Saturday, April 30, 2022
E-Commerce: Fondness of Shoppers
Friday, April 29, 2022
Media & Relenting Moralities
Wednesday, April 27, 2022
Embattled Landscape: Testing Turfs for Girl Child
Monday, April 25, 2022
Hanuman Chálisa: Ingeniously Scientific: Serenely Imbued
The Hanuman Chalisa, a reflection petitioning heaven
created by this extraordinary priest and writer, Goswami Tulasidasa, a devotee
of Lord Hanuman, out of appreciation for Shri Hanuman, is often recounted by a
huge number of his adherents. Lord Rama was the most important deity to him. He
was an enthusiastic follower, from the sixteenth century. Rama's amazing story,
rehashed in the neighborhood vernacular, was known as the Rama-Charita-Manasa by
the creator.
Some members of the March for Study may object to the
concept of valuing Truth and Beauty above personal experience, but the vast majority
already do. An astronomical standard and a passion for the cosmos may be
found in a study at the March Institute of Cosmology. Find those who consider
human value as dependent on the standard, those who see our pride as rising as
a function of magnitude, and who have to admit that our lives may be more
valuable if everyone lived twice as long. People who spark a near-literal burn
of riches as rockets blaze across the sky are those who should be sought out.
Think about the individuals who might multiply our shattered world, completely
cure it, whose imaginations expand beyond their grasp while perceiving the end
to physical anguish as being unattainable, or at least, being beneath them.
In one of these sections of the Hanuman Chalisa,
Tulasidasa is said to have made a careful gauge of the distance between the Sun
and Earth.
Astrophysicists will probably decide the distance from
the Sun. Greek cosmologists are notable for their commitments to logical
information on heavenly bodies. Cosmologist Archimedes, a Greek mathematician,
and thinker of the third century BC determined Earth's separation from the sun
as multiple times the range of Earth.
At a later period, Hipparchus (second century BC)
assessed that the Earth's ring was multiple times bigger. At that point,
Ptolemy determined the distance to be multiple times more noteworthy than the
Earth's spiral measurement.
Yet, Johannes Kepler, a German mathematician and space expert, found that these assessments were excessively low and he thought of a superior one. Because of Kepler's standard of planetary motion, stargazers had the option of deciding how far every planet was from the sun. The telescope, which was designed in the mid-seventeenth century and permitted them to make more exact estimations, likewise added to their prosperity.
It is estimated that this distance is multiple times more
noteworthy than Earth's span, in view of the latest evaluations in the last 100
years (149,431,805 km), with the range of Earth expected to be 6371 km).
Tolerating the calculations of Vedic writing is a need.
The cosmic estimations made quite a while ago and archived in the Vedic texts
are as yet precise today. We don't know whether contemporary or Vedic
computations are predominant; however, we trust the Vedic estimations to be
correct. Others might clash.
As per the latest estimations, the typical distance
between the Sun and Earth is around 149 million kilometres (92 million miles).
A total circle would be incomprehensible since the Earth's circle is
circular-at different periods during the year, and the Earth's separation from
the Sun changes.
Early January: Sun-Earth distance perihelion: 91 million
miles (147 million kilometers) (early January). The sun-Earth distance at
aphelion is 94.5 million miles (152 million kilometres) (early July). Despite
the fact that Tulasidasa lived in the sixteenth century, his most exact gauge
is very close to that of twentieth-century stargazers, which is wonderful. In
the event that you need it, we can decipher the math in Hanuman Chalisa...
As a kid, Hanuman jumped for the sun, trusting it to be a succulent mango. Tulasidasa's Hanuman Chalisa, with subtleties in this episode.
"yuga-sahasra-yojana para bhanu
leelyo tahi madhura phala janu"
Hanuman jumped at the opportunity to
eat the sun, thinking it was a delectable treat.
Yag-sahasra-yojana is the name of the distance he
covered. How about we have a go at it?
What is a yuga, precisely? As stated in the
Bhagavad-gita, Brahma's one day is called Kalpa, which is equal to 1000 yugas,
and this is followed by the same period of the night.
