#Gita Chandra

[bestmothertournament]

[beezonia]

A mama mia au

Sarah Jane is Donna

Luke is Sophie

Sanjay is sky

Four is Bill

Harry is Harry

Peter is Sam

Honestly I feel the characters could be swapped if you think about it

——-

Basically Luke’s trying to find his dad cause Sarah Jane won’t say anything about him and he ends up finding his mums diary that she kept when she was pregnant with him (Luke is Sarah’s biological son in this I guess)

So him, clyde, rani and maria start to gush over the diary and shit

Luke tells his friends he’s invited his dads to his wedding and they go nuts

Much to the surprise of Sarah Jane who’s working her ass of with the hotel and the wedding, then goes absolutely nuts when she sees her exes on the island after all these years

So along with her friends Jo and Gita they try to get them off the island but chaos ensues and shit hits the fan

The men recuperate on johns boat, Luke comes to find them and gets to know them

Then luke passes out at the stag do when his three potential fathers all tell him that their his actual father

Luke then is like i don’t need to get married I just want to explore the world with Sanjay and idc who the fuck is my dad I’m glad I have three instead

Then John gets on one knee to propose to Sarah Jane who is utterly fuming at this point but she says yes anyway because why not

————-

Basically it’s doctor who with mama Mia and abba themed shenanigans happen and everyone is happy in the end

[demigodofhoolemere]

Well, add that to the list of future Big Finish purchases…

[autisticiantojvnes]

[ID: Ten gifs of Farewell, Sarah Jane. The first and second gifs show Jo Grant saying: "You know, I loved her so much. She really was such a special, special girl. I know you're all waiting for the Doctor to turn up. He's got two hearts. Imagine them both breaking." The third gif shows Gita Chandra saying: "She was remarkable. And the street's very quiet without her." The fourth gif shows Ace McShane saying: "I miss her. Out of all the people in this whole, wide, universe, I miss Sarah Jane."

The fifth and sixth gifs show Luke Smith saying: "I was so lucky, because I had the best mother in the whole universe. I may have been created by the Bane, but Mum, she gave me life." The seventh and eighth gifs show Clyde Langer saying: "How lucky were we to have found her? She was the best." The ninth and tenth gifs show Rani Chandra saying: "And I think they're out there now, Sarah Jane and the Doctor in the TARDIS travelling through space and time forever, in the story that never ends." End ID]

Farewell, Sarah Jane

[mysticalblizzardcolor]

Amazing Harinam in Delhi🩵💚

[talonabraxas]

Vishwaroopa Talon Abraxas

Vishwaroopa ("Universal form", "Omni-form"), also known popularly as Vishvarupa Darshan, Vishwaroopa and Virata rupa, is an iconographical form and manifestation of Shri Vishnu or his avatar Krishna. The direct revelation by the One without a Second, Master-Lord of the Universe.

In the climactic war in the Mahabharata, the Pandava prince Arjuna and his brothers fight against their cousins, the Kauravas with Shri Vishnus Avatar Lord Krishna as his charioteer. Faced with moral dilemma that whether or not to fight against and kill his own or for dharma, Shri Krishna discourses him about life and death and reveals his Vishvaroopa. In Bhagavad Geeta, Krishna reveals himself as the Supreme Being and finally displays his Vishvaroopa to Arjuna.

Lord Vishnu here is depicted in a grand manner as representing a magnification of his essence containing the entire cosmos, in a form known as Vishwaroopa. This depiction came from the ancient Hindu philosophy which indicated that through the diversities of creation there always is a connecting essence that threads everything into a unified whole. While the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva represents the Supreme Being's diversified manifestation, the Vishwaroopa form of Shri Vishnu represents the spiritual concept of all creation being nothing more than diverse manifestations of a single essence. Since Brahma's function ceases once the process of Creation is completed and Shiva himself represents the cosmos or an extension of the cosmos, it is Shri Vishnu, in whom the Creation sustains and prevails, who requires cosmic magnification as the form of Vishwaroopa to drive home the point that the Supreme Being not only contains all creation but also sustains it.

The Vishwaroopa depiction shows Shri Vishnu as having innumerable forms eyes faces mouths and ears. All creatures of the universe are part of him. He is the infinite universe, without a beginning or and end. Each of these has its own cosmic function or represents an aspect of the cosmos. The gods depicted include Shiva, Brahma, Ganesha, Hanuman, Indra, Agni, Surya , Chandra, Maruta (Wind God), Kubera (God of wealth), Varuna (God of water) and Yama (Time) and Brahma's three sons. Various sages, asuras , demons, gods and goddesses, while Shri Vishnu retains the central position. Amongst few, Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu together form the Trinity, Ganesh and Hanuman represent faith and divinity. Agni or Fire represents life, energy and vitality. Maruta, the wind-god represents space, while Indra represents rains and cosmic balance. Yama depicts the infinite nature of time while Varuna the ocean God represents water. Kubera represents prosperity and riches. The Sun and Moon represent the cycle of birth, death, decay and finally dissolution. Brahma's three sons represent the entire mankind. Taken together as one entity they constitute the entire cosmos.!

Jai Shri Vishnu ~ Hari Om Tat Sat ~ Jai Shri Narayana Ke Vishwaroopa!!!

