Sunday, December 23, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
SAME OLD STORY......
"Faking a laugh, faking a smile,
Hiding the truth behind a mask, while
my heart is breaking into pieces
with every smile that i give
That's the life that i live
I tried to fool myself and hide behind my dreams
Tried to make everything as simple as it seems
But deep inside, there were thousands of bursting tears,
with every smile that i used to give
that's the life that i live
Ended up with a broken heart,
ended up with my life ripped apart.
Ended up left alone in the darkness, crying,
Gave up and just quit trying..."
Hiding the truth behind a mask, while
my heart is breaking into pieces
with every smile that i give
That's the life that i live
I tried to fool myself and hide behind my dreams
Tried to make everything as simple as it seems
But deep inside, there were thousands of bursting tears,
with every smile that i used to give
that's the life that i live
Ended up with a broken heart,
ended up with my life ripped apart.
Ended up left alone in the darkness, crying,
Gave up and just quit trying..."
Friday, November 2, 2007
when she is gone
When I started as a young boy
I didn't think life could be greater.
Soon everything fell apart
and you pieced together my broken heart.
I opened up and let you in,
I never thought you'd HURT me in the end.
I never understood what went wrong.
I didn't think it would hurt this long.
All the things you said to me,
I always thought we would be.
The past we cannot forget
But our hearts might be filled with great regret.
I've survived heartbreak and I'll do it again.
I cannot dwell on one of you GIRL.
Love comes your way each and everyday,
It isn't obvious but is shown in a different way.
Some people feel it and others don't,
There are some people who just won't.
Loving is living,
You have to be giving.
Hiding away won't solve the problem today.
Embrace each chance to give your heart away.
Love hurts but take chances,
You will find different romances.
I will open my heart once more
But my heart will always be sore.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Thats my life
A boy and a girl,
the best of friends.......
Each waking moment
since the day they met.
They both loved each other
sunrise to sunset.
He was all she had
in her terrible life.
He was the one
who kept her from her knife.
She was his angel,
she made him smile.
Though life threw him curves,
she made it all worth while.
Then one day
things went terribly wrong.
The next few weeks
were like a very sad song.
He made her jealous
on purpose he tried.
When the girl asked, "Do you love her?"
on purpose he lied.
He played with jealousy
like it was a game.
Little did he know
Things would never be the same.
His plan was working
but he had no clue.
How wrong things would go,
the damage he would do. ..............................
&&&&&& THE damage ws done...............
the best of friends.......
Each waking moment
since the day they met.
They both loved each other
sunrise to sunset.
He was all she had
in her terrible life.
He was the one
who kept her from her knife.
She was his angel,
she made him smile.
Though life threw him curves,
she made it all worth while.
Then one day
things went terribly wrong.
The next few weeks
were like a very sad song.
He made her jealous
on purpose he tried.
When the girl asked, "Do you love her?"
on purpose he lied.
He played with jealousy
like it was a game.
Little did he know
Things would never be the same.
His plan was working
but he had no clue.
How wrong things would go,
the damage he would do. ..............................
&&&&&& THE damage ws done...............
I M ALL ALONE
I am alone,
so very alone
I hurt,
so very bad
I am ignored,
just thrown aside
I am security,
for others to have
I am lonely,
there is no one close,
no one sees the pain
I cry,
hope is gone
I am alone,
and no one knows................
so very alone
I hurt,
so very bad
I am ignored,
just thrown aside
I am security,
for others to have
I am lonely,
there is no one close,
no one sees the pain
I cry,
hope is gone
I am alone,
and no one knows................
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Non-vegetarian??????
Introduction
It has been a topic of great interest for me to find out if eating of meat is truly a sin, as it is often made out to be by self-righteous vegetarians. Even more so, after I converted to vegetarianism. It is true that man likes to impose his personal ideas as the right path for his fellow-men. For extraordinary human beings, this is not necessarily a bad thing, as it often benefits mankind. My intention is not to research the actual effects of meat-eating, but to verify historical claims that the ancients of India have always been vegetarian.
It is one thing to explain to people the benefits of vegetarianism, tell them that you believe in it, and you think it would benefit them. It is quite another to use the names of respected ancients to propound your philosophy. My effort in this ongoing article is to research this claim whether the ancients truly were vegetarians. I shall try to do so with links to texts wherever possible.
I'd like to add, that I personally believe that vegetarianism is good for health, and can help in the practice of spirituality, because that works for me.
The Codebook of Manu
One of the oldest referred scriptures in India is the code book of Manu, the giver of laws. This contains various laws as to the functioning of society. Even today, wannabe lawyers in good schools study this code book in their curriculum (NUJS does).