"sahasra-yuga-paryantamaharyadbrahmanoviduh
ratrim yuga-sahasrantamte ‘ho-ratra-vidojanah"
A yuga is equal to 4,320,000 years, or around 12,000
celestial years. From the perspective of a heavenly year, a human year is
equivalent to 360 years.
Manu-Samhita confirms this as well:
"etad dvaadasha sahasram devanam yugamuchyate"
The Sun-Earth distance is as stated in the Hanuman
Chalisa portion above.
yuga-sahasra-yojana = 12000 x 1000 yojanas.
8 miles is approximately equivalent to one yojana, a
Vedic percentage of distance (as per the fourteenth-century researcher
Parameshvara, the originator of the drgganita framework). Remember that 1 mile
is equivalent to 1.60934 kilometres.
Hanuman Chalisa introduces a formula for calculating
this.
12000 x 1000 yojanas = 96 million miles = 153.6 million
kilometres, which is closer to the calculations of expert researchers..
There's a chance that someone will start looking into
this.
There are two kinds of ratios: one for time, and one for
distance. What would be the best way to bring these two together? The usage of
the time estimate (light-years) even by modern scholars is evident when
attempting to calculate very long distances. Light from the sun is supposed to
take 8 minutes to reach Earth's surface.
Three times the speed of light, which is 108 mps, Light
travels 144 million kilometres (3 x 108 km, 60 km, and 8 km) = 1.44 x 1011
metres (which is one more estimate of the distance between the sun and earth as
indicated by current computations).
The probable estimations could be: on the basis of
statements in the Bhagavad-gita and the Manu Samhita, we decided that, in the
Vedic era, yuga referred to the number 12000.
Despite this, Tulasidasa was able to accurately measure
the distance to the stars in the sixteenth century, when Western astronomers
were using telescopes to try to figure it out.
There are numerous branches in the field of knowledge,
and each one benefits from the work of the others. Together, these branches
work wonders in the world. It's a complex experience system, with each object
having its own set of triggers for research and development. There is no
central authority to keep it all under control. It is a tremendous
accomplishment to summon science into service for a particular goal and to
drive each of its divisions to speak at their best.
For as long as humans have been creating information,
only one study has had the vital component of proving its validity and lasting
in technical terms. Assuming that science is true means that the spirit must
understand that all the knowledge it gets about reality is only temporary and
that it has a duty to look into it.
There's general science conflated with otherworldliness
and, past legends of epics. Internecine conflicts bring no benefit other than
to the fundamentals of the hallowed convictions and beliefs.
We must stand up and speak out in defence of "the
credibility of discipline" and "facts." I contended that, as
opposed to depending on conceptual plans to direct our decisions, we ought to
depend on the realities accessible to us in our day-to-day routines. These
individuals' prosperity is never at risk in light of innovative realities. Our
children can't drink tap water, so what does it suggest that we're taking
superior quarterly action? Is there a more prominent personal satisfaction to
be had in experiencing the same thing?
Without force, people needing security may generally be
safeguarded by logical bits of insight, given they are fittingly utilized.
Along these lines, I am hopeful. To the detriment of our freedoms, I have a
place with a gathering of people who are stimulated to battle against the
development of aggregate eagerness. In the event that our situation isn't
great, we have no genuine opportunities to look over. Our most basic privileges
in life, opportunity and bliss are being grabbed away from us by this. For the
sake of our livelihoods, we've banded together to argue that only through a
thorough, but open-minded, examination of all the available data can we come up
with viable answers. But only when knowledge is applied to ideas can we really
be accessible.
Archive source: ISKCON, Google Books
Lifetime Investments: Prudence or Perpetuity?
Saturday, April 23, 2022
Embarking on Bicameralism: Hallucination or Practicable
This hotly anticipated reply to those ideal abs, why vegetarianism is the arrangement, or 15 motivations behind why Trump-ism is actually a sumptuous Pringle, for debates, won't be found in any memoir. Rather than imparting, I'm starting to jibber-jabber. Medium requested that I pick a subject for my blog, and I went with movement, in spite of the fact that I can't ensure that I'll truly expound on anything. Regardless, I can say with sureness that I love making a trip and am going to start another part of my life, through semantics and gab. Generally, I'll do this for myself, and, of course, for all those who peruse.
