animesh

Atma ji, You have written that women are more emotional and, therefore, they easily trust anyone. I agree with this. But, sometimes the result of this is very unfortunate. I have personally witnessed an incident in which a lady kept on believing those who were trying to take their advantage and went against those who were really concerned about her. The situattion became extremely bad. But once, she was in deep trouble, then only she came to realize that she was wrong.

The ten kings of Shishunaga dynasty ruled for 360 years, beginning from 1994 B.C. and ending with 1634 B.C. I could see the figure 360 years mentioned in Bhagwatam, but where is it written that Sisunaga dynasty began in 1994 BC? I think, it should be 1934 BC. Yesternight I was going through Bhagwatam to find out when, according to Puranas, Chandragupta became king. I remember having read in Padma Purana that Sukadev told Parikshit the stories of Bhagwatam 30 years after the commencement of Kali age. It is believed that Kali age commenced in 3102 BC. So, Parikshit listened to the stories of Bhagwatam in 3102 - 30 = 3072 BC. According to verse 9.23.49 of Bhagwatam, Sukdev told Parikshit that the line of king Brhadratha (Jarasandha's father) would end 1000 years latter. So, the line of Brhadratha ended in 3072 - 1000 = 2072 BC. (Sukdev took just 7 days to finish the stories of Bhagwatam, so it really does not matter from which day of the dialogue, we count 1000 years). According to first discourse of last (12th) canto of Bhagwatam, Paradyotanas followed Brahadratha's line and ruled for 138 years. Next came Sisunagas. So, Pradyotanas line ended and Sisunagas line began in 2072 - 138 = 1934 BC. Sisunagas ruled for 360 years who were followed by Mahapadma (a Nanda). So, Mahapadma's line began in 1934 - 360 = 1574. Mahapadma and his sons ruled for 100 years and then, Chandragupt became king. So, Chandragupta became king in 1574 - 100 = 1474 BC.

The ten kings of Shishunaga dynasty ruled for 360 years, beginning from 1994 B.C. and ending with 1634 B.C. I could see the figure 360 years mentioned in Bhagwatam, but where is it written that Sisunaga dynasty began in 1994 BC? I think, it should be 1934 BC. Yesternight I was going through Bhagwatam to find out when, according to Puranas, Chandragupta became king. I remember having read in Padma Purana that Sukadev told Parikshit the stories of Bhagwatam 30 years after the commencement of Kali age. It is believed that Kali age commenced in 3102 BC. So, Parikshit listened to the stories of Bhagwatam in 3102 - 30 = 3072 BC. According to verse 9.23.49 of Bhagwatam, Sukdev told Parikshit that the line of king Brhadratha (Jarasandha's father) would end 1000 years latter. So, the line of Brhadratha ended in 3072 - 1000 = 2072 BC. (Sukdev took just 7 days to finish the stories of Bhagwatam, so it really does not matter from which day of the dialogue, we count 1000 years). According to first discourse of last (12th) canto of Bhagwatam, Paradyotanas followed Brahadratha's line and ruled for 138 years. Next came Sisunagas. So, Pradyotanas line ended and Sisunagas line began in 2072 - 138 = 1934 BC. Sisunagas ruled for 360 years who were followed by Mahapadma (a Nanda). So, Mahapadma's line began in 1934 - 360 = 1574. Mahapadma and his sons ruled for 100 years and then, Chandragupt became king. So, Chandragupta became king in 1574 - 100 = 1474 BC.

purpose of my posting was not to blame women... I don't know about others, but I fully agree with you because you have written positive and negative points about both men and women.

Gauracandra ji, You have mentioned some differences between men and women. I do not have access to statistical data to verify these. But, assuming that these differences exist, can we claim that these differences are inherent in men and women. Can't it be because of society? A few years back, I read a report which showed, based on statistical survey done in India, that small girls are more interested in dolls than small boys. Does it really show any fundamental difference between boys and girls? Can't it be that the reason for this difference in interests is that, in India, parents give dolls to their daughters and other kinds of toys like toy guns, toy cars to their sons to play?

If we think deeply, as in real world owners who are enjoying physical comforts will not allow their servants to enjoy same physical comforts. So applying this simple logic, Shiva always wants exaltation for himself so he will not give exaltation to his devotees, but he will give physical comfort for sure. It is reverse for Vishnu, that he likes physical comforts, so he will give exaltation of soul to his devotees. I liked this one. Does it mean that Shiva and Vishnu are selfish like "real world owners"?

Gauracandra ji, The movie "Gandhi" is well researched and very accurate.

I checked Balkanda, Ayodhyakanda and Aranyakanda of Tulsidas's Ramacaritmanas once again and did not find a single verse in which He is shown to have eaten meat. But I found some verses which say that He ate bulbs, roots, fruits, milk, rice.

I wanted to ask a question on pronunciation. Lots of words used in scriptures are very long because sandhi has been used. I find it difficult to pronounce them. Is it OK if I break them into parts and then pronounce each part (assuming that I can do correct sandhi-vichchhed)? Or, is it a must that they should be pronounced exactly as they are written?

