(1). Basmati rice grams 500 (2). Black cumin tsp 1 (3). Boiled egg for decoration number 2 (4). Cashew nuts grams 50 (5). Coriander leaves bunch 1 (6). Curd cup 2 (7). Garam masala tbsp 2 (8). Garam masala powder tbsp 2 (9). Garlic and ginger pastE tbsp 2 (10). Golden fried sliced onions cup 2 (11). Green chilli number 3 (12). Lime juice number 2 (13). Meat tenderizer tsp 1 (14). Mint leaves bunch 1 (15). Mutton grams 1000 (16). Oil/Ghee tbsp 5 (17). Red chilli powder tbsp 1 (18). Rose Water tbsp 1 (19). Saffron/Colour pinch 1 (20). Salt to taste 1 (21). Turmeric powder pinch 1.
Fry Onoin till red, keep it aside. Soak Basmati rice for 40 minutes, drain out water. Boil water, add oil, salt, garam masla powder. Cook 40% take out half of the rice, drain out water, let remaining rice cook 50%. Take mutton, add all the spices and curd, fried onion, meat tenderizer, marinate for 1 hour. In a thick buttom pan add maraniated mutton in the bottom and top it of with 40% cooked rice, add mint leaves, coriander leaves, fried onions. repeat the same for remaining 50% cooked rice, cover it tightly and cook for 30 min.
মধ্যমগ্রাম বিধানপল্লী ঠাকুর বাড়ীর দুর্গোৎসব এবার একশ-ছয় বছরে পা দিল। এই পূজোর শুরু সেই ১৯০৫ সালে বর্তমান বাংলাদেশের গোপালগঞ্জ মহকুমার ব্রাহ্মণ-প্রধান হরিণাহাটি গ্রামের ৺পার্বতীচরণ ঠাকুর মশাইয়ের পরিবারে। আজ ২০১০ সাল। এই দীর্ঘ সময় সীমার মধ্যে কতো না বিচিত্র ঘটনার সমাবেশ ঘটেছে। দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধ শুরূ ও শেষ হয়েছে। যুদ্ধের হাত ধরে এসেছে সর্বনাশা দুর্ভিক্ষ ও অসংখ্য নিরন্ন মানুষের শোচনীয় মৃত্যু। দেশ বিভাগের মধ্য দিয়ে এসেছে বহু প্রতিক্ষীত স্বাধীনতা এবং তার সঙ্গে এসেছে ওপার বাংলা থেকে এপার বাংলার অজস্র ছিন্নমুল সর্বহারা মানুষের স্রোত। সময়ের প্রবাহে আমাদের পরিবারেরও সাংগঠনিক পরিবর্তন হয়েছে, পরিবর্তিত হয়েছে পূজার স্থানও - হরিণাহাটি (১৯০৫ সাল) থেকে কলকাতা এবং সেখান থেকে মধ্যমগ্রামে (১৯৫০ সাল)। পরিবর্তনের ছোঁয়া লেগেছে পূজার নানা অঙ্গে। তবু আমাদের পূজা এগিয়ে চলেছে সময়ের সঙ্গে পা মিলিয়ে।
It is understandable that the media, as watchdog of the democracy, has its exclusive right to freedom of speech and expression, even a citizen of India has his right to freedom of speech and expression too.
However, the news article published in the URL CLICK HERE titled "Ayodhya judgment: Flawed, but it has its positive sides" by Amulya Ganguli, a political analyst, appears to have its own flaws too. Therefore, I would like to raise this question that whether a political analyst will be competent enough to act as a judicial analyst too? Probably not. I think he has crossed his limit, in which he has his specialization, by trying to find out flaws in a High Court Judgement. The Apex court appears to be the appropriate body to decide any flawed High Court Judgements but not a political analyst.
It is known to me that the Court will not interfere into an administrative order, however erroneous, if not challenged on the grounds of contravention of fundamental rights. To enforce Fundamental Rights, it is incumbent upon the petitioner/s to prove that not only any laws of the government has been violated against him, also, his Fundamental Rights has been violated by such action.
Accordingly, I will try to address the following flaws, as mentioned by said Amulya Ganguli, in constitutional perspective. Short description about the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy also mentioned below.
Amulya Ganguli has written in said article, "A major one (flaw in the Ayodhya judgment) is the acceptance of the presence of the Ram idols in the now demolished Babri Masjid as genuine proof of the right of ownership by the deity". Here, one needs to consider that such of an acceptance probably was by made the Judge concerned on the basis of his observation about the case materials and also considering the belief and faith of the Hindus, where the Hon'ble Judge himself is the best to decide the issues involving secularism.
