sampath

Whats the problem if Mcdonalds opens a restuarant or slaughters cows near Iskcon temple?America is a free country.Anybody has freedom to do their business anywhere.Why should you be offended by what they do?What if neighbours of Iskcon feel offended by a hindu temple being there? Should Mcdonalds behave according to hindu dharma and shastra in USA?It need not do so. These type of protests and mentalities create a bad image for hindus.People who eat beef mind their business.Why cannot we follow their example and mind our own business?

I know only southies,that too tamilnadu vasihnavites.They wont worship anything other than vishnu,his avathars,lakshmi,her avathars and other vaishnavite gods like maruthi,balaram etc.

Many staunch vaishnavites dont worship parents,guru and husband.They also dont worship saturn,ganesh etc.Is this correct?

To attain salvation your children should do some rites in river bank after you die.Else you will not go to heaven.Real jnanis who attain sanyasi stage from bhramachari stage without grahastha stage like shankara are exceptions,but they are very,very rare.everybody cannot become shankara. sex is divine in hinduism.Lingam worship is actually phallic worship.Is sex is sinful,why did vatsayana write kama shastra?

sorry i took long to reply,but saw ur reply only today. I dont contradict.Even now i say lust isnt a sin.Seeing a woman or man and lusting at heart is no sin under any law. But doing it physically is illegal if you are married and certainly is wrong. If you are unmarried and want to get close with a woman before marriage,hindu shastras allow it.It is called as "gandarva vivaha".Thus it isnt a sin. legal marriage too isnt a sin. In vanaprastha stage you leave all this and reach god. what contradiction did you see here?

Gneashprasadji, I did not advocate freesex.What I said was lust in mind.When one turns from bhramachari to grahastha he has to choose a bridegroom.So he has to choose among women.So you cannot avoid lustful feelings when you chose a woman. Vedas permit gandavra marriage where man and woman love each other and marry.So lust along with love is involved here.This is what I pointed out. avoiding lust in heart is impossible and not asked for by vedas.

Ganesh prasad ji, You are confusing between the duties of a householder and jnani.The verses you gave are meant for jnani's.They apply to householders only when they have finished their duty as householders. see what paramacharya chandrasekaraendra saraswathi sankaracharya says about this. http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part19/chap1.htm "Those who do not marry and remain "naisthika brahamacarins" (lifelong brahamacarins) are exceptions to the rule that no man ought to remain even a single moment without belonging to one of the asramas. That is after the proper conclusion of his student-bachelorhood he has to prepare to become a householder. The Brahmin is born with three debts: he owes a debts to the sages, to the celestials and to the fathers. He repays the first by learning the Vedas as a student-bachelor; the second by taking a wife and performing sacrifices; and the third by begetting a son. So without marriage he cannot repay the second and third debts. Sons are primarily intended for the repayment of the debts to the fathers. Performing the sraddha ceremony is not enough. Forefathers of the past three generations are to be made to ascend from the manes. So even after a man dies, for two generations the daily libations must be offered to him. That is why the birth of a son is considered important. (The case of the naisthika brahmacarin and the sannyasin is different. Because of their inner purity and enlightenment, they can liberate, not just two generations, but twenty-one generations fathers without performing any sraddha ceremony). Panigrahana (the groom taking the hand of the bride in his), mangalyadharana, saptapadi (the bridal pair taking the seven steps round the sacrificial fire ) are important rites of the marriage function. There is a controversy about whether or not mangalya-dharana is a Vedic rite. It is an unnecessary controversy. Mangalya-dharana is a custom that is thousands of years old and it is an essential part of the marriage samskara. As I said before, after completing his student-bachelorhood a young man must take a wife for the pursuit of dharma. The latter should dedicate herself to him so as to become pure within. The purpose of marriage is a life of harmony and the procreation of virtuous children"