[transgenderer]

so, you have probably heard of "soma" in an indian context, to refer to the mysterious plant/deity with several important properties, sanctifying/energizing/intoxicating, sacrificed to the gods, etc in the vedas. but strangely, "soma" is also used to refer to a god of the moon. the vedas are fulllll of solar deities, 12 of them (the adityas), but they dont talk about the moon, except possibly by the name "soma" (in that they use the term soma, but dont identify it with the moon). in later texts "soma" is used to refer to the moon god (also called chandra), but as far as i can tell, no one knows why! and this moon usage mostly postdates the usage of soma the plant (altho its hard to tell when it stopped being used. the bhagavad gita mentions moon-soma and drink-soma). both are...maddening? altho actually i think moon madness is a europe thing

[companion-showdown]

Family Feud Nominations, Who is the Best Doctor Who Family

If I've missed a character out of one of the families let me know (within reason, I imagine all these families are massive in the EU, so prioritise tv or significant characters)

Currently, the only rule is no families may inculde anyone who is even ambiguously The Doctor, it'll get super complicated super fast imo

Any characters, eg River, who can link up multiple different families to create a single massive family unit will be treated on a case by case basis. If it is possible to pick one of the smaller family units that they are a part of to include them in while not including them in any of the others (in a way everyone will agree at least makes sense) they will be included in that family only, otherwise they will not be included

Please bare in mind when you are nominating that I am hoping to keep the number of nominations under 64 to run this as a mini-tournament. This is not a hard rule so if nominations do exceed 64 its not a big deal, just something I'd like everyone to bare in mind

Nominees

Foreman-Campbell (Susan, David, Alex)

Chesterton-Wright (Ian, Barbara, implied to be married after they leave)

McCrimmon (Jamie, Heather, V.M.McCrimmon, various others)

Waterfield (Victoria, Edward (father))

Lethbridge-Stewart (Kate, The Brigadier, Doris (Brig's wife in Battlefield), Archibald Hamish (TUAT), Gordon (Kate's son in Downtime), Kadiatu, The Great Intelligence, Lucy Wilson)

Grant/Jones (Jo, Cliff, Santiago (Jo's grandson in Death of the Doctor))

Smith (Sarah-Jane, Lavinia (aunt), Brendan Richards, Luke, Sky, Mr Smith, K9 (they are her family and I will not be hearing otherwise), Barbara, Eddie (parents in Temptation of Sarah-Jane Smith))

Leela, Andred, Veega, Rayo

Adric and Varsh (brothers)

Nyssa, Tremas, and Kassia (daughter, father, step-mother)

Jovanka (Tegan, Vanessa (aunt in Logopolis), Colin (cousin in Arc of Infinity))

Turlough (Vislor, Malkon (brother in Planet of Fire))

McShane (Ace, Audrey (mother), Kathleen (grandmother), Liam (brother))

Tyler (Rose, Jackie, Pete, Tony (baby mentioned in Journey's End), no I will not be adding the metacrisis to this list)

Another Smith (Mickey, Rita (grandmother))

Slitheen

Harkness (Jack, Grey, parents, Alice Carter (daughter), Steven Carter(grandson))

Isolas (Fear Her)

Jones (Martha, Francine, Clive, Tish, Leo, Leo has a baby as well, Adeola Oshodi)

The Family of Blood

Redfern-Smith (Joan, John (various), possible dream children and grandchildren)

Shafe Kanes (from Utopia, Kristane, Beltone)

Mott-Noble-Temple (Donna, Sylvia, Wilf, Shaun, Rose)

The Adipose

Pond-Williams (Amy, Rory, River, Brian, Anthony, Amy's aunt and parents)

Owens: (Craig, Sophie, Stormageddon Dark Lord of All)

Gillyflower (Mrs Gillyflower, Ada)

Paternoster (Jenny, Vastra, Strax)

Oswald (Clara, Ellie, Dave (parents), grandmother, and I'm going to say Danny makes the cut, Orson)

Potts (Bill, Mother, Moira (foster mother))

O'Brien-Sinclair (Graham, Ryan, Grace, Aaron (Ryan's father))

Khan (Yaz, Najia (mother), Hakim (father), Sonya (sister), Umbreen (grandmother))

Lewis (Dan, Eileen (mother), Neville (father))

Swarm and Azure

Bel, Vinder and their as yet unborn child

Sunday (Ruby, Carla, Cherry, many many foster siblings)

The TARDIS and Lolita

Little House of Cwej

The House of Lungbarrow (Grandfater Paradox, Qenceus, Inocet, various cousins, Irving Braxiatel, Maggie Matsumoto, Ulysses, Penelope GAte, Anna Joyce)

The House of Dvora (Morbius, The War King, Thessalia, Romana, various others)

Langer (Clyde, Carla (mother), Paul (father))

Jackson (Maria, Alan, Chrissie)

Chandra (Rani, Haresh, Gita)

The Wu Diaspora (Cindy Wu and her clones)

Munmeth and Mutmunna (Medicine Man)

Ada and Alice Obiefune

Who (Susan, Barbara, Louise)

Jones-Davies (Ianto, Rhiannon, Johnny, David, Mica)

Summerfield (Bernice, Issac, Claire, Jason Kane, Peter, Wolsey, Keith, Rebecca, Cousin Eliza, Benedict I-IV, Christine)

Miller (Lucie, Pat (aunt))

Schofield (Hex, Cassie, Hilda)

House of Witforge (Narvin, Lenaris, Helico, Narvin's father, Rexin)

