maadhav

warriro = yoddhA =yoddhaa If you use ITRANS/ Sanskrit99 font you will get devanagari font using yoddhA word in it.

sri vallabhacharya has written an eleven-verse composition called sri kR^ishhNAshraya. the second verse of it is: mlecchha Akranteshhu desheshhu pApaikanilayeshhu cha. satpIDyA vyagra lokeshhu kR^ishhNa eva gatir mama.. 2.. one thing he says is: "May I move towards krishna (surrender to krishna) from (if i am in) the conutry where mlechha are doing terrorism." The passive message is: Go out of a country where vidharmsi terrorise you. The active message is that mlecchas (the anti- vedic aggresors) are not desirable for the vedic people in vedic land. So, one has to do what krishna has said arjun to do. all the vidharmis love us to run away, and they will chase you till there is no whare for you to go. Then the final act is eiher accept the anti-vedic invaded ideology, or get killed at their hands. So, the better alternative is to do as krishna has said to arjun. adharma cannot be tolerated. note that sri vallabhachary did not advise to glorify mlechhas (the vidharmis) nor to accept them as brothers. he did not say: "welcome mlechhas and their ideology. it is also a true path to the same god we go to." whom to follow, him or gandhi? sri vallabhacharya was a mahatma, not gandhi.

<< When you love and respect people, they will return the same. >> it is true with most people, but not true with Islam. When you love and respect Islam (which does not deserve any respect looking at its message about the kafirs, and the history how it has invaded may countires) the Muslims think that Islam is superior and they are brave in contrast to the coward hindus and false hindu religion. additionally, may be some muslims will returen loe and respect back, but this will be at personal level. None of these Muslims will abe able to convice teh large mass of Muslims and their mullas that Hinduism is better than Islam, and that Hindus and hinduism must be respected. So, as long as koran is ther and the muillas are there, the kafirs and Hindus will keep suffering. The vedas say that all paths lead to same god. This line of the vedas is misinterpreted by the Hindus,a nd many think "all" includes islam also, and it is not. Because of this umisinterprettion for 1000 years the Hindus have behaved very nicely despite immense suffering from the invaded islam, and still after 1000 years Muslims have no gratitude for Hindus or Hinduism. The lession is that a Muslim cannot be grateful to a kafir,no matte what a kafir does to him. There may ve some exception, but that will not change the message of koran and their followers. When the minority Muslims threatened for a civil war in 1947, gandhi caved in and divided the nation. the Muslims' act of threatening for civil war is a proof that Gandhi failed to make the Muslims non violent. This is not possible because even Mohammed had his army to invade and occuly and sprea islam by forcem. So, Gandhi made non-violent Hindus more cowards. The need is to follow Krishna, not Gandhi, Mahavir, or Buddha.

one needs to fall in love with krishna. to do it, one needs to know krishna. to do it one needs to read pastimes of krishna, and associte with those who love krishna. then one needs to glorify krishna. one can also talk with krishna, or pray him for the good things one wants. then one needs to do averything in relation to krishna. before one does something, one askes oneself, "how will this please krishna?" if it does not, then that is not to be done. also, krishna pleases with you when you can also please his devotees. this is like if you please the children, the mother of the children also will be pleased with you. (This fact has potential to unite in harmony all the Hindus and eventually the world.) so, start at you pace and choice of activities,and your intensity of desire how you want to realize krishna. krishna has said that if you move one step towards him, he moves more steps towards you. falling in love with krishna is one-way. even when no one forces to keep one loving krishna, there is hardly any case where a krishna devotee gave up krishna. and there is no loss in it. there is no greater guarantee or insurance or assurance than what krishna has give in giti: kauntya pratijAnihi na me bhaktah praNashyati

Book -Power in Temples - by Srikant Pg. 40: "At the early stage of the pilgrimage through the traditional route via Erumeli, it is obligatory for the pligrims to visit a mosque called Vaver's mosque, and get the sacred ask from a Muslim priest before they enter the deep jungles." In my view this is very insluting to the hindus. Could any one plese find out when the temple was built, and when this tradition of getting the ash from a Muslim mulla began? What percentge of the pilgrims to Ayyappa are Muslims? My guess is 0 or very very less. if you can dig out any facts in this matter, please share them here. Has any Muslim mosque obligated to Muslims to take some prasadam or ash from a hindu temple before going to macca? No. to my knowledge. so, then why this obligation upon the hindus going to a hindu temple?

From the book - Power in Temples - by Srikant: pg. 33: "Nelya Mikhailova, a Russian lady, who exhibited extraordinary mental abilities. By concentrating her attention on objects like bread, matches, cigarettes or fruits, she could make them move at her will without touching them." pg. 34: "...Moscow Pravada daed 17 March 1968: Mrs. Mikhailova displays a new and unknown form of energy." neither she or any on els eclaims she is a yogi, but some with yogic power also can do it. has any one studied such phenomenoa?

a good way to know it is to ask him and or NV. no need to begin rumors.

