animesh

But what exactly is theism? I have come across people who very firmly declare that they believe in God. They go to temples, do pujas. But they have absolutely no hesitation in doing harm to others because of their selfishness. Also, they do not hesitate in doing harm to those who once helped them and again talking sweetly to them when it suited them. Should they be called theists?

Hi Shvu, Just now I read your comments. I agree with you. As you can see in my comments, I have written that we Indians are ourselves to blame to some extent. Whatever you have written about our history textbooks is exactly what I myself wanted to write, but I had to leave to help my younger brother with preparation for his exams. But I do not think that the reason could be vegetarian food. :-) The reason, as you have pointed out in the last part of your comment is that the history books that are taught to Indian students teach things which are written by Europians. Even if those books are written by Indian authors, these authors in turn rely completely on the research done by Europeans.

Dear Gauracandra ji, You are very correct about history. It is very unfortunate that many (though not all) historians are very biased when publishing papers on history. It is also true that we are not given credit most of the times when we deserve it. But, to some extent, we Indians are ourselves responsible for it. Consider vedic mathematics. Now a days, many people all over the world are getting interested into it. This is good. But the problem is that Indians have started finding it interesting because Europeans and Americans have done most of research on Vedic mathematics. Why is it that before that we did not find it that much interesting? Why is it that we ourselves can not do research on our ancient knowledge? Many times, we hear statements like "Scientists in USA have proved it, so it must be true". Why does something become true just because researchers in developed countries have said that? If there is some scientist who is known to be very knowledgeable in some subject, then I can understand if he says something regarding that subject. But why should it become true simply because they belong to Europe or USA? Even with regards to our own scriptures, the history of our own country, we wait till some European historian publishes some paper. Then we start believing the same thing which we used to disbelieve earlier.

Wow Gauracandra ji, I started typing my comment before I saw yours. But your comment is before mine. Hmmm. So, we both are here.:-) Now I will read your post.

As Sri jndas ji has mentioned, we believe in something and don't believe in something else because we have faith in one source and not in another. But this is not the only reason. Most of the times, we do not want to believe in something because it is very unlikely (though not necessarily false). As an example, if my neighbour tells me that yesterday he saw one cat sitting on his roof, then I will believe him. But if he says that yesterday he saw a lion sitting on his roof, then I won't. Since in both cases, the person giving the news is the same, my belief or disbelief has nothing to do with my faith on the source on the information. But it is because I consider it very unlikely that a lion could be sitting on his roof. It is not that our faith on source of information has nothing to do with our belief. Many times, our belief or disbelief is affected by that. But that is not always the case. Likelihood of a news is also important. I must repeat what Dear Shvu has mentioned: Calling something as unlikely is not the same as calling it as impossible. If a box contains ten thousand balls out of which 1 is black and rest are red and if I draw one ball at random, then it is very unlikely (probability = 0.0001) that the ball will be black. But it is always possible that it will be black.

Just one clarification. I wrote above "So, we see that such kind of people can not be called as complete believers (like me)." The words "like me" here do not stand for complete believers but for the whole sentence. So, please do not think that I am trying to call myself as a complete believer. But, on the contrary, I am saying that I am also not a complete believer as I myself sometimes forget that God is always watching whatever I do. I think that I used English language in a vague way. :-)

I think that there are very few people who completely believe in God. Similarly there are very few who completely disbelieve in God. Majority believe in God sometimes and do not believe other times. In fact, most of the time people disbelieve in God, but they do not realize that they are disbelieving. At least, I honestly admit that this has happened to me. Many people, when they do something wrong, then they just make sure that nobody is watching them and that they do not leave any proof. I bet that even those people who consiider themselves as theists do this sometime. I am not trying to offend anybody. As I said, I myself belong to this category. Now, when we really believe that there is God and that he is omnipresent, then why do we think that nobody is watching us? So, we see that such kind of people can not be called as complete believers (like me). On the other hand there are some people who, if asked, will say that they do not at all believe in God. But when they are in deep trouble, then they pray to God, even though they do not show to the world that they are praying. So, they can not be called as complete disbelievers.

I thought of putting this post after reading a post by Sri Sumeet ji. The intention of this post is not to compare between goddesses Saraswati and Ganga. I just want to know about the mentioning of these two in vedas and puranas. I have read that our scriptures earlier talked about Saraswati. Later that place was taken by Ganga. Please post verses from vedas and upanishads which glorify these two rivers.