Concerning the United States, the bicameral organization may be found in the House and Senate. The Latin terms "bi" and "camera" are derived from the Latin words "bi" (meaning two) and "camera" (importance chamber). In the United Kingdom, there are two spots in Parliament that have been embraced by various countries throughout the world.
As opposed to having two spots in Congress, a bicameral state overseeing body has a singular chamber where all the people from the gathering meet and vote together. Each office of the United States Congress and the states, by and large, have two chambers, salt away for Nebraska, which has only one. Unicameral government is more common in urban areas of the United States.
In the Indian setting, to make this open door a reality for the typical man, Jawaharlal Nehru's objectives were to follow India's independence from British control. Nehru's "not-kidding" affirmation on the earth-shattering evening of August 14-15, 1947, mirrors this.
Jawaharlal Nehru was most likely the most transcendent and far-reaching person of all time. During our opportunity fight, he started to make sense of his apparition of a democratic government. A couple of the Indian National Congress' objectives typified his situation in the greater part of the government, and his words can be tracked down all throughout the chronicle.
An outline of this may be found in his commitment to the meaning of the Indian Constitution. The Union Constitution Committee was one of the boards established by the Constituent Assembly, which was endowed with the task of drafting an outline safeguarded structure for the central government under the new Constitution. Nehru, the Prime Minister, filled in as the overseer of this get-together.
That is the explanation they gave, for example, that the Parliament of India should have two chambers — the Council of States and the House of People — and that the new regulations should have the two chambers implied as a "bicameral lawmaking body." Unicameralism or bicameralism had, as of late, been examined broadly in the Union Constitution Committee gatherings, and there was little discussion in the open House of the Constituent Assembly about assuming bicameralism was savvy.
For quite a while, it was considered normal sense that a resulting chamber would be a key piece of our country's regulatory plan of government, and the Constituent Assembly was for all intents and purposes steady in its conviction that an ensuing house was fundamental to our country's Union Constitution.
This discernment by N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar sums up the attitude of the writers of our nation's underlying rules: "The requirement for a different chamber, momentarily, has been sensibly recognized across the globe whenever associations of any outcome."
In his view, bipartisanship should be valuable for three reasons: 1) it would generate additional brilliant discussions, 2) it would hold guidelines back from being dashed through due to political common sense, and 3) it would offer a more experienced populace a chance to partake in the conversations with a level of data and significance that we don't regularly associate with the House of People. Since he was the chief of the Union Constitution Committee, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru probably didn't check out the conversation since he felt there was no point in going through the cycle again in the House of Representatives.
It was during the Parliamentary Budget Session of 1953 that Nehru made his circumstances on the need and accommodation of a second chamber at the Center all the more articulate. Rajya Sabha inspected the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, 1952, on April 29, 1953.
In very recent times, Parliament's Speaker, Sumitra Mahajan, announced it to be a money bill and supported it. (The Lok Sabha has select authority over money bills.) Two or three Rajya Sabha people addressed whether the bill was to be a certain money bill. The Lok Sabha was slipped-up by some for the Rajya Sabha's normally yielded powers to usurp those of the Lok Sabha in the presence of a money bill during the discussion.
Elsewhere, with respect to a bill's segment on the House floor, how much the board stage differs doesn't make a quantifiably basic difference. There is basic bipartisanship in spite of differentiation of evaluation on the recommendation at the board stage. Bipartisanship among board people is only possible if people from both the minority and larger part parties participate in the majority rule communication.
No matter what the way those bipartisan guidelines (where the two players vote in a comparable bearing) aren't exactly phenomenal, partisan principal bills are a substitute yarn. Warning gathering organization and the benefits and inspirations that go with it could drive a couple of people to project a polling form against their own party's benefits, but why? In view of area tendencies, presumably, or because the people from these sheets were by then at risk to project a polling form against the party on guideline inside the force of their board, regardless, when they were not on board.