<< If you do not like Islam yet force yourself to remain because you are not brave enough to leave, then it is not God's or your societies' fault, it is yours alone. >> koran says that if one quits islam, he/she must be killed. this is intructon of allah. gita/krishna does not say it. after knowing what islam has done for the hindus and hindustan for 1000 years, only fool or ignorant hindu would say he likes islam over hinduism. do you like islam more than hinduism?

<< Because to say such and agreed, it is to say that humans have no souls >> every living being has a soul per vedic literature/sanatana dharma/hinduism. krishna describes in gita what is a soul. non hindus do not know it well.

some few pwople are sensitive to some unknown energy field that changes due to water underground. they can identify the location where to dig for water. this skill is not something you can acquire by training. it is a gift of god to some. so advanced yogis can do it too.

all have not the same ability to understand scripture(s). hence a guru is need to guide/interpret. personally one may choose to live by any scripture, vyasadev did not write purnas for nothing. he had a purpose. the last and best purana he wrote is srimad bhagvatam. no vaishanv aacharya has said to dump it. to dump bhagavtam is to dump vaishnavism, bhakti yoga.

in kali one can live 100 years. in other yougas, the figure is higher.

original ramayan is by valmiki in sanskrit. since a few thousand years most people do not know sanskrit. that is why tulasidas wrote the same ramayan in the local language - brija bhasha - that is like hindi, so that common peole can read it and benefit from it. tulasidas appeared about 500 ears ago. great saints always think of the spiritual benefit of common people. narad, vyasa, ramanuj, tulasidas, and many lived to uplif the common masses spiritually. ramanuja's got a mantra from his guru. guru game the mantra and said that it is secret and it gives moksha/vaikuntha. ramanuja then immediately climbed the temple's high structre and declared loudly to all this mantra: OM namo nArAyaNAya so that all can benefit from it.

<< My point is when two things contradict each other, only one of them can be right. >> not true in spirual arena. god has form, as well is formless; is nirguna, as well is saguna. even in science light is wave as well as particle. but a light phenomenon cannot be explaind by both but on by one of the two theories only. chaitanyas philosophy is achintya bheda-abheda vada. even krishna says in gita like: "I am in all, but I am not in all."

at birth a human is just an animal without a tail, per vedic literature. one has to undergo some samskaras, and yagnopavit ceremony, to become a human. that is then is considred born agan (as a human being) qualified to learn the message of the vedas and scriptures and then live by it. dwija is also a category of brahmanas. in contrast - islam is imposed on every child born in a muslim family, and there is no way out.

<< Again, the hells are in puranas which are smritis and whenever they are in contradiction with the srutis, dump them! >> per prabhupada, the vedic (vedas) literature has to be accepted in whole as it is. i see no harm in the concept of hells. it has potential to keep some people sinfree becaue they fear hells. please name any gurus/aacharyas you know who advisde to dump puranas. for vaishnavas, bhagavata, skanda purana, padma purana, etc. are very important. if one starts dumping one, and the another will start dumping another, and pretty soon there will be nothing left as the scriptures of hinduism. without dumping, we are free to accept whatever we choose, and keep all with respect.

No, as i said before. i quickly browsed the article at the link. it says the same. thanks for posting the link.

yes, gita is a hindu girl's name, but also it is same name as gita of krishna. in geethye word pronounciation in south, is th pronounced as in three, or as t in talvAr?

<< Dump him and find a Muslim fellow to marry. >> i would say, check carefully what freedom islam gives to women. as far as i know nothing. no right to even go to haven. a muslims women is almost a private property of her muslim husband, who can divirce her jsut by saying the workd "tallaq" three times to her, and the divore is fin ain muslim world.

th in githa is pronounced in north as th in "three". t in gita should be prononced as t in tarapur (a city in bharat). western world does not use this sound. T in naT is prouced as t in what. are these pronounced different in south?

here is a link: http://www.bhaktisangeet.cjb.net/

when writing names, south bharatiyas use th and north bharatiyas use t. e.g. in south it is githa, in north it is gita. do both pronounce it the same? i think not. what is the root reason for this please? when this difference began? how to end it?

the hells and their names are descried in purANas. Srimad Bhagavatam 5-26-6,7 give names of these hells: 1. tAmistra 2. andhatAmistra 3. raurav 4. hahAraurav 5. kumbhipAk 6. kAlasUtra 7. asipatravan 8. sUkaramukha 9. andhakUpa 10. krumibhojan 11. sa.mda.msha 12. taptasUrmi 13. vajrakantak-shAlmali 14. vaitaraNi 15. pUyod 16. prANarodha 17. vishasan 19. lAlAbhaksha 19. sArameyAdan 20. avIchi 21. ayaHpAn There are seven additional hells also: 1. xArakardam 2. raxoganabhojan 3. shUlaprot 4. da.ndashUk 5. avatnirodhan 6. paryAvartan 7. sUchimukh the chapter describes each very cleary. again, there is no eternal hell for any one per the vedic literature. some of these hellish cnodntions can be (is) seen on earth as well.

rAma is maryAdA purusottama incarnation. he accepted limits as to what he can do in his lila. krishna is pUrna purushottama incarnation. he had no limits.

you will benefit more by shifting you interest from history of hinduism to the fruit/essence of hinduism -gita.