Faction Paradox

Pollard (Charley, Louisa, Richard, Margaret, Edward Grove, The Sound Creature)

Mesh Cos, Lon Shel, Julian White Mammoth Tusk

Cooper-Williams (Gwen, Rhys, Anwen, Geraint, Mary (Gwen's parents))

Chenka (Liv, Tula, Kal, Garlon Rosh)

Sinclair (Helen, Albie, Trev Bailey)

Forrester

Proctor (Cleo, Jordan, parents)

Nominations will be open until Midday Friday (03/05, 12:00 BST (GMT/UTC +1)), I will try and give a more specific time then

[bestmothertournament]

Propaganda Under Cut:

Clytemenstra (Mother of Iphigenia): After her husband murdered their daughter as a sacrifice to the gods Clytemenstra was enraged and grieved so began to plot his murder in vengeance for her lost daughter.

Gita Chandra (Mother of Rani): Gita thinks the world of Rani knowing how brilliant she is. She doesn't always know exactly what Rani is involved in but she is always there to support her and offer advice.

[blessed1neha]

Did Krishna have 16000 wives?

yes,

16,100 wives of Lord Krishna rescued from the inner city of the so-called Narkasur: history or fiction?

(This article is dedicated to Arun Dar, the real truth of traditional religion which has not been reached.)

The common story about Krishna's polygamy is that Krishna had six chief buffaloes or wives and the number of wives rescued from the inner city of King Narkasur of Assam was 16,100; In all, the number of wives of Lord Krishna is 16,106.

After hearing this, the head of any Hindu gets hated at first, they have no place to be proud of Lord Krishna, the main man of Hinduism. And by bringing this information to the fore, Muslims also argue that if Krishna can marry 16,000, then why can't we marry four? And without knowing the real facts, in answering these questions or in presenting arguments in favor of many marriages of Lord Krishna, we Hindus also try to come up with various fair and logical stories, which in reality have no need; Because, Krishna had only one wife, she was Rukmini. After reading this post, you will understand that the story about the other 18,106 people is a complete lie.

However, this is stated in verse 19 of chapter 15 of 4 parts of Vishnu Purana,

“Bhagavatohapyatra mortalokehabatirnasya. Dhikani Strinambhavana.

It simply means sixteen thousand one hundred wives of Lord Krishna.

But it is said in Chapter 26 of the 5th part of Vishnu Purana,

"Anyascha Varya: Krishnasya Babhubah: Sapta Shobhana:"

"Sixteenth Sahasrani Strinamannyani Chakrinah."

These two verses mean that the total number of wives of Krishna is sixteen thousand seven.

Sixteen thousand or sixteen thousand one hundred of them are women rescued from the inner city of the so-called Narkasur. The story begins in the Vishnu Purana and then extends to the Bhagavata Purana. Since we Hindus have come after the Vedas and Gita without understanding the Puranas, our Hindus did not have the power to deny all these facts mentioned in the Puranas, and there were very few wise people to speak against the Puranas. Has polluted for years and caused the destruction of Hindu society.

It is necessary to say something about Bhagavata Purana before the main discussion, then you will understand what is Bhagavata Purana, and what is the purpose of this Bhagavata Purana?

There are two types of Bhagavata Puranas in Bengal, one is Subodh Chandra's Bhagavata, the other is Beni Madhav Shil's Bhagavata. The story of the two Bhagavats is quite similar. But Subodh Chandra's Bhagwat is full of obscenities. Sometimes it is so obscene that it cannot be read to anyone and even if you read it yourself, you get the feeling of reading a sex story.

In Subodh Chandra's Bhagavat, Krishna's Raslila is a sex party, where nine lakh men and nine lakh women get naked and have sex together. Krishna is also in it. But nowhere is it said that Krishna was only 8 years old at the time of Raslila, so it was not possible for him to take part in that kind of sex. And in the episode of undressing, Krishna is a great lustful, whose purpose would seem to be to see the naked bodies of girls. The Bhagavata Purana of Subodh is described in this way. I am amazed to think that Hindus have been swallowing these gossips for hundreds, not thousands, of years, and no one has protested that no, Krishna's character cannot be like that; No one even raised the question of how it is possible for a 6/7 year old boy to get involved in such sexual matters. On the contrary, everyone has come to believe the story of Bhagavata Purana in simple faith and has taken the Hindu society to the abyss day after day.

As I said before, the story of Subodh's Bhagavat and Benimadhab's Bhagavat is almost the same. But in the description of Beni Madhab's Bhagavat, obscenity is a bit less than Subodh's Bhagavat. But Raslila and the incident of undressing are the same, in both cases Krishna is suffering from sexual fever. This means that the real truth is absent in both Bhagavats and the purpose of both Bhagavats is to defile Krishna's character. Krishna is portrayed as a full-fledged youth in both the Bhagavats, hiding the fact that Krishna was only 6 years old at the time of the alleged theft of Gopis' clothes and at the time of Raslila, so Hindus cannot know the real truth by reading these Bhagavats. To conceal the truth behind a story or a lie.

We Hindus have been worshiping such Bhagavat as a religious book. Is the fall of Hindu religion and society like this?

