[sri ramanuja] Question on Bhagavatha Puranam

[Guest guest]

Narasimhan Swamin,

 

Srimad Bhagavatha Mahapuram is one of the 6 satvika puranams and per our Sri Vaishhava view it is considered authentic.

 

I am also reading the series in the Thuklaq magazine. what the editor of

Thuklaq is writing is the same way as all advaitins have been talking. It is not out of place to mention here about them as 'Prachanna Saivities' (disguised Saivas)

 

It is true that Dattatreya's account is mentioned . None of our Acharyas would negate this.

 

The very first slokam 'of Srimad Bhagavatam, beginning with 'Janmasyatya' clearly establishes Vishistadvaita.

 

In several places in Srimad Baghavatam, the paratvam of Peruman is clearly established .

 

Most of the quotes of our Alwars are only from Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

The issue here is Sri Cho Ramaswamy (Editor, Thuklaq) chooses to

elaborate only those place where it is convenient to advaitins and establish something such as 'all Mumoorthies are same' (Mumoorthy Samyam)

 

>From the view of Sarira Sariri Bhava of Sri Vishitadvaita, this is true. However, viewing from Seshi/sesha relationship, Srimad Bhagavatam clearly says which God is the primordial God.

 

The blame need to go to the editor and not to the Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurnam.

 

 

Adiyen,

 

Regards

KM Narayanan

---- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann > wrote:

> First of all, is it worth reading such a book at all I wonder many

> a times what authenticity would such books bring in?!

> adiyEn,

> rAmAnuja dAsan

>

> ramanuja, Vidyalakshmi <vidya_lr wrote:

> >

> > Sri:

> >

> > I was reading this week's edition of 'Hindu Maha

> > Samuthram' in Thuglak. This talks about Srimad

> > Bhagavatham - 2nd Baagam, 42nd Adhiyayam

> >

> > In this, it is said that Atri Muni's performed

> > rigorous penance and prayed to the lord of all worlds

> > that he should get a son equivalent to the lord of all

> > worlds. Brahma, Vishnu and Sivan appeared before him

> > and granted that Atri Maharishi will get three sons as

> > the amsam of each of them and that there is no

> > difference between the three.

> >

> > Why is there a contradiction like this in Bhagavatha

> > Puranam, in the same series, i was also reading about

> > other puranams where such things have been said.

> >

> > Could someone please explain this.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Vidya.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Swamy,

I am so sorry for not being specific - I only meant about reading

tuqluq and not about Bhagavatha Puranam(why would I ever question

that??...

adiyEn,

rAmAnuja dAsan.

ramanuja, <aravamudhan wrote:

>

> Narasimhan Swamin,

>

> Srimad Bhagavatha Mahapuram is one of the 6 satvika puranams and

per our Sri Vaishhava view it is considered authentic.

>

> I am also reading the series in the Thuklaq magazine. what the

editor of

> Thuklaq is writing is the same way as all advaitins have been

talking. It is not out of place to mention here about them

as 'Prachanna Saivities' (disguised Saivas)

>

> It is true that Dattatreya's account is mentioned . None of our

Acharyas would negate this.

>

> The very first slokam 'of Srimad Bhagavatam, beginning

with 'Janmasyatya' clearly establishes Vishistadvaita.

>

> In several places in Srimad Baghavatam, the paratvam of Peruman is

clearly established .

>

> Most of the quotes of our Alwars are only from Srimad Bhagavatam.

>

> The issue here is Sri Cho Ramaswamy (Editor, Thuklaq) chooses to

> elaborate only those place where it is convenient to advaitins and

establish something such as 'all Mumoorthies are same' (Mumoorthy

Samyam)

>

> From the view of Sarira Sariri Bhava of Sri Vishitadvaita, this is

true. However, viewing from Seshi/sesha relationship, Srimad

Bhagavatam clearly says which God is the primordial God.

>

> The blame need to go to the editor and not to the Srimad Bhagavata

Mahapurnam.

>

>

> Adiyen,

>

> Regards

> KM Narayanan

> ---- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann wrote:

> > First of all, is it worth reading such a book at all I wonder

many

> > a times what authenticity would such books bring in?!