Dear Girish ji, Why is it that at speeds very small compared to c(speed of light in free space i.e. 299792458 m/s), the errors in applying Newton's laws are negligible? When I said, they have not been completely overthrown, all I meant was that they are still very much applicable? Why is it so? This is because Newton's laws were accepted because they could very well explain observations and not simply because Newton said it. This is one merit in accepting theories after lots of tests. That even if in future a more accurate theory is found, the earlier theory will still be applicable although not in as many diverse cases it it was believed to be applicable before. Now let us talk about faith. I agree that faith needs no proof. If I have faith that something is true, then I will consider it to be true even if no firm evidence is found. But that does not mean that that thing must be true. It is just that I believe it to be true. I do not find anything wrong in faith. Life can not be worth living without faith. If believing in what our scriptures say increases the love harmony between people, then there is nothing wrong in believing them even if they are man made. But I mentioned about science only because I have found many people making fun of science because in science theories are always proved wrong.

Science is proved wrong again and again because scientists are ready to discuss and accept earlier theories wrong if they do not satisfy experimental results. They are always doing new and new experiments to test theories and to bring about new theories if needed. Things written in religious books are not being proved wrong simply because almost no scholar on these books is ready to discuss these and accept them as false even if there are some contradictory statements in them. Please note, I am not trying to say that these books must be wrong. It is highly possible that they are all correct and ,as Sri Sumeet explained using an analogy, firm evidence might have disappeared over span of time. All I am trying to say that just because something is not questioned does not make it absolute. Irrespective of whether something is right or wrong, I prefer the method of discussion and experimentation in which we discuss strengths and weaknesses of theories and do experiments to verify them. Because without these we may not be able to know that something is wrong even if it is really wrong. Now you may ask that when science uses so much of discussion and experiments, then why are scientific theories being proved wrong. Please note that when a theory is accepted after lots of tests then even if it is proved wrong it is not completely overthrown. As an example, even though Newton's laws have been proved wrong by Einstein's relativity, these laws have not been and can not be completely overthrown. They are still very useful and will continue to be useful.

I went through the site briefly. Even though I am a hindu, I am sorry to say that I did not like a large no. of things in that site.

I need help of all you people. I have read various shlokas of puranas and vedas, but at different places. I want them together. Let me start with Srimad Bhagwatam. Could you suggest me where I can get the complete text of Bhagwatam? Web site will also do, but I would prefer a book form, because I do not find it easy to read a huge amount on things on computer screen. But I bet I can read and understand huge amount of things related to software development :-) Even though it is not necessary, I would prefer if I can also get proper translations of the verses into Hindi or English.

I think it is not a good practice to do so much of editing in our sacred texts or any other ancient books. It is perfectly OK to translate them into different languages so that many people can benefit from it, but the meaning should not be changed. If people start changing the contents, then different people will write different things. So, there is bound to be contradictions. I also felt that there are some contradictions. But I may be wrong. May be that if I read everything properly, then I will not find any contradictions. But if changes have really been made, it is not good.

Dear maratamila, Please refer to http://tied.narod.ru/archive/article12.html You will find something interesting there.