However, the story of Krishna's sixteen thousand one hundred wives is propagated in the society through all these Bhagavats, the purpose of which is not to make Krishna's character great, but to make him small; And for those who consider Bhagavata to be a religious book, there is no way to deny these facts. But in the face of the question of anti-Hinduism, in order to make the story of Krishna's so-called sixteen thousand one hundred wives acceptable, we try to come up with various explanations, to tell the truth, without knowing the real truth. But if you know the real truth, there is no need to give any such argument, that truth will be presented to you today.

The story of Narakasur's birth is told in various myths,

When Vishnu saved the submerged earth in the form of a pig incarnation, Narakasur was born in contact with the earth and the pig, in this formula, earth means mother of hell. Now said, is it possible in reality? Is the earth a human being that will directly give birth to a human child? This unrealistic story of the birth of Narkasur tells us that the events of Hell were made complete, in fact Narkasur never existed. It is completely imaginary to capture his 18,100 daughters, rescue them by going to Krishna and marry them. Moreover, if we assume that Narkasur was somehow born in contact with the Varaha incarnation and the earth, was it possible for Hell to survive till the time of Krishna? The incarnation of Varaha, the incarnation of the third incarnation of Vishnu, which took place in Satya Yuga, and Krishna, the ninth incarnation of Vishnu, reigned from the living of Narakasura for a long time?

However, the story of Narakasur is old and it is said that he had planned to marry sixteen thousand girls after capturing Mahadev's bride; Here the question is, if Krishna did not kill Narakasur, then who killed?

One thing needs to be made clear here that Krishna is the historical character and Narkasur is the mythological character; Mythological characters are fictional, and myths are made only for public education. So there is no possibility of seeing the real character with the fictional character. The destruction of the mythical character has to be done with the mythical character, so according to the mythology, Shiva kills Narkasur. So Krishna has nothing to do with the story of Narkasur, so the sixteen thousand women rescued from the inner city of Narkasur are also fictional.

Another historical fact is known here that in the time of Krishna, the kingdom of Narakasur is said to have been the king of Pragjyotishpur or present day Assam.

Another proof that such an event never happened in Krishna's life is that there is no mention of this event in the Mahabharata, as there is no mention of Radha. If Krishna had caused such an incident, then at the time of Yudhisthira's Rajsuya Yajna, Shishupala, who was Krishna's main enemy and critic, must have mentioned the incident of these sixteen thousand one hundred girls while slandering Krishna, but Shishupala did not mention it, as Shishupala mentions. Didn't talk about Radha. Because, just as there was no one called Radha in Krishna's life, there was no incident of rescuing and marrying sixteen thousand one hundred girls in his life.

Not to mention here, in the Mahabharata broadcast on Star Jalsa but about the girls rescued from the inner city of Shishupal-Radha and Narkasur, there is no reason to believe after watching this serial that these are true. The Star family has brought up the common myths about Krishna, they did not want to lose the audience by standing against anything. Therefore, the Mahabharata of Star Jalsa is not an exact construction of the actual Mahabharata. For example, in the original Mahabharata, Krishna goes alone to marry Rukmini, with some Yadav forces behind him, but in the Mahabharata of Star Jalsa, a role of Arjuna is shown here, which is not true. The same applies to Lord Krishna, the devotee preached at Star Jalsa. They also present the conventional facts about Krishna, they do not want to reveal the real truth through research, so just as they saw Radha here, they also saw Krishna's polygamy. But I hope you don't believe them and cheat.

However, many may refer to some of the geographical events associated with Krishna's rescue of these sixteen thousand one hundred girls, such as a place called Asvaklanta, which is said to be the time when Krishna, after rescuing the girls, returned to that place because his chariot horses got tired. In this way the name of the place is Ashvaklanta.

In fact, these naming events are influenced by the story written in the Puranas and naming in this way is not impossible, where the Puranas were written thousands of years ago. Where the Hindu mythology has changed under the influence of these myths, they have considered fictional events to be true, what is the impossibility of naming a place under the influence of mythological stories?

Another bizarre information in the Vishnu Purana about this sixteen thousand marriages of Krishna, which we have come to believe, is that Krishna had 160,000 sons. It is also said that every wife of Krishna had 10 sons and one daughter; According to this formula, it is possible to have 1,8,16 sons and daughters of Krishna. I am sure that the heads of the mythologists were not right; Because, even though they say that Krishna's main wife is 6, they have named 21 people, in this formula again the number of Krishna's children is 1,6,331. Krishna lived for 125 years, he married Rukmini at the age of 29, and since then if he started having children he would have given birth to children for 95 years, which is impossible in reality Children, thus more than 5 children were born every day. Is it ever possible?

Without knowing or trying to understand the real truth, we acknowledge Krishna's sixteen thousand wives, saying that they were Lakshmi's part or incarnation and Krishna could have been with all the wives at the same time, he would not have been with any wife in turn. In this way it may be possible to be on Krishna's side and in this way it is possible to have so many children in one life by staying with all the wives every night. But the question is why none of Krishna's wife and children are present at work? If they were real, would there be any evidence of their existence anywhere else?

Wikipedia also lists the names of Krishna's so-called chief wives and their sons and daughters. In this list, except for the children of the other seven wives, except Krishna and Rukmini's son Pradyumna. There are 10 names. Then why is the name of any son other than Pradyumna or any of his deeds mentioned not only in Mahabharata but also in any other Purana? If Rukmini had 10 sons, then they should have been of equal importance to Krishna like Pradyumna. But Krishna said only Pradyumna, what is the reason? The reason is that Krishna had only one son, Pradyumna, and Pradumna's mother Rukmini was Krishna's only wife.