> > adiyEn,

> > rAmAnuja dAsan

> >

> > ramanuja, Vidyalakshmi <vidya_lr@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Sri:

> > >

> > > I was reading this week's edition of 'Hindu Maha

> > > Samuthram' in Thuglak. This talks about Srimad

> > > Bhagavatham - 2nd Baagam, 42nd Adhiyayam

> > >

> > > In this, it is said that Atri Muni's performed

> > > rigorous penance and prayed to the lord of all worlds

> > > that he should get a son equivalent to the lord of all

> > > worlds. Brahma, Vishnu and Sivan appeared before him

> > > and granted that Atri Maharishi will get three sons as

> > > the amsam of each of them and that there is no

> > > difference between the three.

> > >

> > > Why is there a contradiction like this in Bhagavatha

> > > Puranam, in the same series, i was also reading about

> > > other puranams where such things have been said.

> > >

> > > Could someone please explain this.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Vidya.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha.

Jai Sri krishna

My quiery is sligtly of the topic but relates to Bhagavatam and Vishistadvaitam.

The Srimad Bhagavatam is clearly a very important scipture for SriVaishnvas as its only deals with the lilas of Our Lord. However when reading about the life of Sri Ramanuja, it seems that He did not mention Bhagavatam much. I know Ramanuja held mentions Vishnu Purana in his works a lot. Is there a reason why Bhagavatam did not feature much in His works?? Also are there any commentries written by our purvacharayas on the Bhagavatam???

aravamudhan (AT) cox (DOT) net wrote:

Narasimhan Swamin,

 

Srimad Bhagavatha Mahapuram is one of the 6 satvika puranams and per our Sri Vaishhava view it is considered authentic.

 

I am also reading the series in the Thuklaq magazine. what the editor of

Thuklaq is writing is the same way as all advaitins have been talking. It is not out of place to mention here about them as 'Prachanna Saivities' (disguised Saivas)

 

It is true that Dattatreya's account is mentioned . None of our Acharyas would negate this.

 

The very first slokam 'of Srimad Bhagavatam, beginning with 'Janmasyatya' clearly establishes Vishistadvaita.

 

In several places in Srimad Baghavatam, the paratvam of Peruman is clearly established .

 

Most of the quotes of our Alwars are only from Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

The issue here is Sri Cho Ramaswamy (Editor, Thuklaq) chooses to

elaborate only those place where it is convenient to advaitins and establish something such as 'all Mumoorthies are same' (Mumoorthy Samyam)

 

>From the view of Sarira Sariri Bhava of Sri Vishitadvaita, this is true. However, viewing from Seshi/sesha relationship, Srimad Bhagavatam clearly says which God is the primordial God.

 

The blame need to go to the editor and not to the Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurnam.

 

Adiyen,

 

Regards

KM Narayanan

---- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann > wrote:

> First of all, is it worth reading such a book at all I wonder many

> a times what authenticity would such books bring in?!

> adiyEn,

> rAmAnuja dAsan

>

> ramanuja, Vidyalakshmi <vidya_lr wrote:

> >

> > Sri:

> >

> > I was reading this week's edition of 'Hindu Maha

> > Samuthram' in Thuglak. This talks about Srimad

> > Bhagavatham - 2nd Baagam, 42nd Adhiyayam

> >

> > In this, it is said that Atri Muni's performed

> > rigorous penance and prayed to the lord of all worlds

> > that he should get a son equivalent to the lord of all

> > worlds. Brahma, Vishnu and Sivan appeared before him

> > and granted that Atri Maharishi will get three sons as

> > the amsam of each of them and that there is no

> > difference between the three.

> >

> > Why is there a contradiction like this in Bhagavatha

> > Puranam, in the same series, i was also reading about

> > other puranams where such things have been said.

> >

> > Could someone please explain this.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Vidya.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.

[Guest guest]

Sri:

 

Dear Sir,

 

Adiyen does not understand what is meant by

'> From the view of Sarira Sariri Bhava of Sri

> Vishitadvaita, this is true. However, viewing from

> Seshi/sesha relationship, Srimad Bhagavatam clearly

> says which God is the primordial God.

'

 

Could you please elaborate this?

 

Dasan.

 

--- aravamudhan (AT) cox (DOT) net wrote:

 

> Narasimhan Swamin,

>

> Srimad Bhagavatha Mahapuram is one of the 6 satvika

> puranams and per our Sri Vaishhava view it is

> considered authentic.

