Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by narayanadasa

  1. Jai Sriman Narayana: I found the below in some article in hinduismtoday digital magazine.: Hinduism Today Magazine I am not a regular reader but just happened to come across this when browsing. When a helpless animal is killed by deliberate act of violence, it dies in great dreed. Its body is flush with harmones produced by fear. These toxic substances enter the body of the person who eats the flesh and adversely affects his or her body and mind. I have always wondered, how can the carcass of an animal that died in moral fear give good health and refined spiritual inclinations to its consumer.
  2. Jai Sriman Narayan: The flask does keep hot things hot and cold things cold . What would you expect the temperature of a mixture of tea and icecream? If kept separate the flask would stil keep hot things hot and cold things cold.
  3. Jai Sriman Narayana! Dear Mr. Venkatesan, You said... -When Kings go to forest for hunting, they will not give a sword to the animal and fight with them. They will hide behind a tree or upon a tree and will kill that animal. Vaali is actually an animal ie., rude monkey. There is no reason for Rama to fight with Vaali. (Eg. Ravana is a "Man" and a real good devotee of Shiva and good to all the people in his country. Hence, Rama gave him a chance to fight) So, killing an Animal - hiding behind a tree is not a mistake. -Dharma says, it is a great sin , even to think bad about Brother's wife. But Vaali has chucked Sugriva out of the country and he was not even ready to listen to Sugriva. Ok. He should have sent Sugriva's wife also along with Sugriva, but he did not follow dharma. Rama would have solved the problem with ease if Vaali had just sent Sugriva and his wife out. But taking Sugriva's wife...... how could you give any chance for vaali to live. So, when Rama killed Vali from behind a tree it is justified as killing an animal, so nothing wrong. But, applying the same logic why cant it be pardonable if one animal taking another animals (may be a brother) wife. May be because the degree of the sin of taking another's wife doesnt reduce just because it is an animal. Any thoughts?
  4. How do you prove something (or rather anything) that happened in the past is true? You cant go back in time and see right? Even seeing can be deceiving.. right? So, if archieology, local practises/customs, local literature and scripture all point to something common we usually take it to be true. Believers dont call it mythology but call it an historical fact. Some dont accept it, but in my opinion they dont believe in anything else except for what they believe in (if at all they do).
  5. Jai Sriman Naranana: where is the proof, I dont belive without seeing or feeling that there is life outside earth, which sastra says that there is life outside earth. Where is proof that God created life on earth, did you see, did you feel? you first said there was nothing and then god created everything, what do you mean by everything. I didnt say this, sorry! I said completely opposite of this, please read completely not just between words.
  6. Jai Sriman Narayana: Who said God did not create life on other galaxies and on what basis did they say that? FYI, the word "created" is wrong as it seems to indicate that at some point of time there was nothing and then God created everything. This is not what the Sastras say. The right word to use is "manifested".
  7. Jai Sriman Narayana: Good question! This was the response given by one of the Azhvars. Vishnu on seeing his devotees doing this so devotedly while remembering him wanted to see how it is like to do the same. Thats when he tried and it remained there for ever. I recently heard from from Sri. Velukkudi Krishnan's lecture on Bhagavad Gita. This is also see when baby Krishna lies on the ocean putting his toe in his mouth. He was overwhelmed with people falling at his feet and saying it is so sweet that he tried to so what it feels like. This is wonderful!
