animesh

I like a book called "First Lessons in Sanskrit Grammar and Reading". Why the word First? Is it because the book is very elementary?

I like a book called "First Lessons in Sanskrit Grammar and Reading". Why the word First? Is it because the book is very elementary?

jndas ji, Are there more administrators that you? You are in Mysore while the server is in Micro-Media Solutions Inc. 501, Walter Austin, TX78702, US Is the coordinator Mr. Robert Loera associated with ISKCON?

Why do we use the word Brahman even though it is pronounced as Brahm?

No, he can continue doing His work. When I go to Him, then He can answer my questions. I don't think it should be difficult for Him because He can take many forms at the same time. So, in one form He can answer my questions. I wish I could take a tape recorder with me to Him.

Why only this question? I am planning to ask him a large no of other questions also.

There is a big difference between learning Sanskrit and learning English. You will get many people with whom you can converse in English. But it is very difficult to find a person with whom you can converse in Sanskrit.

There is a big difference between learning Sanskrit and learning English. You will get many people with whom you can converse in English. But it is very difficult to find a person with whom you can converse in Sanskrit.

I don't think you should try to build vocabulary without learning grammar. Otherwise you will have to learn many many words. But if you learn grammar first, then by knowing the meaning of one word, you will be able to know meanings of many other words. I am not suggesting that you must know everything in Sanskrit grammar before building up vocabulary. In fact, they can go hand in hand. Try to give time on learning Kaal, Kaarak, Sandhi and Samaas.

I don't think you should try to build vocabulary without learning grammar. Otherwise you will have to learn many many words. But if you learn grammar first, then by knowing the meaning of one word, you will be able to know meanings of many other words. I am not suggesting that you must know everything in Sanskrit grammar before building up vocabulary. In fact, they can go hand in hand. Try to give time on learning Kaal, Kaarak, Sandhi and Samaas.

"If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal path round the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it would travel its path on its own, in accordance with a resolution taken once and for all. So would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about this illusion of his that he was acting according to his own free will. This is my belief, although I know well that it is not fully demonstrable. If one thinks out to the very last consequence what one exactly knows and understands, there would hardly be any human being who could be impervious to this view, provided his self-love did not rub up against it. Man defends himself from being regarded as an impotent object in the course of the Universe. But should the lawfulness of happenings, such as unveils itself more and more clearly in inorganic nature, cease to function in the activities in our brain?" --- Albert Einstein

In the book "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas R. Hofstadter, the characters of a story have life and they feel that they are doing everything of their own volition. Similar concept is present in "Sophie's world"

<Quote>It may also mean that although all things are predetermined, only some of them are seen by some people.</Quote> Quite possible. So, is there any free will? Or, was it predetermined trillions of years back (or may be even before) that I will be posting this message?

Many feel that God can not be considered as omniscient if He does not know future. But I disagree with this. Let me ask a few questions. Does God know the size of a frog's tail? Does He know the shape of a donkey's horns? Does He know the colour of a snake's legs? We can not say that God must know answers to these questions in order to be considered as omniscient because these things do not exist. Only if these things exist, He should know the answers to above questions. Similarly, only if future is predetermined, He should know what is going to happen. But it is possible that future is not predetermined. In another thread I made a post which says that some people get vision about future. That shows that some things that are going to happen in future are fixed. But it does not mean that everything is fixed.

<QUOTE>There is no difference between Allah and Krishna. They are the same person known by two different names.</QUOTE> I liked this. This way of thinking is a must to stop so much vendetta going on in the name of religion.

Yes, Buddha did believe in the concept of karma though the final aim of good karma was not reaching Vaikuntha or Goloka etc. according to him.

Is future known to Krishna or is future under His control? The two are different things. If future is known to him, this means that everything is predetermined and we don't have any free will because if Krishna knows that something is going to happen, then that has to happen. If future is in His control, then He may decide to let things run their own course and interfere only when it is necessary, e.g., when sin increases a lot.

What are your answers? Is future known to Krishna? If yes, is everything that is going to happen in future known to him or only some things are known?

I would like to go to ocean of milk. Then I can make and eat lots of sweet dishes with that milk.

Sorry, I think I took the discussion away from the topic. I am waiting for random to explain what he meant by "Actually, the Buddha that the Buddhist worship is not the Buddha from the Srimad Bhagavatam. It is a different personality. Anyone have the scoop?"

In the same way, we do not know who is wrong.

Puzzle:- If two persons are brought to court. It is proved that one of them has done a murder. But it is not found which of the two has done it? Whom should the judge punish?

Accepted that both can not be right. But how do we know who is right?

Clarification: I am not trying to say that Buddhists are bad that they do not find any relation between Visnu and Buddha. Just because Hindus may not agree with Buddhists does not mean that Buddhists are wrong. Of course, it also does not mean that Hindus are wrong.

Sorry, I did not make clear what I wanted to say. Even those who consider Vishnu as an expansion of Krishna consider that one is an incarnation of the other, whatever be the order. But Buddhists do not assume any relation between Visnu Buddha.