1) Follow all colorful gods 2) Imaginations are reality 3) Sentiments and infatuation is truth of life 4) Believe in Mythological Vimanas & Ammunition Agni Baan , (though we need collob with Suzuki & Bofors),
even vedas devised many techy things million years ago.But hindus still use bullock carts. 5) No questions required for sentiments. 6) Sacrfice Animals to make god and goddess happy. 7) All gods can marry many times , their private life becomes sacred for believers 8) Casteism is must, Only who born from brahma's head are superior, rest must serve them. 9) Any number of gods can be created, reincarnated and manifested even with wood, rope etc. 10) Women , Shudras are biggest threat to Hinduism 11) Shudras not allowed in temple. 12) Must make all the gods drink milk 13) Offering pedas, laddus will bring good luck, can get lottery or gain laxmi in job / business. 14) Never make any god angry. 15) Agree to brahmins, even if they lie it is god's word must be agreed to. 16) believe in Ram flyover 17M years ago 17) believe in Ram flyover 5114 bce ago. 18) believe that Sanskrit and hinduism is 17 M years old. 19) Indus valley history belonged to Aryans, though they never existed before 3K years here. 20) Any good people on earth is either avatar of Vishnu or Brahma. 21) Claim anything good as part of hinduism (using Vedic paint brush) 22) All the religions in the world are offshoot of hinduism though it was named by foreigners 200 years ago.
KANCHI IS IN THE NEWS FOR WRONG REASONS Kanchipuram was the capital of Pallava dynasty in 5-8th century AD. Early Pallavas patronized Jainism. It was a famous seat of Jainism and at this very place Acharya Bhatta Akalanka defeated Buddha bhiskhus by 8-day debate in the year 643 AD in the palace of King Hima Sheetala. Princes Akalanka and his brother Nishkalanka underwent training in Buddhism at Nalanda in their youth. Eventually, Nishkalanka was killed by Buddhists and his death wish to his elder brother was to marginalize Buddhism which is against theism of soul (Anatmavadi or shunyavada). The later era witnessed revival of Vedanta through seers like Adi Sankara and so called Bhakti movement unleashing terror and all kinds of dirty civil wars. The temples now under Hindu custody at Kanchi puram were Jain temples. Once Jains were eliminated in the civil war, the famous Vardhamana Mahaveer temple became Varadaraja Perumal temple. The Neminatha temple became Kamakshi temple. Kamakshi is the new name of Kushmandini or Ambikaa yakshi of Bhagvan Neminatha. Both Vaishnavites and Saivites took charge of these temples respectively.
The brahmins regrouped in 18th century and took over charge of Kanchipuram temples and assets. Their mutt at Kumbakonam near Tirujinapalli (the venerable seat of Jina Munis, now called Tiruchi) was eventually shifted here with the permission of Britishers on the pretext of performance of Kumbabhishekam to Kamakshi yakshi. They wrote fresh history, link
RE:kanchipuram- a jain centre know as jina kanchi
by Jinadoss on Nov 06, 2007 11:18 AM
contd.. They wrote fresh history, linked this mutt to Adi Sankara whose period itself was antedated from 8th AD to 5th century BC to be in close company with Mahaveer and Buddha. Adi Sankara was credited institution of four mutts in the country in the lines of Jinakanchi. But this present Peetam does not figure in it. But money and influence can rewrite history. You persist with a statement; it is bound to be accepted as a gospel truth. So this mutt keeps on trumpeting this false history at every opportunity. Truth can also be new and need not be old or ancient to be sacred. But the over millennium years gap between Adi Sankara and other two Sramanas is unpalatable to modern day rehabilitated Kanchi peetam. It is strongly believed that the decorated Balaji is in fact kayotsarga idol of Bhagwan Neminath, the cousin of Lord Krishna. Recently, someone circulated the original idol on the net. Most of the present day Brahmins at these centers are descendants of Jains who shifted loyalty due to one or factors like fear or favour and lack of Punyoday
RE:kanchipuram- a jain centre know as jina kanchi
by Jinadoss on Nov 06, 2007 11:20 AM
They wrote fresh history, linked this mutt to Adi Sankara whose period itself was antedated from 8th AD to 5th century BC to be in close company with Mahaveer and Buddha. Adi Sankara was credited institution of four mutts in the country in the lines of Jinakanchi. But this present Peetam does not figure in it. But money and influence can rewrite history. You persist with a statement; it is bound to be accepted as a gospel truth. So this mutt keeps on trumpeting this false history at every opportunity. Truth can also be new and need not be old or ancient to be sacred. But the over millennium years gap between Adi Sankara and other two Sramanas is unpalatable to modern day rehabilitated Kanchi peetam.
