animesh

__________ Lastly I Reiterate , that if I have only given an argumental impression , then again I beg for your forgiveness. __________ I really do not understand why I should feel bad if somebody does not agree with me. I really do not feel bad about this. If I have right to disagree with others, others have right to disagree with me. Ofcourse, if I disagree, I should give reasons for that. Similarly, if others disagree, they should give reasons for that. And you have given a very proper reason. jndas ji, I think you are the best person to tell why you have described Mayawaad in this site.

Hi Ajay, I do not think that talking about mayawaad in this website is at all offending to Sri Prabhupada. Let me give you an analogy. In physics text books, you will find many old theories which have become outdated and also new theories. By describing old theories, the author is not trying to say that he agrees with them. He is just describing what the theory says. As an example, you will find books that describe those points of view of Aristotle which have been disproved by Newton. But the author is not trying to say that we should agree with what Aristotle said.

_________ But we learn from the Vedas that there is a cycle of 4 ages coming one after an other, and before this kali yuga mankind was much develope than we are. _________ I have heard many times that vedas and puranas are full of knowledge and that every knowledge of modern science is present in them. I can believe that vedas and puranas are full of knowledge but I doubt that every knwoledge in modern science has been derived from them. The modern science has been developed out of the strenuous work done by a large no. of scientists who have never studied vedas and puranas. So, it won't be correct to say that they have derived their knowledge from our scriptures.

_________ But we learn from the Vedas that there is a cycle of 4 ages coming one after an other, and before this kali yuga mankind was much develope than we are. _________ I have heard many times that vedas and puranas are full of knowledge and that every knowledge of modern science is present in them. I can believe that vedas and puranas are full of knowledge but I doubt that every knwoledge in modern science has been derived from them. The modern science has been developed out of the strenuous work done by a large no. of scientists who have never studied vedas and puranas. So, it won't be correct to say that they have derived their knowledge from our scriptures.

Hi Shvu, The exact date of the start of kali yuga depends on what we mean by the term "kali-yuga"? Who decides the definition of this term?

Hi Shvu, The exact date of the start of kali yuga depends on what we mean by the term "kali-yuga"? Who decides the definition of this term?

>I don't know. Maybe you'll take birth as a potato! Then, I'll make his curry. :-)

Hi Bhakta Shakta, It seems the writer of Matrix was very much inspired by Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics.

________ Yes, I am looking for proof that dieties exist, but I didn't want to stay it directly. ________ Well, it is not possible to give a convincing proof. I can at most cite verses from scriptures, but you can ask for the proof of the authenticity of those scriptures. So, it is better if I do not try to give the proof. _________ Even if we postulate that there is some so-called Supreme Controller who awards all others the results of their activities, He must also depend upon a performer engaging in activity. After all, there is no question of being the bestower of fruitive results unless fruitive activites have actually been performed. _________ I agree with this. Scriptures never say that God will award us without keeping in mind our karma. Scriptures always give importance to performing one's duties. __________ Since some multi-headed demigod can't change the destiny of human beings, which is born of their own nature, why should I believe in demigods? __________ Just because demigods can not change our destiny, we can not conclude that they do not exist. Can I change the destiny of others? I can't, but I exist. Why do we think that only those who can affect human beings should exist? The universe is made up not only of human beings. There are many others. Universe is not made up of only living beings either. There are many non-lbing things. jndas ji has given an excellent analogy of many departments in a government. That example shows that even though law is made by parliament, there are many in government who are not members of parliament. Similarly even if we assume that laws are made by Supreme Controller, we can not say that there is no need of demigods.

Hi Dasha, Let me first understand your question correctly. Are you talking about a situation when somebody helps others and, in turn, gets bad behaviour? Please give an example. Then I would try to put some light on this matter.

>thats why better to be away from girls. Well, I don't think so. Being away from dating, lust etc. is not the same as being away from girls.

