[Satsangha_NE] Detailed Deva Puje Paddhathi according to Madhva Sampradaya

[Guest guest]

Shobha Srinivasan wrote on October 12, 2005 :

 

> 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.

 

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 " . For ex. here the book is mentioned as reference and

so it is very confusing as to whether the PREFACE is from that

book or from some other book or from the writer of the mail

itself. 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.

 

Actually, there were discussions about all the above mentioned

issues in Dvaita list, which the interested ones can peruse.

There will always be printing errors in most of the books, but

the degree varies. However the way, this author has written

mantra-s and shloka-s, it raises serious doubts about whether

the author has reasonable proficiency in Sanskrit. Anybody can

make postings, but a person who intends to write books must

either be reasonably good or take help of reasonable efficient

person to make the book reasonably reliable wrt. mantra-s and

shloka-s. Other info can have a little more tolerance.

 

> 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.

 

Regards,

Kesava Rao

 

> Shobha Srinivasan