Detailed Deva Puje Paddhathi according to Madhva Sampradaya

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Krishnabhakthas,

 

On this auspicious occasion of Vijaya Dashami, with the blessings from Sri

Hari Vayu Gurugalu, I would like to forward the procedure of Deva Puje

paddathi for beginners who wish to learn Madhva sampradaya puje paddati.

 

There are few points to NOTE:

 

1. Though I have mentioned in the first posting itself in the PREFACE that

it is essential that brahmachari & grahasthas perform devara puje paddati,

few dvaita list members did not notice it or this was not clear.

2. Only devotees who had Manthropadesha, learnt the Sukthas/Mantras from a

guru can perform devara puje.

3. There may be some typos, which need to be proofed. There may be

" shabdadoshas " in the postings which has to be corrected. It should be

noted that Mantras/shlokas are very sensitive & one has to chant & pronounce

the mantras properly. I posted without proofing.

4. Finally, if anyone finds the procedure, typos, error etc... or if I am

missing anything here, please write to the list with the corrected version,

suggestions.

 

Thankyou....

 

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2005-September/001094.html

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2005-September/001095.html

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2005-September/001096.html

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2005-September/001097.html

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2005-September/001098.html

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2005-September/001099.html

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2005-September/001100.html

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2005-September/001101.html

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2005-September/001102.html

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2005-September/001103.html

 

 

USERNAME & PASSWORD: dvaita

 

Hari sarvothama, vAyu Jeevothama,

 

Shobha Srinivasan

 

 

 

parameshvara bhaktirnAma niravadhika ananta anavadya kalyANaguNatva

GYAnapUrvakaH

svAtmAtmIya samasta vastubhyo aneka guNAdhiko antarAya sahasrenApya

pratibaddo nirantara premapravAhaH ------------- a verse from Nyaya Sudha

 

Devotion to the Lord is that continuously surging flood of deep love &

attachment to the Lord of the Universe, which is impregnable by any amount

of obstacles encountered in its march. It should be of such a quality &

texture as would transcend all other forms of love which one may bear

towards one's own self, or to his nearest & dearest ones in life, or to his

most cherished possessions. It should be founded on an unshakable

intellectual & emotional conviction in the Majesty of the Lord- as the

embodiment of all spiritual excellences.

[Guest guest]

Sri Kesava Rao wrote on October 12, 2005 :

 

>That was quite clear and the ones who responded did not talk

>about that point, as that was not relevant. Surely lot of effort

>went into making the postings. However, the main objection was

>that when the posting was from a book as it is, then it has

>to be mentioned that the book is " THE SOURCE " and " NOT

>REFERENCE " .

 

The objection was in addition to " Source " & " Not Reference " , that posting

did not

mention that " OM NAMO NARAYANAYA " that this mantra should be learnt from a

Guru.

 

 

>Also in the preface, it is mentioned that it is in

>accordance with tantrasArasangraha and PadyamAla, but the same

>author has mentioned elsewhere about " Uchchishta Ganapathy " (In

> " Sri Vinayaka Chaturthi Katha & Greatness of Sri Ganesha " ).

 

> " Uchchishta Ganapathy " is not according to TantrasArasangraha

>and PadyamAla and even more so, it is tAmasika mode of upAsana.

>This raises serious doubts about the reliability of the author.

 

Regarding Uchchishta Ganapathy, the author just mentioned that

there are 32 types of Ganapathys & he had just named this as one of the

them. The author did not mention anywhere that upasana of Uchchishta

Ganapathi is to be done. Please check this url

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2005-September/001052.html.

 

This Uchchishta Ganapathy name was not mentioned during Sri Vinayaka

Chathurthi puje paddati.

 

 

> There may be " shabdadoshas " in the postings...

 

>Not " may be " , but as pointed out in the list, there are.

 

>For proofing this, a more reliable book is needed as using

>the same book will not help at all.