>

> I am also reading the series in the Thuklaq

> magazine. what the editor of

> Thuklaq is writing is the same way as all advaitins

> have been talking. It is not out of place to mention

> here about them as 'Prachanna Saivities' (disguised

> Saivas)

>

> It is true that Dattatreya's account is mentioned .

> None of our Acharyas would negate this.

>

> The very first slokam 'of Srimad Bhagavatam,

> beginning with 'Janmasyatya' clearly establishes

> Vishistadvaita.

>

> In several places in Srimad Baghavatam, the paratvam

> of Peruman is clearly established .

>

> Most of the quotes of our Alwars are only from

> Srimad Bhagavatam.

>

> The issue here is Sri Cho Ramaswamy (Editor,

> Thuklaq) chooses to

> elaborate only those place where it is convenient to

> advaitins and establish something such as 'all

> Mumoorthies are same' (Mumoorthy Samyam)

>

> From the view of Sarira Sariri Bhava of Sri

> Vishitadvaita, this is true. However, viewing from

> Seshi/sesha relationship, Srimad Bhagavatam clearly

> says which God is the primordial God.

>

> The blame need to go to the editor and not to the

> Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurnam.

>

>

> Adiyen,

>

> Regards

> KM Narayanan

> ---- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann >

> wrote:

> > First of all, is it worth reading such a book at

> all I wonder many

> > a times what authenticity would such books bring

> in?!

> > adiyEn,

> > rAmAnuja dAsan

> >

> > ramanuja, Vidyalakshmi

> <vidya_lr wrote:

> > >

> > > Sri:

> > >

> > > I was reading this week's edition of 'Hindu Maha

> > > Samuthram' in Thuglak. This talks about Srimad

> > > Bhagavatham - 2nd Baagam, 42nd Adhiyayam

> > >

> > > In this, it is said that Atri Muni's performed

> > > rigorous penance and prayed to the lord of all

> worlds

> > > that he should get a son equivalent to the lord

> of all

> > > worlds. Brahma, Vishnu and Sivan appeared before

> him

> > > and granted that Atri Maharishi will get three

> sons as

> > > the amsam of each of them and that there is no

> > > difference between the three.

> > >

> > > Why is there a contradiction like this in

> Bhagavatha

> > > Puranam, in the same series, i was also reading

> about

> > > other puranams where such things have been said.

> > >

> > > Could someone please explain this.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Vidya.

> > >

> > >

>

> > >

> > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam

> protection around

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear SrimAn Protish Patel,

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha.

This question is posed by many modern scholars in the context of dating Bhagavatha purana. Why Sri Ramanuja, the foremost Acharya of Bhakti tradition, was silent on Bhagavatha, which celebrates Vishnu Bhakti in such a glorious manner? The answers speculated by them fall in to one of the Two categories.

1. Bhagavatha Purana is of later origin, perhaps post Ramanuja. Or Bhagavatha Purana was at least not popular enough in South of India during his time.

2. Sri Ramanuja was more inclined towards "Pancharatra" tradition, while Bhagavatha tradition seem to be a bit divergent from this.

For me both these arguments seem to be superficial. Our traditional Divya Prabandham bequeathed to us by those great souls called Azhvars completely last in Krishna Bhakthi, is replete with innemerable references to Krishna Leelas as narrated in Bhagavatha Purana. This clearly shows that Bhagavatha was definitely known to Srivaishnava tradition much before the Advent of Ramanuja him self. The reason why Sri Ramanuja would not have referred to Bhagavatha Purana, according to our knowledgeable traditional vidwan is that Vishnu Purana was cited by Adi Shankara and other Advitic Acharyas in their Bhashyas and Sri Ramanuja's effort was to establish Vishishtadvita using accepted pramanas of Poorva Paksha. That seems to be reasonable explanation, as he scrupulously went about establishing his Sidhantha refuting the adversaries on their own terms in his polemical works. This approach contrasts with Sri Madhvacharyas style, where he brought in lot of new Shruthi and Smrithi