  8. Jai Sriman Narayan: I am sure Gandhi was a great man but not greater than Krishna or God! We cant compare fake swamis to Gandhi and then say whether he should be followed or not. I would rather check on the guidelines from the Gita and true swamis and then see where he fits in. In my opinion Gandhi comes nowehere above Bose, Veer Sawarkar, Sardar Vallabhabhai Patel, Gopal Krishna Gokhale etc. I would consider Gandhi a very good political statesman but would not make him a saint or even a philosopher. Arjuna wanted non-violence. Krishna advised him against that towards adharmic people. Yet Gandhi stuck to non-violence against Adharmis! I am not sure if this really helped the society at large. Was Krishna wrong if Gandhi is right? All the other names I stated above were atleast aware of Krishna and his teachings and to a great extent Gandhi suppressed any similar thoughts. Krishna advised Karma yoga, Gnana yoga and Bhakti yoga. The amount of information on these was exhaustive enough to help one actually follow in day-to-day life and in the end reach Krishna. Which yoga did Gandhi advise and what evidence does Gandhi provide that his path (only non-violence and some strange methods of celibacy) works for all beings? Somewhere in the chain of threads on the topic it was stated that Gandhi slept with young girls to test his celibacy. Where is it stated that one must do this to test his celibacy? (in Gita? in Vedas? in Puranas?). If only Gandhi stated this, with what authority but for mental speculation? was it a revelation that he received from God? If not, then Gandhi experienced something that he thought was truth and propagated it. All fine so far, but unless it is authentic how can everyone follow it? You see, Gita, Vedas have always been true for all types of people. There is no need to follow anything else but God's teachings and the teachings of those who base their thoughts on the same lines.
  9. Jai Sriman Narayan: I found it... How stupid ... I forgot to search on the web before posting this thread. http://www.valmikiramayan.net/
  10. Jai Sriman Narayan: Are any soft copies of Ramayan (by Valmiki, Tulsi etc) available on the web?
  11. Jai Sriman Narayana: http://www.prapatti.com/slokas/english/DivyaDeshams.pdf A very good description of divya desams in pdf format.... dont forget to follow the links in the pdf.
  12. Jai Sriman Narayana: Vedas say.... Pragnam Brahma - Consciousness is Brahman - Aitareya upanishad - Rig Veda Tat twam asi - That thou art - Chandogya upanishad - Sama Veda Ayam Atma Brahma - This self is Brahman - Mandukya upanishad - Atharvana Veda Aham Brahma asmi - I am Brahman - Brihadaranyaka upanishad - Yajur veda
  13. Jai Sriman Narayana: Sure, I am checking anyway. Will let you know as soon as I find out.
  14. Jai Sriman Narayana: Thanks for responding and offering to share the Paasuram, I certainly dont remember it.
  15. Jai Sriman Narayana: Someone also described this scene beautifully (told to me by my friend) . He said "The Lord was himself was not sure why devotees worship his lotus feet, is it so sweet? that he tried to put his own feet into this mouth just to taste and see for himself his own-self!" How wonderful!
  16. Jai Sriman Narayan: Found another thread where this is described... now thats cool.. Jai Sriman Narayana. http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/sri-vaishnava/168159-lovely-leaf.html
  17. Jai Sriman Narayana: Thanks for being so kind to let me know that I was going too far (and also talking what was not necessary)... indeed I realized but was too late, anyway. Thanks Again!
  18. He (Jesus) said to love your neighbor as yourself, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is something every Hindu must do as well. Certainly the great Hindu saints and Mahatmas have taught this as well. So, a Sudra doesnt mind touching another sudra with the same hands he just ate meat (before washing). However, a Brahmin would never do that and certainly doesnt expect a Sudra or even another Brahmin to do that to him. The sudra doesnt know this and he thinks he can do with the logic that all are same in the eyes of God (and many such pale slogans), so all is ok. The point is in the eyes of God all are indeed same doesnt mean that we pick the dirtiest of behaviour and equate that the best with the assumption that the soul is unaffected and so everyone can do everything.. like christianity where all can drink, all can smoke, all can then go back to the church 24 hours a day and ask for forgiveness to start the same thing all over again. So, this slogan doesnt apply to all situations. In fact, such slogans have been left-over by Britishers and cannot apply to most cases for various political reasons. We have much better ones than that and which go the depth of human spirituality (not just bodily motivated), lets give more importance to those. Brahmins usually try to keep as much away / remain mute as much as possible from such Sudras (generally all Sudras!!!). But there are other people (especially a little higher Sudras) who beat them up. Now, why blame Brahmins for this? What else do you expect them to do? Correct behaviour doesnt require one to know vedas! How do you educate the Sudra? If I give him money and try to teach he will just drink again. If I try to explain something to him he wont understand it when he is drunk. If I try to catch him at a different time he is asleep (due to being drunk at night) or he is busy beating his wife/children. Now, the next morning he comes to temple in the same state. What should be done? Just allow him to do whatever he wants. This is the problem. This behaviour is only an example. There are 100's such patterns of behaviour. Now, Sudras in India want all sorts of reservations.. they dont want to call themselves upper castes but give a different reason called casteism, illtreatment etc (thanks to politicians!). Again, what do you want Brahmins to do here? The genuine few are ready to teach for a meagre sum of money. Would Vaishyas provide them with the necessary resources? Would Kshatriyas work towards ensuring discipline? Or should the Brahmins do everything in the present world? Just blaming the brahmins doesnt help! All are responsible for this. The Kshatriyas could not protect the country from invasions. The Vaishyas did not do their businesses honestly, they kept all their money for someone to steal later. The Sudras with no other option ended up becaming slaves/bonded labourers (not to Brahmins) and now after getting sufficiently suppressed and brainwashed by their landlords, the Muslims and the Britishers are only waiting to grab political posts. Now, why Brahmins alone are responsible?
