renuka sahasranama

[Guest guest]

dear all,

 

could anyone let me know where i can get renuka sahasranama?Is it available

in Chennai?

 

Do let me know.

 

 

Suresh

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear suresh,

 

As far as i know, there is no authoritative text on the renuka

sahasranama. What texts and manuscripts that are available, all are

controversial.

 

The mula patha i have but is incomplete. Those have been selected

from other sahasranamas of different devis and compiled.

 

Ganapati muni compiled it but it is not pramanika. He has envisioned

the mula mantra with the bijaksharas. This is enough.

 

 

With regards,

sriram

 

 

, " Suresh Sivakumar " <sthulasiras

wrote:

>

> dear all,

>

> could anyone let me know where i can get renuka sahasranama?Is it

available

> in Chennai?

>

> Do let me know.

>

>

> Suresh

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It can be found in Renuka Tantram along renuka khadgamala etc. I once

saw a copy of it in Chennai in Jayalakshmi Indological Book house.

 

, " Suresh Sivakumar " <sthulasiras

wrote:

>

> dear all,

>

> could anyone let me know where i can get renuka sahasranama?Is it

available

> in Chennai?

>

> Do let me know.

>

>

> Suresh

>

[Guest guest]

Dear satish,

 

Is that a pramanika grantha. Because, the what i heard that the

Renuka tantra is the work of vidyaranya. And this Renuka is the

presiding deity of Virupaksha pita (sringeri virupaksha or hampi is a

debatable issue). The dhyana sloka of this renuka is coined in such

a way that lakshmi and saraswati are flanked on either sides (as

usual the anga-angi bhavana). Some of the stotras are the lakshmi-

vidyaranya samvada which is again a controversial fact.

 

Moreover, the Sahasranama, per se, does not have 1000 names. The copy

of which is with my gurunatha. We have personally counted each and

every name.

 

So, keeping in view of above facts, some scholars are of the view

that this tantra is not pramanic.

 

Moreover, there is also another belief that Renuka tantra was

compiled by Dattatreya as he is a renuka upasaka.

 

It is interesting to note that Renuka is used as a basis for

shatchakra bhedana. Upasana of Renuka makes the sleeping kundalini to

wake up from Muladhara.

 

If anybody has any pramanic book, i would love to see it. Ganapati

 

 

with regards,

sriram

 

, " Satish " <satisharigela wrote:

>

> It can be found in Renuka Tantram along renuka khadgamala etc. I

once

> saw a copy of it in Chennai in Jayalakshmi Indological Book house.

>

> , " Suresh Sivakumar " <sthulasiras@>

> wrote:

> >

> > dear all,

> >

> > could anyone let me know where i can get renuka sahasranama?Is it

> available

> > in Chennai?

> >

> > Do let me know.

> >

> >

> > Suresh

> >

>

[Guest guest]

, " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> Dear satish,

>

> Is that a pramanika grantha. Because, the what i heard that the

> Renuka tantra is the work of vidyaranya. And this Renuka is the

> presiding deity of Virupaksha pita (sringeri virupaksha or hampi is a

> debatable issue). The dhyana sloka of this renuka is coined in such

> a way that lakshmi and saraswati are flanked on either sides (as

> usual the anga-angi bhavana). Some of the stotras are the lakshmi-

> vidyaranya samvada which is again a controversial fact.

 

Renuka tantra which is published by the pItAmbara pIth in Datiya MP is

a collection of stotra-s,kavacha-s h^ridaya, sahasranAma etc of reNuka

from different sources. So this modern publication called Renuka tantra

that i talk about is different from teh reNuka tantra you mention.

 

At the end of teh sahasrnAma we find the following note:

iti padma purANe mAyopakhyAne reNukA prastAve reNukA prak^Riti bhAve

shankara-shanmukha saMvAde shankara proktaM reNukA sahasranAma stotraM

 

So it is supposedly from Padma Purana.

 

The other sources on reNuka upAsana mentioned in this publication are

as follows:

vAyu purANa,

guptasAra - rudrayAmala,

DAmareshvara tantra - most of the items are from this tantra,

Agama-sAra,

Agama-rahasya,

skanda purANa.

 

>

> Moreover, the Sahasranama, per se, does not have 1000 names. The copy

> of which is with my gurunatha.

 

This is possibly true of some other sahasranama-s as well. Not sure if

one can conclude anything by this. i di not count if the one I have had

all 1000 names.

[Guest guest]

Thanks a lot dear satish. If you can scan the names and upload, it

would be wonderful.

 

regs,

sriram

 

, " Satish " <satisharigela wrote:

>

> , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi@>

wrote:

> >

> > Dear satish,

> >

> > Is that a pramanika grantha. Because, the what i heard that the

> > Renuka tantra is the work of vidyaranya. And this Renuka is the

> > presiding deity of Virupaksha pita (sringeri virupaksha or hampi

is a

> > debatable issue). The dhyana sloka of this renuka is coined in

such

> > a way that lakshmi and saraswati are flanked on either sides (as

> > usual the anga-angi bhavana). Some of the stotras are the

lakshmi-

> > vidyaranya samvada which is again a controversial fact.

>

> Renuka tantra which is published by the pItAmbara pIth in Datiya MP

is

> a collection of stotra-s,kavacha-s h^ridaya, sahasranAma etc of

reNuka

> from different sources. So this modern publication called Renuka

tantra

> that i talk about is different from teh reNuka tantra you mention.

>

> At the end of teh sahasrnAma we find the following note:

> iti padma purANe mAyopakhyAne reNukA prastAve reNukA prak^Riti bhAve

> shankara-shanmukha saMvAde shankara proktaM reNukA sahasranAma

stotraM

>

> So it is supposedly from Padma Purana.

>

> The other sources on reNuka upAsana mentioned in this publication

are

> as follows:

> vAyu purANa,

> guptasAra - rudrayAmala,

> DAmareshvara tantra - most of the items are from this tantra,

> Agama-sAra,

> Agama-rahasya,

> skanda purANa.

>

> >

> > Moreover, the Sahasranama, per se, does not have 1000 names. The

copy

> > of which is with my gurunatha.

>

> This is possibly true of some other sahasranama-s as well. Not sure

if

> one can conclude anything by this. i di not count if the one I have

had

> all 1000 names.

>