Avinash

Are the verse written by Sri Ramanujacarya and the one in Mahabharat exactly same? If not, which one matches the famous school prayer?

Could someone tell me the source of the verse

tvameva mAtA ca pitA tvameva... ?

Thanks

I had seen these questions earlier. I am telling truly that I did all correct (both now and at that time).

In fact, the question that asks us to add some numbers surprised me. I got the answer 4100. I do not understand why some people will get the answer as 5000. (I must add here that I did the calculations in my mind in Hindi and not in English; did that help?)

I have read whole of Valimiki Ramayana. I have not read anything that depicts Rama drinking or dancing.

You are every now and then saying that Islam is the only true religion, Quran is the only book revealed by God, etc. etc.

Please note that saying something over and over again does not prove it.

What you may accept as a moon as stated by the scientists may not be such at all.

What do you call as moon?

I seriously doubt the moon is a satellite of earth.

Do you doubt that moon revolves round the Earth?

Are professional sound-bytes or popular belief the measure of all things? You are demonstrating blind faith. You simply believe what they tell you. You cannot practice it as you can Krsna consciousness.

Blind faith? You have written that you want evidence from shastras. Why is it not blind faith to believe that shastras can not be wrong? You may say that they are God's word. But, what is the evidence that these are God's word? You may say that great acharyas consider these as infallible. But what is the evidence that these acharyas are not wrong? or popular belief the measure of all things? You are demonstrating blind faith. You simply believe what is written in some books.

Dont forget to answer me with that proof I requested. Just saying the stars are suns proves nothing. Science can't prove that.

How do you define "sun" and how do you define "star"?

By sun here I mean the start that is revolved around by planets.

In that sense there are many suns, not just one.

What is the meaning of the word moon? If moon means a natural satellite of some planet, then there are many moons. But, it by moon, one means the natural satellite of the planet on which we are residing, then of course, there is only one moon.

I have messenger. My email-id is avi_sahay@

This is taken from Bhaja-Govindam of Adi Sankaracarya. The meaning is :-

"The company of the good takes one away from false atttachments;

When attachment is lost, delusion ends;

When delusion ends, the mind becomes steady;

From steady mind comes liberation even in this life."

After I joined the forum, Shvu was the first member whom I found using the word "Cheers". Some others started doing it latter.

But, I can claim that spiritualsri is not Shvu.

After reading reply, I read the whole of Genesis once again.

It is written in Genesis 5.4:

"After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years. During that time, Adam had other sons and daughters. So Adam lived a total of 930 years; then he died."

May be that Azura was one of these daughters of Adam.

Do not worry. I will start some new thread.

Or, may be I will get bored by that time. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Some members on this forum have good knowledge of Christianity. I thought of taking advantage of their knowledge. There are some members who feel that, because of their lack of knowledge on Hinduism, they can not contribute as much to the discussion in various threads here as many others can.

This thread should make them happy.

I will be posting my doubts on Bible in this thread. I request you to please clarify them for me.

My first question:-

Genesis says that Enosh was Seth's son. Who was Enosh's mother? Is she mentioned in Bible?

Hey, how is everybody?

I am fine, thank you. How are you?

Well, I think by now it is pretty obvious I'm a Christian.

Even if it was not, it has become obvious from the above sentence of yours.

My faith won't change, but I've got some questions to ask you that should make you think?

It is not at all my intention to make you change your faith. Don't hesitate to ask any questions.

If we can work to god on our own through works, knowledge, and devotion, why do we need a god? Shouldn't the god be saving you, after all, he's perfect. That's what a god is.

Just because God is capable of saving us, does not mean that He will save us even if we do not do anything on our part. If we do not deserve being saved, why should He save us?

Obviously you aren't monotheistic, but how can you have more than one god? A god is all powerful. If you have a little god, and then you have Krishina, then the little god isn't even worthy of being a god. It doesn't make sense

People on this forum consider themselves to be monotheistic. It is not possible to have more than one God, but it is definitely possible to have more than one god. The "little god" is definitely not worthy of being a God, but he is definitely worthy of being a god. Does it make sense now?

I believe that nobody can earn their way to heaven, or nirvana, on their own or with any human's help. We need a god. We can't be perfect. Please, if you need help, pray to God, (not Krishina or any other god) and ask him to save you.

The devotees of Krsna believe Krsna to be God. So, praying to Krsna is the same as praying to God.

Jesus came to die for our sins.

It is so unfortunate that there are some (though not all) who think that just because they are Christians, they can do anything they like and they will not be committing any sins because Jesus died for their sins.

If you can ever get a copy of The Holy Bible in India, please read John 3:16.

I have read entire Bible and now also I read. I do not find any harm in reading the holy books of other religions even if I do not have any intention of changing my religion. How about you also trying to read Bhagvatam, Gita etc?

I know I'm not being very tolerant. And by not being tolerant, I may not sound loving. I'm writing this message in love, not to prove that you are wrong.