Some verses from Bhagwad-gita 3.36 Arjuna said: O descendant of Vrsni, by what is one impelled to sinful acts, even unwillingly, as if engaged by force? 3.37 The Blessed Lord said: It is lust only, Arjuna, which is born of contact with the material modes of passion and later transformed into wrath, and which is the all-devouring, sinful enemy of this world. 3.38 As fire is covered by smoke, as a mirror is covered by dust, or as the embryo is covered by the womb, similarly, the living entity is covered by different degrees of this lust. 3.39 Thus, a man's pure consciousness is covered by his eternal enemy in the form of lust, which is never satisfied and which burns like fire. 3.40 The senses, the mind and the intelligence are the sitting places of this lust, which veils the real knowledge of the living entity and bewilders him.

The answer to your question depends very much on what you mean by "spreading one's religion"? What is the meaning of spreading hindu religion? Does it mean just to increase the count of people who call themselves as hindus? Does it mean to make somebody stop taking the names of Jesus and Allah and make him start taking names of Rama, Krishna, Siva etc.? Or, does it mean to make people belonging to other religions perform the rituals of hindu religion? I do not think that any of these is important. One should try to spread the good things (teachings) of one's religion. Vedas and upanishads are oceans of knowledge. They have got large no. of verses worth pondering over. Nobody is debarred from reading them even if he does not call himself as hindu. If you want to enjoy hindu festivals (like Deepawali, holi, Dashhara etc.), then also you have got every right to do so without leaving your present religion.

We can use our conscience to know what is right and what is wrong. If there are some books which teach us things which are obviously wrong, then they will not be considered as sacred.

> I've asked my hindu friends and they don't know. Well, this sentence indicates that you follow some other religion. It is good that you want to know about the religions of others. But, why search in a religion about what is wrong? No religion calls a wrong thing as right. After all, why is it that religious books are considered as sacred? Because they teach us good things. Imagine that some religious books teach us to steal, do all sorts of crime, then shall we (and should we) consider them as sacred?

>If you can hold someone's hand, hug them or even touch them on the shoulder ... you are blessed because you can offer healing touch. It is very true keeping in mind the disaster in Gurjarat and also the daily sufferings of so many people in India. I just want to mention a poem by Emily Dickenson. I love this poem:- "If I can stop one heart from breaking I shall not live in vain; If I can ease one life from aching, or cool one pain, or help one fainting robin unto its nest again, I shall not live in vain."

Hi Sushil, >It seems you have not read correctly, in the site it is clearly mentioned that "Vyasa may know or may not about radha" Please go through it once again. I have read it quite correctly. Whn you say "Vyasa may know or may not about radha", it means that you are doubting the knowledge of Vyasa. This means you are trying to say that his writings are not authentic, but perhaps the writings of GV are authentic.

The site also suggests that Madhya-lila and Gaudiya Kanthahara should be considered as authentic but it is not necessary to consider, as authentic, Bhagwat-puran written by Vyasdeva. Do you believe in this? Who wrote Madhya-lila and Gaudiya Kanthahara? From where the authors of these two became knowledgeable about things which are written in these two books? Since these books say that Vyasdeva may not know the meaning of Bhagwat, so we should rule out the possibility that the authors used the writings of Vyasdeva. So, we have to exclude the 4 vedas and the 18 puranas written by him.

Hi Shvu, You are right. The beauty of creation does not prove the beauty of creator. But I used the word beautiful in the sense of "amazing". Hi gtam, If somebody says "cheezbadi hai musth ..."is attributed to the Lord and his spiritual qualities. It seems you have not completed the sentence. Anyway, I was talking about entirely different song. I went through the web-site mentioned by you. According to that site, it is possible that Vyasdeva did not know about Radha. Do you really believe that Vyasdeva who was present during the time of Krishna and who had many divine qualities including the power to give Sanjay divine eyes so that he could see the complete war of Mahabharat from Dhrishtrastr's palace did not know about Radha? I am not trying to say that you should not suggest such things. I am open to ideas. I am open to the possibility that Radha was not known to Vyasdeva even though Vyasdeva was present at that time. But if you suggest such a thing, then you are doubting the divine power of Vyasdeva. If you doubt that, then you are doubting things written by him. Because it is said that he wrote about many incidents even if he was not present there physically, or in other words, he used his divine power. Which possibility do you want to accept?