Pramanas, which led to some amount of conraversy as Advitic scholars seemed to have questioned pramanya of some of Sri Madhva's citations. More over, Sri Madhva was only a couple of centuries after Sri Ramanuja and he has written a commentary on Bhagavata. Obviously, Bhagavatha purana was, by then, was widely known. This seems to be a too short time for a new Purana to be written and become important enough all through the country, to demand a commentary from Sri Madhva. In addition, Sri Sudarshana Suri, famed author of "Shrutha Prakashika" an exhaustive commentary on Sri Ramanuja's Sri Bhashya, is known to have written a commentary on Bhagavatha Purana, named "Shuka Paksheeya", which is supposed to be available in manuscript form and not yet published in print. Sudarshana Suri was an elder contemporary of Sri Vedanta Deshika and Sri Pilla Lokacharya. He was not, chronologically speaking, far off from Sri Ramanuja's period. What is followed today as commentary from

Vishishtadvaitic/Srivaishnava perspective for Sri Bhagavatha Purana, is known as Veera Raghaveeya Vyakhyana, written some time during Seventeenth century by Veera Raghavacharya, a Srivaishnava Acharya from Andhra region.

Hope this info helps

Adiyen

Srinivasadasa

 

pritesh patel <tesh_tel (AT) (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha.

Jai Sri krishna

My quiery is sligtly of the topic but relates to Bhagavatam and Vishistadvaitam.

The Srimad Bhagavatam is clearly a very important scipture for SriVaishnvas as its only deals with the lilas of Our Lord. However when reading about the life of Sri Ramanuja, it seems that He did not mention Bhagavatam much. I know Ramanuja held mentions Vishnu Purana in his works a lot. Is there a reason why Bhagavatam did not feature much in His works?? Also are there any commentries written by our purvacharayas on the Bhagavatam???

aravamudhan (AT) cox (DOT) net wrote:

Narasimhan Swamin,

 

Srimad Bhagavatha Mahapuram is one of the 6 satvika puranams and per our Sri Vaishhava view it is considered authentic.

 

I am also reading the series in the Thuklaq magazine. what the editor of

Thuklaq is writing is the same way as all advaitins have been talking. It is not out of place to mention here about them as 'Prachanna Saivities' (disguised Saivas)

 

It is true that Dattatreya's account is mentioned . None of our Acharyas would negate this.

 

The very first slokam 'of Srimad Bhagavatam, beginning with 'Janmasyatya' clearly establishes Vishistadvaita.

 

In several places in Srimad Baghavatam, the paratvam of Peruman is clearly established .

 

Most of the quotes of our Alwars are only from Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

The issue here is Sri Cho Ramaswamy (Editor, Thuklaq) chooses to

elaborate only those place where it is convenient to advaitins and establish something such as 'all Mumoorthies are same' (Mumoorthy Samyam)

 

>From the view of Sarira Sariri Bhava of Sri Vishitadvaita, this is true. However, viewing from Seshi/sesha relationship, Srimad Bhagavatam clearly says which God is the primordial God.

 

The blame need to go to the editor and not to the Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurnam.

 

Adiyen,

 

Regards

KM Narayanan

---- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann > wrote:

> First of all, is it worth reading such a book at all I wonder many

> a times what authenticity would such books bring in?!

> adiyEn,

> rAmAnuja dAsan

>

> ramanuja, Vidyalakshmi <vidya_lr wrote:

> >

> > Sri:

> >

> > I was reading this week's edition of 'Hindu Maha

> > Samuthram' in Thuglak. This talks about Srimad

> > Bhagavatham - 2nd Baagam, 42nd Adhiyayam

> >

> > In this, it is said that Atri Muni's performed

> > rigorous penance and prayed to the lord of all worlds

> > that he should get a son equivalent to the lord of all

> > worlds. Brahma, Vishnu and Sivan appeared before him

> > and granted that Atri Maharishi will get three sons as

> > the amsam of each of them and that there is no

> > difference between the three.

> >

> > Why is there a contradiction like this in Bhagavatha

> > Puranam, in the same series, i was also reading about

> > other puranams where such things have been said.

> >

> > Could someone please explain this.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Vidya.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.

 

 

 

 

 

Get your email and more, right on the new .com

[Guest guest]

Sri Pritesh,

 

Sri Vishnu Puranam is more concerned with tatvatrayam (Chit, Achit and Easwara) and more used by Philosphers of that age.

 

Both Sri Sankara and Sri Ramanuja quote extensively from Sri Vishnu Puranam and did not quote from Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

Also, during the time of Ramanuja, it was a norm to quote only from these works to refute other schools of thought.

