Many of these scientists are not Hindus. Many are even atheists. You must have heard of Vedic Mathematics. You also must have heard of Ayurveda. Unlike you, I simply did not take some verse and forcibly interpreted it to show that it is scientific. WELL..BEFORE DOING SO ..TAKE A LOOK AT OTHER MAJOR RELIGIONS WHICH ARE FOR THE WHOLE HUMANITY. Again, an assertion without proof. Note: - When you want to have discussion on some religion, then you must have knowledge of that religion. And the web-sites which are anti-that religion are not good sources of information. Because you can find many anti-Islam sites also. But, definitely you will not agree with the contents of those sites. I have really read Quran. But, you are just pasting information on Hinduism from here and there.

1)ISLAM PROVED ALOT MANY THINGS 1400 YEARS BACK..WHICH ARE NOW DISCOVERED BY SCIENCE. There was a Muslim poster here with username fayarus. He gave a few verses from Quran to claim that Quran contains many scientific facts which are being found by science now. But I found that he was forcibly trying to interprete the verses to show that they were scientific. I gave my arguments to him. He could not offer any reply. He just kept on making assertions. I will find the thread and post the link here. I will reply to the rest of your post after some time.

I find it really funny to find that you accuse me of something of which your are guilty, not I. I did not write anywhere that Islam equates angels with Allah. As you have written, angels also have to worship Allah. If you read posts by many members of this site, you will find that they believe in many gods but they do not believe that any of these gods can be equated to Krsna whom they call as supreme. So, if many angels and one Allah is monotheism, then why is it that many gods and one Krsna is polytheism? ASK YOU IS THERE ANY RELIGION THAT HAS SO MANY gods AS THERE ARE IN HINDUISM? I agree that I do not know of any religion which has as many gods as in Hinduism. But why is it impossible to have many gods? NO OTHER RELIGION SAYS THAT A CERTAIN ANIMAL IS VERY SACRED AND IS TRETED LIKE GOD..BUT HINDUISM DOES SO...COW IS SACRED You are displaying your ignorance. There is a big difference between considering some creature as sacred and equating it to God. Cows are sacred. That does not mean that Cows are considered equal to God. MONKEYS ARE THERE AS "HANUMAN", ELEPHANTS ARE THERE AS GANESH... Again, you are displaying your ignorance. It is not that all monkeys are considered as Hanuman or that all elephants are considered as Ganesh. Hanuman was a being whose face was like that of a monkey. Ganesh is a god whose face is like that of an elephant. DOESN'T THIS ALL SOUND RIDICULOUS TO YOU.. Depends on what you want to see. I can find ridiculous things in all religions. THE TRUTH IS..HINDUISM ISN'T A RELIGION AT ALL...IT IS MAN MADE. NO OTHER RELIGION IS LIKE HINDUISM , WHETHER IT BE ISLAM,CHRISTIANITY,JEWIDSM. On what basis can you say that Islam is not man-made? BETTER TRY FINDING OUT THE TRUTH BEFORE IMPOSING ANY QUESTION. I posted the question after reading Quran. But you have made your post without trying to find the truth.

The word used in Gita is "savyasachi". This word is used for a person who can shoot arrows even with left hand. Arjuna could should arrows with right hand and also with left hand. The word "left hander" is not accurate translation. When we call somebody a left hander, then what we mean is that he is better at using left hand than right hand. It is not that Arjuna could not shoot with right hand. He could shoot equally well with either hand. It is just that, for many people, it was more difficult to shoot arrows with left hand than with right hand, and therefore, Krsna emphasized that Arjuna could shoot arrows with left hand.

Another interesting question. What is better: personal experience or logical conclusion? In my view, if I do not have to convince somebody of something-I only want proof for myself, then personal experience is better. If I want somebody else to believe in something and I can make him have the personal experience of that, then also personal experience is better. As an example, I can use the knowledge of Einstein's mass energy equivalence and the details of nuclear reactions in a nuclear bomb to understand that the disasters of a nuclear bomb are huge. But my understanding of the disaster will not be as good as that of a person who have witnessed the disaster personally. But if I want somebody to believe in something and I can not make him have the personal experience of it, then logical explanation is a must.

Another interesting question. What is better: personal experience or logical conclusion? In my view, if I do not have to convince somebody of something-I only want proof for myself, then personal experience is better. If I want somebody else to believe in something and I can make him have the personal experience of that, then also personal experience is better. As an example, I can use the knowledge of Einstein's mass energy equivalence and the details of nuclear reactions in a nuclear bomb to understand that the disasters of a nuclear bomb are huge. But my understanding of the disaster will not be as good as that of a person who have witnessed the disaster personally. But if I want somebody to believe in something and I can not make him have the personal experience of it, then logical explanation is a must.