Dear Viji, You have mentioned that number 9 is very auspicious and you have given reason for it. I will just mention something related to that about all numbers. Let there be two positive numbers x and y. Let z = x + y Calculate the sum of digits in x. Keep doing it till you get a single digit (the same you did to the multiples of 9). Do the same with y. Now you have two digits. Add the two digits. If you get a two digit figure, then add them to get a single digit. You will find that this is the sum of digits of z. Example: Let x = 155 (sum of digits = 11, sum of digits of 11 = 2) y = 75 (sum of digits = 12, sum of digits of 12 = 3) z = 155 + 75 = 230 (sum of digits = 5 which is same as 2 + 3, calculated above). Now I will explain why the sum of digits of any multiple of 9 is 9. The sum of digits of 10 is 1. 9 is 1 less than 10 and 0 is 1 less than 1 (sum of digits of 10). So, in this way 9 behaves somewhat like 0. You multiply any number to 0, you get 0. Similarly, you multiply any number to 9, you will get a no. whose sum of digits is 9. You add 0 to any number, that number is not changed. Similarly, you add 9 to any number, the sum of digits of that number is not changed. Example: 35 + 9 = 44 Sum of digits of 35 = 8 Sum of digits of 44 = 8 I talked about positive numbers. What about negative ones? We know that adding zero to any number does not change the number. We have found a similarity between 0 and 9. So, if you have a negative number, then add keep adding 9 to it till you get a positive number. In other words, add a multiple of 9 to get a +ve no. Then you will find that it shows the behaviour I have described for positive numbers above. Example: 34 - 14 = 20 34 - 14 is same as 34 + (-14). 34 is already a +ve no. -14 is a -ve no. -14 + 9*2 = -14 + 18 = 4 (+ve) Instead of doing 34 + (-14), let us do 34 + 4. We get 38. Sum of digits = 11. Sum of digits of 11 = 2. Sum of digits of 20 (34 - 14) is also 2. Now let us do the reverse i.e. 14 - 34 We get -20 14 - 34 = 14 + (-34) 14 is +ve and -34 is -ve. -34 + 9*4 = -34 + 36 = 2 Instead of 14 + (-34), let us do 14 + 2. We get 16. Sum of digits = 7 14 - 34 = -20 (-ve) -20 + 3*9 = -20 + 27 = 7 So, both are 7. I have described here addition and subtraction. You will find such kind of behaviour holding true for multiplication and division also. Of course, in case of division, the division must finish. The result can be fraction but we must know the exact digits after decimal. Example: 25 * 3 = 75 Sum of digits of 25 = 7 7 * 3 = 21, sum of digits = 3 Sum of digits of 75 = 12, again sum of digits = 3 Example: 17/2 = 8.5 Sum of digits of 17 = 8 8/2 = 4 Sum of digits of 8.5 = 8 + 5 = 13, whose sum of digits = 4 I thought of putting this comment immediately after I saw yours, but I was hesitating to do it as I thought this would be digressing from the topic. But I could not control myself. So, today I am posted it. Tell me how was it? :-)

Manjula ji, Kahan hain aap? No comments from your side. Does your experience match with any of the descriptions jndas ji has given? Please let us know. Dear jndas ji, Earlier I had not read your explanation thouroughly. Now I read it. It is really interesting. You have asked Manjula ji to discuss this via email to u. This is not fair :-(. How will others here know the details?

Dear Sri jndas ji, I was really curious to know the explanation of the blue lights Manjula ji has mentioned. In fact, everyday I used to open this site to see if somebody had replied to her. You have given an explanation for this. Just out of curiosity, are u aware of some other people having such experiences?

Dear Viji, I have a doubt. You have written that Kaikeyi should not be blamed because if Rama had become king instead of Bharat, then Rama would not have killed Ravana and other rakshasas. But did Kaikeyi asked for Rama's exile for this reason? I don't think so. I think she asked for his exile out of affection towards her son. It may be argued that she was made to think that way because Supreme God himself wanted that. In that case, should we blame anyone for doing anything? Because, isn't it that whatever happens happens because Supreme God wants that to happen? Please note that my personal feeling is that if somebody does something wrong, then (s)he (including me) is to be blamed. But then I find this in contradiction with the argument you have put regarding Kaikeyi. One more question: Is there any clear evidence in Vedas and Puranas that everything is pre-determined by Supreme God?

Sorry for the characters <I> <P> etc. I wanted the hymn to appear in italics.

<HTML> <I> <P>Atmosphere was not, nor the heavens beyond</P> <P>What was concealed? Where? In whose protection?</P> <P>Was it a fluid? An unfathomable abyss?</P <P>There was neither death nor immortality then</P> <P>No distinction of day or night</P <P>The One breathed without air, by its own power</P> <P>Other than that there was nothing else</P <P>Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning</P <P>All this was an indistinguishable sea</P> <P>That which becomes, that which was enveloped by void </P> <P>That One was born through the power of heat.</P> <P>Upon That desire arose in the beginning</P <P>This was the first discharge of thought</P> <P>Sages discovered this link of the being from non-being</P <P>Having searched their heart with wisdom</P> <P>The line of vision was extended across</P> <P>What was below? What was above?</P> <P>There were impregnators, there were forces</P> <P>Inherent power below, impulses above</P> <P>Who knows truly?</P> <P>Who will say whence it arose, this creation?</P> <P>Even the gods came afterwards</P> <P>Who, then, knows whence it came into being?<P> <P>Whence this creation came into being</P> <P>Whether it was created or not </P> <P>Hi in the highest heaven, its surveyor</P> <P>Maybe He knows, or perhaps he knows not.</P> </I> </HTML>