Take a look at Wikipedia's account of Krishna's wife, whose information is believed by millions of people around the world.

As I said earlier, Wikipedia has written about Krishna's chief wife and their 10 sons and one daughter on their site, as well as more.

“Krishna took Rukmini, the princess of the Vidarbha kingdom, away from the marriage pavilion at his request and married her. Krishna then rescued 18,100 women from the demonic prison of Narkasura and married them to protect their honor. These are Rukmini, Satyabhama, Jambavati, Kalindi, Mitravrinda, Nagnajiti, Bhadra and Lakshmana. [55] [56] [56] According to the social norms of the time, captive women had no respect in society and there was no way for them to get married as they were already under Narkasur. Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay's essay on Krishnacharita gives ample evidence about the baseless facts of Krishna's polygamy. Krishna's character shows that Krishna's more than 16,000 wives are confined to one part of the Puranas. There is no mention of this in any other field of life of Lord Krishna He refers to it as a myth or story The activities of any other wife other than Rukmini are not seen in the biography of Lord Krishna. ”

-Wikipedia once referred to Krishna's so-called total of 16,107 wives, then later said, "There is no proper basis for Krishna's more than 18,000 wives and eight wives."

He also said,

Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay's essay on Krishnacharitra gives ample evidence of the baseless facts about Krishna's polygamy. Krishna's character shows that Krishna's more than 16,000 wives are confined to one part of the Puranas. There is no mention of this in any other field of Krishna's life. ”

People hope and believe that when wikis write something, they will do research and write the truth, but if they talk like that, on what basis will people decide or know the truth? No matter how much one tries to hide the truth with lies, the truth will peek in one way or another, in this way the truth about Krishna's wife may have peeked out in the wiki information that "there is no correct basis for Krishna's more than 16,000 wives and eight daughters."

How will the foundation be? If the facts are true then it will have a basis. There is no basis for saying that the facts are false and thus behind the thousands of lies the truth seekers are peeking at the wiki page for a fact that,

"There is no exact basis for Krishna's more than 18,000 wives and eight wives."

This means that these things are completely false. Because, Krishna had only one wife, she was Rukmini and Rukmini had not 10, the son was one, he was Pradyumna, and Pradyumna's son was the hero mentioned in the Purana Aniruddha.

Whoever exists, he leaves the proof of his existence in this way, not to mention all the wives and sons of Krishna, except the Puranas or wikis who say that Rukmini and Krishna had 10 more sons, where are they? Why don't they talk somewhere? I have asked that question before. They are not mentioned, because Pradumna had no son other than Krishna. And the fact that he had no other son proves that Krishna had no other wife except Pradyumna's mother Rukmini.

So the conventional story of Lord Krishna's polygamy, which is completely fictional and fabricated, I hope I have been able to clear to my reader friends.

[sixseasonsofodestawithatardis]

Literally saw someone on Twitter call Maria unbearable this morning, and this, on top of my anger at Chrissie Jackson, has reignited the annoyance I felt towards Sja/dwtwt as I was writing those tags. Lmao! Anyway, sorry, OP, you're about to get 3 huge paragraphs about Maria Jackson + Rani Chandra being awesome and why Chrissie sucks! AKA stuff I couldn't elaborate on in the tags!

Maria is a brilliant character, and her arc for s1/2 is well-written. Maria is 13/14, going through her parent's divorce, settling into somewhere new, and struggling with a strained relationship with her mum!

She's the first member of the gang we meet and is our entryway into Sja; in a way, our care towards the rest of the show for the pilot relies on her and her narrative for the most part (Luke and SJ are still important). On top of that, she is the first person Luke meets and the first person she helps rescue alongside Sarah Jane. If it weren't for Maria, we wouldn't care for any of this as much, nor would Sarah Jane become a friendlier and warmer person ready to adopt Luke.

Ultimately, Maria becomes Sarah Jane's daughter figure, as does Sarah Jane become Maria's mother figure, and the attic becomes a safe space away from her Mum, like when she slams the attic door in Eye of the Gorgon. Hence why Sarah Jane and Luke take Maria moving to America so hard.

This is also why Rani feels very excluded in parts of season 3 and why we get the mad woman in the attic timeline: She can't get as close as Maria could to Sarah Jane or be included as well as she could at times.

In contrast, Rani has a typical family dynamic with a mum and dad, unlike the rest of the characters and is driven, with a lot of pressure to be ahead. She knows what she wants and will get there- but unlike the others, she's more trusting and less cynical. (Not sure if thats the right word- we're rolling with it!) , i.e. trusting Peter Dalton and the Blathereen. She's also the newest one of the group and so gels with Clyde more easily in that respect as you don't expect them two to be able to handle it ( technically, Maria can't either, but she's away from the narrative by this point)

Rani and Maria have huge shoes to fill in their introductions and narratives for different reasons. Maria + her actress is the first entryway into the narrative, and we have to enjoy her story and her dynamic on top of this being a pilot and eventually a first series... Its a lot and if this went wrong in any way we wouldn't of got to series 2 let alone five!

Rani's (well, Anjili) is now replacing a fan favourite character on top of establishing a whole new dynamic, and if this fails, again, no series 3 or Big Finish continuation.