 

Even Yamanucharya mentions that Sri Vishnu Puranam is Purana Ratna which clearly brings out the tatva traya sampradayam.

 

On the other hand, Srimad Bhagavatam is more for rasikas, who are already established in Tatvatraya (ie, those who clearly know that there is Easwara who is the sustainer of both Chit and achit things)

 

Had Sri Ramanuja quoted from Srimad Bhagavatam during his period,

everyone would have clearly rejected that (Esp Advaitins of that period)

saying that he was just a Bhaktha and not a philopsher.

 

The Beauty of Sri Ramanuja was that he was the best belend of deep devotion to Lord, Logic and philosophy.

 

For later Philosophers of Bhakthi tradition, it was easier for them use

Srimad Bhagvatam since Sri Ramanuja already established paratvam of

Lord in his works.

 

 

Please correct me if adiyen has misstated something.

 

Dasan

 

KM Narayanan

---- pritesh patel <tesh_tel (AT) (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

> Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha.

>

> Jai Sri krishna

>

> My quiery is sligtly of the topic but relates to Bhagavatam and Vishistadvaitam.

> The Srimad Bhagavatam is clearly a very important scipture for SriVaishnvas as its only deals with the lilas of Our Lord. However when reading about the life of Sri Ramanuja, it seems that He did not mention Bhagavatam much. I know Ramanuja held mentions Vishnu Purana in his works a lot. Is there a reason why Bhagavatam did not feature much in His works?? Also are there any commentries written by our purvacharayas on the Bhagavatam???

>

> aravamudhan (AT) cox (DOT) net wrote:

> Narasimhan Swamin,

>

> Srimad Bhagavatha Mahapuram is one of the 6 satvika puranams and per our Sri Vaishhava view it is considered authentic.

>

> I am also reading the series in the Thuklaq magazine. what the editor of

> Thuklaq is writing is the same way as all advaitins have been talking. It is not out of place to mention here about them as 'Prachanna Saivities' (disguised Saivas)

>

> It is true that Dattatreya's account is mentioned . None of our Acharyas would negate this.

>

> The very first slokam 'of Srimad Bhagavatam, beginning with 'Janmasyatya' clearly establishes Vishistadvaita.

>

> In several places in Srimad Baghavatam, the paratvam of Peruman is clearly established .

>

> Most of the quotes of our Alwars are only from Srimad Bhagavatam.

>

> The issue here is Sri Cho Ramaswamy (Editor, Thuklaq) chooses to

> elaborate only those place where it is convenient to advaitins and establish something such as 'all Mumoorthies are same' (Mumoorthy Samyam)

>

> From the view of Sarira Sariri Bhava of Sri Vishitadvaita, this is true. However, viewing from Seshi/sesha relationship, Srimad Bhagavatam clearly says which God is the primordial God.

>

> The blame need to go to the editor and not to the Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurnam.

>

> Adiyen,

>

> Regards

> KM Narayanan

> ---- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann > wrote:

> > First of all, is it worth reading such a book at all I wonder many

> > a times what authenticity would such books bring in?!

> > adiyEn,

> > rAmAnuja dAsan

> >

> > ramanuja, Vidyalakshmi <vidya_lr wrote:

> > >

> > > Sri:

> > >

> > > I was reading this week's edition of 'Hindu Maha

> > > Samuthram' in Thuglak. This talks about Srimad

> > > Bhagavatham - 2nd Baagam, 42nd Adhiyayam

> > >

> > > In this, it is said that Atri Muni's performed

> > > rigorous penance and prayed to the lord of all worlds

> > > that he should get a son equivalent to the lord of all

> > > worlds. Brahma, Vishnu and Sivan appeared before him

> > > and granted that Atri Maharishi will get three sons as

> > > the amsam of each of them and that there is no

> > > difference between the three.

> > >

> > > Why is there a contradiction like this in Bhagavatha

> > > Puranam, in the same series, i was also reading about

> > > other puranams where such things have been said.

> > >

> > > Could someone please explain this.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Vidya.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> All New Mail – Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.

[Guest guest]

Sarira Sariri

------------------

Sarira Sariri bhava means, per Sri Ramanuja, all the setinent (Chit) and

Insentient (Achit) are the body of Bahaman .