Archive Courtesy:
Jawaharlal Nehru & Rajya Sabha, Sudarshan Agarwal- Sec. Gen., RS, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bicameral-system.asp
file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Bam_10.23%20(1).pdf
Friday, April 22, 2022
Aftermath of Russia-Ukraine War: Rife Repercussions
As the outspread – Many have passed on because of the dangers since Russia started its ludicrous powers forceful attack on Ukraine on February 24, 2022. The lugubrious account of mortalities and casualties continues. Inestimably, nefarious ghoulishness is at play. Sadism may have been an understatement, in all fairness. The macabre causes grave foreboding for ages.
An enormous number of Ukrainians
had to flee their nation and look for shelter in different countries. Poland, a
NATO country, was the refuge for them, where American officials were prepared
to help uprooted individuals in their period of dearth.
What a tidal wave! The stratagem
was clear when Russia began gathering contenders and military gear along
Ukraine's line in October 2021, bracing feelings of trepidation about an intrusion. In November and December of
2021, there was no palpable defence against the development of a weighty weapon
against Ukraine in corporate satellite pictures, virtual diversion, and freely
accessible information.
There were unprecedented uncertainties
that Russia was not only posturing as a menace but also planting an assault on Ukraine's boundaries in 2022 since Russian
powers had accumulated along the Russian-Ukrainian boundary by December. When
it came to corroborating current realities, Russia's unfamiliar service was hesitant;
however, it made a series of requests to the US and NATO to stop all tactical
exercises in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, to guarantee against another NATO
improvement against Russia, and to keep Ukraine from joining NATO by the middle
of December 2021. The US and other NATO partners threw overboard these
solicitations and cautioned Russia that, assuming they made a move against Ukraine,
they would face serious monetary punishments. Greater security equipment and
ammunition have been sent by the United States to the Ukrainian
government.
Preclusive diplomacy was at play;
however, the belligerence in the veil was perhaps inadequate.
What’s the global economic
burnout? Let’s talk business.
The only thing that is in any way
important right now is the manner in which things might have gone. What will
occur straightaway?
As per the World Trade
Organization (WTO), the current year's strife in Ukraine could end worldwide
exchange development.
Due to this emergency, the World
Trade Organization (WTO) predicts that global exchange and GDP development will
be shrunk by 0.7% to 1.3%. (Agence France-Presse). In the meantime, OPEC's
secretary-general cautioned EU specialists that approvals for Russia could
cause the direst oil supply shock ever and that OPEC wouldn't have the option
to re-establish lost supplies assuming that occurred (Reuters). Subsequent to
meeting with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, Vladimir Putin
pronounced that discussions with Ukraine had reached an "impasse,"
and he swore to proceed with military endeavours until Moscow's inclinations were accomplished (Washington Post). Up till now,
the Ukrainian clash has disengaged huge numbers of individuals and
guaranteed the existence of some 1,800 individuals, as per UN figures.
(National Public Radio).
Albeit, the US has customarily
upheld globalization, its new international strategy has been recognised by a
lack of bias and protectionism. These U.S. strategy shifts have ignited an assortment
of reactions from different groups and vested parties, which have affected
globalization. U.S. Business Department information shows that the nation's unpaid work and items lacking in 2021 will be
$859.1 billion, up 27% from the previous year and adding up to over 4% of the
GDP, an untouched record.
Coronavirus and the
Russia-Ukraine emergency prompted a decay of global collaboration. On April 11,
2013, Yale University announced that in excess of 600 worldwide associations
have either stopped or ended their exercises in Russia. (According to sources – The Diplomat)
Anything snarky for a cantankerous
demeanour of attacking a nation would be less. All the
seriously pulverizing will be the consequence. The chutzpah of the goings-on
doesn’t seem to be benevolent by any count. Beyond any hypostatised viewpoint!
Thursday, April 21, 2022
Lawmakers Against Lawbreakers
Petitioners for Endurance of Truth
Amid a flagging set of circumstances of civil
liberties, deprivation of basic human rights, and societal inequalities, there are still catapulting preclusive slants to embark on the brass tacks.
As the drift is toward building statues, the
vitality of recognizing the importance of lawmakers and justice dispensing
mechanisms come into view as embodiments of truth beckoners and guardians of
societal privileges and liberties – Don’t we need to carve out sculptures of such
one-time iconic lawmakers as much?
