Comments Posted By Atmavidya Dasa
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 108 Comments
Brilliant points by Sitalatma Prabhu in #38. You can know if a pot of rice is cooked by testing just one grain. A reader of this book will not find an unbiased scholarly presentation of both sides of the issue meant to inform us of the relevant strengths or weaknesses of the opposing views despite Urmila matajiâ€™s glowing review that it does just that.
Urmila devi dasi: What an incredible book. I believe this answers just about everything and considers every angle about women being gurus. A free download, too.
Rather what we get is a political propaganda piece with all the apparatus in place to give a distorted and biased view as Sitalatma Prabhu has pointed out. The fact that Kaunteya has purposely manipulated quotations of other writers (as Krishna Kirti Prabhu has pointed out) to give meanings that they never intended is revealing. If Urmila dd, who endorsed this book, and the pro-FDG camp actually had strong, solid arguments they would not have to resort to such chicanery. That they do indicates that they cannot be trusted in giving us the truth because they consider their dearly held beliefs to be subservient to the truth.
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 11.03.2013 @ 07:40
Next she says: â€śThe baggy eyes illustrate deep memory and facility to grasp facts.â€ť
Considering the medical fact that old people tend to lose their memory and many Alzheimer patients have baggy eyes this is another meaningless statement. One need only google images â€śAlzheimer patientsâ€ť to see what I mean.
She then wrote: â€śHis thick and long eyebrows show deep thinking and an enormous capacity to love.â€ť
As all men age it is common for their eyebrows to get bushy as well as development of hair in the ears and more hair in the nostrils. http://tinyurl.com/cpmz952
And while Samudrika sastra is a bona fide Vedic science â€śPhrenologyâ€ť is bogus.
It would be needlessly tiresome to pick through everything she wrote. In essence this article is meaningless, if it is meant to glorify Srila Prabhupada then IMHO it has not and I have demonstrated why. There are better ways to glorify Srila Prabhupada. One should at least be an expert in a subject like physiognomy or astrology before trying to apply it to Srila Prabhupada.
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 04.12.2012 @ 14:59
Reply to Abhya Mudra Devi Dasiâ€™s â€śPhysiognomy of a Pure Devoteeâ€ť
Dear Vaisnavas and lovers of Srila Prabhupada,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
We all love and adore Srila Prabhupada. But as Srila Prabhupada once said to some devotees in Sweden who wanted to make a magazine to debunk science that â€śunless you are expert in it you will become the laughing stock.â€ť
This text by Abhaya Mudra dd has many problems first of all the author gives practically no citations to support anything she says we are just expected to believe everything she says because if we donâ€™t we will be offensive to Srila Prabhupada. To illustrate she says:
â€śShrila Prabhupada had a small build like many powerful military leaders including Napoleon.â€ť
In actuality Napoleon was 170cm tall (5ft 7in), average height for his period. It was the British propaganda machine that depicted him as short. See for more on this point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon#Image
The author, Abhya Mudra dd, no where proves that it is a distinct feature that great military leaders are generally short in stature. Napoleon was average in height, Alexander the Great was short, while Julius Caesar was quite tall (according to Suetonius), George Washington was 188 cm, and Eisenhower 179 cm. These are just a few examples showing that great generals can be any height.
Then she writes: â€śShrila Prabhupadaâ€™s eyes were warm and beautiful, with protruding skin all around them.â€ť
Having skin protruding around the eyes is a common sign of aging in old people, hardly unique.
She says: â€śHis brown eyes show warmth and a refined writing ability. â€ś
Considering that brown is the dominant eye color in the world and only eye color in some countries like India and China renders her statement meaningless.
â€śDark brown eyes are dominant in humans and in many parts of the world, it is nearly the only iris color present. Dark pigment of brown eyes is most common in East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, West Asia, Oceania, Africa, Americas, etc. as well as parts of Eastern Europe and Southern Europe. The majority of people in the world overall have dark brown eyes.â€ť http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color#Brown
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 04.12.2012 @ 14:58
Abhirama das wrote:
Antardwipa Prabhu, I find no reason to respect an article that quotes only those shlokas that support the view of an author and conveniently ignores all tropical definitions of the Zodiac given in the various shastras. Shyamasundara Prabhu did the same in his articles. We all can do this. It is easy.
If you had actually read Antardvipaâ€™s article he already admits that both Suryasiddhanta and Srimad Bhagavatam talk about the tropical zodiac and states in various places that since Vrajakishore has already quoted passages about tropical usage there is no need for him to quote them again. So your complaint suggests that you never actually read what he wrote otherwise why such a complaint?
Neither Antardvipa nor Shyamasundara Prabhus deny that the sastras refer to the tropical zodiac, but they are saying that the sastras also refer to the sidereal zodiac something that both you and Varaja Kishore religiously deny despite references that both Antadvipa and Shyamasundara provided from various sources.
Vraja Kishore even went to the extent of saying:
â€śTherefore where is the â€śguruâ€ť who has the bile to say that it is â€śVedicâ€ť to use a sidereal zodiac.â€ť
So Antardvipa has shown that the sastras do in fact explicitly mention the sidereal zodiac and what it is used for. Specifically it is used for locating the position of the planets. Thus sidereal system is to be used in astrology. Tropical zodiac has other uses not related to astrology.
