i am disturbed by agastya

[gokulkr]

i saw a article from "anmigha malar" - dinamalar paper. in that they have publised a article regardin agastya from skanda purana.

that article is really irritating. it tells that vaishnavas harassed shaivas in kutralam region thats why agastya converted vishnu temple to shiva temple. (irrititating news without proof as skanda purana is tamasic).

also it tells cauvery river originated from his kamandala (even though truth is it originates from chest of Adhi ranganatha). also it blabbers that agastya preached Sriram that skanda is supreme-brahman thru aaditya hruthayam. but i have read agasthya hridyam , in that theres no mention on skanda or muruga. it only praises Surya-naryana. i dunno why this newspaper publishes false news misguiding innocent people. can i write letter/email to that magazine ? moreover thers no upanishad praising muruga.

 

[moreover Sri ram incarnated in solay dynasty, so as to give respect to his dynasty-god lord ram chanted aadhitya hridhayam (preached by agastya). its not that sun-god is supreme as sun itself is a right-eye of narayana. ]

 

moreover is agastya really a genuine siddha ? (i am not insulting him. just asking).pardon me if any mistakes.

 

Om Namo Narayana

[Lotus_eye]

Sage Aghastya was asked by Shiva to go to south to balance and by balance it does not mean balancing the earth, although coloqially people think like that. Sage Aghastya was the first who wrote grammar for the language Tamil called Aghastyam from which Tholkappiyam originated and written by Tholkappiar.

 

There were no saivism or vaishnavism concept existing before 2500 years or 500 BC approximately, and Rukmini Devi by herself was worshipping Shiva and Durga (Durga is also called as Rukminippriya poojitha that you can find in naamaavali). After the onset of buddism in kaliyuga there has always been confusion existing and this confusion is inpart of Kali's feature by itself. So it is true that there were constant misunderstandings and confrontations existed between people who demarcated the lines of saivism and vaishnavism which in essence is actually immaturity in the understanding. But spiritual maturity does not exist among everyone including those of well learned ones who are just well learned in scriptures but not necessarily in the understanding of that Lord Supreme.

 

While Saivism flow started more from Sankara's period, He did not demarcate the differences which is evident from the fact of his own Baja Govindam. But its the later people who divided it and there are vaishnavites who spit on shiva and there are saivites who spit on vishnu who still exist in India and even elsewhere.

 

There is nothing like superior or inferior but unfortunately many religious heads or the saints who established different schools have spoken using the words inferior and superior and this is the main root cause of confusion which is still continuing regardless of the Gurus and the disciplic succession.

 

One who has really understood the Lord, wont be thinking or even get irritated or even consider difference because everything is one and the same.

What makes the difference is actually the "maya" that clouds the higher knowledge.

 

A person that insults Shiva takes birth as a saivite to pay respect and one who insult Vishnu takes birth as vaishnavite to respect that form, and one who understands truly that both are non-different is actually the one who gets liberated, because he can see Hari in Haran and Haran in Hari..

[Lotus_eye]

The purpose of "varaha avatar" of Vishnu is to teach humility and humbleness and paying respect in our understanding that Supreme. The divided form of Hari as "Trimurthy" Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma for different functions, Shiva's form is so huge in destruction of evil called ego (Shiva is the destructor of ego from which evil originates), when they were asked to search for Shiva's head tip, Brahma and Vishnu went in different directions. While Brahma travelled towards the head in seach of it (thats a different story why there is no temple for Brahma), Vishnu took the Wild boar form to reach the foot.

 

Symbolism behind the story is Brahma represents knowledge in scriptures and knowledge of all vedas and everything, yet that knowledgable person thinks that he knows everything and so he proceeds to see the head, and ultimately fail to see it as it keep on growing, which means that he has not humbled and his knowledge of scriptures is a mere waste when one does not humble.