Respected Sri Sumeet Ji, Thanks a lot for this wonderful site. I read the overview of "Mysteries of Sacred Universe". It is really very interesting. I am planning to go to a bookshop tomorrow and buy this book. The first step to gain any knowledge is to have curiosity. We find an excellent example of this in Rg Veda:

Dear Gaurachandra Ji, I am happy that you found my comment interesting. I was thinking that people would be bored by this. I am also not a physicist as per my profession, but I have knowledge of Physics. From your post, I can say that I know Physics more than you. Ha Ha. (just joking). It is not necessary for anything to be moving fater than light so that we find that it does not age. Equal to the speed of light is good enough. When I say speed of light, I mean that speed of light in vacuum, because the speed of light depends on medium. In vacuum, this speed is the greatest. It is 299792458 m/sec.

Dear Gaurachandra ji, I have not seen the movie, but I have read the book "Contact". Time is relative not only because of speed but also because of gravity (General theory of relativity). Clocks run slower when there is higher gravity. This has been confirmed by many expeiments. You have mentioned about a story which says that one day of Brahma is equivalent to many generations on Earth. I remember having read this story when I was in 7th std. After having the statues (made by Vishwakarma himself) of Jagannath, Balbhadra and Subhadra in Jagannath Puri, King Indradyumn wanted Lord Brahma to be the priest. He went to Brhama with Narad muni. Before leaving, he had promised his wife that he would be back in less than one day. When he came back, he found that everything was unfamiliar. Meanwhile many generations had passed.

Dear JNDas ji, I reall wonder that if the amount of knowledge of vadas and upanishads which is preserved is so vast, then how vast must have been the complete knowledge. I am sure that lots of information must have got lost in due time. Because of saints like Sri Chaitanya, some of them could be rediscovered. But there have to be many more which are still to be rediscovered. I feel that whatever informations are known should be preserved in such a way so that our future generations will not have trouble in utilizing those, e.g. reproducing them in books of good quality paper, making CDs on them etc. etc. I really do not know how to go about searching for the information which have been lost. I firmly believe that if we read our scripures with analytical mind, then we will find there a huge amount of information which will be helpful for humanity (including science). For example, consider the following: - Maha Vishnu gives the energy which is latter converted to matter. This is an excellent example of mass-energy equivalence. We do need to study vedas and upanishads with open and analytical mind to extract information out of them. Only memorizing will not help. I have found some people making fun of scientists by saying that whatever they have discivered and invented were already known. Without causing offence to anyone, I want to say that this is not the right attitude for the following reasons: 1)Science has really helped us in so many ways that it is impossible to appreciate all of them just in words. This website we are using is just one example of that. 2) A large no. of scientists who have given great theories did not have knowledge of our scriptures. So, it is obvious that they did not simply copy from our holy books. 3) Simply saying that vedas have complete knowledge is not good enough. We should be able to describe that knowledge in such a way that people can understand. To achieve this, we have to have knowledge of both our holy books as well as science. Also, we should study these books and see if we can gather useful scientific knowledge out of them. As a first step, we can try to find out the things which are already known to science. Of course, this will not give anything new to science but at least, it will help us understand our scriptures in a better way. A time will come when we will find many new information which we should write down in such a way which people of present time can understand. Lots of knowledge in vedas are in poetic form in the form of shlokas. There is nothing wrong in that. But we should also be able to describe that in the form in which modern people can appreciate it. Also, if possible we should make it more quantitative. This way, more and more people can benefit from this vast knowledge. I have given example of mass-energy equivalece. I can give many more, but I will give just one more: When Maha Vishnu exhales, then numorous universes are created from pores in his body. When he inhales then these are again destroyed. It is obvious that when anything springs out of a pore, then initially it has to be of small size which will expand latter. So, we find that universe was of microscopic size initially which expanded (experiments say that it is still expanding). This is an excellent reference to big-bang theory. Now come to multiple universes part. One modern interpretation of quantum physics is multiverse theory. (Please note that the term 'multiverse' is the short form for 'multi universe'). So, combining big bang and multiverse theories we find that there are innumerable no. of universes. In each of these big bang is applicable. Hope that you did not find my comment boring :-) Wish regards, Yours truly.

Sorry for putting a third comment in such a short time. But I am putting a comment as and when it is coming to my mind. So, hope that u will not get too bored :-) It is wrong to say that just because all people want to become something, we should not divide and should consider them exactly the same. Because if we consider them as exactly the same, then we have to consider a person who does many good things for poor people and a person who kills people for money as exactly the same. So, we must divide.