Tulsidas has never said that 'Rama eats meat,' he said that Rama use to hunt a deer everyday and He give it as a gift to His father. His father eats the deer and Rama partakes meals with His father. He says that while describing Rama's youth in Balakandha, and also in Ram's nuptial celebrations in the same kandha where several dishes of meat were served. I have read Tulsidas's Ramacaritmanas published by Gita Press, but did not find what you have mentioned. Anyway, I will read that again and get back to you. But I would appreciate it if you could post here the relevant verses (both Avadhi and English translation). Can anybody else who has read Ramacaritmanas comment on this?

jndas ji, One question. Whom did Krishna instruct just before leaving the Earth? Uddhav or Ganga? Bhagwat Puran mentions Uddhav whereas Brahma-vaivarta Puran mentions Ganga.

Atma ji, I have read many books on Gandhi ji and Nathuram Godse. But when I read those books, I felt that the authors were either clearly biased in favour of or against Gandhi. But there is one book which did not give me this feeling. That is "The life and death of Mahatma Gandhi" by Robert Payne. Please read this book. It is really nice. Please also read "India wins freedom: Maulana Abul Kalam Ajad" to know about India's partition.

Satyaraja ji, You are saying that each version of Ramayana states that Rama used to hunt deer in His childhood. Could you please tell where this is mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana? As jndas ji has pointed out, there are many versions of Valmiki Ramayana. So, it is possible that you will quote from some version which I am not having. I have read Valmiki Ramayana published by Gita Press. Therefore, please also tell the name of the press. According to you, even Tulsidas has written that Rama used to eat meat. I have read Tulsidas's Ramacaritmanas. And I don't think there are many versions of this available. Could you please tell where exactly Tulsidas has written this? I also want to know on what basis you have come to the conclusion that kshatriyas must eat meat. It is correct to say that many kshatriyas used to eat meat. But, it does not mean that it was their duty to eat meat. I do not agree with your logic that just because Rama was a kshatriya, He must have eaten meat.

Gauracandra ji, I think you are surprised because of the name "Rakesh Dubey". Well, don't be surprised. It is not an uncommon name. It is quite possible for two (even more) different persons to have this name.

Ananga ji, I have Gita press edition of Valmiki Ramayan. Could you please tell which chapter of which Kaand says that Rama met a sage who prepared feast of all kinds of animal flesh?

I checked the verse 41 of canto 36 of Sundarkand of Valmiki Ramayan. In that lord Hanuman is telling Mother Sita, "The scion of Raghu (Lord Rama) eats neither meat nor honey. He partakes of fruits of rice fit for ascetics." But, some of sites on Internet refer to this verse and say that Rama ate meat. Note: The verse uses the word "madhu" which means "honey". But could it also mean "sweets"? Could anybody having knowledge of Sanskrit comment on this?

Ananga ji, I have Gita press edition of Valmiki Ramayan. Could you please tell which chapter of which Kaand says that Rama met a sage who prepared feast of all kinds of animal flesh?

Ananga ji, I have Gita press edition of Valmiki Ramayan. Could you please tell which chapter of which Kaand says that Rama met a sage who prepared feast of all kinds of animal flesh?

I checked the verse 41 of canto 36 of Sundarkand of Valmiki Ramayan. In that lord Hanuman is telling Mother Sita, "The scion of Raghu (Lord Rama) eats neither meat nor honey. He partakes of fruits of rice fit for ascetics." But, some of sites on Internet refer to this verse and say that Rama ate meat. Note: The verse uses the word "madhu" which means "honey". But could it also mean "sweets"? Could anybody having knowledge of Sanskrit comment on this?

I checked the verse 41 of canto 36 of Sundarkand of Valmiki Ramayan. In that lord Hanuman is telling Mother Sita, "The scion of Raghu (Lord Rama) eats neither meat nor honey. He partakes of fruits of rice fit for ascetics." But, some of sites on Internet refer to this verse and say that Rama ate meat. Note: The verse uses the word "madhu" which means "honey". But could it also mean "sweets"? Could anybody having knowledge of Sanskrit comment on this?

Sorry. I had not read it properly. I was editing my message when you were typing the reply. For other members of this forum: Before editing, my post read: Jagat ji, One question. You have written that "aparyAptaM" means unlimited. Doesn't it mean insifficient?

Jagat ji, One question. You have written that "aparyAptaM" may mean both unlimited as well as insufficient. You have written that this shows that Duryodhan was confused. Can we really claim that he was confused. There are many words which mean more things than one, but their usage does not indicate that the speaker is confused. Based on the context it may be possible to find out what he meant. Is it possible to know what Duryodhan really meant by, say, reading neighbouring verses? [This message has been edited by animesh (edited 07-12-2001).]

Hi Tarun, Which country do you belong? The name "Animesh" is quite common.

17. What was the President’s name in 1950? George W. Bush The question does not mention country. Then why did you assume USA? Now fair. Partiality.

So you accept that it is usually her fault.