Rani and Maria are well-written women who are important in different ways to the show, and comparing them and bringing either down feels wrong to me. Also, these are 13/14 y/o kids, and they aren't going to act rationally in some situations; sorry, this whole Twitter trend reeks of grown-ups trying to pull children down a peg and misogyny (maybe I'm being a bit harsh!). Anyway, put me in the writer's room! Rani and Maria need to maximise their joint slay!

Also, if any character deserves the hate Maria is getting, it is Chrissie because she may have taken out a Sontaran once, but my god, is she horrible! Not only does she come over unannounced, but she literally attempts to move in during an argument with Ivan taking over Alan and Maria's space, and then when Maria talks about Sarah Jane in that same episode, she goes off on one! It is NOT Sarah Jane's fault YOU have no relationship with your daughter anymore, Chrissie! Plus, whenever she does visit, it's only when she needs money or furniture or to rub the fact Alan's single in his face! Also, the time she spoke to Statue! Alan nicely for once- could you not have said that before the divorce?! Or thought about that before you went for the Salsa teacher?!

Okay I really don't get the evil Maria Jackson memes on twitter rn, because how anyone watching Maria in S1-2 of SJA and saying she's evil, even jokingly???

[adventure-showdown]

What is your favourite Doctor Who story?

ROUND 1 MASTERPOST

synopses and propaganda under the cut

The Last Sontaran

Synopsis

Reports of strange lights around the Tycho Project's radio telescope lead Sarah Jane, Luke, Clyde and Maria into a terrifying forest encounter. Sarah Jane comes face-to-face with her oldest enemy. Meanwhile, Maria wrestles with a huge decision when her dad is offered a new job in America.

Propaganda no propaganda submitted

The Day of the Clown

Synopsis

Rani Chandra is the new girl on Bannerman Road. She is haunted by a sinister clown. Does it have anything to do with local children who have gone missing? When Clyde's friend Dave disappears, the trail leads to a strange circus museum and the legend of the Pied Piper.

Propaganda no propaganda submitted

Secrets of the Stars

Synopsis

Astrologer Martin Trueman causes a stir with his uncanny insights and predictions. Sarah doesn't believe in astrology, but she does believe that all is not as it seems with Trueman. Around her, people are falling under Trueman's sinister spell, and even Mr Smith doesn't understand what's going on.

Propaganda no propaganda submitted

The Mark of the Berserker

Synopsis

An alien pendant which gives its wearer the power to control others is stolen from Sarah's attic. Luke and Rani enlist the help of Clyde's mum to track down Clyde and his father, who has the alien pendant. The chase leads to a terrifying waterside confrontation when the pendant takes control of Paul and begins transforming him.

Propaganda

Honestly the best episode of sja, I don’t think I can really articulate why, it just hit me when I first watched (anonymous)

The Temptation of Sarah-Jane Smith

Synopsis

When Sarah Jane returns a boy who has slipped through a time fissure to 1951, she realises she has found a way to meet the parents she never knew. Is it a trap? Sarah Jane and Luke fall victim to a revenge plot by the Trickster.

Propaganda no propaganda submitted

Enemy of the Bane

Synopsis

Gita Chandra is kidnapped by Mrs Wormwood. This turns out to be a snare for Sarah Jane. Mrs Wormwood has joined forces with another of Sarah Jane's enemies, Kaagh. As they prepare to settle old scores, Sarah Jane turns to an old friend.

Propaganda no propaganda submitted

[indiesole]

THE 236 GREATEST PERSONALITIES IN THE ENTIRE KNOWN HISTORY/COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THIS WORLD! (@INDIES)

i.e. THE 236 GREATEST PERSONALITIES IN WORLD HISTORY! (@INDIES)

Rajesh Khanna

Lionel Messi

Leonardo Da Vinci

Muhammad Ali

Joan of Arc

William Shakespeare

Vincent Van Gogh

Online Indie

J. K. Rowling

David Lean

Nadia Comaneci

Diego Maradona

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Meena Kumari

Julius Caesar

Harrison Ford

Ludwig Van Beethoven

William W. Cargill

Fritz Hoffmann-La Roche

Samuel Curtis Johnson

Sam Walton

John D. Rockefeller

Andrew Carnegie

Roy Thomson

Tim Berners-Lee

Marie Curie

James J. Hill

Cornelius Vanderbilt

Roman Polanski

Samuel Slater

J. P. Morgan

Cary Grant

Dmitri Mendeleev

John Harvard

Alain Delon

Ramakrishna Paramhansa (Official God)

The Lumiere Brothers, Auguste & Louis

Carl Friedrich Benz

Michelangelo

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

Ramana Maharishi

Mark Twain

Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri

Bruce Lee

Bhagwan Krishna (Official God)

Charlemagne

Rene Descartes

John F. Kennedy

Bhagwan Ganesha (Official God)

Walt Disney

Albert Einstein

Nikola Tesla

Alfred Hitchcock

Pythagoras

William Randolph Hearst

Cosimo de’ Medici

Johann Sebastian Bach

Alec Guinness

Nostradamus

Christopher Plummer

Archimedes

Jackie Chan

Guru Dutt

Amma Karunamayi/ Mata Parvati (Official God)

Peter Sellers

Gerard Depardieu

Joseph Safra

Robert Morris

Sean Connery

Petr Kellner

Aristotle Onassis

Usain Bolt

Jack Welch

Alfredo di Stefano

Elizabeth Taylor

Michael Jordan

Paul Muni

Steven Spielberg

Louis Pasteur

Ingrid Bergman

Norma Shearer

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar

Ayn Rand

Jesus Christ (Official God)