In Shyamasundara Prabhuâ€™s two articles he just specifically responding to the claims of the antagonist article he is refuting and does an excellent job of demolishing and reducing it to atomic particles and ultimately demonstrating that Tropical system of astrology is absurd by its own definition.
In your comment #6 at http://www.dandavats.com/?p=10661#comment-16233 you imply that only you and Vrajakishore are â€śscientificâ€ť and that those who disagree with you are â€śreligious fanatics.â€ť But it seems that even after so much proof is given you still deny the reality and cling to your religious beliefs that Vedic culture only uses tropical zodiac and that there is no place for sidereal zodiac. So who is actually scientific and who is not?
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 18.11.2012 @ 12:18
In #16 Vraja Kishore wrote:
All things considered, I beg to remain thoroughly unimpressed by the opposing view. I am openly inviting you to impress and educate me. I beg you to do it in an intellectual and rational manner.
You may want to consider this verse of Manu
“Unless one be asked, one must not explain (anything) to anybody, nor (must one answer) a person who asks improperly; let a wise man, though he knows (the answer), behave among men as (if he were) an idiot”. Manu Samhita 2.110
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 20.09.2012 @ 03:14
I am really amazed by your ability, superior intellect and perspicacious understanding in matters astrological. Your mastery of the subject is un-paralleled. All this time for thousands of yugas we have been in ignorance about the true position of the tropical zodiac and none of the great Vedic personalities or acaryas could understand it. Neither great stalwart Vedic astronomer-mathematicians like Arya Bhatta, Brahma Gupta, or Baskara Acarya who spent their lives studying the subject could fathom this secret. Even our Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saravati Thakura, who was a walking encyclopedia, and a mathematical and astronomical genius who published the translations and commentaries of numerous Vedic astronomical texts could not uncover the secrets you are now disclosing to us. It is all the more wonder since you have not studied mathematics or astronomy and have only studied jyotish for 3-4 years and that without a teacher. Simply amazing that with practically no qualifications you have been able to dive deep into the heart of such arcane mysteries and over turn thousands of years of traditional knowledge and show it to be ignorance. Kudos to you. Your guru must be proud to have a disciple who is superior to all preceding Vedic astronomers and who puts Bhakti Siddhanta to shame.
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 09.07.2012 @ 05:40
If my memory serves me right I believe I recall HH Bhaktivikasa praised “Food For All” as a good example. I don’t have access to the MP3s or a transcript of it now but I am pretty sure that if it were checked we will find that he didn’t criticize “Food For All.”
Could someone with access to the material do the needful. I’m traveling and don’t have access.
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 20.11.2011 @ 13:19
I assume you are talking about “Female Diksha-gurus in ISKCON: A paper by the Sastric Advisory Council (SAC)”
I saw 2-3 papers written on behalf of the Indian RGB that seriously contested this paper and its conclusions. One should read them as well before drawing any conclusions. Because after reading these papers I thought the SAC paper to be, how shall we say in a tactful way, not very useful or accurate.
I wonder if these Indian RGB papers have been published anywhere? Maybe Dandavatas can host them as well. They are full of cogent sastric references and analyses that nullify the conclusions of the SAC paper which in my humble opinion seemed bias towards a certain predetermined conclusion.
In any case both views should be given equal time not just a one-sided view.
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 26.04.2011 @ 06:04
Very nice article so many excellent points.
Bhakta Piyush is of course correct in his comments which I agree with.
I’m actually surpised it hasn’t been seriously attacked yet by the feminist camp.
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 13.04.2011 @ 03:01
There are other varnas as well. Let us expand our proof by assuming a woman can be a full-fledged kshatriya. According the Gita 18.44 this is a concise description of Kshatriyas:
â€śHeroism, power, determination, resourcefulness, courage in battle, generosity and leadership are the natural qualities of work for the ksatriyas.â€ť
Therefore by definition such a kshatriya woman should have great physical strength (power) and courage in battle. However in Sanskrit one common word for woman is abalA, devoid of strength,that is, weak. This is the opposite of strength and power.
We also note that Draupadi was the daughter of a kshatriya, the sister of many kshatriyas including Dristadyumna, she was the wife of five Kshatriya heroes, and she was the mother of five kshatriyas. But she could not defend herself when she was dragged by the hair, during her period, into a royal assembly by Dushasana. Nor could she defend herself from Jayadratha or Kichaka. So she was too weak and could not do battle with these persons. So here we have another contradiction and are forced to conclude that our initial assumption that a woman can be a kshatriya is falsified.
If we assume that a woman could be a kshatriya as per the definition of Gita 18.44 then we should see women kshatriyas on the battle fields of the Mahabharata, but there are none. Not only that but it is generally considered a sin to kill a woman. And because Sikhandin had previously been a woman Bhisma refused to fight with him. So here again we find contradictions and must assume that our assumption that a woman can be a kshatriya is false.
In conclusion it is proved by the method of Reductio ad absurdumâ€ť that women can not have a varna of their own. They are only called by a certain varna as a social convention as indicated by Srila Prabhupada in the following quote:
â€śThe woman, when she becomes the wife of a brahmana, then she is called brahmani, but she’s not offered brahminical culture. She remains as sudra.â€ť Room Conversation–August 2, 1976, New Mayapur (French farm)
Yours in service of Prabhupada
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 13.07.2011 @ 20:14