From the Manu Smrti,
"There is no sin in eating meat, in drinking spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards" - verse 56
"By subsisting on fruits and roots, and by eating food fit for ascetics, one does not gain so great a reward as by entirely avoiding the use of flesh" - verse 54. [Ref]
It is important to see this in perspective. Manu Smrti clearly lays down that it is NOT a sin to eat meat. However, it recommends abstinence for the rewards are great.
The story of Ilvala
Agastya muni, who is known as the founder of the South Indian Vedic civilization, had a famous encounter with the demon Ilvala. It is said that Ilvala had a brother, named Vatapi. Vatapi could turn himself into a ram. Then he'd be led to sacrifices by unwitting Brahmins. After he was eaten up, Ilvala, using her occult powers, would summon him - and he'd burst out from the stomachs of all the people who had eaten him, and would become whole again(killing the eaters in the process). Agastya muni was approached to help rid this menace. The great muni went to the demon, and was offered the ram meat. He ate it. Then, as Ilvala tried getting her brother out, Agastya muni burst into laughter. He told Ilvala that he had digested Vatapi completely, and the fiend wouldnt come out anymore. Ilvala was terrified and begged for mercy. It is said Agastya directed the demoness to a spiritual path after that.
This story proves without a doubt that Brahmins of the time of Muni Agastya were meat-eaters, for there was no other way that they would sacrifice and eat the meat of a ram. Agastya muni dates from the time of the Ramayana - which would be definitely earlier than 4500 BC (Krishna is dated to be around 3200-3150 BC).
There is another interesting aspect to this story - that these were not just any Brahmins, but South Indian Brahmins, who today claim that they've historically been vegetarian.
Again, I'd like to add, that it is definitely good to be vegetarian, but it is not a fact that historically, South Indian Brahmins have been vegetarian.
The Bhagvad Gita
This is believed to be the nectar from the Upanishads, the summary to speak of. It is the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna in the battlefield - with Lord Krishna explaining to Arjuna why he must uphold his duty and fight.
The Gita is often treated as a reference text on how we should lead our lives. It is a truly marvellous document of sociology, and is so utterly logical that it makes an interesting read for people studying logic or engineering.
To come to the point, I've often heard that the Gita prohibits the consumption of meat, and hence followers of the Gita should abstain. Let us study this claim.From the commentary of Adi Sankaracharya on the Gita, Chapter 17, verses 7-10 :
7: "Food also, which is dear to all, is of three kinds; and so also are sacrifices, austerity and charity. Listen to this classification of them."
8: "Foods that augment life, firmness of mind, strength, health, happiness and delight, and which are succulent, oleaginous, substantial and agreeable, are dear to one endowed with sattva."
9: "Foods that are bitter, sour, salty, very hot, pungent, dry and burning, and which produce pain, sorrow and disease, are dear to one having rajas.
10: "Food which is not properly cooked, lacking in essence, putrid and stale, and even ort and that which is unfit for sacrifice, is dear to one possessed of tamas.
It is so surprising that we do not find any mention of meat in the "rajas" or "tamas" categories. For if it is truly bad, Lord Krishna could have, in one splendid verse, proclaimed so, and so many millions would have followed. But he didnt.
On the contrary, most of the vegetarian food eaten in Northern and Southern India would easily come under the category of "sour, salty, very hot, pungent..." - hardly sattvic.
Opponents may argue that the interpretation of verse 10 - "that which is unfit for sacrifice" would apply to meat, thus bringing it to the tamasic category. However, such an argument does not hold merit, as we've just examined the story of Agastya Muni and Ilvala, wherein a ram was being sacrificed and eaten. Unfit for sacrifice would in fact apply to meat that has any injury or wound on its body - which is said to make it unholy to offer God. It maybe added that such a concept augurs well with the sense of personal hygiene, as participants in the yajna would partake of the meat afterward.
It is also known that the Ashwamedha Yajna consisted of sacrificing horses and eating their meat. We shall be touching on this a little later.
Opponents may further argue, that meat is "putrid and stale" - but such an argument usually comes from ignorance - no non-vegetarian eats putrid or stale meat, for that is a serious health risk. It is known that meat suppliers have to undergo strict checks for its freshness and non-contamination. It is definitely true that meat gets putrid and stale faster than vegetables, but such meat can be considered poisonous and no meat-eater in his sane mind knowingly eats rotten meat.
Verse 9 is of particular interest when it is applied to Indian cooking - that often borders on the pungent or hot. It should not be construed that all of vegetarian Indian cuisine is sattvic.
