Ayodhya

After reading an article in TIME about the growing number of Born-Again Christians among the youth (read teenagers), I got concerned. Several churches have been implementing more discourse on the scriptures and such instead of reverting to games and fun to teach Christ.

Do you think sages should prosletyze?

Do you think Hindus should implement a similar sort of temple attendence every weekend along with ways of attracting the youth to recognize their faith?

I want to join Ayodhya's wish that Runa999's post receive proper consideration.

 

 

 

Mystical experiences are indeed natural and come from God to the soul. The soul is natural. Why think of the soul as something less than natural? This shows a severe lack of knowledge on the part of the secular humanist.

Most people consider the soul to be something greater than nature, and thus expect it to do miraculous things when in fact the soul is just the soul, the animating force and the bond that ties us to God.

The topic is very subjective as is much of our lives.

Jesus, to those Hindus who believe in him, believe him to be just another avatar of Vishnu, while some simply disregard him, some, the son of God, and others, as a mentor albeit, not holy.

1) To achieve Krishna through Christianity is a very silly idea, since Krishna was the name of the body in which Vishnu took part. I would say no, you cannot achieve Krishna through Christianity, however, you can achieve God through Christianity.

Personally, though many people (including myself) regard all religions as equal (refer to Theosophism), Christianity does not offer the depth of practice and spirit that Hinduism gives you. You do not have to look very far to find practical approaches to life and business - the three paths are straightforward and without complicating metaphors (albeit supremely poetic , thank you Krishna and Vasudeva), Bhakti, Jnana, and Karma.

2) Praying to Rama is silly in my mind, because ultimately, what is Rama? He is God incarnate and it is God and not Rama that you give your prayers to. Rama is neither the origin of Krishna and nor is Krishna the descendant of Rama. They are the same in spirit, and ultimately, that is all that counts.

3) To ask such a question on this forum is pure fallacy. On a Hindu forum, most people will suggest you read the Hindu scriptures first before anything else. Swami Vivekananda would probably suggest you read the Bible and Koran too, but after fully understanding the Hindu philosophy.

Swami Vivekananda was a very liberal and free thinking Hindu, in my opinion. Look up and read his works and you might find what you're looking for.

It really doesn't matter.

The Democrats unseated several Republicans and have now taken control of the House. The Senate is still evenly matched and I still haven't heard back from Montana or Virginia.

227 vs. 195, Democrats lead.

Hail and Namaste,

 

Does the answer have to be one way or the other? You attack this issue as if it has to be either matter or spirit when that particular posiition is faulty at best. From the Vedic viewpoint, all things are imbued with spirit, soul, or God. From the Monist viewpoint all things are one soul, spirit, or God. God is ultimate scientist. Do you actually think that all spiritual happenings must be mystical or unnatural? Does it not make more sense that God would craft us in a way so that having mystical experiences would be natural, or induced in some way that relies on natural properties? It would be like asking the cable guy to give us TV with a banana and twizzlers. If the mechanics if you will, could not allow for it in the first place, then the reality of mystical experience would not even exist to talk about. The "God Spot" in the brain developed for a reason. It developed so that we would be able to know the Truth. The existence of these chemical and bio-electric reactions are not disproofs of the spirit or of God, but rather an undeniable glimpse into the mastermind of the Primal Soul...the ultimate scientist...of whom without, we would not be.

I believe this post was sorely missed.

In a monistic sense, matter and the spirit are the same. Did not God give us Reason? If he did, than to say that we now have the ability to record these events is a testament to that idea.

Also, why should the brain be totally unconscious to percieve a mystical experience? Why is it necessary to go into a comatose for a trance or any other near-death state to achieve this?

Are you condoning child marriage?

Suppose Rama had not hidden behind a tree. Suppose he had fought Bali by being in front of him and then killed him. Do you think that would have been OK? Please give your reasons.

Ultimately, we are not debating whether Rama killed Vali or not. If Rama had a reason to do so, he would've. The original poster asserts that the reason Rama had for killing Vali is not sufficient and not befitting of his charitable character.

The action is not the problem, but only the motivation behind it.

No other source states that Krishna had 16,000 wives.

How many wives, if any, is he stated to have in other scriptures (Mahabharata, Vishnu Purana, etc.)?

Hinduism tends to have a lack of doctrine, like other religions, which some might consider a bad or good thing (I would consider it better), because there are so many forms of worship, so many gods, etc. Just like the Muslims pray 5 times a day, the Christians go to Church on Sunday, what exactly are Hindus supposed to do?

When are we supposed to pray?

What are we supposed to pray?

Are there specific poojas (on a more daily or weekly basis) that is common to all Hindus?

Since there are so many scriptures involved here, could one also include segments from the Vedas that answer these questions in addition to personal additions?

So Krishna had approximately 161,000 children? Or did he only have children with Rukmini, Satyabhama, and Jamvanti?

What were the cirumstances under which he married Satyabhama and Jamvanti? Were they as horrible as the entire Rukmini craziness?

Rukmini is also stated to specifically have had ten children, named Pradyumna (presumably the reincarnation of Kama, and the reborn wife of Rati), Carudesna, Sudesna, Carudeha, Sucaru, Carugupta, Bhadracaru, Caruchandra, Vicaru, and Caru.

Are children of Satybhama and the other wives listed? What about the other princesses?

Also, if Krishna liberated the 16,000 princesses from Narakasura, did the gopis from Vrndavana join him in Dwaraka as well, amounting to more than 16,000 princesses?

Technically, Radha was not married to Krishna but there are hints that there may have been a secret ceremony. Brahma is also said to have "married" them with Him as their witness.

Rukmini, Lakshmi incarnate, is by scripture, the first true wife of Krishna through rite.

At the end of the Sri Bhagavatam Purana, does Rukmini join Krishna as another one of his wives?

And who is Satyabhama? She is referenced in his duel with Narakasura.

Finally, if he had more than one or two wives, who were they? And how many did he have in total?

Is there a name for the crater near Bombay?

I would definitely like to research this and find out what they found there and how it relates to Ancient Indian nuclear science.