 

This book contains both English & Sanskrit scripted shlokas. I did look up

for errors or printing mistakes in the book, atleast in first few pages, I

found found none. But I did not check the whole book. As you had

pointed out like " Prabhujayeth " (should be prapUjayet.h), yes, this is the

error. If there are errors in the postings, it may be due to my typo

error also.

 

Again, if anyone finds the procedure, typos, error etc... or if I am

missing anything here, please write to the list with the corrected version,

suggestions.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Shobha Srinivasan

 

>Kesava Rao

[Guest guest]

==============================

MESSAGE EDITED BY MODERATORS

 

 

May I request the members to continue this discussion in one of the two VMS

mailing lists and not both.

 

Please also refrain from having discussions in multiple mailing lists - in this

case, Satsangha_NE.

 

It becomes very unmanageable and at some point, discussion will be taken out of

context if one person responds in a specific e-mail group which is not

d by everyone.

 

Thanks for your understanding.

================================

 

 

In Satsangha_NE , <srinivasans@c...> wrote:

 

> > However, the main objection was

> >that when the posting was from a book as it is, then it has

> >to be mentioned that the book is " THE SOURCE " and " NOT

> >REFERENCE " .

>

> The objection was in addition to " Source " & " Not Reference " ,

> that posting did not mention that " OM NAMO NARAYANAYA " that

> this mantra should be learnt from a Guru.

 

Yes, as mentioned the main objection was " reference " and in

addition there were other objections. The purpose of pointing

out the objections is to " iteratively correct and improve " .

It does not mean that " only error-free versions have to be given " ,

as none of us is perfect. Only Sri Hari is. The 'tAratamya' is

given, with us humans making many times more mistakes than the

ones above us(manushhyottamas). Sometimes, the objections may not

be valid (as the objectors are also ordinary humans). Then

counter-objections can be raised against such objections, in the

same list where such objections were raised originally. The

counter-objections are mainly of 2 kinds -

 

1. Those which just question why similar objections were not

raised in other instances.

 

These don't serve any purpose, as they don't take away the

validity of the objections. There may be several reaons why

they were not raised in other cases like not seeing them, not

finding time when they were posted, not having enough info,

not feeling confident to raise the objections in those

cases, etc.

 

2. Those which bring in some reasoning why the objections

are not valid. These are quite welcome.

 

The discussions are always open.

 

> > " Uchchishta Ganapathy " is not according to TantrasArasangraha

> >and PadyamAla and even more so, it is tAmasika mode of upAsana.

> >This raises serious doubts about the reliability of the author.

>

> Regarding Uchchishta Ganapathy, the author just mentioned that

> there are 32 types of Ganapathys & he had just named this as one of the

> them.

 

That is wrong. No where in the accepted scriptures is it mentioned

that Uchchishta Ganapathy is one of the forms of " Umaputra Ganapati " .

 

> The author did not mention anywhere that upasana of Uchchishta

> Ganapathi is to be done. Please check this url

>

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2005-September/001052.html.

>

> This Uchchishta Ganapathy name was not mentioned during Sri Vinayaka

> Chathurthi puje paddati.

 

Need not be. The very anusandhAna that Uchchishta Ganapathy is one of

Ganesha's forms is very damaging. The name itself indicates the

upAsana. It is not one of the forms of Ganapati. As the name indicates,

people who worship " this form " , put as naivedya " Uchchhishhta " (or

the food left over after one eats and thus contaminated with the

person's saliva) and then they may also tie Ganapathy saying that they

will free him only if he frees them from the troubles and so on. Even

mentioning such a name is very inauspicious.

 

> This book contains both English & Sanskrit scripted shlokas. I did look up

> for errors or printing mistakes in the book, atleast in first few pages, I

> found found none.

 

There are errors in the first few itself (they may be typos or printing

errors). I looked at " brahmapArastotra " (which is for obtaining pUjAdhikAra)

and it needs quite a few corrections.

 

With Vijayadashami wishes,

Kesava Rao

 

> Shobha Srinivasan