Desi Cartman Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Deb....you are closest. Yes both were ambidextrous. Arjun also had a name "SavyaSachin", meaning ambidextrous... That apart, yes, both were supremely skilful, very highly successful, no one could really get the better of both, extremely smart in earning wealth ( Arjun was called Dhananjay) and from all appearances it seems both had the Total unconditional support of God and hence extremely successful. ( Afterall only Bradman can answer such a question on Sachin ) :D...you get a 1000, :hatsoff: I wasnt wrong either ... :sad_smile:
bradman Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 I give you $1000 Deb, as largely because of Sachin and Bradman, I have hit the 100,000 mark :-) Money on the way....always happy to pay bradman :-) Got it !!thanks again mate :wink_smile: @desi downunder :hysterical:
Guest HariSampath Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 I am just having some fun so I hope I havent offended anybody here No offence at all....in fact if you wanted to make a point about God being seemingly unfair at times, you could have perhaps used Krishna in mahabharat who resorted to every trick in the book to kill many of Arjun's opponents....buth that is an entirely different philosophical explanation, bcos Krishna said they didn't even deserve to be killed by truthful means or Dharma.....in my opinion that would apply to the Aussies and Sachin probably thought " I know I am oujt, but these guys dont deserve me walking"...Just my guess and hope
Desi Cartman Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Hari, what about my ICF$1000 for the correct answer ? :haha:
Guest HariSampath Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Concentration and son's name I thought about your answer, but concentration is not really a physical attribute ( yes Arjun was famous for single minded focus..eye of the bird...just like Sachin), its perhaps a mental/physical thing. As to name, Arjun and Tendulkar share the name "Sachin"....but you had mentioned his son's name....again not exact but not wrong too...if you provide me with one more explanation, I will still give you a $1000...
Guest HariSampath Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Hari' date=' what about my ICF$1000 for the correct answer ? :haha:[/quote'] what correct answer ?
Desi Cartman Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 what correct answer ? both were born in INDIA ok ok , I rest my case ..:sad_smile:
fineleg Posted January 21, 2008 Author Posted January 21, 2008 Hari, What about the below? BTW, I do like Rama, below is for sake of debate. Quote by HariSampath No...God is ALWAYS fair. If you have read the Valmiki Ramayan, you may notice that Vali asks this same question as well as 20 odd questions to Ram on morality, etc, all of which Ram answers and Vali accepts those answers. main issues were Vali : why did you have to kill me from hiding , shouldn't a man fight face to face Ram : That code applies only between humans, you are not a human, just a man monkey. ---- This is called discriminatin This sure does sound like a "technicality" and certainly not fair. You can call it "technically right" but by no means is this fair!? Vali :what do you have against me personally ? Ram : Nothing against you personally. My brother Bharat is the king of the land now, and as I am his representative it is my duty to kill anyone not conforming to Dharma within his land --- did not hear Vali's side of story .. Just like Mike proctor Yep, only one side of the story :-) Vali : What had I done wrong ? Ram : You drove your brother out and seized his wife, he complained to me -- His brother is a cry baby Vali : if you wanted my help to rescue Sita , I could have easily killed Ravan, was that why you took Sugriv's side ? Ram : No, I need no help from anyone, I just offered my help to your brother who was on the right, and you wrong side. -- but needed hanuman to fly and locate his mrs Good point, LOL! If you dont need help from anyone, then you can finish the war in like 1 day Vali : How does killing someone from hiding a sign of valor ? Is it fair ? Ram : You had prayed for and got a boon that anyone who fights with you, you should get half that person's strength yourself, how is that fair. In effect you end up stealing half your opponent's strength and then fight him using that half plus your strenght against his own half strenght, which if you were a fair man would not do so. So I just hunted down an animal who was unfair and in the wrong and upheld truth. - didnt Ram himself get all the powers and then used them against others. Like all WMD he had and other Brahmastra etc The mistake is with whoever gave such a boon when asked for. This is like the umpiring error - they are the ones responsible for giving the result of out or not out :-) This proves that Ram (if seen as God) is perfectly justified.