Another flaw mentioned by him, "By ignoring the political angle, the judgment has seemingly turned a blind eye to the destruction of the mosque by the latter-day kar sevaks, which was also intended to spark off Hindu-Muslim riots in the hope of mobilising the Hindu voters for the BJP". Here, I reckon, that the Court simply did not interfere into the matter since none probably made a case of said destruction before said court or proved about the issue, as in order to enforce fundamental rights it is incumbent upon the petitioner/s to prove that not only any administrative order or laws of the government has been violated against him, also his Fundamental Rights has been violated by such action.
And the last one that I would like to address about the statement, "if the judgment can really defuse communal tension, it will be a blow against the fundamentalists on both sides and help India to continue with its success story." Here, please note that defusing communal tension in question, for any reason, is the duty of the State or the Union, The court has nothing to do with it but will follow its own course of action according to its judicial limitation or jurisdiction and will express its opinion about a case irrespective of the fact whether there is a question of defusing communal tension or not.
Concerned matters related to our constitution.
The Fundamental Rights are defined as the basic human rights of all citizens. These rights, defined in Part III of the Constitution, apply irrespective of race, place of birth, religion, caste, creed or gender. They are enforceable by the courts, subject to specific restrictions.
The Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines for the framing of laws by the government. These provisions, set out in Part IV of the Constitution, are not enforceable by the courts, but the principles on which they are based are fundamental guidelines for governance that the State is expected to apply in framing and passing laws.
Fundamental Rights: (Part III of CI)
Fundamental Rights is a charter of rights contained in the Constitution of India. It guarantees civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony as citizens of India. These include equality before law, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association and peaceful assembly, freedom to practice religion, and the right to constitutional remedies for the protection of civil rights. The Fundamental Rights are enforceable by the courts, subject to certain restrictions. The six fundamental rights recognised by the constitution are:
1.The right to equality
2.The right to freedom
3.The right to freedom from exploitation
4.The right to freedom of religion
5.Cultural and educational rights
6.The right to constitutional remedies
Right to freedom of religion, covered in Articles 25, 26, 27 and 28, provides religious freedom to all citizens of India. The objective of this right is to sustain the principle of secularism in India. According to the Constitution, all religions are equal before the State and no religion shall be given preference over the other. Citizens are free to preach, practice and propagate any religion of their choice.
The Directive Principles of State Policy: (Part IV of CI)
The Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines for the framing of laws by the government. These provisions, set out in Part IV of the Constitution, but the principles on which they are based are fundamental guidelines for governance that the State is expected to apply in framing and passing laws. Although these principles are asserted to be fundamental in the governance of the country, they are not legally enforceable. It shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.
Constitutional machinery of the Union and the directive principles of the State policy are meant to achieve the objective of the Constitution.
Soumendra Nath Thakur is a citizen of India, he can be reached at the email id
I regret to inform you that neither was I prepared, nor have you properly alerted me to meet a huge penal charges, prior to the following said charges those you have levied in my said savings account. Now it appears to me clear that while opening the account your representative visited my house and mislead me about the product, he did not provide me complete details about the product but he just made me to fill only the signature fields and the rest portion was filled by him in his chosen place. Also for the following stated reasons, now I can not take further risk of depositing money to my said savings account for the possibility that it will definitely disturb my financial plannings with my allocated fund, as it is already put me in financial jeopardy that my payees are not likely to receive money from said account till the dispute is reasonably settled with your bank.
The nature of my complaints against your bank is based on the following paragraphs.
1. That your bank's policy to charge said Account with Rs. 750.00 plus relevant Tax Rs. 77.25 quarterly, for non maintenance of AQB Rs. 2500.00 is understandable.
2. However, I feel pain for the policy of your bank in financially penalising me by charging and your wish in forfeiting Rs. 1200.00 Plus relevant tax Rs. 123.60 more from my own money is very much unreasonable. You can not really levy such a huge charge out of only AQB of Rs. 2500.00!
3. As a matter of fact, you have wished to penalising me with a total charge of Rs. 2150.85 out of only Rs. 2500.00 from the required AQB!
4. The transaction charges of Rs.100.00 per transaction is just unreasonable, ridiculous, unacceptable and unfair trade practice by your bank given the fact that while your Bank has already levied Rs. 750.00 to my account for non-maintenance of AQB then you can not really penalise me again under different heads, like transaction charges.
