Guest guest Posted July 31, 2003 Report Share Posted July 31, 2003 - "Ram Anbil" <ramanbil <mpmahesh Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:00 AM Re: qustion > Dear friend: > Adi Sankara was a great VishNu bhakta like Lord Siva himself. > That Rama worshipped Lord Siva has no authority either in Valmiki Ramayanam, > considered to be the ONLY authentic Ramayanam nor in Kamba Ramayanam. So far > as I have understood, this is an imagination of one of the umpteen versions > by later day poets who took the basic Ramayana story and twisted the facts > according to their own fancies. > Dasoham > Anbil Ramaswamy > ===================================================== > > > >Bhattathity M P <mpmahesh > >Ram Anbil <ramanbil > >qustion > >Mon, 27 Jan 2003 02:31:43 +0530 > > > >Dear Bhagavathas > >I may humbly request to inform me the exact difference btween Soul, Body > >and Mind.Why the feeling of Vaishnavites and Saivaites are there.Can't we > >think both are same as Lord said in SrimadBhagavatd Gita.The great > >Sankaracharya who is supposed to be an incarnation of Lord Siva wrote > >BhajaGovindam praisig the glory of Govida in his late years.Lord Sri Rama > >worshipped Lord Siva at Rameswaram for easly crossing the sea. > > > > > >Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare > >Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare > > > >GOPIKA JEEVANASMARANAM! > >GOVINDA! GOVINDA!" > > _______________ > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2003 Report Share Posted August 2, 2003 Dear swamies, This question is perfectly relevant and well posed. Even viewing objectively the philosophies, one can say that Sri Adi Sankara put the vedic culture back in the pedestal when there had been onslaught of different mathams confusing people. However, there were several contradictions. Lord Ramanuja corrected these contradictions and built a really strong philosophy lauded and actually to be acceptable by everybody. It is unfortunate that the society is having the present situation of multiplicity when the work of unification is already accomplished. Lord krishna in his avathara performed shiva sthuthi before the garva bhangam of shiva only to show to the world that paramathma cannot be protected by other aathmas. Whether Lord Rama did shiva pooja or not he surely tried surrendering to samudra rajan - only to show to the world again that such sharanagathi will never yield results. If a powerful being seeks refuge under a powerless being such a refuge will never be successful. So the call for unification based on an objective assessment is welcome. It was Lord Ramanuja's desire too to unify the entire world! sajjana padapadma paramanuhu Lakshmi Narasimha dasan M P Bhattathiry <mpmahesh wrote: - "Ram Anbil" <ramanbil <mpmahesh Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:00 AM Re: qustion > Dear friend: > Adi Sankara was a great VishNu bhakta like Lord Siva himself. > That Rama worshipped Lord Siva has no authority either in Valmiki Ramayanam, > considered to be the ONLY authentic Ramayanam nor in Kamba Ramayanam. So far > as I have understood, this is an imagination of one of the umpteen versions > by later day poets who took the basic Ramayana story and twisted the facts > according to their own fancies. > Dasoham > Anbil Ramaswamy > ===================================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2003 Report Share Posted August 4, 2003 Sri Krishnaya Namah! I have noted with due respeects, some comments made by a bhagavatha in this group that SVs are very tolerant and wont descriminate between Gods as the indweller in all of them is Srimannarayana. If we see a bird and appreciate its beauty or a monkey with due respect (attaching Hanuman in our feelings) and the nature for its beauty etc., it is only because it is all His creation as the vedas says - 'urdhvancha Narayana: adhascha Narayana: antharbhahishcha Narayana: sarvavyapako Narayana: Narayana eh vedagam sarvam yath bhootham yacchabhavyam' and goes on to say that 'shuddho deva eka narayana: na DWITHIYO thi kaschith". If things are like this, same is true for other gods - as Rigveda says - "Narayanath deva samuthpradanthe, Narayanath pravarthanthe, Narayane praliyanthe" and if we appreciate nature and its creation, we should also appreciate His creation of other worlds, gods etc., it is like paying respects to Lord Srimannarayana - no less no more. I used to write, with my busy schedule, extracts of Narada sutras and have been fortunate that those have been broadcasted by moderators(thanks and due respects to them). But recently, I wrote one such article on the same, which, per se, included an example of a siva bhaktha, among other things. Though the main subject is Lord Krishna and bhakthi sutras, somehow, my mail is rejected and no word from the moderator as to why this was rejected. I was not at all unhappy, as, when