Nonetheless, Rajeev Prasad is critical of this film project. In order to be fair and balanced, I present his perspective on the matter.

nina,

i just read your attempt of earning bread and butter by saying any
bull*
about Ramayana especially Sita. more then that, you are trying to
compare
yourself with Sita. you know what i know it is typical of your race, -
anything for money. All great civilizations will put honor above
everything
else, while as yours will put money. coz if you have money you will
have the
chance to try to quench your thirst of all the materialistic things
around.

a great person (which you are not), when finds a great character/life,
try
to raise to that level.
whereas a low life/unworthy try to pull the great character to his/her
level
and attain his/her goals.

I am sure you are like any of your people, as any girl of your culture,
you
might have had physical relations with more then one man, before your
husband, and after him. and if you tell that was not love - you ONLY
loved
your ex-husband - let me give you a gem here - there is 2% sex in love
and
2%love in sex.

so going by your cultur's standard - you do not have great morals -
money
and comforts to body, are of supreme importance and you will do
anything for
that.

question: is your ex-husband jesus christ? like jesus-christ? that way
your
saying 'married to god' will be justified. so you are wife of jesus????
ex-wife.

first become equal to sooparnkha then talk about Sita.

- although cloths were invented millions of years ago - western
civilization
- especially females perhapes still do not know how to use them.....

It would be great if she moved on to cover Draupadi's story--isn't she the archetype for the kick a** feminist heroine?

QUOTE (evakurvan @ Nov 30 2005, 06:01 AM)

Gopi Dust I hate that word "myth" too, right on.

Myth does not necessarily imply that the story being told is just a fairytale. It is maybe just a spiced up version of what actually happened. Right?

Do all you myth-haters believe that the Sun is being drawn through the sky on a chariot?

Yes I do I guess that means I must be unlettered or something ha! Maybe I should watch more Discovery channel.

I am sorry but I can not place what you call the real world as more true than inner subjectivities  - that is just plain barbaric and backward!

I would assume you consider the earth going around the sun the real world and the sun drawn through the sky on a chariot - not.

When Edvard Munch draws the sky and roads like this I don't think lab technicians can validate his perception as accurate using their germy instruments either. That doesn't make them correct and Munch wrong.



Using my own instruments I'd say that picture is pretty valid!

What - you mean to tell me scientists say that the roads, mountains and skies don't really blend into amorphous arcs and whorls like that!?

Well, maybe they are wrong.

What makes you think laboratory technology is the most accurate way to perceive reality?

"Laboratory technology the most accurate?" Did I say that?

No you did not say that but by suggesting that the chariot reality is wrong you are undermining its validity and presumbly placing laboratory realities as more accurate.

You did ask: Do any of these people actually believe the sun is pulled by chariots?!

As though it is so ridiculous to say yes.

And then you usually get all of these TLC viewers who know better marvelling at how anyone can believe such hooha.

I bet you the sun that I am seeing on that url is not the same sun that you are seeing although we are looking at the same picture.

At one point I lived really high up, practically in the sky on the 11th floor, at a perefect angle, and I swear I was seeing sights of the sun and clouds like that every day, it was pretty shocking - I would  never have believed the sky can get that way!

If scientists didn't exist, we wouldn't be capable of even having this conversation.

Prabhupada was on a japa walk through a park enjoying when he said the karmis are working to maintain the park but the devotees are enjoying it.

Here is a website about Tom Cruise:

http://www.tomcruiseisnuts.com/

From the site:

If Cruise and Katie Holmes wed, each of his wives will have been eleven years younger than the last. (Mimi Rogers, b. 1956; Nicole Kidman, b. 1967; Katie Holmes, b. 1978).

Hopefully that vault will become covered with tons of radioactive dust and never dug up or else if the people in the future do see tom's books they won't be able to read them.

Tom Cruise talking about Katie Holmes:

"I will forever with this woman be jumping on couches, dancing on tables and hanging from chandeliers."

Here it is:

http://www.vedaveda.com/video/intelligence.rm