5. You must be aware that the Cost of maintenance such of a savings account with your bank is unreasonably higher, compared to the maintenance cost of a similar account with a nationalized bank e.g. SBI, Bank of India, Bank of Baroda etc.
6. Please note that such of your acts not only puts this consumer in financial jeopardy but also violates the rights of this consumer given the fact that if prices are exorbitant, if the consumer is unable to choose on an informed basis, then his money is wasted, his health and safety may be threatened, and national interest suffers.
Sir Stephen Hawking said, "God did not create the universe" but I did not find any specific mentioning by him that reflects like "God does not have existance" or like "religions are useless". Can anyone please throw some light on this issue?
The years during 1610, bitter opposition by the then Roman philosophers and clerics against Galileo's heliocentric view about the Sun.
The years during 1686-87, Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation, an accurate equation about the strength of gravity but not how gravity works. Newton thought force of gravity acts instantly across any distance so, about 250 years scientists were content with it but later Albert Einstein's speculation on behaviour of light enabled him to see a big problem with Newton's law of universal gravitation that gravity does not act instantly across any distance.
The years during 2010, worldwide bitter opposition against Stephen Hawking by many believers of God for his clarification about creation of universe and the role of god.
It took about 250 years to establish the fact and to resolve a mere conflict between Newton and Einstein that gravity does not act instantly across any distance but even after passing of about 400 years since Galileo, religious believers of god yet to resolve the conflict with the scientists that there can not be real differences between true religious belief and the reasons of scientists or, between interpretation of philosophy and the science or, between a genuine belief and the reality. If in 250 years conflict between two scientists (Newton and Einstein) can permanently be resolved, why can not we religious believers resolve the conflict with the scientists even after passing of 400 years since then?
Stephen Hawking did not say God does not exist but he only said that god did not created the universe. He did not intend to attack religious believers or believers of but he only reasoned that the human beings should inhabit space and need to abandon earth. He also said, "is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers ... I think the human race has no future if it doesn't go into space."
Does any religious leader or anyone from this earth have true knowledge and capacity to challenge Stephen Hawking so as to genuinely prove that god indeed created this universe? I presume not, so till then we better consider what Sir Stephen Hawking said.
Religion, Belief, Faith. Fact, Science, Reality:
Belief is a vague idea in which some confidence is placed similarly, any religious faith is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny where science would mean ability to produce solutions in some problem domain in the state of the world as it really is providing with information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred rather than as you might want it to be.
Who God is?
God is the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions. The general conception of God may be said to be that of an infinite being who is supremely good, who created the world, who knows all and can do all, who is transcendent over and immanent in the world, and who loves humanity.
Why God needs us?
The teleological argument maintains that, since from a comprehensive view of nature and the world everything seems to exist according to a certain great plan, a planner (God) must be postulated. The ontological argument maintains that since the human conception of God is the highest conception humanly possible and since the highest conception humanly possible must have existence as one attribute, God must exist. Immanuel Kant believed that he refuted these arguments by showing that existence is no part of the content of an idea. This principle has become very important in contemporary philosophy, particularly in existentialism. The consensus among theologians is that the existence of God must in some way be accepted on faith.
Why not?
However, there are several famous arguments for the existence of God. The argument from the First Cause maintains that since in the world every effect has its cause behind it (and every actuality its potentiality), the first effect (and first actuality) in the world must have had its cause (and potentiality), which was in itself both cause and effect (and potentiality and actuality), i.e., God. The cosmological argument maintains that since the world, and all that is in it, seems to have no necessary or absolute (non relative) existence, an independent existence (God) must be implied for the world as the explanation of its relations.
Religion:
A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Relevance of religion:
In the early years of the 20th century, fashionable opinion probably would have dismissed the idea that the latter decades of this century would be a time of religious revival. The conventional wisdom of the time was that this modern age of reason and science could hold little room for something as supposedly "irrational" as religious faith. The religious liberty says something very important about the relevance of religion to the great issues of our time.
Throughout the world, that religion remains a powerful force. It inspires men and women of all races and nationalities; religious institutions hold the allegiance of hundreds of millions on every continent.
We will have to leave to future historians the full explanation of this resurgence of faith in the modern age. Perhaps the social dislocations of an era of progress have strained people's inner resources which traditional values have traditionally buttressed.
