IMPORTANCE OF PADMAPURAN AND ITS BENEFITS.

Next Brahmaji describes Padmapuraan. Just as five senses adorn our body similarly this Puraan is divided into five parts. This Puraan has fifty five thousand shlokas. In this book Rishi Pulastya describes the principles of nature

Rig Ved 1.36.7

To do a Namaskaar or bow before someone means that you are humble or without pride and ego. This means that we politely bow before you since you are better than me. Pranipaat(प्राणीपात) also means the same that we respect you without any vanity.

1/9

Surrendering False pride is Namaskaar. Even in devotion or bhakti we say the same thing. We want to convey to Ishwar that we have nothing to offer but we leave all our pride and offer you ourselves without any pride in our body. You destroy all our evil karma.

2/9

We bow before you so that you assimilate us and make us that capable. Destruction of our evils and surrender is Namaskaar. Therefore we pray same thing before and after any big rituals.

3/9

तं घे॑मि॒त्था न॑म॒स्विन॒ उप॑ स्व॒राज॑मासते ।
होत्रा॑भिर॒ग्निं मनु॑षः॒ समिं॑धते तिति॒र्वांसो॒ अति॒ स्रिधः॑॥

Translation :

नमस्विनः - To bow.

स्वराजम् - Self illuminating.

तम् - His.

घ ईम् - Yours.

इत्था - This way.

उप - Upaasana.

आसते - To do.

स्त्रिधः - For enemies.

4/9

अति तितिर्वांसः - To defeat fast.

मनुषः - Yajman.

होत्राभिः - In seven numbers.

अग्निम् - Agnidev.

समिन्धते - Illuminated on all sides.

Explanation : Yajmans bow(do Namaskaar) before self illuminating Agnidev by making the offerings of Havi.

5/9

IMPORTANCE OF SATYA NARAYAN KATHA AND ITS ORIGIN.

We all have heard and read the Satyanarayan katha. But none of us dont know the original stories that Shatanand or Sadhu or Kalavati must have heard. Also, as a habit we hear or read this katha

but dont know the proper way it should be conducted.

We find its mention in Skanda puraan(Reva khand) and Bhavishya Puraan(Pratisarg parva).
Both Bhagwatam and Gita call Bhagwan Narayan as Satv or Truth. So Satyanarayan denotes this name as the one which is Truth incarnate.

The story began in Naimisharanya when Vyasji asked Sutji about a way to eliminate all the sorrows and fulfill all the desires and about who is the devta who can grant these at the same time.

So Suutji first prayed to Bhagwan Satyanarayan who is no one else but Vishnu ji.

Then he remembered all his avatars.After that he narrated the story of Narad. Once while visiting Mrityulok, Naradji was pained to see the sufferings of People around. He was deeply moved by these sufferings and wanted to know the means by which we could rid ourselves from these.

So he went to Vishnu ji and after paying his respects stood in front of him. Naradji narrated the purpose of his visit.

So Bhagwan Vishnu said to him that in Satyug and Tretayug, Bhagwan eliminates sorrow in Vishnuswarup. In Dwapar he assumes different forms to help people.

The Contingency Argument for God's existence, in simple language (thread):

When we look at the world around us, we see many things that change. For example, at one time a man may be standing, but at another time he may be sitting. Yet he is the same man. (1/)

Philosophers express this fact by saying that the man's posture is contingent, i.e. that it could be different than it is. Humans are contingent beings because they could be different than they are at any given moment. The same is true of everything we see in the universe. (2/)

Living things like people, animals, and plants all grow and develop. Inanimate things like your car, phone, or computer may be turned on or off. Even rocks and gems can be cut, polished, or moved from one place to another. (3/)

All the things in the physical world are contingent: they could be different than they are.

But is absolutely everything contingent? Let's consider a man who is standing. Why is he standing *now*? (4/)

This question can be answered in different ways. You might appeal to something in the future (he's standing to reach something on a shelf) or to something in the past (he just got out of bed), but we're not interested in these. Why is he standing *right now*? (5/)

'Tera mera rishta kya, hindu, hindu,hindutva' is a clear take on 'tera mera rishta kya,la ilaha illallah'. As much as Hindutva hates the monotheistic religions especially Islam, there's a strange wistfulness and subliminal need at display now, to BE that they hate. 1

Charlie Hebdo doesn’t come up as a cautionary tale now but rather 'why cant we be like that'?
Growing up, Hanuman was an adorable deity for us, who swallowed the sun, or who couldn’t figure out what was Sanjeevani booti so he picked up a whole mountain and came back with it. 2

