maadhav

<< if not from the bagavad gita, then from some other scripture...mahabharata or something...sorry, my ignorance....i cannot remember where the saying comes from. but it was spoken by some wise man....>> a wise man is identified when he quotes gita, mahabhaat, etc. else he/she is not wise if he says somethign different form scriptures. << we must realize that all men who believe in god follow the same religion. >> then why the mulsims invaded and killed or converted the sanatana dharmis? why the . missionaries want to reap the harvest of souls from the vedic land? to think that all religions are same is a very detrimental illusion. if you still insist, prove it by showing that each verse of gita is in koran or bible. f you cannot prove it it, then stop telling it. << - a gloabl religion that represents the people of earth. >> it is already there: sanatan dharma. no where in the vedic literature it says it is for a perticular people or race of locality. it is for all the people of all the times and places. live by it, and help others understand it and follow it.

<< Just like some others who sacrifice their self for us, like Soldiers. •••soldiers are poor people without any understanding of the real self, they die for an illusory concept of nation, who comes from an illusory bodily concept of life, they are full of fear, they do not want to die or sacrifice anything, they do this as a job for making money or because they're forced by the government... >> here apparently a brahmana slanders all the kshatriyas. this bahmana lives in a society with police and military who protect his freedom, home, wife, children, temple, possessions, etc. and he choose to slander them. one varna slanders another verna. what good can come out of this? is this right?

thank you. our disagreement is becaue of languge/sematics. the arguments about soul (aatma), supersoul (paramatma) cannot provie scientific evidence in support of the arguments. we only can proivde quotes from gurus/ sadhus/ shanstras. i would not go in such discussion at this time as my focus is different. however i would comment on one thing: as i said, soul or aatma is neither male of female. if souls were males and females, then it means they produce children by sex acts in the spiritual world. sex plesure is material bodily pleasure, and a soul does not have a material body. gita or bhagavatam has no mention that a soul A married to soul B and produced soul C in the spiritual world. now, a soul can choose to hold a feminine mentality. or can choose to always take female material bodies. there is a story in bhagavatam in which a soul lived in a male body and then in a female body. then after she said that there is more sex pleasure in female body. so, this means a soul can pick any body, male of female in the material world. the concept of purusha in the vedic literature is that soul who is an enjoyer. the one that is enjoyed is prakriti - female. now vaishnava view is that we all souls are essentially the dasas of krishna. krishna is enjoyer -purusha. so we all atmas are prakriti or female. mirabai thought this way. however half the vaishanvas in the world have male bodies and half female. male-female design of the material body is just a mechanism to provide a body to an incoming soul to the material world. sex does not create a new soul. a soul or aatma is pure -free from desires, is in bliss. a jiva on the other hand is a soul with a number of desires. these disires compell the jiva to take up differnt births, male of remale. so, most of what i said about soul above is about jiva. on practical level, i pray that many million souls would take birth on the devabhoomi and act as first class kshatriyas.

<< what is your definition of "Hinduism"? >> the above impies you have your definition. so, please share it. the question also implies that every one has hsi owun definition. this also means it has no definite meaning. then the questions arise: - whose definition would you accept as true? - whose definition would india, most indians, other major countries, and leading personalities in every field in the world would consider as true? let us try to answer this logically. the word hinduism has come from the word hindu. that word hindu was first defined by the muslims invaders. to them hindu means the people living on the east side of river sindhu river. they pronounced sindhu as hindu. now, all the people living east of sindhu were sanatana dharmis or varnasramis. therefore, hinduism means sanatana dharma. in another words, hinduism is a new name of sanatana dharma. now if hinduism is a new name of sanatana dharma, then sanatana dharma is already defined in gita and the vedic literature. if your name is amit, then only you are the authority to say to teh world what your name means. similarly if you/we are hindus, then only we have the authority to tell the world what the word hindu means. and the corret meaning of the word hindu then is "one who follows hinduism or sanatana dharma". we hindus understand that sanatan dharma is given by god to mankind. dharma is not manmade. we hindus do not accept a manmade dharma. now, almost all the non hindus of the world will have different concepts as to what a hindu is. but their concept does not count, because they are not the authority to define what hinduism is. we are. to depend upon others to define what we are is dangerous. just because their conceptr of hindu or hinduism is different from what we know, we need not dump the names hindu and hinduism. if we dump the name today and accept some ther names like, say hare krishnas, they will assume diferent meaning to that names also. this implies we do not asssert our selves what we are. we should not allow other to assert what we are and what hinduism is. we on the other hand should assert what hindu means and what hinduism means. it is unfortunate that once ramkrishna mission also said they are not hindus, and prabhupada said he is not a hindu, and he said he is not preaching hinduism when he actually prached a major branch of hinduism called vaishnavism. how to explain this? one thought is that the world 'hinduism' means something very bad and bizzar in most non hindus' minds. therefore, in order to not repell them or to get political advantage, they dumped the word hind and hinduism. but by doing so, hteyhurt th feelings of a billion hindus. just as a mother is hurt when her son says, "i am not your son," a hindu feesl hurt when another hindu spreads hinduism and says he is not a hindu. it is obvious that a new name cannot be in the old scriptures.