Whatever the cause, the new vitality of religion represents a clear rejection of the "modern" notion that reason and science hold all the solutions to the problems of earthly existence, or that they can adequately fulfill mankind's spiritual needs.
A free society requires religious liberty. For without religious liberty, what other aspect of individual thought can be spared? Once the border of that sacred realm is crossed, all freedoms inevitably become vulnerable.
Indeed, the close relationship between religious liberty and all other forms of individual freedom should be even more apparent to us in our own time.
Relevance of Religion in the Modern Times:
Between religion and science, there has been a prolonged conflict in which science has invariably victorious. Ever since science has been opposing the authority of religious institutions and the sanctity of creeds, the two important institutions of religion. The change in outlook was marked very distinctly after the Industrial Revolution and the publication of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. There was not a creed which wasn't shaken, not a dogma which was not shown to the question, not a tradition which wasn't threatened to dissolve. As knowledge advanced, the domain of religion in the narrow sense of the word shank. People, today, have a feeling that as a result of progress of education and science, the old religion would die and the only religion of science would dominate their life.
Religion is needed in formation of character. Modern life hasn't simplified but multiplied desires, and with that multiplication have assumed varied and intensified shapes. As desires are multiplied without the corrective of a sense of spiritual values, knowledge of science and technology doesn't reduce either greed or lust. On the contrary, it finds fresh tools for evil and facilitates greater indulgence in all forms of greed and lust. The only thing that fortifies men against temptation and give them live to work is the religious sense. It is religion that fixes good and sound habits of thought and of external activity. Morals like empty bags cannot stand on their own feet unless they are based on religion. We require true religious men in the administrative services, on the bench, at the bar, in the medical profession, in the industry and commerce, in the legislature, indeed in all walks of life. if there is corruption in in public life, it is because people aren't truly religious and they have no reverence and awe for the Divine Power that rules the universe.
Before man is able to build up space colonies, he has to usher in a new world order in which justice, security and equitable distribution of wealth are ensured for everyone. Such a life will be nothing short of a virtual heaven on earth!
God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.
In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Hawking, 68, who won global recognition with his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time," an account of the origins of the universe, is renowned for his work on black holes, cosmology and quantum gravity.
Since 1974, the scientist has worked on marrying the two cornerstones of modern physics -- Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which concerns gravity and large-scale phenomena, and quantum theory, which covers subatomic particles.
His latest comments suggest he has broken away from previous views he has expressed on religion. Previously, he wrote that the laws of physics meant it was simply not necessary to believe that God had intervened in the Big Bang.
He wrote in A Brief History ... "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."
In his latest book, he said the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun helped deconstruct the view of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos but was created by God.
"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.
Hawking, who is only able to speak through a computer-generated voice synthesizer, has a neuro muscular dystrophy that has progressed over the years and left him almost completely paralyzed.
He began suffering the disease in his early 20s but went on to establish himself as one of the world's leading scientific authorities, and has also made guest appearances in "Star Trek" and the cartoons "Futurama" and "The Simpsons."
Last year he announced he was stepping down as Cambridge University's Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, a position once held by Newton and one he had held since 1979.
"The Grand Design" is due to go on sale next week.
God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.
In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Hawking, 68, who won global recognition with his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time," an account of the origins of the universe, is renowned for his work on black holes, cosmology and quantum gravity.
Since 1974, the scientist has worked on marrying the two cornerstones of modern physics -- Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which concerns gravity and large-scale phenomena, and quantum theory, which covers subatomic particles.
His latest comments suggest he has broken away from previous views he has expressed on religion. Previously, he wrote that the laws of physics meant it was simply not necessary to believe that God had intervened in the Big Bang.
He wrote in A Brief History ... "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."
In his latest book, he said the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun helped deconstruct the view of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos but was created by God.
"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.
Hawking, who is only able to speak through a computer-generated voice synthesizer, has a neuro muscular dystrophy that has progressed over the years and left him almost completely paralyzed.
He began suffering the disease in his early 20s but went on to establish himself as one of the world's leading scientific authorities, and has also made guest appearances in "Star Trek" and the cartoons "Futurama" and "The Simpsons."
Last year he announced he was stepping down as Cambridge University's Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, a position once held by Newton and one he had held since 1979.
"The Grand Design" is due to go on sale next week.