Luciano Pavarotti

Alain Resnais

Frank Sinatra

Allah (Official God)

Richard Nixon

Charlie Chaplin

Thomas Alva Edison

Alexander Graham Bell

Wright Brothers

Arjun (of Bhagwan Krishna’s Gita)

Jim Simons

George Lucas

Swami Sri Lahiri Mahasaya

Carl Lewis

Brett Favre

Helen Keller

Bernard Mannes Baruch

Buddha (Official God)

Hugh Grant

K. L. Saigal

Roger Federer

Rash Behari Bose

Tiger Woods

William Blake

Jesse Owens

Claude Miller

Bernardo Bertolucci

Subhash Chandra Bose

Satyajit Ray

Hippocrates

Chiang Kai-Shek

John Logie Baird

Geeta Dutt

Raphael (painter)

Bhagwan Shiva (Official God)

Radha (Ancient Krishna devotee)

George Orwell

Jorge Paulo Lemann

Catherine Deneuve

Pierre-Auguste Renoir

Bill Gates

Bhagwan Ram (Official God)

Michael Phelps

Michael Faraday

Audrey Hepburn

Dalai Lama

Grace Kelly

Mikhail Gorbachev

Vladimir Putin

Galileo Galilei

Gary Cooper

Roger Moore

John Huston

Blaise Pascal

Humphrey Bogart

Rudyard Kipling

Samuel Morse

Wayne Gretzky

Yogi Berra

Barry Levinson

Patrice Chereau (director)

Jerry Lewis

Louis Daguerre

James Watt

Henri Rousseau

Nikita Krushchev

Jack Dorsey

Dev Anand

Elia Kazan

Alexander Fleming

David Selznick

Frank Marshall

Viswanathan Anand

Major Dhyan Chand

Swami Vivekananda

Felix Rohatyn

Sam Spiegel

Anand Bakshi

Victor Hugo

Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba (Official God)

Steve Jobs

Srinivasa Ramanujam

Lord Hanuman

Stanley Kubrick

Giotto

Voltaire

Diego Velazquez

Ernest Hemingway

Francis Ford Coppola

Michael Douglas

Kirk Douglas

Mario Lemieux

Kishore Kumar

James Stewart

Douglas Fairbanks

Confucius

Babe Ruth

Raj Kapoor

Titian aka Tiziano Vecelli

El Greco

Francisco de Goya

Jim Carrey

Mohammad Rafi

Steffi Graf

Pele

Gustave Courbet

Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi

Milos Forman

Steve Wozniak

Georgia O’ Keeffe

Mala Sinha

Aryabhatta

Magic Johnson

Patanjali

Leo Tolstoy

Tansen

Henry Fonda

Albrecht Durer

Benazir Bhutto

Cal Ripken Jr

Samuel Goldwyn

Mumtaz (actress)

Panini

Nicolaus Copernicus

Pablo Picasso

George Clooney

Olivia de Havilland

Prem Chand

Imran Khan

Pete Sampras

Ratan Tata

Meerabai (16th c. Krishna devotee)

Queen Elizabeth II

Pope John Paul II

James Cameron

Jack Ma

Warren Buffett

Romy Schneider

C. V. Raman

Aung San Suu Kyi

Benjamin Netanyahu

Frank Capra

Michael Schumacher

Steve Forbes

Paramhansa Yogananda

Tom Hanks

Kamal Amrohi

Hans Holbein

Shammi Kapoor

Gerardus Mercator

Edith Piaf

Bhagwan Shirdi Sai Baba (Official God)

[dailyclassicwho]

The Sarah Jane Adventures

← BACK TO INDEX

General

◦ The Sarah Jane Adventures ◦ Commentary ◦ Analysis

Characters

Main Characters

◦ Sarah Jane Smith ◦ Luke Smith ◦ Clyde Langer ◦ Rani Chandra ◦ Mr. Smith ◦ Maria Jackson ◦ Sky Smith ◦ K9

Supporting Characters

◦ Alan Jackson ◦ Chrissie Jackson ◦ Gita Chandra ◦ Haresh Chandra ◦ Carla Langer

Villains

◦ Trickster ◦ Androvax

[anjalisingh007]

Story teller Ankur Madhav gets squelch

Watch Factful Debates today at 6:00 pm.

# Gita Ji. # Shree Ram Chandra Ji

[learn-religion]

why call your blog "learn religion" when you only post christian drivel? You know that humans have created far more than just the one fake god. Seriously, look...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-food/202107/why-do-humans-keep-inventing-gods-worship

If your fake god were real, why does it need humans to speak for it at all? Doesn't seem very all-poweful to me, but who cares - your god and all the others are fictional.

write that down, and maybe stop proselytizing, after all, your own fictional book tells you to pray privately, doesn't it?

First thing first, I named my blog "learn religion" because I want to cover every major religions of the world and first I choose "bible" (there is reason I choose it first) and later I will cover one by one in a hierarchy.

I was also just like you and always argue these questions with others. But, I didn't got my answers, so I myself started reading and tried (still trying) to understand these scriptures.