Hence all the Jeevas right from Brahma up to an Ant, are the Sariram of Lord. This includes matter, prakriti .

 

Hence it is OK to consider 'Aham Brhamasmi' from that Paradigm.

This is how elders view many passages in Vedas that eulogize Devas such as Indra, Varuna and Rudra.

 

Even the great Advaitia Scholar and commentator of Sruti Vakhyams, Sri Vidyarananya held this view.

 

I once heard (forgotten the source, apologies) that Even Sankara has similar comments in his Sri Vishnu Sahasranama Bhasya.

 

Sesha/Seshi

------------------

The Lord is also the sustainer and 'Lord' (Easwara) of these all chit and achit things, from this viewpoint, all the Jeevas need to be subservient to Him. By virtue of his Kalyana Gunas (attributes), he is distinct and above all these devas.

 

Adiyen

 

Thanks

 

KM Narayanan

 

 

---- Vidyalakshmi <vidya_lr > wrote:

> Sri:

>

> Dear Sir,

>

> Adiyen does not understand what is meant by

> '> From the view of Sarira Sariri Bhava of Sri

> > Vishitadvaita, this is true. However, viewing from

> > Seshi/sesha relationship, Srimad Bhagavatam clearly

> > says which God is the primordial God.

> '

>

> Could you please elaborate this?

>

> Dasan.

>

> --- aravamudhan (AT) cox (DOT) net wrote:

>

> > Narasimhan Swamin,

> >

> > Srimad Bhagavatha Mahapuram is one of the 6 satvika

> > puranams and per our Sri Vaishhava view it is

> > considered authentic.

> >

> > I am also reading the series in the Thuklaq

> > magazine. what the editor of

> > Thuklaq is writing is the same way as all advaitins

> > have been talking. It is not out of place to mention

> > here about them as 'Prachanna Saivities' (disguised

> > Saivas)

> >

> > It is true that Dattatreya's account is mentioned .

> > None of our Acharyas would negate this.

> >

> > The very first slokam 'of Srimad Bhagavatam,

> > beginning with 'Janmasyatya' clearly establishes

> > Vishistadvaita.

> >

> > In several places in Srimad Baghavatam, the paratvam

> > of Peruman is clearly established .

> >

> > Most of the quotes of our Alwars are only from

> > Srimad Bhagavatam.

> >

> > The issue here is Sri Cho Ramaswamy (Editor,

> > Thuklaq) chooses to

> > elaborate only those place where it is convenient to

> > advaitins and establish something such as 'all

> > Mumoorthies are same' (Mumoorthy Samyam)

> >

> > From the view of Sarira Sariri Bhava of Sri

> > Vishitadvaita, this is true. However, viewing from

> > Seshi/sesha relationship, Srimad Bhagavatam clearly

> > says which God is the primordial God.

> >

> > The blame need to go to the editor and not to the

> > Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurnam.

> >

> >

> > Adiyen,

> >

> > Regards

> > KM Narayanan

> > ---- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhann >

> > wrote:

> > > First of all, is it worth reading such a book at

> > all I wonder many

> > > a times what authenticity would such books bring

> > in?!

> > > adiyEn,

> > > rAmAnuja dAsan

> > >

> > > ramanuja, Vidyalakshmi

> > <vidya_lr wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Sri:

> > > >

> > > > I was reading this week's edition of 'Hindu Maha

> > > > Samuthram' in Thuglak. This talks about Srimad

> > > > Bhagavatham - 2nd Baagam, 42nd Adhiyayam

> > > >

> > > > In this, it is said that Atri Muni's performed

> > > > rigorous penance and prayed to the lord of all

> > worlds

> > > > that he should get a son equivalent to the lord

> > of all

> > > > worlds. Brahma, Vishnu and Sivan appeared before

> > him

> > > > and granted that Atri Maharishi will get three

> > sons as

> > > > the amsam of each of them and that there is no

> > > > difference between the three.

> > > >

> > > > Why is there a contradiction like this in

> > Bhagavatha

> > > > Puranam, in the same series, i was also reading

> > about

> > > > other puranams where such things have been said.

> > > >

> > > > Could someone please explain this.

> > > >

> > > > Regards,

> > > > Vidya.

> > > >

> > > >

> >

> > > >

> > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam

> > protection around

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>