 

On the other hand, Vishnu, takes the wild boar to reach the foot. The symbolic meaning here is reaching the foot is actually humbling oneself to show that you cannot understand God, through great knowlege of reading scriptures or anything, but only with total surrender of unspeculative thoughts of superiority or inferiority.

 

Vishnu just touch the foot of Shiva and Shiva gets shocked and bend down to hold the shoulders of Vishnu, since he did not expect Vishnu to fall to His foot and during that moment Vishnu get to see the tip of Shiva's head.

 

What it represents here is so evident. For one who never speculate on anything in his understanding based on what he listens or reads from anyone, but just blindly totally surrender, he really gets the blessing and seeing Shiva's head tip means, total understanding of the God through humility and humbleness..

 

A similar situation also exist in Mahabharatha. Both Duryodhan and Arjuna come to see Krishna to ask him to be their charioteer. Duryodhan out of his ego, sit on the head side of Krishna, while Arjuna sits on the foot of Krishna. The Hero (Krishna) as usual pretends to sleep knowing this (yet giving chance for the evil minded Duryodhana to humble himself at some point), wakes up and immediately see Arjuna since he is conveniently sitting on His foot and see Him first. (the symbolism here again is total surrender without speculation and ego). So he asks Arjuna the reason for the visit and give him the word that He will be his charioteer and then Krishna sees Duryodhana to say that, "Oh I am sorry, I just gave my word to Arjuna. Had I seen you first, I would have agred to you" (Symbolism here again is God is impartial in blessing, but one who is humble gets it first although everyone is given the chance to humble).

[Lotus_eye]

correction made above

[kaisersose]

 

There were no saivism or vaishnavism concept existing before 2500 years or 500 BC approximately, and Rukmini Devi by herself was worshipping Shiva and Durga (Durga is also called as Rukminippriya poojitha that you can find in naamaavali).

 

You are kidding, right? Shiva statues have been discovered from the Indus valley civilization period and the Mahabharata reports on long traditions of Pashupathas and Bhagavatas.

 

 

After the onset of buddism in kaliyuga there has always been confusion existing and this confusion is inpart of Kali's feature by itself. So it is true that there were constant misunderstandings and confrontations existed between people who demarcated the lines of saivism and vaishnavism which in essence is actually immaturity in the understanding.

 

None of this has any evidence to back it up.

 

Matha heads have a job to perform - running and sustaining the Matha. They cannot throw up their hands and say "God will provide" for God will not as everyone should know by now. It is up to the head to ensure the endowments are healthy and patronage continues to exist - whether he relishes the task or not. If he sits back and does nothing, another Matha with a different affiliation may win over the King, in which case this Matha will have to close shop.

 

This sets the basis for all the rivalry between Shiavas and Vaishnavas and among themselves too. One cannot be in the position of running a Matha and not be poilitical. Almost always, it just does not work that way.

 

 

 

While Saivism flow started more from Sankara's period, He did not demarcate the differences which is evident from the fact of his own Baja Govindam. But its the later people who divided it and there are vaishnavites who spit on shiva and there are saivites who spit on vishnu who still exist in India and even elsewhere.

 

This proves you are kidding, after all. Shankara did not promote Shaivism in any tangible way. He was an Advaitin with a Smartha outlook that all Gods are personifications of the same Brahman. He wrote a Soundarya Lahari for Shiva, a Bhaja Govindam for Govinda and his landmark Sringeri temple is of Sharada. To take the position that Advaitins promote Shaivism reeks of a Hare Krishna misinformation campaign.

 

 

There is nothing like superior or inferior but unfortunately...

 

Slight correction there. Nothing is superior except the Hare Krishna religion. The rest are equal when HKs say so or are inferior demi-God based religions when the HKs say so. It all depends on who is asking and prevailing circumstances.

 

Cheers

[Lotus_eye]

I dont make pointless arguments.

 

Its funny that Hare Krishna is becoming another religion now...

 

there it goes the beginning of a new one.