Even if you are not tolerant, I love you.

Jesus came in love, he didn't come in pride, he was weak and humble, but he was the most powerful man to ever walk the earth.

I can understand that he came in love and that he was very powerful, though I would disagree that he was the most powerful man to ever walk on Earth.

I'm just a kid.

Because of this, I love you even more. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

ggohil ji,

Are you the same who used to post here long back? Where were you?

She has already created an account with username "Victoria".

I feel that a major reason for boredom in life is that we affect our way of living adversely by listening a lot to what others say.

Suppose that a person wants to make his career in some field. He is really interested in that career. If some people known to him tell him that it is not a good career option and they suggest him some other option, then he does what others say. So, he takes up a kind of job that does not interest him. By the time he realises that he made a wrong decision, it is too late.

I have given an example of blindly following what others say regarding one's career. But this is true with many aspects of one's life.

Deciding one's career, deciding the career of one's children, deciding whether one should stay in one's own country or go abroad, deciding the things that should be bought in one's house-------in all of these and in many others we just do what others say.

I am not saying that it is true with everyone, but most of us do so.

What I consider as really funny is that even for deciding on entertainment, we follow what others say.

Contact him at

jndas@

There must be some temples present in your area. You can get beads there.

There is so much I want to learn, but I know it will take time, and I have to be patient.

No, I do not want you to become a patient. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Just chant in a melodious voice:-

Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

I wrote in my previous post that the measurement of time duration depends on the frame of reference. But how to measure this duration?

Suppose that we have devised a technique such that the moment the plane takes off at A, signal starts from the plane and reaches the clock and time is recorded. When the plane lands at B, then again a signal from the plane reaches the clock and this time is also recorded. Will the difference between the two give me the correct time duration of the flight? The answer is no. This is because the plane is not touching the clock. So, any signal from the plane takes some time to reach the clock. So, the time of take off recorded in the clock is not the exact time of take off. Similarly, the time of landing recorded in the clock is not the exact time of landing. Let

tA = actual time of take off,

dtA = time taken by the signal to move from the plane to my clock when the plane takes off,

tB = actual time of landing,

dtB = time taken by the signal to move from the plane to my clock when the plane lands.

Then,

the time of take off recorded in the clock = tA + dtA,

the time of landing recorded in the clock = tB + dtB.

Therefore, the calculated duration of flight = (tB + dtB) - (tA + dtA)

= (tB - tA) + (dtB - dtA)

This is wrong because the correct result is tB - tA.

So, we have to make correction. Suppose that I make correction and get the correct result. You also make the correction and get the correct result in your frame of reference. Both of us have got correct results. Even then, the results will be different.

__________

Any questions so far?

I will talk somewhat about the special theory of relativity. According to this theory, the duration of time of any incident depends on the frame of reference from where the mesurements are made. Suppose that I am watching some aeroplane start at A and move to B. I have a very very accurate clock. The moment the plane starts at A, the time of take off is recorded in the clock. The moment it stops at B, the time of landing is also recorded. By calculating the difference, I can find out how much time the plane took.

Assume that you also have a similar clock and you are also making these measurements. The result which you get will not necessarily be the same as the result that I get. The difference between the two results will depend on the relative speed between the two of us. If we are not moving relative to each other, then we will get the same result.

(The difference depends not only on relative speed, but also on gravity, but as of now, let us ignore that; I will talk about that latter).

The greater our relative speed, the more will be the difference between our results.

Astral matter is also material.Subtle material energy.

In that case, it is the same space.

As you might have guessed, the previous post is by me.

In this post and some of latter posts, I am going to talk on the concept of time and space from scientific perspective. But, I will try to do my best in such a way that it is quite easy to at least grasp the concepts.

Let me start with a question. Why do we feel that there is time? I am not asking what any scientific theory says about time. I am asking from a layman's perspective.

We perceive time because we perceive changes, isn't it?

When there was no matter, then there was nothing to change. And hence there could not be any time. It may sound very strange, but just think over it and you will feel that it is quite obvious that there could not be time when there was nothing to change.

Does it mean that time came after matter? It can't be. After all, whenever something exists, it has to exist at sometime. But I have also shown above that time can not exist without matter. So, time did not come before matter and time did not come after matter. What option are we left with? The only option which is left is that time and matter came together. This is exactly what modern science says.

Big band theory does not say that there was a big explosion at one point in the universe. The explosion had at each and every point in the universe. To take an analogy, suppose that you have a balloon and you are trying to expand it by blowing air into it. Consider the surface of the balloon as the universe. Does expansion happen at one point on the surface of the balloon? No. It happens everywhere. Suppose that you have a telescope. And suppose that it is possible for you to make any measurements you like and any calculations you like. You try to find out the place at which the big-bang took place. Do you know what answer you would get? You will find that the big-bang happened at the eye of your telescope. You will get this result no matter wherever in the universe you try this experiment.