RE:RE:kanchipuram- a jain centre know as jina kanchi
by Jinadoss on Nov 06, 2007 11:20 AM
contd... It is strongly believed that the decorated Balaji is in fact kayotsarga idol of Bhagwan Neminath, the cousin of Lord Krishna. Recently, someone circulated the original idol on the net. Most of the present day Brahmins at these centers are descendants of Jains who shifted loyalty due to one or factors like fear or favour and lack of Punyoday.
RE:Great vedic era with technology
by tamilan on Nov 05, 2007 07:00 PM
Again and again you are writing about old testament nothing is good in it except proverb. Christianity is only about new testament. Only two religions can be considered as good since they do not preach or spread violence. One is Buddhaism another one is christianity(again don't confuse with old testament that is only judaism).
RE:Great vedic era with technology
by tamilan on Nov 05, 2007 08:54 PM
I personally like what christ and buddha preached. If everybody is able to follow them there would be no violence, no blood shedding. I belive in God created man theory. But, also I belive that all the religions were created by man.
RE:RE:Great vedic era with technology
by tamilan on Nov 06, 2007 11:45 AM
Dear JGN, I am not misleading anybody. I just wrote what I believe. As I said all the religions are created by man. All the religions served their purpose and still serving. Modern civil laws will never replace morality of religions. There is a saying in Tamil. If a thief doesn't reform himself nobody can reform him. It is some vested interests in all the religions who made rules for their own welfare. Churches, puranas and other holy books are no exception. I agree with the fact that religions led to so many wars and bloodshed. It is the result of hatred spreaded by the vested interest. Christ or Buddha never preached hatred.
RE:Great vedic era with technology
by Suresh Arora on Nov 05, 2007 12:18 PM
Probably bible copied many things from Vedas, and incesteous act of Brahma and Saraswathi. I personally do not like Vedas as well as Bible.
RE:The Ten Commandments on the Schoolroom Wall?
by JGN on Nov 02, 2007 07:28 PM
Cont......d
So should our public schools be a place for posting words attributed to a god of an ancient people demanding sole recognition as the god of that people?
The second of the "Ten Commandments, besides its meaning being disputed between the two major branches of Christianity, would, if obeyed, have a devastating effect on our arts and our economy: "Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth, or in the waters under the earth."
This commandment has long been absent from the Roman Catholic version (since the Seventh General Council of year 787), although it may have been lately restored to the catechism. It has been in apparent conflict with the Church's long use of icons and statues. These are only "venerated" according to Church, which now interprets them to be "visual aids" for worship and intervention.
If respected as a basis for secular law, then public support and use of sculpture would have to stop. There would be no more commemorating soldiers of our various wars or of public heroes like Jonas Salk. Are we to bring up our children to feel that such "graven images" are wrong?
The third commandment is not to take the name of "the Lord thy God" in vain. This pertains to the name by which "thy God" had introduced himself in the first commandment, which children are not generally apprized. And what does "take in vain" mean? And why are the names of all other gods not include
RE:RE:The Ten Commandments on the Schoolroom Wall?
by JGN on Nov 02, 2007 07:29 PM
Cont....d
The fourth commandment (the third by Roman Catholic reckoning) is to "remember the Sabbath to keep it holy." The "Sabbath" was for those who originated this commandment the seventh day of the week, actually beginning on what we call Friday evening and ending about twenty-four hours later. Christianity somehow dropped the seventh day as the Sabbath and instituted the first day of the week and put on it all of the restrictions that previously applied to the seventh day. This again is strictly a religious rule, although certain jurisdictions in the United States have had "blue laws" requiring that no business activities be conducted on Sunday. Modern commercial practices are putting these to rest.
So, to put up the "Ten Commandments" in our public schools as either a set of rules to be followed or as a modedl for laws for our secular society is extremely inappropriate. They would, if required to be followed, establish religious practice and observance, quite at odds with the First Amendment of the Constitution.
RE:Is God a Dope? or Just Plain Clumsy?
by JGN on Nov 02, 2007 07:23 PM
Cont'....d I don't know who are the worst sinners on this planet, but I am quite sure that if a Higher Intelligence wanted to exterminate them, It would find a very precise method of locating each one separately. After all, even Lee Harvey Oswald -- assuming the official version of the Kennedy assassination -- only hit one innocent bystander while aiming at JFK. To assume that Divinity would employ earthquakes and pole shifts to "get" (say) Richard Nixon, carelessly murdering millions of innocent children and harmless old ladies and dogs and cats in the process, is absolutely and ineluctably to state that your idea of God is of a cosmic imbecile.
A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.
We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.