 

After some years, there will be fight between Vaishnavites practicing in India from where everything originated and Vaishnavites practicing elsewhere where most are converted from other groups and come with their background.

 

This is a clear example of how differences must have originated..

[kaisersose]

 

I dont make pointless arguments.

 

More importantly, you should consider not passing off unsubstantiated opinions as hard facts.

 

 

Its funny that Hare Krishna is becoming another religion now...

 

By their own admission, they are not Hindus. Thus, they automatically become another religon - like Sikhism, Jainism, etc.

 

Cheers

[Lotus_eye]

Exactly..This is what I am saying as origination of new division. Saivism and Vaishnavism division must also have originated like this several years ago and people get into groups according to their masters opinion, because of fidelity.

 

One who is able to liberate himself from all these divisions and one who is able to see everything equally regardless of whether a person is a thiest or an athiest or whether he worship Shiva or Vishnu or dont worship anything,, he is the one who is more matured.

 

Let me explain in simple terms.

 

A two year old cannot read or write. A four year old can write alphabets, an eight year old can read sentences and frame sentences, a fifteen year old can understand science and maths, a 40 year old can do research in molecular biology or computer science and spend hours and hours of days and nights in laboratory.

 

Does it mean that 40 year who is a research scientist can laugh at 2 year old since he cannot read or write, or laugh at the 4 and 8 year old or anyone else? if he does so, his knowledge of understanding is nothing but just book knowledge and materialism, but does not show real maturity.

Can a 25 year old who can understand the structure of DNA laugh at 8 year old just because he cannot understand? A 4 year old will laugh at 40 year old and may not understand anything on why that 40 year old is spending his life time in laboratory, instead of playing with the toys. Does this make a 4 year old right? in his thinking.

 

Spiritual development or evolution is something like this, where every soul is in different stage of development but it comes in different births. No one can estimate the age of the soul or the number of birth it experienced in different bodies to say how old a soul is. So we see different people and just because someone is physically older and well learned, it does not mean he is really matured spiritually and just because someone is too young in physical age, it does not mean he is really young in the understanding of God. But arguments and discussions strike always. I believe in different births and soul keeps evolving in its understanding of God. So we see different level of people in the same school.

 

A well matured soul who establishes something out of his maturity in final stage, need not have all his disciples of the same age of maturity in spiritual evolution. So there arises debates and discussions.

Some agree and some dont agree. So differences of opinion arise and in many cases in course of years, they split and form their own groups.

Each group becomes a sub-sect in course of time, or even becomes a sub religion deviating from the main stream.

 

In another 500 years or 1000 years, there may be divisions of Hare Krishna too and who knows, whats going to happen.

 

This is why it never makes sense in arguing what is right or what is wrong or who is superior or inferior and this only increases contemplative ideas and speculation.

 

In thousand years ten or hundred more explanation of Gita might also arise and someone as mighty as Sankara or Ramanuja or Madwacharya or Prabhupadha might come and he might give his own explanation too and they will form another group. We cannot say it wont happen, because we have seen this has been happening all through out.

 

This is how different sects arise. as long as we can trace history with our human efforts through archeology we can speculate what came first and when it started, but it does not mean that was the starting point exactly.

 

So what is the point in contemplating or speculating on what is superior or inferior. Does it really make any sense other than just continuing the discussion or arguments?

[kshama]

Gokulkr Ji,

 

I have been reading your posts in a Audarya. I am sure you are a dedicated bhakta of Lord Narayana. Continue your dedication with unwavering mind. Do not let articles in newspaper distract you.

 

Agastya Muni is a revered Muni, so let us not judge him. We should take time to strive really really hard to emulate the bhakti that revered saints and sages like Agastya, Meerabhai, Markandeya had or better, try to have unwavering bhakti to Lord Rama such as Hanuman Ji had.

 

I know it is extremely hard, but I am sure if we are sincere in our dedication, the Lord will help us attain the supreme goal. Namaste.