Desi Cartman Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 ^ glad Ram wasnt umpiring , Star News would have had an entire episode of "sansani" based on his judgement errors
CC1981 Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Ram : That code applies only between humans, you are not a human, just a man monkey. ---- This is called discriminatin This sure does sound like a "technicality" and certainly not fair. You can call it "technically right" but by no means is this fair!? Not only is this discrimination, it is actually also incorrect. You see, Sanskrit, being so 'high' a language that only the FEW were well-versed in it( Indian history throughout-even in our glory days 3000-1000 year ago, points out that Sanskrit was the language of the 'learned', not the masses) is subject to a lot of misinterpretations. Don't for a minute think that hindu 'holy books' have not been tampered with or altered as time has passed.Hell, this is almost a certainty, given that hindu scriptures were never codified as directly from God( the vedas, upanishads, mahabharata,ramayana, etc. are ALL written down by a rishi/muni observing or recollecting the stories and this is claimed in most of the original documents itself). There is also some very corroborative evidence to back up the above : For example, while the ramayana and mahabharata discovered/dated to over 2000 years ago are essentially the same stories in the core, there is significant variance in the story itself. There is also another linguistic evidence- i found out recently that the precise definition of 'vanara' in archaic Sanskrit means 'forest men', formed of the two Sanskrit word cognates : 'Van' (meaning forest) and 'nara', meaning 'man'. Thus, to look at it from a historical possibility perspective, it might be that India back then had different laws and status for city dwellers and agriculturalists versus semi-nomadic forest-dwellers.Indeed, this is not such a stretch, since some ancient civilizations have shown a different legal status for nomads of the desert and/or forest dwellers ( Mesopotamia and ancient China being the most categoric examples). It is also a historic hallmark, of not just India but EVERY civilization who's writings are understandable today, that forest dwellers/nomads and far more rudimentary cultures were (and still are) looked down upon in the 'savages/barbarians' way. It is likely, that as time passed, Ram's hero-status leading to eventual deification combined with the lowly view of forest dwellers, eventually lead to the view of 'vanara' equalling 'monkeys'. So much so that in the middle and 'new' indo-aryan languages ( ie, hindi,bengali, telegu,marathi,etc), the word 'vanara' means monkeys. Ofcourse, it is also possible that in the earliest forms of Sanskrit (where writing has not been found/does not exist, ie the 'oral-only stage'), 'vanara' cognate of 'van+nara' could've been applied to monkeys- as it is not much of a stretch to think of monkeys as also 'some form of men', if you are objective enough and hold a viewpoint that 'all life is sacred, comes from the same source, hurting life is bad,etc' like all the ancient Indic religions & philosophy(except Karvaka) did. But in that case, it'd weaken the historicity of the ramayana, given that if it is deliberately talking of 'monkey army' while 'vanara' meant monkeys, then it is most definitely a fictitious/over-aggrandized tale not meant to be taken literally but rather as a 'moral story'.
Desi Cartman Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 And that brings us to the trillion $ question : is Ramayana for real ???
CC1981 Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 And that brings us to the trillion $ question : is Ramayana for real ??? In my opinion, it depends on how you define the word 'real'. If you mean correct, down to the T, in the same style the Koran-worshippers do, then i think thats just stupid. If you mean 'real' as in it is based on real events/has the essential core more or less real (in terms of events), then i think almost all of mythology & religion is real. In short, i like Ramayana and Mahabharata- i admire its depth & amazing multi-faceted perspective on karma (especially mahabharata) but i don't for a minute buy it as a completely accurate book-no book is.
Desi Cartman Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 If you mean 'real' as in it is based on real events/has the essential core more or less real (in terms of events), then i think almost all of mythology & religion is real. So do you reckon there was a man named Ram whose wife was kidnapped by an evil Sri Lankan king and Ram rescued her with the help of Vanar army and used a bridge made out of floating stones ?
sandtest Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Not only is this discrimination' date= it is actually also incorrect quote] You are an idiot, Hindu hater retard and this proves once again your low level of knowledge which you spit here in ICF as some gospel. before, we slap you with chappals stop abusing Hinduism.
sandtest Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 To ALL ICFers Question: Why Prabhu Shri Ram killed Vali staying behind a tree? Answer: Vali has a Boon, by the virtue of which, anyone fighting him in DIRECT combat will loose half of his strength and in turn Vali will receive this strength, therefore Vali was invincible. Vali even defeated highly successful Yodhas like King Ravan of Lanka and took him in his arms and moved around the world. When Prabhu Shri Ram knew this that defeating the evil Vali in direct combat is IMPOSSIBLE and thus Dharma cannot be protected, he asked Sugriva to challenge Vali for direct combat while His divine arrow will do the rest!! Dharma was upheld at the end. Shri Ram Jai Ram Jai Jai Ram!