Namaste ganeshprasad, (All stages of life is important non more so than the Brahmachari, it is here you learn the art of living, a guru advises according to the nature of student weather to take up grashastha or not that was in olden days) Those olden days are now gone.We dont have gurukuls.Even in olden days guru sukracharya asked his disciple kacha to marry his daughter devayani. (Never heard about the hell for one without a child, which could be for any number of reason. Did Bhismadev or sukhdev goswami or better still Hanuman go to hell?) They escaped only since they saw lord Ram and Krishna in person.Hanuman did not die so this question doesnt arise. Sex is god given,beautiful feeling.It isnt sin.Let us enjoy lust.Let us not make it a sin or abuse it by overusing it.Sex within limits and lust within limits isnt sin.For thoughts and feelings sky is the limit.

hey dude, In Hinduism grashastha life is given importance.People who dont marry and have children will fall into a hell called as 'puth'.Everyone has to cross grahastha and bhramacharya stage.Without lusting how will you have children or be a grahastha? Even when we attain vanaparastha stage i.e very old age we need not leave lust.It will leave us by itself.So be happy and enjoy life.

There is nothing wrong in lusting.Thats a god given feeling.If we see a member of the opposite sex by nature we will lust.Its a feeling.Nobody can control feelings.There is also no need.A woman also will lust at an attractive man.What is the harm in this? So stop this moral nonsense.Lust at women but dont misbehave to them.Be friendly and remember that they too lust.It isnt a sin.Its a natural feeling.Anything natural isnt sin.

nothing wrong in it.Its a god given feeling.Whats natural cannot be a sin.Thats not a weakness.God is not calculating what lust you have in your mind and planning to burn you for that. enjoy ,have fun.Dont cheat your wife,thats all.Simple rule.

I dont have references to scriptures,But i dont think that they banned meat eating in toto.Meat eating was permitted for shathriyas and sudhras,while banned for bhramins and vysyas.

gauthamji, I agree with you that killing animals is horrible act.My point is "unbelievers wont understand the ethical aspects of not killing animals.But they will listen if we say 'eating animals is bad for YOUR health' I only said that I found that this view was very selfish.For believers the only reason not to eat animals can be ethics and morals.For us we dont eat animals since its disgusting to murder poor animals.No other reason matters for devotees. This is what I said.

Vegetarianism is not good or bad based on diseases it causes to humans.Thats a very selfish view. Vegetarianism is good only since it is ethical and its a fair treatment of animals.Killing animals is equal to murder for which we have to answer god

Hens and trees dont have language hence dont have thoughts like us.They are driven by feelings. Reality has no hidden meaning. We are dying animals and apes.

We are dying animals and apes.Life has no purpose.we are there because of no reason or purpose.There is no true meaning to life. Our life has no purpose and no meaning.Does a tree ask why it exists?No,does a hen ask why it exists?no the world and life need not make any sense.There is no hidden meaning behind life.

Krishna in Geetha urges us to surrender to him and says that is the highest path to reach him. He doesnt condmen sex,but he asks us not to be totally lost in it.He asks us to raise above it all and attain elightenment. When we reach enlightenment stage sex,money,power everything else is meaningless.Till then it is not wrong to pursue it.

