Guest guest Posted November 21, 2004 Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 I too agree that bhajans and prayers are bit different as bhajans are more sophisticated than prayers.. it is more intricate with proper knowledge of words which can be done by a person who has the complete knowledge of the sutras and the vedas..... fine agreed.... but dont u understand that may it be a bhajan or a prayer the soul purpose is still the same... infact a prayer reaches HIM faster than a bhajan as it speaks what is there in ur heart. no brains are used.. but in bhajans u do use ur brains as well... raj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2004 Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 "but dont u understand that may it be a bhajan or a prayer the soul purpose is still the same... infact a prayer reaches HIM faster than a bhajan as it speaks what is there in ur heart. no brains are used.. but in bhajans u do use ur brains as well... " I think this is a very generic modern escapist statement. I think you know very little about uchharana and bheejakhara. Bheejakshra means roots of the launguage. When pronounced properly, energy is generated in the form sound and it reaches its destination i.e. god. On the other side if pronounced wrongly will have ill effects as the unrest spirits in other dimensions feel irritated and curse you, which will have bad effects. Well i am not a master in these things, but i definitely know what is what. If i have to go by your approach, i can as well ask one rehman or george micheal to compose a hard rock song praising god and sing. Do you think it will still reach the god. Ask yourself. Bye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganeshprasad Posted November 21, 2004 Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 Jai Ganesh Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of Grammar will not save you at the time of your death. yes it is nice to know the uchharana and bheejakhara but if you do not have faith and your prayers are not from the heart it will not reach the lord. so approached with love and from the heart even a prayer composed by rehman and george will reach the lord Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganeshprasad Posted November 21, 2004 Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 Jai Ganesh Hari bol Bhaktaneal thank you for your reserch. so it is quiet clear original bhagan is not composed by gandhi, but is clear also the Ishwara Allaha Tero Naam Sabhuko Sanmathi Dhe Bhagvaan” is a changed verse not the original. Thank you Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maadhav Posted November 21, 2004 Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 << Maadhav I disagree with your poitn that only saints can sing bhajan, >> sri prabhupada, a vaishnav aacharya who has spread bhagavat dharma all over the world says that a bhajan is a composition by a saint and sung by a saint. cinema songs are not bhajans. wishi washi gallible people could take any song as bhajan. but it is not a smart thing to do. << Well Mr.Madhav i totally disagree with the very concept you have in your mind about other religions and about our religion too........firstly our religion doesnt teach us ..violence and revenge..>> when arjun said he does not want to fight, krishna said he must, and arjun killed even bhishma, dorna, karna, etc. now do you want to listen to krishna or gandhi? << .our religion doest tell us to hate anybody....>> dharma says that there are six types of aatataayis, and they must be killed. sure love them if you can, but you must kill them. if you cannot love them (and many cannot) still you must kill them. that is why arjun killed his grandfathre bhishma. can you find some person who loves one who rapes one's mother? << our religion say's spread "LOVE".....well u have criticised Gandhji...but i ask u for what?? >> he failed to make muslims non violent. he divided the nation and still allowed muslims to live in bharat. << because he wrote a verse "Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram........">> no mosque in the world sings iswar allah tera naam. no muslim believes iswar and allah are names of one god. if you read gita and koran, youwill se that they are 180 degree apaprt. so jinnah correclty has said that hinduism and islam are not compatible, meaning they cannot live together in peace. the song encourages hindus to tolerate islam which is hindu killer. << well i ask u whats wrong in it??...>> i said it in detail already. it is as if i tell you to love the person who (suppose) forcibly occupied your home and rapes your mother every day. <<...he never told you or anybody to sing that verse in a temple or something like that..>> he posed himself as mahatma and he was not a mahatma per prabhupada. then he would encourge hindu masses to sing it. so thus the hindus are misled to tolerate hindu killer islam. <<..all he wanted is to make ppl like you and other anti-muslim and anti-hindu ,anti-sikh to understand that almighty God is one...it is senceless to fight with each other on his name..this is what he meant....>> and no muslims has ever learned it so far. the nature of islam is such that it cannot live in peace with any non islam community. <<...our religion belives in forgiving...>> aatataayis cannnot be forbiven dharma says. <<..how hindu-muslim-sikh got united. >> i have not seen hindu muslims unity so far. if there were unity, we would not have babri or kashmir problem at all. the minority muslims in inda are stilly bullyng hajoritu hidnus. sikhism is just an offshoot of hinduism. we never have problem with real sikhs. separatists khalistanis raised by pakistan are not real sikhs. <<..y did partition occured did u ever asked yourself ..why? >> islam invaded india, ruled over us for several centuries, threatned gandhi for a civil war, and gandhi chose partition to avoid civil war. what right the invader has to stay on the vedic land? << most of the indians belived in this verse thats why our india is a secular nation >> hinduism is inherently secular and it does not need the western concept of secularism in india. read some articles at www.bharatvani.org << Well yes the Islamic rulers from afganistan slaughtered the hindu's...... i wanna ask u so what are you going to do...>> if a person invades your home, and rapes your mother in front of you, what will you do? if you do not know, read gita. krishna has given us the answer. << ..who are you to punish 'em..are you God? >> did you ever ask who are they to invade india for 1000 years and destroy our temples and salughter milliosn of hindus? << who r you to judge Gandhiji...r u God??....its none of our business to judge or punish any human...>> so it is the business of muslims to judge who is kafir and kill or convert kafirs? are you a muslim? <<.. The afganis suffered for their sin's ...you can see the shape of afganistan,Iraq,palestine....they are suffering for their sins...