animesh

"Is it not the height of foolishness to worship manmade images of stone, clay or metal? Does it not betray utter ignorance and superstition? " This objection, which is very common, has been raised without a proper understanding of the great and sublime principle behind image worship. No Hindu ever worships these images considering them as God Himself. Though they are insentient images it is the conscious and sentient God that is brought to the mind by them even as we remember the living and conscious person when we see his photograph. If even this is objected to, then, the Christians who worship the crucifix, the Muslims who adore the Kaaba stone or the patriots who honour the national flag all of them will have to be dubbed as idolators! As regards the superstitions, the less said, the better. It is a well known fact of European history that hapless old women were branded as witches and burnt. Even today, the number 13 is believed by many in the West to bring bad luck. If by chance a shirt is worn inside out, they consider it as a bad omen that indicates failure in endeavours. The killing of the chameleons by the Muslims can also be cited as another example. I agree. Actually many Hindu practices ridiculed as superstitions have deeper philosophical and psychological truths behind them than meets the eye. Please give some examples. Even granting that superstitions do exist, they are all harmless. I disagree. Not all superstitions are harmless. There are villages in India where there is custom of beating oneself on some occassions. Sometimes they torture themselves or others so much that some people start bleeding. It is believed that these acts will please gods/goddesses. Lastly, the blind faith of the modem man in science and technology as if they are omnipotent, forgetting that they have miserably failed to give him peace of mind, is the greatest superstition of all! Yes, it is true that science and technology have not helped in giving peace of mind. But I do not think that it is ever claimed that these would give peace of mind.

So jndas ji, What do you say? Will you make me senior member if I change my username? I am ready to bribe you. How about a chocolate?

One day Gattu attended a lecture. After the lecture was over, he felt very hungry. So, he went to a canteen. There he ordered for Paav which is served to him. As soon as he lifted the paav to eat it, he saw the word "jannat" written in the plate. Now you have to answer the following question: - What was the name of Gattu's Sir i.e. of the Professor whose lecture Gattu had attended? Scroll down for the answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The answer is "Ishq Ki Chhaon". Kyoonkee............ Jinke "sir" ho "Ishq ki ChhaonPaav" ke neeche "Jannat" hogi... [This message has been edited by animesh (edited 11-01-2001).]

marco wrote: Having said and done, how come you hated Jaya Sri Radhey on this discussion forum/indiadivine.com? I have never hated anyone in this or any other forum. I have disagreed with people on some occasions but that is not the same as hating anyone. Jaya ji is happily spreading love for God through the forum "Seekers of Beloved God". Her taking part in this forum is administrative matter, so I won't get into that. But I fail to understand what makes you think that I hated her. I have always respected her if not for anything else then at least for the respect that she commands from me being much elder than I am.

Although this question is directed to jndas, but I feel that the Christian forum member should post only if he really wants the answers to his questions and not if he just wants to criticize Vedas. I am not trying to say that this must be his intention. But there are many who are like this. They ask questions regarding some religion only to make fun of that religion. Well, it was just my opinion. But, jndas ji is the final authority in such matters.

I want to change my username not because I want to have twin identity but because animesh is not my real name. Now I want to have a username which is the same as my real name. But I am not doing it for two reasons: 1. I will become a junior member. 2. You people know me by the name of animesh. So, it will be tough for you to adjust to my new username.

Dear jijaji and melvin, Do you notice that you get demoted to the post of "junior member" from that of "senior member" when you use a new username?

Did Sanatan Goswami give any reason why he contradicted Bhagwata? Or did he not contradict at all? [This message has been edited by animesh (edited 10-24-2001).]

I am a Sudra with Karmi training. How does it matter what caste you belong to?

I tried that link a few times and it did not work. I was planning to complain to you. But, before complaining I thought of trying it one last time and it worked. So, I can not complain now.

First make sure that we are talking of homosexuals and not of eunuchs.

It should also be pointed out that virginity as purity is applicable to both men and women. He, he. This means that I am pure. Nice to know this. Clap clap clap.

I am not in a good position to comment on the love between man and woman because of simple fact that I have never fallen in love with any girl and no girl has ever fallen in love with me. But call it pure love or lust or whatever you want, it is a must for life to continue.

Satya ji: Or wearing white dhotis, sikhas and a big Iskcon’s japa-mala bag with their ‘gurus’ photo? I am not saying that everyone should wear white dhotis, sikhas and japa-mala bag with this guru's photo. Personally, I do not have any of these. But, I will not look down upon anyone who uses these things. Just because, I wear fullpant, does not mean that I should despise those who wear dhotis.

Why is it that the women who become mothers after losing their virginity are considered less pure? After, all this is quite natural. Even if one believes in all of the stories that talk about a virigin conceiving a child, then also such instances are very rare. If we think that women who are not virgin are not pure, then we have to accept that there should not have been life on Earth.