compared to the happiness I get being in this forum is enormous to even think of this rejection. May be the Lord felt it that way and I respect His decision. Thanks to this, I have more time to read Narada Sutras, SMB and the Upananishads at home, during free time. Sarvaaparadha Kshamasva! Sukumar Sri Krishna Parabrahmane Namah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2003 Report Share Posted August 4, 2003 Mderator's Note: I agree entirely with your assessment in the enclosed mail from you. Apart from the "Journal proper", the first-time postings on various subjects are featured outside the journal in "Sri Ranga Sri" as "food for thought" and for encouraging "Reader Participation" and definitely NOT for a prolonged back and forth discussions. In utter disregard of the clear guidelines, Contributors have been postingdiscursive material vitiating the very ethos of the Journal. As a matter of policy, NO discussions will be allowed in future in "Sri Ranga Sri" whether on matters appearing within or outside the Journal proper. All comments and / or discussions may be addressed to "Satsangam" site, subject to the guidelines set out in that site mission statement. As ONLY members can post to "Satsangam", those who wish to post, should enrol themselves at that site by sending e.mail to "Satsangam-". It is proposed to include this policy announcement in all "first-time" postings in "Sri Ranga Sri" Moderator "Sri Ranga Sri" and "Satsangam" ========================================================================= Namo Narayana! Swmain This sort of discussion adiyen is of the humble opinion never yields the intended result. We have to wonder if Sriman Narayana and other gods are wondering who is more powerful? We have to wonder if Udayavar is sporting disrespectful thoughts about Adi Sankara and vice versa. This sort feud continues at the level of Mathams etc...to lesser extent but here again Udayavar had installed 74 simhathipathis..Did Yathiraja do so, so we can all argue until no time is left to think of Sriman Narayana. The test is to be able to forget all difference feel one and seek Nammazwar glorious words oft repeated in this forum. We waste too much time on the not so important aspects instead of discussing and enjoying Azwar and Poorva Acharyan stories. Stories of Kuresa are heart rendering Stories and intellect of Bhattar is scintillating.. we should raise the volume on these and reduce the volume on the noise factors. adiyen has written this knowing that Mahesh swamin is on the same side as adiyen. No disrespect or lecture vidyarthis intended. adiyen anandavalli dasan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2003 Report Share Posted August 4, 2003 In my opinion the moderator swamy is doing a nice job in screening the messages to help reader bhagavathas save their time. He is really not going by how busy the schedule is for the writer bhagavathas & in my opinion he is surely right in that approach. sajjana padapadma paramanuhu Lakshmi Narasimha dasan sukumar <sukumar wrote: Sri Krishnaya Namah! I have noted with due respeects, some comments made by a bhagavatha in this group that SVs are very tolerant and wont descriminate between Gods as the indweller in all of them is Srimannarayana. If we see a bird and appreciate its beauty or a monkey with due respect (attaching Hanuman in our feelings) and the nature for its beauty etc., it is only because it is all His creation as the vedas says - 'urdhvancha Narayana: adhascha Narayana: antharbhahishcha Narayana: sarvavyapako Narayana: Narayana eh vedagam sarvam yath bhootham yacchabhavyam' and goes on to say that 'shuddho deva eka narayana: na DWITHIYO thi kaschith". If things are like this, same is true for other gods - as Rigveda says - "Narayanath deva samuthpradanthe, Narayanath pravarthanthe, Narayane praliyanthe" and if we appreciate nature and its creation, we should also appreciate His creation of other worlds, gods etc., it is like paying respects to Lord Srimannarayana - no less no more. I used to write, with my busy schedule, extracts of Narada sutras and have been fortunate that those have been broadcasted by moderators(thanks and due respects to them). But recently, I wrote one such article on the same, which, per se, included an example of a siva bhaktha, among other things. Though the main subject is Lord Krishna and bhakthi sutras, somehow, my mail is rejected and no word from the moderator as to why this was rejected. I was not at all unhappy, as, when compared to the happiness I get being in this forum is enormous to even think of this rejection. May be the Lord felt it that way and I respect His decision. Thanks to this, I have more time to read Narada Sutras, SMB and the Upananishads at home, during free time. Sarvaaparadha Kshamasva! Sukumar Sri Krishna Parabrahmane Namah! Srirangasri- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.