Dear Shvu, It is true that very rarely we feel sorry for others. But, I can tell that the happiness one gets after helping people is immeasurable. Right now, I am earning enough. But I have felt the pain of hunger, living without house etc. I am supporting a little girl (around 6 yrs old). I can not say that I have adopted her. Because she lives with her mother. Her father left them long ago. I did not ask her mother the exact reason of that. Because I did not want to cause her more pain by asking such questions. Her mother wanted me to keep her with me. But I did not want to deprive her from motherly love. They stay 9 to 10 km. from my residence. I have taken it upon myself to get her clothes, toys, show her Bangalore, teach her and sponsor for her education. Recently I got her admitted to a school. Initially, her mother did not want her to join any school as she found it as useless. But, fortunately, I could convince her easily. The school is close to my residence. I have written these things not to boast. If I wanted to just show that I am generous, then I would have written here the details of myself, like where I live, where I work etc., so that everybody can know me. But I am not doing that. Even my name Animesh is not correct. But you can call me by that name. I have written these just to say that if you help others without any ulterior motive, then smile on their faces will bring you immense happiness. Now I am thinking about the people in Gujarat.

DONT JUST STAND ON THE BANKS AND KEEP SPECULATING THE DEPTH OF THE RIVER. HARE KRISHNA. Well, I understand what you are trying to say. But everybody does this. When we say something about the universe(or a part thereof), we do not say what it really 'is'. We just tell what it 'is like'. Or, in other words, we give a model. When we say that one theory is better than another, it really means that the model given in one theory is better at explaining observations than the model given in another theory. This is true not ony for scientists but for everybody. The universe is so vast and amazing that nobody really knows the real truth. We can all merely speculate. But there is nothing wrong in speculating. We speculate about something because we are interested in that. People speculate about stories related to Krishna because they are interested in these stories. I have heard that we should not seek happiness in material world. But, I can not help but appreciate the beauty of the material universe. Beautiful stars in the sky, birds going towards their nests in the evening, butterflies relishing the nectar of flowers, deers running in jungle... All this reminds me of a hindi song: "Jiski rachna itni sundar, wo kitna sundar hoga!". (If the creation is so beautiful, how beautiful, the creator himself must be!) Of course, the lyricist might be talking about somebody else, but the song is quite apt if we consider God as creator and universe as creation.

Dear Rajesh, I am not against chanting the names of Krishna. If you read the comments of people posting here, you will find that none of them is agianst that. But there is nothing wrong in asking questions and clarifying doubts. It is really not good that if somebody repeats what I say, then I call him good. But if he opposes me, then I call his talk as rubbish and nonsense. Expecting somebody to always repeat what I consider as correct is nothing but expecting flattery. So, if somebody points out something which we do not consider as correct, then we should give a proper explanation to why he is wrong. You have given the example of milk and butter to prove that even if something is not observed, it is possible that it exists. Well, I agree with that. But at the same time it is also possible that it does not exist. If not being able to see something is not the proof of its non-existence, then it is also not the proof of its existence. You have taken an example, where something may not be seen but exists. But you will find a large no. of examples where something is not seen and it really does not exist. One more thing: questioning things written about Krishna is not the same as questioning the existence of Krishna himself. Many scholars have proved that the real Valmiki Ramayan ends once Ravan dies. They claim that the story after that (Sita being asked to go to jungle) was added latter on. But these scholars do not doubt Valmiki Ramayan itself.

"What is the need for Deities philosophically, when Prakti (Nature) is operating on a set of predetermined scientific laws being controlled by a Supreme Controller?" I am also not sure that I understand the question correctly. But the words "Supreme Controller" in the question indicate that perhaps Bhakta Shakta is trying to ask "If everything is governed by Supreme Controller, why worship so many deities?" Well, it is just a guess.

Dear Viji, I agree that even though earlier puranas do not talk about Radha, there is always some possibility that she existed. But, I am sure, you will agree that many poets have exaggerated the details of rasa-lila between Krishna and Radha. I am not pointing out anything against Krishna or Radha. I am talking about the descriptions given in various books about the rasa-lila between Krishna and Gopikas. A parallel, I find in the descriptions given about Lord Buddha. Many authors claim that apsaras used to dance before him when he was meditating and still they could not shake him. But this is just an imagination. Because, as I have read, Gautam Buddha himself never gave any importance to such kind of talks.

Krishna has called the entire material universe as deluded. So, everybody is deluded by maya, including myself.