Avinash

Dear mmaranr,

You are saying that children should not be told anything related to religion at all. They should not even be told if there is any God. I can point several problems with this approach. Let me start with one. I will add more as discussion progresses.

Assume that some religious festival is going on in the house. Should children be involved or not? If they are not involved, won't they feel alienated? And if they are involved, then the elders are, in a way, teaching them

about religion which, according to you is child abuse.

It seems we have forgot the topic of the thread. Just thinking about soma does this to mind; what will happen if we really take soma?

So, we come to the conclusion that we won't take.

Now, what were we discussing?

How is it decided which veda an upanishad belongs to. Are all the verses in the upanishad also present in the corresponding veda?

<QUOTE>

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: My dear Arjuna, this form of Mine you are now seeing is very difficult to behold. Even the demigods are ever seeking the opportunity to see this form, which is so dear.

</QUOTE>

As you can see, in this translation, drstvAnasi has been translated as 'you are now seeing'. But the word-for-word translation gives 'you have seen'. When we translate the word as 'you are now seeing', then we are talking about the form that Arjuna was seeing then i.e. Krsna's two handed form. But, when we translate the word as 'you have seen', then we are talking about the form that Arjuna had seen previously i.e. either Krsna's four handed form or cosmic form.

Here is a nice link that discusses this issue in great detail. Leyh, if you read this article the apparent contradictions will be resolved for you.

I read it and liked it a lot. Thank you for the link. Mostly I liked 'Origin Of The Soul'. I read that more than once.

Who in the heaven has maximum amount of Soma? Is it Indra? If yes, then I will remember to steal Soma from his room, when I go there.

But, what if I go to hell?

Can I bribe the gatekeepers of hell? Or, can I bribe Yama himself?

I am sorry. I was wrong. The price is Rs. 720 and it is in six volumes.

It may seem that the first post in this thread has no relevance to the title of the thread and that the post belongs to Sanskrit forum. But, in reality the post has everything to do with the title of the thread and the post belongs to this thread, as will become quite clear now: -

Isn't it true that far more people saw Krsna's two handed form than those who saw His cosmic form? After all, the two handed form was also seen by Kauravas, and by many kings who used to fight Krsna. But none of them saw His cosmic form. Only Arjuna saw. Does it not make the cosmic form rarer?

Sri Prabhupada translates the word as 'you are seeing' and he concludes that Krsna was talking about his two handed form. I have a book by Sri Gambhirananda which contains translations of verses in Bhagwad Gita and also the translations of Sankaracarya's commentaries on these verses. He translates the word as 'you have seen' and he concludes that Krsna was talking about his cosmic form.

Mahabharata is available with Gita press. Its cost is a little over Rs. 1000.

Of course, I still owed you a big one for your kind assistance earlier on the Sri Caitanya Bhagavata, so all my grumbling must seem like thanklessness to you. But I am still very grateful.

I may be wrong but I think that you are thanking me for something that somebody else has done. Are you sure that I assisted you on Sri Caitanya Bhagvata? I do not remember when I did that.

There was no need for games; we are not idiots who would cheat you by not being honest in our translations for whatever reason you perceived.

An idiot can not cheat others. One needs to be smart in order to cheat others. Anyway, I did not tell the context not because I feared that I would be cheated. As I have mentioned in one of my posts above, I have read two translators translating the word 'drstvAnasi' in entirely different ways. If initially itself I had told the context, then anyone who does not know Sanskrt would have consulted his copy of Gita translation and given me the meaning from there. For example, you might have given translation by SP. Somebody might have given by Chinmayananda, somebody from Gambhirananda and so on. As you can very well understand, this would not have answered my question. That is why I just asked the meaning of drstvAnasi so that somebody who knows Sanskrit could give me the meaning of word.

In case you are interested what two translations I am talking about, they are by Sri Prabhupada and Sri Gambhirananda.

My very dear gHari ji

As you must have noticed by now, I maid the context clear immediately after it was asked by Tarun ji. I fail to understand why you were trying to find the verses that contain drstVa and/or nasi? These two words are entirely different from drstvAnasi.