oh, forgot to login before posting the above.

a soul is neither a male or a female, but it can take body of a male of female living being. every living thing has a soul (as well the supper-soul (krishna) in the body.) soul is non material spirit. being so, its identity is its freedom and how it uses it, and its buldle of desires and past karma done in various bodies. when a soul resides in a spiritual world with other souls, then it may have a name, just like we have a name in this world. but the names are not permanent. name is just a convension in a society. hinduism provides the complete science of the soul and supersoul. i suggest you read gita (the book of hinduism) at http://www.asitis.com

The link below will give you info to understand hinduism. http://www.geocities.com/shvyaas/Content.html If you love her, then love hinduism as well. else, the married lief would not be happy. no one should marry with the hidden intent to convert the spouse.

the vedic literture and gita says there are millions of planets and universes. we are not unique. yes, we can be born to another planets, and even in the planets of devas. there are havenly planets, and ther ar hellish planets. however, there is no eternal hell for any soul. karma rules. god's mercy rules.

<< But religions such as Christianity and Islam fail to understand the fact that there's only one god, and all religions are one. >> we hindus only know there is only one god. however, our concept of god (described in gita and the vedic literature) is very different from the god discribed in koran or bible. every hindu should try to understand these different concepts of god, because that concepts motivate the followers to live in certain different ways. all religions are not same. a vedic statement says "all paths lead to the same god." but remember that "all paths" here means all the vedic paths. when this was stated in the vedas, there was no semetic or any other religion. only sanatana dharma (hinduism) was there with different yoga systems. if the word religion is understood as "a way to realize god or go to god or to haven,", then we can say that there are different religions with the same purpose, but there is not surity that each religion can surely help the follower realize god or take the follower to god or haven. this should be clear from the fact that islam and hinduism are at the opposite poles, totally incompatible with each other. the first produces barbaric invaders and aggresors who kill non belivers, while the hindus never do it. how can both these opposite behaviors lead to the same god or haven? only one of this is religion, the other is irreligion (adharma). all the hindus need to think clear like this.

just as foxes cannot be allowed enter in a chicken farm, the aggresive religions' missionary should not be allowed BY LAW to enter or live on the vedic land. - change the law soon to that effect - make the public well aware of the harm caused by the missionaires so that they will not fall pray.

thanks prayag bhai, for posting such a nice article. every hindu shoud read it. it talks about: “God,” “religion,” “secularism,” and “tolerance.” it shows how hindu comcepts of these words differ from the semetic religions. BTW, kali yuga means the age of quarrels.

<< .. who say that hinduism does not exist.. >> India is a new name for Bharat or Ajanaabha khanda. There is no word India in any vedic scripture. So, does that mean India does not exist? what is hard in understanding that when a new name is given to an old thing, then the old records cannot have that new name mentioned in it? << surrender to the masters and to the real sanatana dharma >> yes, i am, and to the truth also. << and stop with your materialist violent nationalist propaganda >> when arjun decided to not fight for any material, krishna advised him to fight violently. i on the other hand, am saying that there still are many ways to fight non violently, but violent fight is not a no no for sanatana dharmis.

i am madhav. jai sri krishna! -maadhav