Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Namah Shivaya, Krishna Prasad - I'm curious why this is in alphabetical order, according to English. This would not be the traditional order, because the Sanskrit alphabet is not in the order of our alphabet. I have found a completely different set of 108 names for Ganesha, in the traditional order, at this site: http://www.geocities.com/puranas/page5.html In looking at several other sites, there seem to be two different versions - the one you give, and this other one, althought most of them give the version you offered. I guess they put it in English alphabetical order just so it would be easier for us to remember and go through, but I wonder if it effects the vibration at all. Blessings, Connie > Message: 21 > Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:52:59 -0000 > "Krishna Prasad" <rkrishp99 > 108 Names of Lord Ganesha for Daily POOJA! > > Hari OM! OM Amriteswariye Namaha! > > OM Nama Shivaya! > > Dear Blessed Ones, > > Some days back somebody wants to know how to do pooja to Lord > Ganesha, Amma Asked me intuitively to post this names in this list. > > Please repeat the Mantra with OM before and also NAMAHA! After. The > English meaning is given after eah wording. > > Please Pray for me to Lord Ganesha to Get me a Job soon. I am > suffering because of the bad economy in the US. > > > 1 Akhurath One who has a Mouse as His Charioteer > 2 Alampata Ever Eternal Lord > 3 Amit Incomparable Lord > 4 Anantachidrupamayam Infinite and Consciousness Personified > 5 Avaneesh Lord of the Whole World > 6 Avighna Remover of Obstacles > 7 Balaganapati Beloved and Lovable Child > 8 Bhalchandra Moon - Crested Lord > 9 Bheema Huge and Gigantic > 10 Bhupati Lord of the Gods > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Dear Markasme: It is obvious that this radioactive issue is very problematic for our health and our faith. That's why no one will address it. It is a discomforting thing to think that our divine mother would ironically cause us to get cancer. How can one resolve such an issue? So, it is much easier to write it off as a kooky idea. Until one reads the scientists, who are decidedly non-kooky. What is kooky is the attitude that one will worry about it once one has liver cancer, blood cancer, or whatever form it takes. I have my doubts about her judgment of scientific things, for she has shown so many times that she has little respect for analytical thought. I am afraid that she values the inner world more, and that she really doesn't grasp radioactivity. You are right, that she did not claim that her siddhi would protect us, as in case of the leper. I remember getting pink eye there, which while minor, does show that her siddhi does not necessarily interfere with natural law. I think radioactivity is radioactivity: it must be addressed on its own terms. Yet, would she move the ashram, even if she understood that it would lead to cancer in westerners? No, I don't think there is a prayer in ____ that she would feel obligated to do so, no matter what the effects on westerners are. This area has the highest radioactivity of anywhere in the entire world; other countries consider these areas uninhabitable. Not India, of course. ;-) Yet, I still feel she is the divine mother nonetheless somehow. Just that she is not always that good about the material level stuff: better in spiritual area. I recall her saying that one can eat just rice, and if one has faith and it would suffice. I do think it's naive just to take it on faith that we are protected there. She might actually feel that, even with radioactivity and cancer, that that's the price to be paid for being in her presence, and perhaps we have to accept getting terminal cancer as the price. Is it worth it? (Have you ever seen cancer?) That's for each of us to decide, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Ammachi, sprose1@a... wrote: > Until one reads the scientists, who are decidedly non-kooky. Really? My impression about most scientists is that they have a good and solid approach towards external phenomena and hence may be non- kooky, but when it comes to spiritual (or internal) phenomena, they are on shaky ground. Most simply refuse to recognize (if not acknowledge the validity of) the internal phenomena, and some are decidedly dogmatically against it (kooky). In fact, they come close to having a tunnel vision about such phenomena - throw the baby out with the bath water. Maybe this is an accusation you can throw on some religious figures too, but calling a scientist non-kooky is like awarding him with the power to pass judgement, and that he most defintely doesn't always deserve. At best, I would call scientists 'among the more non-kooky lot' > No, I don't think there is a prayer in ____ that she would feel obligated to do so, no matter what the effects on westerners are. Why just westerners? why not the rest? we are all equally susceptible to radioactive phenomena. Also, she is actually not obligated to do anything, and so I don't expect her to feel anything like that. Not that I doubt her capacity for feeling, I was only arguing about her obligations. I sincerely think that no one has argued more about this becuase it is one area (decidely uncomfortable to discuss) where people may also not be much aware of scientific facts (I definitely was not), and so it might seem a little bit foolish to jump in to a topic and talk. . Jai Ma! