Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dubeyrakesh

  1. I dont think on the day when someone will point a gun on the head of jndas or dayal_govinda and ask him to give up all his faiths and take up a new one, will they be able to convince him that Srila Prabhuprada was or was not the sampsthapak acharya. At that time whether they are shot or not would be immaterial because WE would be surely lost. Then neither SP nor Goswami are going to be here to stop the gun shot but turning upside down in their graves about what they thought and what is happening I request the intellectuals to come down to reality and discuss things that matter
  2. Hello, Sometimes I really wonder whether the various topics that are discussed at Spiritual Discussions make sense. Do debates like who is the Samsthapak Acahrya of Gaudiya Sampradaya make sense when Hinduism in in grave danger of survival. I mean when the Islami militia worldwide is getting united for we-know-what, India/Hinduism is under a grave threat by the so called jehadis, Christainity backed up by the rich west is doing we-know-what, and India is gettin raped, I think we have better things to discuss ans do. Will post later Rakesh
  3. Welcome aboard Chris. The best and the worst part of Hinduism is noone can claim to know it entirely. Just like life. None of us know what is life. But are living and learninf it. Minute by minute. Day by day. Year by year. Till death. Or conversion. Rakesh
  4. Rajkumar Santoshi has made some pretty good movies in the past. I personally liked his ghayal, ghatak, andaz apna apna etc. But his last movies were not exactly hits. I remember "pukar" was his last. So the easiest way to make a fast buck would be a little controversial movie. And who better than Hinduism to target? May be Santoshi really thinks that Sita Mata thought the way he thinks. But thats another drawback of MY religion. Complete freedom to treat the historical/mythological events as you may. The movie would have been a sureshot hit had Khalid Mohammed directed it. But its worse now. Its just controversial. No one can raise a big hue and cry (as if someone other than ShivSena and Atma would raise) because its a Hindu guy's view bout Hinduism. So its correct to express. And express it loud. Cheers. Rakesh
  5. Atma, Where have you seen Lajja so soon? I heard it is stuck up with courts in India. Are you talking bout some trailer? In India people making movies/serials making fun of Shastras etc is common. The problem lies with us. Rakesh
  6. Here are the reasons for they being female: No one but their creator understands their logic. Even the smallest mistakes are immediately committed to memory for future reference. The native language used to communicate with other computers is incomprehensible to everyone else. The message, "Bad command or filename" is about as informative as "If you don't know why I'm mad at you, then I'm certainly not going to tell you. As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself spending half your paycheck on accessories for it.
  7. Its "GOOD CLEAN JOKES" guys and atma Rakesh
  8. Hey Atma, Post the reasons for the FEMALE part also. I remember a few: Its impossible to analyse their intricate functionality. They stop responding for unknown reasons etcetc Rakesg
  9. I got this from a friend. Neglect the HTML tags. Just pasted as was. <DIV></DIV>>Santa Singh ji the english lecturer <DIV></DIV>>---- <DIV></DIV>>Sardar Santa Singh ji is the english teacher in a school. He <DIV></DIV>>is very well renowned for all his students do very well in exams. <DIV></DIV>>The school is having an inspection and the inspector decided <DIV></DIV>>to visit the english class. This is what transpires: <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Santa Singh: "Bolo bachon GADHA" <DIV></DIV>>Students (in chorous): "GADHA" <DIV></DIV>>Santa Singh: "Bolo bachon GADHA, GADHE KE PECHE GADHA" <DIV></DIV>>Students (in chorous): "GADHA, GADHE KE PECHE GADHA" <DIV></DIV>>Santa Singh: "Bolo bachon GADHA, GADHE KE PECHE GADHA, GADHE <DIV></DIV>>KE PECHE MAI." <DIV></DIV>>Students (in chorous): "GADHA, GADHE KE PECHE GADHA, GADHE KE <DIV></DIV>>PECHE MAI." <DIV></DIV>>Santa Singh: "Bolo bachon GADHA, GADHE KE PECHE GADHA, GADHE <DIV></DIV>>KE PECHE MAI AUR MERE PECHE SAARA DESH." <DIV></DIV>>Students (in chorous): "GADHA, GADHE KE PECHE GADHA, GADHE KE <DIV></DIV>>PECHE MAI AUR MERE PECHE SAARA DESH." <DIV></DIV>>By this time the inspector is furious. He confronts the <DIV></DIV>>principal and shouts at him. "What is this Santa Singh teaching to <DIV></DIV>>students. He is supposed to be taking an english class and <DIV></DIV>>what he is saying is GADHA, GADHE KE PECHE GADHA, GADHE KE PECHE <DIV></DIV>>MAI AUR MERE PECHE SAARA DESH." <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>The principle too is shocked, Santa Singh the famous english <DIV></DIV>>teacher doing this. He immediately sends for Santa Singh. <DIV></DIV>>Principal: "Santa Singh ji what nonsense are you telling these <DIV></DIV>>students, GADHA, GADHE KE PECHE GADHA, GADHE KE PECHE MAI AUR <DIV></DIV>>MERE PECHE SAARA DESH." <DIV></DIV>>Santa Singh: "Yes I was telling all this in class, but I was <DIV></DIV>>only teaching the students the spellings of ASSASSINATION." <DIV></DIV>>( ass ass i nation)
  10. Einstein quoted once: There are only 2 ways to live life. One, to consider everything as a miracle. Other to consider nothing as a miracle. As far as JN Das' name is considered, I am with Animesh. Rakesh
  11. Is SP the founder of ISKCON? What was his life span? Where/How was his childhood spent? How did he got into Krishna conciousness? Thanks, Rakesh