  19. Jai Sriman Narayana: May be I did not convey what I wanted to correctly! Anyway, here I go... only shallow people judge by outer appearances. Some of the most spiritual people in the world, may be despised among men because they hold a low caste, are poor, or ugly, you name it.. Correct, a person's mind cannot be judged by just his outer appearance. But, basic cleanliness/discipline is necessary, whatsoever. In my opinion people who dont have this are Sudras (not by birth, but by behaviour, some may be upper castes too). The point is such people need advise, guidance etc. The upper castes as they claim to be must work towards equality by setting proper examples, guiding such people... not simply ignore the problem and accept anything as normal in the name of eqality. What I see happening is when an unclean person enters a temple, nobody tries to advice him, instead everyone tries to move away. The person indeed feels very bad. He doesnt realize people are moving away due to he being unclean and not due to any dislike towards him. No one should ever be forbidden to enter a temple of God or the demigods. Everyone has a right to worship God/gods in his/her/their holy sancturies. Temples are there for seekers to connect with the spiritual world. Yes, true. But, that doesnt mean cleanliness, discipline can be compromised. People (all irrespective of caste) need to adhere to this. Just because a Sudra doesnt know the reason for why he is not supposed to wear a slipper inside the temple sanctum or why he should not come drunk or why he should not touch the bell with dirty hands, doesnt mean that he should be simply allowed inside in the name of "equality". Instead, he should be educated properly. The best people to do this is the priest himself as almost all have some basic respect for him. If anyone else from the higher caste tries to, it will be called ill-treatment...this is happening today! Ofcourse, there are a few genuine cases and upper castes (especially Brahmins) are seldom involved in this - may be they remain mute spectators mostly for fear of any violent outcomes. The lower-castes themselves have so many classes within and they keep ill-treating each other in most cases. Now, a true upper caste (not necessarily Brahmins) is one who has basic understanding (not necessarily the vedas or the Gita), cleanliness, etc. The intention is to ensure that the temple is usable for all. If its dirty, then all cant use it. If its clean, then everyone can. I know there are tons of examples where low-class people later on became saints. Some Azhwars of Tamilnadu are genuine examples. But, we cant think all low-class people may become saints (I will be most happy if they do!) and allow everyone to do everything in any way they want. Some level of basic understanding is necessary. This is what we need to cultivate. </B>every catholic church is open 24 hours a day, for people to come in and pray; and their doors are open to all, no matter what religion, race, or sex they are - they are allowed to come in and pray. Hindu temples must be the same.</B> Sorry, even Christian churches have separate doors for low class converts to use. This I have seen in India. But, I have seen a lot of discrimination in foreign countries too (Europe and US especially). I would'nt use the church as an example here. Hinduism had better ways, which is anyway corrupt now. The corruption is what needs to remove. This is by educating irrespective of caste (whether by birth or behaviour). Temple can be a place to do this. I can say a 100 things about what happens in churches, but since it doesnt help the discussion I wish to be mute on this.