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 > I sincerely think that no one has argued more about > this becuase it > is one area (decidely uncomfortable to discuss) > where people may also > not be much aware of scientific facts (I definitely > was not), and so > it might seem a little bit foolish to jump in to a > topic and talk. . That's exactly what I was going to say! Not that it's spiritually scarey for me, but that I don't know a thing about it! Also want to point out that accusing Amma of letting people get sick (not that I think she does!) is like asking why God let's bad things happen to good people. It's the same age-old question asked by those struggling with faith. Gabriela --- manoj_menon <manoj_menon wrote: > Ammachi, sprose1@a... wrote: > > Until one reads the scientists, who are decidedly > non-kooky. > > Really? My impression about most scientists is that > they have a good > and solid approach towards external phenomena and > hence may be non- > kooky, but when it comes to spiritual (or internal) > phenomena, they > are on shaky ground. > > Most simply refuse to recognize (if not acknowledge > the validity of) > the internal phenomena, and some are decidedly > dogmatically against > it (kooky). > > In fact, they come close to having a tunnel vision > about such > phenomena - throw the baby out with the bath water. > > Maybe this is an accusation you can throw on some > religious figures > too, but calling a scientist non-kooky is like > awarding him with the > power to pass judgement, and that he most defintely > doesn't always > deserve. > > At best, I would call scientists 'among the more > non-kooky lot' > > > No, I don't think there is a prayer in ____ that > she would feel > obligated to do so, no matter what the effects on > westerners are. > > Why just westerners? why not the rest? we are all > equally susceptible > to radioactive phenomena. > > Also, she is actually not obligated to do anything, > and so I don't > expect her to feel anything like that. Not that I > doubt her capacity > for feeling, I was only arguing about her > obligations. > > I sincerely think that no one has argued more about > this becuase it > is one area (decidely uncomfortable to discuss) > where people may also > not be much aware of scientific facts (I definitely > was not), and so > it might seem a little bit foolish to jump in to a > topic and talk. . > > Jai Ma! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 - manoj_menon Ammachi Wednesday, September 24, 2003 7:58 PM Re: Digest Number 947 Ammachi, sprose1@a... wrote: Namaste All, Please keep the posts coming about what's going on at the celebration - my computer has not been able to "tune in" despite being registered, etc. I live pretty far out in the boonies and phone lines are frequently an issue. For what it's worth, my first husband was an analytical physicist and we frequently hung out with other couples who were also from the Carbide scientifc community. During one particularly deadly game of "Trivial Pursuit" a discussion erupted about God: most of the physicists felt quite strongly that a true scientist must, at least, remain undecided about God's existance. Their thoughts were based on the fact that God's presence cannot really be proven or disproven by present-day standards. I think Stephen Hawking also commented once that if one went far enough back, one would find either the hand or breath of God as the catalyst for the Big Bang. Most scientists may not feel this way, but some do. (On a lighter note, my "new" husband believes you'd better salute ALL the gods - one of them might get you otherwise. I'd never thought of God as a 'boogey man' before so this tickles me - can't "throw stones" because obviously, as a Native American, almost ex-Christian Hindu, daughter of the Divine Mother, MY views aren't exactly traditional, either!) Love to each of you, Snehalata PS My thoughts about the radiation issue: If we're going to become enlightened, wouldn't it be fun to glow as well? > Until one reads the scientists, who are decidedly non-kooky. Really? My impression about most scientists is that they have a good and solid approach towards external phenomena and hence may be non- kooky, but when it comes to spiritual (or internal) phenomena, they are on shaky ground. Most simply refuse to recognize (if not acknowledge the validity of) the internal phenomena, and some are decidedly dogmatically against it (kooky). In fact, they come close to having a tunnel vision about such phenomena - throw the baby out with the bath water. Maybe this is an accusation you can throw on some religious figures too, but calling a scientist non-kooky is like awarding him with the power to pass judgement, and that he most defintely doesn't always deserve. At best, I would call scientists 'among the more non-kooky lot' > No, I don't think there is a prayer in ____ that she would feel obligated to do so, no matter what the effects on westerners are. Why just westerners? why not the rest? we are all equally susceptible to radioactive phenomena. Also, she is actually not obligated to do anything, and so I don't expect her to feel anything like that. Not that I doubt her capacity for feeling, I was only arguing about her obligations. I sincerely think that no one has argued more about this becuase it is one area (decidely uncomfortable to discuss) where people may also not be much aware of scientific facts (I definitely was not), and so it might seem a little bit foolish to jump in to a topic and talk. . Jai Ma! Sponsor Aum Amriteswarayai Namaha! Ammachi 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.