Verse 8 sheds light on what the criterion of sattvic food is - and if meat is cooked in that manner, it is hard to dispute that such food should not be considered sattvic.
Our observation from these verses is that - there is no clear indictment of meat, when there should have been if meat-eating is sinful. The reason for this might probably be that people in the period were avid meat-eaters.
The Ashwamedha Yajna
The Ashwamedha Yajna is a famous sacrifice, in which a king interested in "world-domination" would send out a sacrificial horse through the territories of neighbouring kings. This was done to establish the strength of the king, as anyone who stopped the horse would have to face the might of the king's army. Either there'd be battle, or the neightbouring kings would yield and pay tribute. What is interesting is that, at the end of the sacrifice, all the kings, rishis and brahmins would get together, and would partake the horse-meat that was offered in sacrifice. It is very hard to believe that a pure-vegetarian civilization would conjure up such a non-vegetarian sacrifice.
Continuing with this, it is a known fact that two of the greatest kings of India performed this sacrifice. One was Lord Rama, an avatar of Vishnu. His horse was stopped by his own sons - Luv and Kush. As Lord Rama performed this sacrifice, it stands to reason that the Lord had consumed the meat of the horse, and was therefore a non-vegetarian.
The second king worthy of mention was Yuddhisthira, and in his yajna, all the Pandavas and Lord Krishna participated. That means, Lord Krishna and the Pandavas had to take the horse-meat at the end. Was Lord Krishna non-vegetarian ? Such an idea now seems logical as Lord Krishna was a kshatriya (warrior) and a king. It was standard practice for warriors to eat meat, as they had to wage war - and it is not possible to have good warriors who cannot kill.
It is also known that Lord Rama's father Dasrath would go hunting, for that was how he shot Shravan Kumar and got cursed. The question is, what did Dasrath do after he killed the deer or the animal that he was hunting ? It is usual tradition for the slain animal to be cooked in the palace, a tradition that continued right upto the 20th century, when India had its last kings. If it were otherwise, it would turn most ancient kings into sadists interested in satisfying killing instincts for no sensible purpose. I would definitely not think that our noble vedic kings would have been given to such sadistic pleasure, especially as they were the trendsetters of their generation and for several future generations.
It has been a topic of great interest for me to find out if eating of meat is truly a sin, as it is often made out to be by self-righteous vegetarians. Even more so, after I converted to vegetarianism. It is true that man likes to impose his personal ideas as the right path for his fellow-men. For extraordinary human beings, this is not necessarily a bad thing, as it often benefits mankind. My intention is not to research the actual effects of meat-eating, but to verify historical claims that the ancients of India have always been vegetarian.
It is one thing to explain to people the benefits of vegetarianism, tell them that you believe in it, and you think it would benefit them. It is quite another to use the names of respected ancients to propound your philosophy. My effort in this ongoing article is to research this claim whether the ancients truly were vegetarians. I shall try to do so with links to texts wherever possible.
I'd like to add, that I personally believe that vegetarianism is good for health, and can help in the practice of spirituality, because that works for me.
The Codebook of Manu
One of the oldest referred scriptures in India is the code book of Manu, the giver of laws. This contains various laws as to the functioning of society. Even today, wannabe lawyers in good schools study this code book in their curriculum (NUJS does).
From the Manu Smrti,
"There is no sin in eating meat, in drinking spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards" - verse 56
"By subsisting on fruits and roots, and by eating food fit for ascetics, one does not gain so great a reward as by entirely avoiding the use of flesh" - verse 54. [Ref]
It is important to see this in perspective. Manu Smrti clearly lays down that it is NOT a sin to eat meat. However, it recommends abstinence for the rewards are great.
The story of Ilvala
Agastya muni, who is known as the founder of the South Indian Vedic civilization, had a famous encounter with the demon Ilvala. It is said that Ilvala had a brother, named Vatapi. Vatapi could turn himself into a ram. Then he'd be led to sacrifices by unwitting Brahmins. After he was eaten up, Ilvala, using her occult powers, would summon him - and he'd burst out from the stomachs of all the people who had eaten him, and would become whole again(killing the eaters in the process). Agastya muni was approached to help rid this menace. The great muni went to the demon, and was offered the ram meat. He ate it. Then, as Ilvala tried getting her brother out, Agastya muni burst into laughter. He told Ilvala that he had digested Vatapi completely, and the fiend wouldnt come out anymore. Ilvala was terrified and begged for mercy. It is said Agastya directed the demoness to a spiritual path after that.
This story proves without a doubt that Brahmins of the time of Muni Agastya were meat-eaters, for there was no other way that they would sacrifice and eat the meat of a ram. Agastya muni dates from the time of the Ramayana - which would be definitely earlier than 4500 BC (Krishna is dated to be around 3200-3150 BC).