Are you trying to say that

drstvAnasi = drstvA + nasi?

The very fact that I asked the meaning of some word in Sanskrit shows that I am not at home in Sanskrit. But, on the basis of whatever knowledge I have, I can say that no rule of sandhi in Sanskrit allows us to combine the words drstvA and nasi to make a single word drstvAnasi. Please correct me if you think I am wrong.

When Arjuna thus saw KRSNa in His original form, he said: O JanArdana, seeing this humanlike form, so very beautiful, I am now composed in mind, and I am restored to my original nature.

Sri Prabhupada has given meaning of each word in the verse. When I read that, I could not find the Sanskrit equivalent of When Arjuna thus saw KRSNa in His original form

Will it help me in developing softwares fast?

How did the idea that Sankarcarya was an incarnation of Lord Siva originate?

Possible reasons for such unrealistic numbers are a wild imagination and/or excess Soma juice and/or smoking Pot.

Excess soma juice? That is a nice suggestion.

Does anyone here know the recipe for soma juice? I would like to prepare that. I won't offer it to gods. I want it for myself.

Also, I feel that some of the verses should not be taken literally, because the author used poetic license. To give just one example, it is mentioned in Bhagwatam that when Sukdev was leaving his house, then his father Ved Vyasa called his name. The trees responded by calling Sukdev's name.

I think that there was echo from trees (though I may be wrong). Irrespective of whether or not the author knew why echo happens, he must have observed many times that when you should near trees, walls etc., then you hear your voice back.

If the author had written that the voice of Ved Vyasa got reflected from the trees, then it would sound very dull. But saying that the trees responded to Ved Vyasa, sounds very poetic.

Again from the same site (regarding Jaya and Vijaya) :-

Actually, they never came here and became demons. Only a part of them manifested in this world in order to give the Lord pleasure. Bhagavan came in the form of Lord Nrsimhadeva and Lord Varaha to fight with their manifestations, and the complete and original Jaya and Vijaya remained in Vaikuntha as gatekeepers.

This made me wondering if there is any Avinash in Vaikuntha whose part manifestation I am?

From the same site: -

Someone wrote Prabhupada a letter and asked, "Did we ever see Krsna?" Prabhupada replied, "Yes, we saw Krsna, just as the child was with the father before coming out of the mother's womb."

["Regarding your second question, have the conditioned souls ever seen Krsna? Were they with the Lord before being conditioned by the desire to lord it over material nature? Yes, the conditioned souls are parts and parcels of the Lord and thus they were with Krsna before being conditioned. Just as the child must have seen his father because the father places the child in the womb of the mother, similarly each soul has seen Krsna or the Supreme Father." (Letter to Jagadisa, Los Angeles, 25 April, 1970)]

In other words, he was saying that we never saw Krsna. We were with Krsna because we came from Krsna – from His tatastha-sakti. That person who came out of his mother's womb never actually associated with the father previously. Later on he meets his father.

In verses 16 and 17 of Chapter 20, sanjaya says that the Kaurava army had 100 thousand elephants and for every elephant there were hundred chariots and for every chariot a hundred horsemen.

For every horseman ten archers and for every archer ten infantry men with shields ( based on bhagavad gItA by J.A.B. Van Buitenen.)

Could you post the verses here?

Gauracandra ji,

In another thread, you wrote something about the similarily between Vedic and ancient Egypt culture. So, I decided to revive this thread.

Since a discussion on Islam is going on, I thought of reviving this thread.

Bhagavatam was first spoken by Lord Ziva to ParvatI.

Tarun ji,

I have also heard this. Could you tell where this dialog between Siva and Parvati is mentioned?

There was a reason for not giving the exact verse. I wanted to know the meaning and then fit this meaning into the verse.

As I wrote above, in one Bhagwad Gita translation, I found the word translated as "you are seeing" and in another translation as "you have seen". Both of these translations are by eminent scholars. I wanted to know which of the two is correct. Or, does it depend on context?

Anyway, the verse is 11.52.