animesh

Hi sushil, The actual meaning of the word "arya" is very debatable. Some say that it represents a race, while others say that in Sanskrit "arya" means "noble person". So, arya-putra may simply mean son of a noble person.

Hi shvu, Yes, it is true that there are different versions of Buddhism, theravada etc. I have read the teachings of all these versions and also the history behind them. The worshipping of 'idol' part is really interesting because Gautam Buddha himself never encouraged idol worshipping. But I personally think that is OK. The followers of Buddha show their love and respect towards him by worshipping his idol.

Hi shvu, Yes, it is true that there are different versions of Buddhism, theravada etc. I have read the teachings of all these versions and also the history behind them. The worshipping of 'idol' part is really interesting because Gautam Buddha himself never encouraged idol worshipping. But I personally think that is OK. The followers of Buddha show their love and respect towards him by worshipping his idol.

May be you will find this interesting:-- I have a younger sister who is a Sri Lankan. She is Sinhalese. A few months back, I was using chat room. I do this very-very rarely. But I was doing it that day. Suddenly she started chatting to me. She was doing computer courses. After that she used to send me emails regarding her doubts in computer programming and I used to reply to them. One day, suddenly she became my sister. As I mentioned above, she is a Sinhalese. We used to talk about Buddhism. I was already interested in knowing about life and teachings of Buddha. But after that I got even more interested. She has asked me many times that I should tell her about hinduism. But I do not know what to tell her, because I am myself not having good knowledge of hinduism. Any suggestions?

May be you will find this interesting:-- I have a younger sister who is a Sri Lankan. She is Sinhalese. A few months back, I was using chat room. I do this very-very rarely. But I was doing it that day. Suddenly she started chatting to me. She was doing computer courses. After that she used to send me emails regarding her doubts in computer programming and I used to reply to them. One day, suddenly she became my sister. As I mentioned above, she is a Sinhalese. We used to talk about Buddhism. I was already interested in knowing about life and teachings of Buddha. But after that I got even more interested. She has asked me many times that I should tell her about hinduism. But I do not know what to tell her, because I am myself not having good knowledge of hinduism. Any suggestions?

Eigth fold path: 1)Right view 2)Right thought 3)Right speech 4)Right action 5)Right living 6)Right effort 7)Right mindfulness 8)Right concentration

Eigth fold path: 1)Right view 2)Right thought 3)Right speech 4)Right action 5)Right living 6)Right effort 7)Right mindfulness 8)Right concentration

Four noble truths in buddhism: 1)There is suffering 2)There is cause to suffering 3)There is end to suffering 4)There is way (eight-fold path) out of suffering.

Four noble truths in buddhism: 1)There is suffering 2)There is cause to suffering 3)There is end to suffering 4)There is way (eight-fold path) out of suffering.

When Gautam buddha was born, he was named "Siddhartha". This word means "every wish fulfilled".

When Gautam buddha was born, he was named "Siddhartha". This word means "every wish fulfilled".

__________ Mahabharat ends with Lord Krishna's death from this world. __________ Then what about the description of Parikshit's death?

I was checking if there is some old post that I will find interesting. I saw this one. Melvin ji, still interested in talking on Buddhism? Let's do that.

I was checking if there is some old post that I will find interesting. I saw this one. Melvin ji, still interested in talking on Buddhism? Let's do that.

___________ The description of Parikshit's death as found in the Mahabharata is from the previous Kali yuga. ___________ jndas ji, If my understanding is correct, then some portion of Mahabharata belongs to dwapar yuga and the rest to kali yuga. Is it possible that the entire Mahabharata belongs to previous dwapar and kali yugas? It seems very-very unlikely (if not impossible) that Ved Vyasa would have mixed the two.

Hi shvu, Thanks for the information. Actually, I knew that Krishna was an avataar of Narayan. But I was under impression that this Narayan was the Supreme God himself.

Hi shvu, Thanks for the information. Actually, I knew that Krishna was an avataar of Narayan. But I was under impression that this Narayan was the Supreme God himself.

Excellent!! It is a very nice anecdote. Are you new to this site? Welcome.

Hi shvu, What a coincidence? We both have written more or less similar things. When I started typing my comments, I did not see yours. But the moment I clicked on "Submit Reply" and the page refreshed, I saw yours. I find that my comment is redundant because you have talked about that. So, please do not think that I have violated any copyright laws by posting my comment. :-)

Hi shvu, What a coincidence? We both have written more or less similar things. When I started typing my comments, I did not see yours. But the moment I clicked on "Submit Reply" and the page refreshed, I saw yours. I find that my comment is redundant because you have talked about that. So, please do not think that I have violated any copyright laws by posting my comment. :-)

Dear Sumeet, If we use the same name to mean two different persons, then there is bound to be confusion. When we use the word "Krishna", then sometimes we mean the one who was born as son of Devaki, brought up by Yashhoda etc. etc. But sometimes we mean the Supreme God who is eternal. You have to agree that if we use the same word to refer to both then we will get many apparent contradictions. As an example, consider the statement "Krishna was the son of Devaki." I am sure everyone in this forum will agree to that. But how can Supreme God who is eternal be ever born? If he is not born, then how can he be somebody's son? This is just one example. You will find many more such "apparent" contradictions. When one person says that Narayana is supreme God and another that Krishna is supreme God, then both are talking about the same but they are using different names. When one person says that Krishna was an awataar and another says that he is the supreme God himself and not an awataar, then they are talking about two different persons but using the same name. (I understand that the use of word "person" here is not appropriate because it indicates as if I am talking about just any ordinary human being, but I can not think of any more appropriate English word). To avoid such kind of confusions, we have two distinguish between the two. By distinguishing I do not mean that we should start thinking that Krishna is not Supreme God. All I mean to say is that for the purpose of discussion, we have to distinguish. There will not be any such confusion if we call Narayana as Supreme God because, as far as my knowledge goes, there is no avataar of the name "Narayana".

Dear Sumeet, If we use the same name to mean two different persons, then there is bound to be confusion. When we use the word "Krishna", then sometimes we mean the one who was born as son of Devaki, brought up by Yashhoda etc. etc. But sometimes we mean the Supreme God who is eternal. You have to agree that if we use the same word to refer to both then we will get many apparent contradictions. As an example, consider the statement "Krishna was the son of Devaki." I am sure everyone in this forum will agree to that. But how can Supreme God who is eternal be ever born? If he is not born, then how can he be somebody's son? This is just one example. You will find many more such "apparent" contradictions. When one person says that Narayana is supreme God and another that Krishna is supreme God, then both are talking about the same but they are using different names. When one person says that Krishna was an awataar and another says that he is the supreme God himself and not an awataar, then they are talking about two different persons but using the same name. (I understand that the use of word "person" here is not appropriate because it indicates as if I am talking about just any ordinary human being, but I can not think of any more appropriate English word). To avoid such kind of confusions, we have two distinguish between the two. By distinguishing I do not mean that we should start thinking that Krishna is not Supreme God. All I mean to say is that for the purpose of discussion, we have to distinguish. There will not be any such confusion if we call Narayana as Supreme God because, as far as my knowledge goes, there is no avataar of the name "Narayana".

jndas ji, It is very interesting. But I am really getting confused. Anyway, I will go through your post very carefully once again.

jndas ji, Who are the other six manasa-putras of Brahma?

Hi Ajay, Please go through the description of Mayawaad in this site. On reading that, it will be quite clear that the author does not agree with that theory. He has also written why he does not agree.