BongaSamaj2 Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 In my opinion, it depends on how you define the word 'real'. If you mean correct, down to the T, in the same style the Koran-worshippers do, then i think thats just stupid. If you mean 'real' as in it is based on real events/has the essential core more or less real (in terms of events), then i think almost all of mythology & religion is real. In short, i like Ramayana and Mahabharata- i admire its depth & amazing multi-faceted perspective on karma (especially mahabharata) but i don't for a minute buy it as a completely accurate book-no book is. in my opinion u r an idiot.. go get a khamba and 402 pathaka bidi
Guest HariSampath Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 Not only is this discrimination' date= it is actually also incorrect. You see, Sanskrit, being so 'high' a language that only the FEW were well-versed in it( Indian history throughout-even in our glory days 3000-1000 year ago, points out that Sanskrit was the language of the 'learned', not the masses) is subject to a lot of misinterpretations. Don't for a minute think that hindu 'holy books' have not been tampered with or altered as time has passed.Hell, this is almost a certainty, given that hindu scriptures were never codified as directly from God( the vedas, upanishads, mahabharata,ramayana, etc. are ALL written down by a rishi/muni observing or recollecting the stories and this is claimed in most of the original documents itself). There is also some very corroborative evidence to back up the above : For example, while the ramayana and mahabharata discovered/dated to over 2000 years ago are essentially the same stories in the core, there is significant variance in the story itself. There is also another linguistic evidence- i found out recently that the precise definition of 'vanara' in archaic Sanskrit means 'forest men', formed of the two Sanskrit word cognates : 'Van' (meaning forest) and 'nara', meaning 'man'. Thus, to look at it from a historical possibility perspective, it might be that India back then had different laws and status for city dwellers and agriculturalists versus semi-nomadic forest-dwellers.Indeed, this is not such a stretch, since some ancient civilizations have shown a different legal status for nomads of the desert and/or forest dwellers ( Mesopotamia and ancient China being the most categoric examples). It is also a historic hallmark, of not just India but EVERY civilization who's writings are understandable today, that forest dwellers/nomads and far more rudimentary cultures were (and still are) looked down upon in the 'savages/barbarians' way. It is likely, that as time passed, Ram's hero-status leading to eventual deification combined with the lowly view of forest dwellers, eventually lead to the view of 'vanara' equalling 'monkeys'. So much so that in the middle and 'new' indo-aryan languages ( ie, hindi,bengali, telegu,marathi,etc), the word 'vanara' means monkeys. Ofcourse, it is also possible that in the earliest forms of Sanskrit (where writing has not been found/does not exist, ie the 'oral-only stage'), 'vanara' cognate of 'van+nara' could've been applied to monkeys- as it is not much of a stretch to think of monkeys as also 'some form of men', if you are objective enough and hold a viewpoint that 'all life is sacred, comes from the same source, hurting life is bad,etc' like all the ancient Indic religions & philosophy(except Karvaka) did. But in that case, it'd weaken the historicity of the ramayana, given that if it is deliberately talking of 'monkey army' while 'vanara' meant monkeys, then it is most definitely a fictitious/over-aggrandized tale not meant to be taken literally but rather as a 'moral story'. A valid argument for the meaning of "vanara"...but I have some small points for considering. vanara could rightly have meant "forest dwelling men", but could have also meant humans not fully civilised and still retaining monkey characteristics. Afterall the descent of men from apes was not overnight, nor was it uniform throughout the world, there were several stages of evolution and plenty of races in between were thousands of years behind/advanced in terms of stages of evolution. Hence forest dwellers even if interpreted as you mentioned could well mean " a tribe of human-apes with lots of human and ape characteristics , some physical as well " As to historicity, account of the sttories etc, yes, all the stories were indeed written by Rishis and Munis of those periods and later. Most of it was in the poetic form and for centuries passed on through the word of mouth recitations/plays/songs etc. For eg if we write the medieval history of the world and we refer to some incident/people as " they appeared to be from a different planet or world", with reference to the way they behaved and lived ( for eg Moguls, British conquest etc).and if this is interpreted 4000 years later as " in 2000 people believed that beings from a different planet/world came and conquered India...that would be grossly wrong. Who knows how English would be spoken then or how our languages of today would be interpreted. But if they say 4000 years later " these Moguls and British from outer space never came and so never existed"...it would be factually wrong. And if we have just 2 meteorite strikes one each next 2000 years from now, landing on land and the oceans, whole of the world would be wiped out without a trace of what existed before, and probably mankind will start off from primitive stage . How then will such a human race a few thousands of years hence ever have the knowleddge or imagination to believe something like internet and wireless communication existed. If such a small speck of proof is made possible and someone comes across some writing 10,000 years later and interprets it wont they say " there were advanced beings who could communicate across the world instantly talking and hearing. They even went to moon , outer space etc they had miraculous powers of traveling across worlds , across skies , used power from Sun, had divine weapons that destroyed cities countries at a touch" etc . And then if someone says " all that is imaginary , such things are exaggerated and could have never been there"....what about this scenario ? Will it mean that our modern age with all its advancements never existed just because it got wiped out by nature ?
sandtest Posted January 21, 2008 Posted January 21, 2008 in my opinion u r an idiot.. go get a khamba and 402 pathaka bidi LMAO....LMAO :hysterical: @ Bonga-Samaj2.....you guyz are hilarious :hysterical::hysterical:
Recommended Posts