Forceful sex is crime at times.At times not.There are 4 types of marriages.Uthama which is arranged marriage.Gandharva which is love marriage. For rakshasa and paisasa marriages the bride can be carried forcefully and be married.Those marriages werent ideal,but still werent banned. Even in mahabharatha Bheeshma carried away amba and ambalika forcefully to get them married to visithraveerya. amba and ambalika were forcefully made to copulate with vyasa rishi.Mahabharatha says that amba closed her eyes in horror of seeing vyasa rishi so she had a blind son,tritharashtra.Ambalika went white in horror so she had pandu who had lukoderma. Hinduism is practical.It even permitted women having sex with other men while their husbands were alive.For example kunti,mathri copulated with devas while their husband pandu was alive.Amba and ambalika copulated with sage veda vyasa while their husband visithra veerya was alive. Even devas like Indhra couldnt control their lust.Pathivradha akalya copulated with indra while her husband was bathing. context,thats the key.Hinduism is practical.It lays down laws which cause highest benefit to the society.It was designed for the benefits of the householder and society. The incidents involving kunti,mathri and amba,ambalika shows that ksathriya women should put the welfare of the country before their whims and fancies. such dharma wasnt levied for bhramin women and vysya women.It was not needed. we might say paisasa and rakshasa marriages are against the rights of women.But even if vedas had banned them,people would have continued it.So vedas regulated that habit,saying "such marriages arent ideal.But if you do them,follow these rules atleast" for example bheesma forcefully carried away amba,ambalika and ambika.But he let off ambika(im not sure of the name) when she said that she was in love with salva. when is thought a crime?When saints indulge in such thoughts its sin.For example viswamithra did that with oorvasi.While doing it he was in penance.So it was sin. But saint kousika married a woman and led a married life.It wasnt sin for him,because he clearly knew what time to allocate to which duty. For householders like us,thought and even action (at times) aint a sin.

"thought is not a crime".Even in stalinist russia and hitler's germany thought crime wasnt punished. Hinduism is practical.It did not say "love is sin".It said "love is divine".Just visit gajuraho or read kokoham and kamasudhra or see the sculputures. sex is considered as an integral part of a man.Our religion said without marrying and having a child a man will go to narag called 'puth'.Many saints like agasthya,valmigi,viswamithra married and lead a householder's life. please stop this puritan concept.Sex aint sin,thought aint crime

Vedas permit us to marry,to fall in love.There are many instances of kings falling in love after seeing the physical beauty of women.For example sakuntala,dushyanth story is love at first sight.Rishi rishyasrunga fell in love with a king's daughter only by seeing her physical beauty.When its love at first sight,its falling in love for physical beauty-in other words,lust. Arjuna's lust for women is well known.In all these instances lust was involved. So please dont say lust is sin.It isnt.It is a god given ,natural feeling.

Isnt everything relative?Only christians say lust in heart is a sin and promise eternal hell fire for it.Hinduism is different.It doesnt punish lust in heart. lust in heart is god given.It is natural.Lust isnt a sin.

no,its not a sin at all.Sex aint a sin in hinduism.Hindus even did phallic worship with shivlinga,so it aint a sin.