  20. Jai Sriman Narayana: Do you really have genuine examples of Brahmins inflicting harm or causing disturbance in society? As far as I see, Brahmin born Brahmins dont anymore behave as genuine Brahmins... I completely agree with this. But, I dont see the same Brahmins torturing / harming anyone else (especially Sudras). The press, the TV etc talk about upper castes harming lower castes... but not even in 1 case I have seen a Brahmin involved here. Please share genuine evidence/incident, I would really be interested to see this. Incidents like not allowing Sudras to enter temples after eating meat, before bath etc cannot be taken as ill-treatments. Ofcourse it is the duty of the Brahmin priest to advice correctly and then help people change for good. Now a days priests seldom do that.. this is not correct. Also, even Brahmins eat meat, this is wrong and must be pointed out... these Brahmins must be called out-castes (not Sudras). For political reasons, some genuine incidents are being projected wrongly (upper caste by default points to Brahmins). Now, if you say Brahmins are 100% responsible then what are the Kshatriyas doing? Are they not supposed protect all and ensure right conduct from everyone (Brahmins, Sudras, Vaishyas and themselves). Are the Vaishyas doing their business in a honest manner and sharing the fruits with the society to spread vedic code of living? Why only Brahmins are blamed for everything? Anyway, nobody knows the Dharma correctly let alone following it. We all need to work together to learn it well first.... not just the Brahmins.
  21. Jai Sriman Narayana: I heard that even during Ramayana, once there was famine and Rama inspite of all efforts, yagnas etc could'nt solve the problem. He approached some Rishi who said that the famine was due to someone not following dharma. On enquiry the rishi with his divya-drishti came to know that a specific sudra at some place was chanting the vedas incorrectly. Rama went to that Sudra and asked him why he was doing that. The Sudra's answer was that he wanted moksha. Rama told him he can get moksha even without chanting the vedas.. he can just do his job (his duty, his dharma) with devotion. The sudra disagreed and then Rama cut-off the Sudra's head. The famine was gone. However, I dont remember where I read this so I cannot draw any conclusions right now. But, if at all it is true, then it could mean that this varna based system was there even during Rama's time.
  22. Jai Sriman Narayana: I am not questioning the translation or the understanding but have the following question. Looking a little deeply into the above verse, Lord Krishna says that HE (not WE) is the creator of the system. When HE says HE creates it could mean HE (1)does it at the time of birth based on the soul's past life by giving birth in a specific family (2)leaves it to the Aacharya's to decide or (3) leaves it for each individual person and his community to decide. "WE" here could mean that all sorts of mundane people will decide who belongs to what caste... this will result is chaos as we see today because too many people will want to decide! Please let me know this is incorrect.
  23. Jai Sriman Narayana: What was God doing after creating the earth, the people, etc? Without a religion what were the people following? Islam/Christianity have a start date that was very much later than creation. So, these religions may represent truth only to a certain level (accoring to the understanding of its followers). That is why they dont represent eternal truth. It is a pity that they dont want to accept this! Apprently, start date also mean an end date. Vedas is not like that. It has no start date and no end date. It has been there in previous creations, is there in the current creation, will be there in future creations. So, it is the universal law according to which Karma, rebith are applicable to all irrespective of what they follow.
  24. Jai Sriman Narayana: Can someone help me with the significance and story behind Baby Krishna on a leaf in the water trying to put his toe in his mouth? Beautiful picture attached
  25. <b>Just want to point out that it is mainly Vaishnavas that consider Buddha to be an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, where Krishna and Rama were previous incarnations. </b> Jai Sriman Narayana: Not all vaishnavites consider Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu... for example Sri. Vaishnavites do not because *I think* it is not mentioned in Pancharatra Agama among the 64 avataras mentioned there. I do not know about Madhvacharya followers. Gaudiya vaishnavites do believe that Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu based on the following verse in Srimad Bhagavatam canto 1 TEXT 24 TEXT tatah kalau sampravrtte sammohaya sura-dvisam buddho namnanjana-sutah kikatesu bhavisyati SYNONYMS tatah--thereafter; kalau--the age of Kali; sampravrtte--having ensued; sammohaya--for the purpose of deluding; sura--the theists; dvisam--those who are envious; buddhah--Lord Buddha; namna--of the name; anjana-sutah-- whose mother was Anjana; kikatesu--in the province of Gaya (Bihar); bhavisyati--will take place. TRANSLATION Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.
  • Create New...