By invoking the deity, the eminent scientist has discovered the formula for creating a popular success from abstruse science
Hold onto your mitres, folks: Stephen Hawking is back in the news, with the revelation that science has proved the universe can do without God (or something like that). This theologico-physical bombshell has landed him on the Times's front page (I'd link to it, but, you know ...), a slot on both the News at 10 and Channel 4 and – according to the Daily Mail – has already provoked a retaliatory jihad from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Could it be that he's got a book out?
Ah yes. That'll be The Grand Design, a "controversial new theory on the origins of the universe, from the world's most famous living scientist", out next week. The publicity department at Bantam must be breaking out the champagne, and with a surge in pre-orders on Amazon since the media storm broke, their colleagues in sales won't be far behind. But what is it about the Lucasian professor of mathematics that makes him such a publishing phenomenon?
It's not just his undoubted brilliance, his rolling prose style, or his compelling back story – though the contrast between his wheelchair-bound physical existence and an intellectual life which ranges across the universe lends something of an emotional charge to pronouncements about far-flung corners of the cosmos. No, in Hawking's case, it's the G-word.
Cast you mind back to Hawking's bestselling A Brief History of Time - his Old Testament, if you will. This whistlestop tour of relativity, Big Bang theory and black holes went on to sell more than 9m copies – though how many of those copies made the transition from being bought to being read is another question. With only one equation, lots of excellent diagrams and the pleasingly brain-scrambling concept of "imaginary time", it was undoubtedly well put together. But the reason why Hawking ended up in a totally different galaxy, sales-wise, from colleagues such as Frank Close or Paul Davies who published similar books at around the same time, was his willingness to talk about God. He famously closed the book with the ringing declaration that "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of reason – for then we should know the mind of God."
Now he's at it again, suggesting that "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing ... It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." I don't want to quibble with Professor Hawking's interpretation of M-theory, but if he's right then it can hardly be described as a theory of everything. You may not need God to create a universe, but a little religion goes a long way in creating a bestseller.
Dismissing the possibility that God created the universe, science mogul Stephen Hawking has claimed that the universe was formed because of laws of physics and not divine intervention, telegraph.co.uk reported.
The scientist, in his latest book The Grand Design, has said that the universe can and will create itself from nothing due to gravity.
“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going,” said Hawking.
Interestingly, this is the first time Hawking is completely dismissing the possibility that God created the universe. In A Brief History of Time, Hawking did not refute the possibility.
In his new book, Hawking has rejected Sir Issac Newton's theory that God set the universe in motion.
Explaining his stand on God, Hawking said in an interview that he did not believe in a personal God. "If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."
Sri Devananda Gaudiya Matha (Math, Mutt) is situated at Teghori Pada in Sri Nabadwip dham of district Nadia in the West Bengal state of India, and is a prominent holy place of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. It is located in the middle of the place earlier known as Koladvipa. The Math has been continuing as a famous religious spot thronged by thousands of devotees every year.
The temple's nine towers each represent one limb of nava-vidha-bhakti, the nine types of devotional service.
Hearing,
Chanting,
Remembering,
Serving the Lord's lotus feet,
Worshipping,
Offering prayers,
Engaging as a servant,
Serving as a friend, and
Completely surrendering oneself.
Nava-vidha Khandas
The deities of the Mandir - Gauranga and Sri Radha-Vinoda-bihari, Nabadwip, West Bengal
The matha is divided into the following nine parts (khandas):
Paramartha-khanda - the printing press where devotional literature and magazines are produced.
Kirtana-khanda - the place where sankirtana, lectures on Bhagavatam and other scriptures take place.
Upasya-khanda - the temple where the deities of Srila Sarasvati Thakura Prabhupada, Sri Gauranga, Sri Radha-Vinona-bihari and Sri Koladeva are worshipped.
Sevaka-khanda - the place where the residents of the matha live.
Bhoga-khanda - the storehouse and kitchen.
Govardhana-khanda - the cow shed.
Vaisnnava-granthagara-khanda - the library.
Udayana-Khanda - the garden.
Jnana-khanda - the bathrooms and latrines.
These sections are divided on the basis of activities favourable to bhakti, which are to be accepted and those unfavourable which are to be avoided. Jnana and karma which are devoid of bhakti are always to be rejected just as one rejects stools. For this reason the bathrooms and latrines of the matha are called Jnana-khanda.
It was Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami's long-held desire that a deity of Sri Koladeva be established on the Ganga's western bank in the old Kuliya-nagara. To fulfill this desire, Srila Bhakti Prajnana kesava Gosvami Maharaja has manifested the service of Sri Koladeva at the place.
.jpg)