From http://www.jordantimes.com/thu/news/news7.htm By Donna Abu-Nasr The Associated Press USFAN — In 50 years, he says, he has married 58 women and has forgotten the names of most of them. He knows he has had 10 sons, but ask about daughters and he counts on his fingers: 22. No, no, 28. No, that's too many. He settles on 25. Saleh Al Sayeri, a 64-year-old shepherd-turned-businessman, says his marital adventures have cost him more than $1.6 million in wedding expenses and settlements for divorced wives. But the man who remembers being forced into his first marriage at age 14 says he'd do it a million times over. "Marriage doesn't bore me," he said, relaxing on cushions at a carpeted, open-air reception area in his 22-horse stable in Usfan, in the desert 800 kilometres west of Riyadh. "I'm the happiest man in the world." Sayeri's story might seem a bizarre curiosity, but it touches a nerve in Saudi Arabia, the status of whose women is a matter of international controversy. When it surfaced in Saudi media in March, some readers reacted angrily. A woman who identified herself as Maryam, a convert to Islam, wrote to the Arab News, an English-language daily, that Sayeri's story "really sent me over the edge.What kind of a family structure is this? What is divorce doing to the psychologies of the ex-wives and children? How can this man devote any quality time to his children — teaching them about Islam and being a constant role model?" She wrote. Sayyidaty magazine, which interviewed Sayeri, also spoke to psychiatrist Mona Al Sawwaf who said Sayeri does not treat a wife as a human being "but as a piece of clothing he can change whenever he pleases or an object.The biggest blame lies with the parents" who let their daughters enter such marriages, she said. Sayeri dismisses such critics as "crazy," insisting he is not breaching Islamic laws, which permit a man to have four wives at a time. "I have a clear conscience," he said. None of Sayeri's ex-wives could be reached. He said many have remarried, but to reveal their identity would be a gross violation of Saudi custom. One of his sons said his mother has remarried, but refused to give details. Divorce has become quite common in the kingdom, with press reports saying half of all marriages break up. But the fate of a divorced woman depends on her parents' frame of mind. If they oppose the divorce, they likely will confine her to the house and monitor her movements. She will be barred from dating or working without family permission. The notion of a single career woman barely exists here. Women cannot even drive. They cannot get an education, travel or check into a hotel without a male guardian's permission. Some parents, on the other hand, are modern-minded enough to let their daughters finish their schooling or go out to work. And although Islamic laws permit a man to have four wives at a time, most Muslim men today take one wife, because it has become the cultural norm and polygamy is costly. Money is not an issue for Sayeri, who says he has made a fortune trading in cars and property. He is a dark, medium-built man with black mustache and goatee who heads the Sayer, a southern Bedouin tribe. He also raises camels and horses. He has had 10 sons, one of whom died. Two sons who were at the stable while their father was being interviewed rolled their eyes whenever the subject of marriages came up. They said they had come to accept that their dad is "mizwaj," a man who likes to marry often. Fahd Al Sayeri, who inherited his father's passion for horses, recalled a desert hunting trip some 15 years ago in the remote Empty Quarter. He and his friends had gone in search of gasoline when they heard celebratory gunshots coming from a tent. They had come across a wedding. "Out of politeness, we asked who's wedding it was," Fahd said. "The guests responded with my father's name. I was shocked," he added. It's not that the elder Sayeri hides his marriages. He just doesn't always bother to spread the word. He said two of his daughters learned they were sisters and two sons they were brothers at school. Some wives even attend his weddings and bring the bride gifts. But he said he keeps each wife in a separate villa and sometimes even in a different town to keep the peace, and assures each that she's his favourite. Son Fahd, a 32-year-old bachelor, is adamant he won't follow in his father's footsteps. "No, no, no," he said. "One will be enough for me." Sayeri said he has married first cousins and women from about 30 tribes all over the kingdom. "As a leader of a tribe, I can't marry just anybody," he said. He said three of his four current wives have been with him 18 to 40 years. The fourth seems to be the one who usually gets replaced. "It's the one for renewal," said Sayeri, sipping cardamom-flavoured coffee after a dinner of spicy lamb and rice. "I like to change my fourth wife every year." His latest marriage — and at 10,000 guests his most sumptuous — was to a 14-year-old girl nine months ago. She was the perfect age, he said. When he heard about her, he sent his niece to check her out. She came back with a favourable report. Then he visited her family. When the girl came into the living room to offer him refreshments — an excuse for him to see her face — he asked her if she would marry him. "She was shy at first and didn't answer but then she said yes," Sayeri recalled. "Now, we're such good friends it feels we've known each other 40 years." A Saudi woman will usually marry whomever her family chooses, and marriage is considered acceptable from the onset of puberty. Sayeri claims he has never forced a woman to marry him, and has never been turned down. His ex-wives get a divorce settlement set out in a prenuptial agreement and he supports the children, he said. He said all his divorces are documented with court-issued papers that usually follow this declaration to his wife: "You are divorced." He said today's women are "more pleasant to have around.They take better care of themselves, use makeup and do not run away every time I want to touch them," he said. Sayeri said he will keep on marrying until the number of wives he has acquired equals the number of years he has lived. Thursday, December 30, 2004

no idea where i can get the pictures.It was from websites entirely.

read that link from beginning.it tells about hinduism in ireland and celtic regions(britain)