There is another interesting aspect to this story - that these were not just any Brahmins, but South Indian Brahmins, who today claim that they've historically been vegetarian.
Again, I'd like to add, that it is definitely good to be vegetarian, but it is not a fact that historically, South Indian Brahmins have been vegetarian.
The Bhagvad Gita
This is believed to be the nectar from the Upanishads, the summary to speak of. It is the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna in the battlefield - with Lord Krishna explaining to Arjuna why he must uphold his duty and fight.
The Gita is often treated as a reference text on how we should lead our lives. It is a truly marvellous document of sociology, and is so utterly logical that it makes an interesting read for people studying logic or engineering.
To come to the point, I've often heard that the Gita prohibits the consumption of meat, and hence followers of the Gita should abstain. Let us study this claim.From the commentary of Adi Sankaracharya on the Gita, Chapter 17, verses 7-10 :
7: "Food also, which is dear to all, is of three kinds; and so also are sacrifices, austerity and charity. Listen to this classification of them."
8: "Foods that augment life, firmness of mind, strength, health, happiness and delight, and which are succulent, oleaginous, substantial and agreeable, are dear to one endowed with sattva."
9: "Foods that are bitter, sour, salty, very hot, pungent, dry and burning, and which produce pain, sorrow and disease, are dear to one having rajas.
10: "Food which is not properly cooked, lacking in essence, putrid and stale, and even ort and that which is unfit for sacrifice, is dear to one possessed of tamas.
It is so surprising that we do not find any mention of meat in the "rajas" or "tamas" categories. For if it is truly bad, Lord Krishna could have, in one splendid verse, proclaimed so, and so many millions would have followed. But he didnt.
On the contrary, most of the vegetarian food eaten in Northern and Southern India would easily come under the category of "sour, salty, very hot, pungent..." - hardly sattvic.
Opponents may argue that the interpretation of verse 10 - "that which is unfit for sacrifice" would apply to meat, thus bringing it to the tamasic category. However, such an argument does not hold merit, as we've just examined the story of Agastya Muni and Ilvala, wherein a ram was being sacrificed and eaten. Unfit for sacrifice would in fact apply to meat that has any injury or wound on its body - which is said to make it unholy to offer God. It maybe added that such a concept augurs well with the sense of personal hygiene, as participants in the yajna would partake of the meat afterward.
It is also known that the Ashwamedha Yajna consisted of sacrificing horses and eating their meat. We shall be touching on this a little later.
Opponents may further argue, that meat is "putrid and stale" - but such an argument usually comes from ignorance - no non-vegetarian eats putrid or stale meat, for that is a serious health risk. It is known that meat suppliers have to undergo strict checks for its freshness and non-contamination. It is definitely true that meat gets putrid and stale faster than vegetables, but such meat can be considered poisonous and no meat-eater in his sane mind knowingly eats rotten meat.
Verse 9 is of particular interest when it is applied to Indian cooking - that often borders on the pungent or hot. It should not be construed that all of vegetarian Indian cuisine is sattvic.
Verse 8 sheds light on what the criterion of sattvic food is - and if meat is cooked in that manner, it is hard to dispute that such food should not be considered sattvic.
Our observation from these verses is that - there is no clear indictment of meat, when there should have been if meat-eating is sinful. The reason for this might probably be that people in the period were avid meat-eaters.
The Ashwamedha Yajna
The Ashwamedha Yajna is a famous sacrifice, in which a king interested in "world-domination" would send out a sacrificial horse through the territories of neighbouring kings. This was done to establish the strength of the king, as anyone who stopped the horse would have to face the might of the king's army. Either there'd be battle, or the neightbouring kings would yield and pay tribute. What is interesting is that, at the end of the sacrifice, all the kings, rishis and brahmins would get together, and would partake the horse-meat that was offered in sacrifice. It is very hard to believe that a pure-vegetarian civilization would conjure up such a non-vegetarian sacrifice.
Continuing with this, it is a known fact that two of the greatest kings of India performed this sacrifice. One was Lord Rama, an avatar of Vishnu. His horse was stopped by his own sons - Luv and Kush. As Lord Rama performed this sacrifice, it stands to reason that the Lord had consumed the meat of the horse, and was therefore a non-vegetarian.
The second king worthy of mention was Yuddhisthira, and in his yajna, all the Pandavas and Lord Krishna participated. That means, Lord Krishna and the Pandavas had to take the horse-meat at the end. Was Lord Krishna non-vegetarian ? Such an idea now seems logical as Lord Krishna was a kshatriya (warrior) and a king. It was standard practice for warriors to eat meat, as they had to wage war - and it is not possible to have good warriors who cannot kill.