Historically and precisely so, the need for
statues of erstwhile spearheads stands reasonable, definitely to remind us of
their spirit of uniting people and preemptive nation-building; in the context,
the role and spirits of the lawmakers may not be less admissible for similar
acknowledgments.
However, sculptures and figurines may not
seem obligatory as they may appear monumental plenipotentiaries of justice
apparatus than the very essence of chiseling them for remembrances, as it is
for the leaders of rectitude among some of them we have as statues.
Are they “Figures of Epitome” or
“Admiration”, and as significant as the ‘not-just-interposing’ catalysts, but
also awkward elements against the misgivings of devilry philosophies of
society?
Are they as much notorious for violating the
societal edicts and laws and several other oddities - transgressing the laid
down “Canons of Rights” of civilians and people at large? Nonetheless, the
justice dispensing mechanism still surfaces as the “salvaging harbinger” amidst
the populous ‘cohabitants of the bigoted’ sections.
Customary prostrations and sycophancies maybe
rampant to surpass the deserved, spitefully - and be at the helm of affairs,
but the verity of one’s being true to the profession is like a pledge taken by
the soul that respires merely truth and the virtue of safeguarding society with
the power of knowledge and gab.
Taints on the parts of the protectors may
seemly smudge the sanctity of the barebones of law and the norms that guard
existence and rights. Unjustly, the ‘phantasms of aberration’ snicker at the
whole untoward happenings of society. Lawmakers and human rights protectors may
have demarcation of perceptions and may behold insightfully yet diverse ideas
of people’s rights, but overbearing may vacillate to the wrong side,
benefitting the violator of the rights of the citizens.
Aching to get back from the woes, if our
present is not snatched away from us! Of course, hidebound ideologues batter us
back to the stone or nomadic age, and we are thoroughly ill-disposed.
Helplessly, neither to lament nor to gloat - the poise to change or transform
the society, in its entirety - makes the efforts towards it immeasurably
grueling.
There’s illustriousness of precedents of the
judiciary. It has taken cognizance of all its unambiguous wakefulness and
interventions time and again.
The Supreme Court had recently asked the lower judiciary to try on a priority basis the criminal cases pending against former and sitting Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India
Ranjan Gogoi, said that criminal matters against the MLAs and MPs, in which
life imprisonment punishment warrants should be taken up on a priority basis by
Sessions Court.*
Could there be anything more than that
unconditional example to bring transparency to the system? Fortifying the
fundamentals of civil, and human rights compels more initiatives and resonation
with affirmative takeaways.
Every year, on the 10thday of December, Human
Rights Day is celebrated worldwide, to not only evoke the memoirs of the
fundamentals and rudiments laid down but also to invigorate the spirit to protect
civil and human liberties and rights across the world.
The United Nations (UN) Family pushed the
boat out this year (2018) as always on the 10th of December, which is commemorated
as World Human Rights Day. But the distinctiveness was - this year being the 70th, as it started on the 10th
December 1948. The day was earmarked as the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.
It was adopted to entrench policies and
fundamentals; protect civil life and establish peace and harmony and healthy
coexistence. The declaration reads myriad forms of civil liberties, respect,
and value for human privileges and dignity, largely.
Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, reinforced Mr. Guterres’s, the UN Chief’s comments, reminding the audience that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was forged in the crisis of the post-war period as a guide to leading societies away from “conflict, inequality and turmoil,” which is an “a living document, just as powerful and valid today as it was in the ashes and rubble of global destruction.” (UN News)
Barrowing trifling ideas of provoking societal harmony, binging inequality, discrimination; disturbing peace and harmony has been always despised – beyond all prosaic, the adoption of the Declaration of Universal Human Rights practices to being in amity in the global framework of human existence and inhabitance. Thus it asserts the need and eminent relevance of ‘being’ in the universe, in absolute harmony. And, certainly, has an untold bearing on the ‘Lawmakers’.
*(Rediff.com/PTI)
Journalism Overthrows: The “Exposés” Of All Time
In a world where the media has so much power to change people's minds about politics, business, and global finance, it seems like there ...
-
In a world where the media has so much power to change people's minds about politics, business, and global finance, it seems like there ...
-
1. It is not a journalist's job to win arguments by force of argument. That's the job of lawyers and politicians, who are paid for a...