Next, so, Before asking this thing 👇, (I am assuming you have already read and understood all major religions' scriptures [specially Gita])

You must first read major religion's scriptures and Indian hindu puranas (must read) which most specifically are spritualistic (if you do meditation, then you would know what I am talking about) not materialistic - as you are asking for existence/evidence.

Now, let me tell a story with it's actual meaning,

In Hindu puranas, there is a story of Chandra [in reality - moon] (also known as Chandrama) is the moon god. According to the Puranas, Chandra is married to the 27 Nakshatras (lunar mansions - As you already knows in a month, moon goes bright to total dark), who are the daughters of Daksha Prajapati and his wife Panchajani (also known as Prasuti). These 27 Nakshatras are significant in Vedic astrology and are associated with the moon's movement through the celestial sphere. The names of Chandra's 27 wives are:

Ashwini

Bharani

Krittika

Rohini

Mrigashira

Ardra

Punarvasu

Pushya

Ashlesha

Magha

Purva Phalguni

Uttara Phalguni

Hasta

Chitra

Swati

Vishakha

Anuradha

Jyeshtha

Mula

Purva Ashadha

Uttara Ashadha

Shravana

Dhanishta

Shatabhisha

Purva Bhadrapada

Uttara Bhadrapada

Revati

Chandra, the moon god, was married to the 27 daughters of Daksha Prajapati, each representing a Nakshatra or lunar mansion. Chandra was particularly fond of one of his wives, Rohini, and spent most of his time with her, neglecting the other 26 wives. This favoritism caused great distress among his other wives, who felt neglected and complained to their father, Daksha.

Angry with Chandra's behavior, Daksha cursed him to lose his luster and gradually fade away, which would mean his eventual demise. As the curse took effect, Chandra began to wane, losing his brightness and strength. This decline affected not only him but also the cosmos, as the moon's phases are crucial for various natural and astrological phenomena.

Desperate to save himself and restore balance, Chandra sought help from Lord Shiva, the supreme deity known for his benevolence and powers. Chandra performed severe penance and prayed to Lord Shiva, seeking his mercy and intervention. Pleased with Chandra's devotion, Lord Shiva decided to partially alleviate the curse.

Lord Shiva decreed that Chandra would not completely lose his luster but would undergo a cyclical process of waning and waxing. Thus, Chandra would decrease in brightness for half of the month (waning phase) and then gradually increase in brightness for the other half (waxing phase). This cyclical pattern allowed Chandra to regain his strength and shine periodically.

To honor this divine intervention, Chandra is often depicted adorning Lord Shiva's matted hair as a crescent moon, symbolizing the waxing and waning phases. This story explains the moon's phases, from going dark (Amavasya, new moon) to becoming bright again (Purnima, full moon), reflecting Chandra's enduring connection with his 27 wives and the cosmic order.

Now, you are asking, how illogical, not in this world can marry 27 wives 😂 (Materialistic perspective of seeing this story). But story of Chandra and his 27 wives, the Nakshatras, involves themes of love, jealousy, and divine intervention, explaining the moon's waxing and waning phases (spritualistic, moral, and a easy rememberable & sustainable storical form that even a 4 year child can remember to sustain knowledge with it).

Basically, these Nakshatras are considered the lunar mansions, and each one represents a segment of the moon's path through the zodiac, playing a vital role in Vedic astrology and horoscopes.

So, try to understand, these scriptures were created 1000s of years ago for just as a smooth guide (guilt, hate and violence FREE) to living your life easily in a civilization (ultimately for sustainability). That time science wasn't there to talk factually on materialistic existance/evidence and this (illogical) way was the only one to make people understand things and choose the right path in a storical form. So, ultimately, these illogical scriptures are only the reason you are existing here and arguing this materialistic logical (but spritualistic illogical) question (sustainability).

If you asking, where are those 10,000 year ago swords and shields, then with time it got decayed and gone, BUT by the atoms and sub atomic particles from which that swords and shields were made of are still exists somewhere in this universe and undoubtedly SCIENCE believe on this (by the law - energy and matter neither be created nor be destroyed) [so now don't you agree with this?]. Now, if you are asking me, these scriptures talk a lot about super human abilities (that Indians generally call it SIDDHI). So in the answer, To be real, those maximum of the abilities were real (read indian all 18 puranas TO KNOW ABOUT) and you can also acquire some of these, but you must have that level of guts and unfearness.

If you still want the answer you asked, I want to give you from Indian Gita Mahapuran. Regarding the notion of God needing humans to speak for it, the Gita explains that divine knowledge and guidance are often disseminated through avatars (divine incarnations) and enlightened beings to help humanity understand and follow the path of righteousness. This doesn't negate the omnipotence of God but rather showcases the compassionate aspect of the divine, making spiritual wisdom accessible to all.

Furthermore, the Gita advocates for sincere and private devotion, aligning with the idea of internalized worship and personal connection with the divine. For instance, in Chapter 9, Verse 22, Krishna (a God) says, "To those who are constantly devoted and who worship Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me."

Ultimately, different scriptures and religious traditions offer various perspectives on the nature of divinity, the role of humans in spiritual matters, and the ways to connect with the divine. The Bhagavad Gita encourages a personal, devoted relationship with God, emphasizing inner spirituality and moral action.

Basically, your question about god is wrong - "What is god and where is it?", your actual question must be, if god exists, then what are it's/his/her properties, perspective and thinking toward every thing, no matter it is every sinlge living or non-living beings/things (not only us - humans).