  12. All the chaos/dissatisfaction in the material world is a direct effect of the inability/unwillingness to control the mind. The external world will be at peace if the intenal mind is at peace ie if one can keep his mind sanyamit and niyamit and not allow its state it to be governed by the material senses. We all know this is veryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy difficult. <E>This all may be redundant but thats not what this thread is started for.</E> I just wanted to put my views on how Christianity, Islam and Hinduism "handle" this: 1. Christianity takes the easiet path. Because it is difficult to control the mind (=desires), better not to control it. Instead follow the desires within rules and regulations. So we have the material west where we find not only more materialism (money, sex etc) but better law and order also. Result: the west is seemingly more organized/developed/modern than the third world Asian countries. 2. Islam tries to take the bull by horns. Tries to enforce the sanyam-niyam. So we have the fundalmentalist taliban where the internet is banned, the women move under veils etc etc. Result: an underdevloped group of countries seemingly and purposefully/willingly disconnected from the "modern" world. 3. Hinduism seems to take no path. It has all the knowledge about "how to keep the mind under control" in its literature, "suggests" that the mind _should_ be kept under control but neither enforces anything nor let it go free. Result : a utterly chaotic India aka Bharat where people(=Hindus) are struggling to decide what path to take. Struggling to identify themselves. Those who have "identified" themselves are either fully money and/or sex oriented or are here in this forums. In other words, each person is living in his own rules and regulations being a little good and a little more bad depending upon what past life has taught him/her. From a layman's point of view, both "1" and "2" are better than "3". "1" says, if you cant beat them (=desires) them, join them. "2" suggests takinig the bull by horns. "3" just "says". These are my views. Differences are welcome. Thanks, Rakesh
  13. ALD:I know this is off the topic of this thread, but it is relevant in that it touches on the life of the soul and the peak of human potential which is a life of love This thread started with "when does the soul ..." and now we all find ourselves looking for evidences to prove its existence. So its already out of way I suppose. No posts from Mr Gaurachndra suggets that Tarun's post would suit the "Good Clean Jokes" department too. Thanks, Rakesh
  14. Mr Satyaraja Dasa, Do you mean to say that the "delicate equlibrium" is not exactly defined in medical science? I think it should be. Like : If any of the components x, y or z falls below a quantity of a, b or c respectively, the equilibrium is disturbed and biochemical activities stop resulting in death. May be all this this forms a complete branch of medical science itself that is out of your domain. Thanks, Rakesh
  15. Mr Satyaraja Dasa, That does not address my query. Let me rephrase the words: what causes the cells of the brain have no more biochemical activities? Thanks, Rakesh
  16. Shvu, I conclude from your post above that: 1. You are sure that there is no soul. 2. You are sure that if there is a soul, it has no sense of sight, smell etc etc. The two seem sort-of contradictory. We are all trying to assist each other reach some conclusion here and not just oppose. The least we can do is believe in what others post here. Thanks, Rakesh
  17. Mr Satyaraja Dasa, Good to find a Doctor. You see different people may differ in their opinion but what does medical science say about all this. I am almost certain that it provides something "solid" to counterattack the "departure of soul from body is death" theory. More simply, what is the difference between a dead body and a live one that makes the dead non-functional? Thanks, RAkesh.
  18. Science may do that someday (hope not) but the question is does it agree today that there is something non-physical missing in a dead body that was present in a live one. This is not contradicting the functional incapabality of the dead body. Is there no medical professioanl here in these forums? Thanks Rakesh
  19. I think the lightbulb example can help further enlighten us. When a bulb fails, we can follow the science and do something to make it work again. We cant do that something for a dead body. Agreed that the failing of bulb and body are both examples of "Something that was functioning is not functioning anymore". But science provides "exact" reason and remedy for the bulb but not for the body (Actually my question was whether it provides a reason/remedy for death). Because it does not, it simply rejects the reson to be the soul (becuase the filament is not visible in this case) ;-) Thanks, Rakesh
  20. What calendar is refferec when you say that 5000 years of Kaliyuga have passed? Thanks, Rakesh
  21. What is the basis of classifying our literature into Vedas, Shastras, Puranas, Smritis, Upanishads and others that I missed? When were all of these composed and by whom? Thanks, Rakesh
  22. That was an excellent post Mr Jijaji. Actually I feel that the 36Cr Gods represent the different desires/dilemmas/thoughts that a human mind experiences at all times. And just like we desire something more than something else at one point of time but desire the opposite at some other point of time, we have one God seeming superior to other at times. But for someone like me (and most of Indian-Hindu youths) who hasnt been taught to worship one particular God, its difficult to determine which deity is "mine". Tell me this: Which of the 36Cr Gods, "deserves" a Purana? Who decided? Who worte them and when? You may be knowing this but Jijaji is kind of weird to address someone who is not your Jijaji; It means Sister's husband. Thanks, Rakesh
  23. One thing admirable about whatever the west does/believes is that they have facts and figures. So if and when Ayuyveda says that death is nothing but "soul departing from the body" without any "scientific proof", the medical science will not claim/say that simply because it cannot provide any "scientfic proof". So I think that this medical science must say something about death thats "logical"; Why is a dead body "dead"? Can someone please tell me whats the differece between "Atma" and "Atman"? Thanks, Rakesh
  24. I have always wondered how does medical science not accept existence of a soul. I may be grossly mistaken but once I thought about what exactly happens when a human dies? Everything "material" or "physical" that existed when someone was alive also exists when death occurs. So what is the difference between a dead body and a live body. Soemthing that used to operate that mass which is "dead" has disappeared now resulting in death. When a bullet pierces a body. it takes away nothing "physical"? Then why does one die? What does medical science say about this? Thanks, Rakesh
  25. Does BG mention Muslim/Christian inspite of these religions non-existent at that time? Mr Garachadra, I think Gandhi os a movie worth watching again. Thanks, Rakesh
  • Create New...