It is also known that Lord Rama's father Dasrath would go hunting, for that was how he shot Shravan Kumar and got cursed. The question is, what did Dasrath do after he killed the deer or the animal that he was hunting ? It is usual tradition for the slain animal to be cooked in the palace, a tradition that continued right upto the 20th century, when India had its last kings. If it were otherwise, it would turn most ancient kings into sadists interested in satisfying killing instincts for no sensible purpose. I would definitely not think that our noble vedic kings would have been given to such sadistic pleasure, especially as they were the trendsetters of their generation and for several future generations.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The Guys' Rules
We always hear " the rules " From the female side. Now here are the rules from the male side.
These are all numbered "1" ON PURPOSE!
1. Men are NOT mind readers.
1. Shopping is NOT a sport. And no, we are never going to think of it that way.
1. Crying is blackmail.
1. Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one:
Let us be clear on this one:
Subtle hints do not work!
Strong hints do not work!
Obvious hints do not work!
Just say it!
1. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it.
That's what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.
1. Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument.
In fact, all comments become null and void after 7 Days.
1. If you think you're fat, you probably are. Don't ask us.
1. Christopher Columbus did NOT need directions and neither do
we
1. You have enough clothes.
1. I am in shape. Round IS a shape!
Monday, March 26, 2007
A DIFFERENT LOVE LETTER
A different Love letter and a beautiful reply to it.
A teenage college guy sent a love letter (in Q/A format) to his classmate.
My Dearest Reshma,
Please answer the following questionnaire. For Options(A) 10 marks,(b) 5marks and(c) 3 marks.
1) Whenever you enter the class room, your sight always falls on me because: (a) of love(b) you couldn't control seeing me(c) really ... Am I doing it?
2) Whenever professor cracks joke, you laugh and turn and look at me because:(a) you always like to see me smiling (b) you are testing whether I like jokes(c) you are attracted by my smile
3) When you were singing in the class, I entered and immediately you stopped singing because:(a) you are so coy to sing before me (b) my presence influenced you(c) you feared that whether I'll like your song
4) When you were showing your childhood photo, when I asked for it, you hide it because:(a) you felt ashamed (b) you felt uneasy(c) you don't know
5) During trekking, myself and my friend gave you hand for lifting you and you took only my friend's because:(a) you enjoyed my disappointment (b) you won't feel leaving my hand after grabbing(c) you don't know
6) You were waiting yesterday for bus and didn't get into your bus...(a) you were waiting for me (b) you were dreaming about me and didn't notice the bus(c) that bus was crowded
7) You introduced me to your parents when they came to college because:(a) I am going to be your groom (b) you just want to know what your parents think about me(c) just you felt like introducing me to them
8) I told that I like girls wearing roses. Next day, you came with a rose on your head because: (a) to fulfill my wish(b) you like roses(c) by chance you got a rose
9) On that day, it was my birthday. You too came to temple early at 6:00 A.M because:(a) you want to pray along with me (b) you want to meet me before any one could meet on my birthday(c) you want to wish me at temple because you are spiritual.
If you have scored more than 40, then you are loving me. Don't delay in expressing it.
If you have scored between 30 and 40, love is budding in your heart and it's getting ready to bloom. If you have scored less than 30, you are in confusion whether to love me or not.
Eagerly awaiting your reply..
urs R2Z
Reshma's reply letter was also in Q/A format ........
hey r2z
Please answer the following Yes/No questionnaire.
1) If somebody sits in the first row, normally people entering the class, sees them.(a) Yes (b) No
2) If a girl laughs and looks anyone, is it love?(a) Yes (b) No
3) While singing, if somebody forgets lines of the songs, will he/she stop singing or not?(a) Yes (b) No
4) I was showing to my friends (who are all girls) my childhood photo.You poked your nose inside..... Right ?(a) Yes (b) No
5) I avoided to hold your hand during trekking. Couldn't you understand yet? (a) Yes (b) No
6) Should I not wait for my best friend (Anjali ) at the bus stand?(a)Yes (b) No
7) Shouldn't I introduce you to my parents as a friend?(a) Yes (b) No
8) You have said you also like Lotus, cauliflower, banana's flower. Is it true ? (a) Yes (b) No
9) Oh was that your birthday. That's why I could see you in temple. I come daily to Temple. Do you know ?(a) Yes (b) No
If you have answered "Yes" to any of the question, then I am not loving you. If you have answered "No", then you don't know the meaning of Love.
Hope everything is clear to you .
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