Or he was loyal, admirable and when he cleaved his chest, you saw both Ram and Sita. Now we have a lot of “Angry Hanuman” stickers. Why is a cute childlike God angry? We don’t know. It's a convenient blank space where to paint all the angst of Hindu Khatre mein hain narrative. 3

The other strange thing that has started happening is pictures of Ram appearing sans Sita. “Jai Siya Ram” has become “Jai Shri Ram”. Some people disingenuously explain it as being the same thing - because Shri is a name of Lakshmi. Not really. Siya is an apbhransh of Sita. 4

Shri is a prefix of respect in this case. Hinduism is being militarised. A woman/Sita has no place in it. Even the militaristic Goddess that is Durga has no place in this conception of neo-Hindu divinity, as evidenced by Dilip Mandal wondering where Durga came from. 5

One defining feature of many Christian men today is the effeminate practice of covert and evasive speech.

Even worse is the fact that this manner of speaking is widely seen as the moral, "charitable," and polite manner of speech, to be praised, encouraged, & emulated.
(Thread)

The essence of this effeminate style in the evangelical man is the strategic avoidance of taking personal responsibility for (or "owning") what he has to say.

This goal (the evasion of responsibility) is achieved through various tactics calculated against clarity & precision...

Rather than saying exactly what he means in a clear, and unequivocal, manner, the polite evangelical man will hint at his meaning through innuendo and implication––so as to alway maintain the plausible deniability that he didn't mean the controversial thing he meant...

Or, if he does speak clearly with unambiguous moral authority, he will be sure to leave the object of his criticism unclear. The object of his criticism––whether a person, or an idea––will always remain abstract, theoretical, and disconnected from any specifics or concretes...

By implementing the right degree of unclarity on either the nature of his criticism, or on the object of it, he ensures that the right people in his audience will be emboldened and endeared toward him, but that he will never have to defend or substantiate what he has said...

THIS IS STRICTLY FOR THE SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS BIGOTS

"CHIEFS OF ARMY STAFF

We have had 9 Chiefs of Army Staff, (Victor, Alex, Agwai, Azazi, Luka, Dambazau, Ihejirika, Minima and Buratai) only Dambazau and Buratai are Muslims.

The both have spent 5 years of the close to 20 years which means Christians held that position for 15 years. Christians 75%, Muslims 25%

1.3 CHIEFS OF AIR STAFF.

We have had 8 Chiefs of Air Staff, (Isaac, Jonah, Dike, Petirin, Dikko, Alex, Amosu and Sadiq).

Only Sadiq and Dikko are Muslims and both have spent 5 years of the close to 20 years. Christians held that position for 15 years. Christians 75% Muslims 25%.

1.4 CHIEFS OF NAVAL STAFF.

We have had 8 Chiefs of Navy Staff (Ombu, Afolayan, Adeleke, I. Ibrahim, S. Ibrahim,

Ezeoba, Jibrin and Ibak). Only Jibrin who seved 2 years and one of the Ibrahims is a Muslims, both Ibrahim served 2 years each, so Muslims served 4 years. Christians 16 years, Muslims 4 years. Christians 75% Muslims 25%.

1.5 CHIEFS OF DEFENCE STAFF.

We have had 9 CDS (Ogohi, Ogomudia, Agwai, Azazi, Dike, Petinri, Ibrahim, Alex and Abayomi). Only Ogohi and Ibrahim are Muslims, not so sure of Petinri. Both Ogohi and Ibrahim spent 5 years. Meaning Christians have spent 15 years, and Muslims 5 years.

Animal Sacrifice in Yajñas

Read this thread to know how animal sacrifice got started in Yajñas and what Rishis thought about it.

Once Upon a time, Great and Powerful Indra decided to do Yajña, there were large scale preparations, Rishis were chanting mantras, then Indra decided to SIay animals there

Rishis stopped him, Rishis clearly told him that There is NO mention of K!lling animals in Yajñas in shastras,

K!lling animals in Yajñas is against Dharma, hence please allow Brahmins to perform it according to shastras

Rishis said, Yajña must be done with seeds, this is what Dharma says.
But Imdra had a Big ego, he refused to follow Dharma

So they went to King Vasu and asked him, who is correct, King lied that you can do yajña with anything, because if this he was punished.

(Mahabharata AshwamedhikaParva adhyay 91)