>> and what part hindus played in it? nothing. those who fight islam are doing it to serve their interests not ours. no saint or aachary has sung rabhupati raghav. therefore, it is not a bhajan and should not be sung in religious gatherings. << well "narasinha maheta, mirabai, tukaram " who were these peole ..were they God's??? if you do not know who they were, fine. others know better. << the bhajans which she use to sing has so much value ...why??...bcoz those bhajans came from true heart....who was kabir??? a simle man...y does.his dohas are considered so valuable...coz those words came from his trues heart..........same with Gandhiji why his verse is so valuable...bcoz it came from his true heart..>> to put gandhi in the category of mira, tukaram, etc is like putting onion in the category of mangos. << even Sri Sai Baba said "SAB KA MALIK EK HAI" >> sorry, he does not impress me. he would impress me when all the muslims of india give up islam and follow him. << well its senceless to say "any composition made by a non saint or non aachary is not a bhajan." >> you think your self smartet than prabhupada. but rather let me put it in this way "any composition made by a human is not a bhajan unless it is true from your heart". why you assume all hearts are as pure as mira, tukaram, madhva, etc? <<.where was sri prabhupada when indians were suffering due to britains??? >> he was never a politician. he was spreading dharma. << well he remembered Ghandiji when we got the independence....he wanted to spread hinduta after independence.............y didnt he approached Gandhiji b4 independence to help him.???? >> ask him. what you think is the reason? << Ghandiji has done so much for the people but he had nothing for himself....>> sure, and he partitioned india and failed to make muslims non violent. the partition did not avoid violence either. he failed. << look its so very easy to criticise a person...>> hindus need to understand their problems and find ways to solve them. never follow some one who screwed up hindus. we hindus have many hundreds of genuime bhajans. therefore, we do not need to sing or insist on singing raghupati raghav. a glasso f pure milk is good, but when a drop of poison is moxed in it, it is of no use. same for this so called bhajan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhaktaneal Posted November 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 Hari bol! Thank you everyone for the continued discussion on this topic. I was just thinking how this is a great example of the importance of western devotees like (or unlike ) myself to learn the translation of bhajans and try to get a true feel for what they are saying, rather than just giving them lip service like a parrot. For instance, I did not even know that "Ishvara Allaah tere naam" was stating that Ishvara and Allaah are the same, what to speak that those where even names. This is why I like to read the bhajans translations, even better a word for word transliteration. Your welcome Maadhav and Ganeshprasad, I am going to see if I can find some more to support that the original was infact written by Tulsidas...but it does look to be clear that Gandhi changed or introduced "Ishvara Allah tere naam" and I guess it wouldn't take a sanskrit scholar to come up with that, eh? This is too a lesson for me that I should stick to bhajans glorifying Krishna, of which Srila Prabhupada taught many. I wish I could comment on Gandhi, but having grown up in California, I know very little. I have been learning alot from all of the replies. Thank you Maadhav for that interesting link. There are alot of interesting titles listed... I will look into this a little deeper. I hate being fascinated about vedic culture and being nieve as to what degradates and what nurtures it in India today. (I don't know if that came out right or not, I just don't like to be uninformed on issues I think to be important) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagdeep Posted November 21, 2004 Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 << Maadhav I disagree with your poitn that only saints can sing bhajan, >> the above mesg wasnt posted by me..it was ur msg....Mr.Madhav.... and i have very genuine answers for ur reply's too but i feel not to post 'em........ the reasons...1st thing you dont have respect for other's and u think that other's r jus lamers... and last thing u speak like an islamic mujhahidin's and u want to wage jehad on non-hindu's like and u r acting like an islamic fundamentalist... there's no difference between you and 'em r u afraid of something?? that u have deleted my post... anyways..gr8 job its such a shame..........u used those words in a forum of god....and i have a fitting reply for that too.....but its sencless to discuss with a person who doesnt want uderstand the point of view its you who makes the mockery of hinduism..not me reading the precious holy book Bhagvat Geeta doent make u a hindu......understand what the Holy book tries to explain... just mugging up doesnt make u a hindu scholor... i am a sanskrit student..and i am glad that am learning this language coz i uderstand the value of this language...coz of this language am able to understand a bit abt our religion ..our religion is so full of knoledgde that we cant imagine to know our religion it is must to know sanskrit and u know what v have lost 90% of scripters written by gr8 scholors like kalidas etc.. in sankrit....and i feel u r misinterpreting our religion..thats so sad you know what ... i met a boy..his name was Ram... he is 25 years old..he is a qualified engg in 10th he got 92% in 12th he secured again 90% in entrance Exam he got a state rank...and he completed his engg with 95% ....and that guy was offered a Rs.50thousand per month job....but he declined everything he sacrifised everything....he left his big house.....and now he lives in a ashram... he was so calm...he never listen's his admiration..if u admire him he simply walks away...he was so simple @ his age ...i was amazed what he eats twice a day what he eats is boiled rice and dal and that too with no chilli and almost no salt...that thing realy shook me.....guys like him called as a true hindu.. ...guys like him and gandhiji keeps our religion alive ..but not people like u fanatics who only thinks of revenge,violence,hatered well here i end my membership from this forum....... look its very simple to understand only if u try to understand what realy our holy book says.and may almight God help u. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhaktaneal Posted November 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 Jagdeep, I know you weren't speking of or to me, and excuse me if I speak out of turn, but I wanted to sy that I do not find Maadhav fanatical. Yes, he has his opinions and some are strong. and they are his. we have ours. and this forum is a good place to share them. I have to hand it to Maadhav and Ganeshprasad in that they are going back and fourth and are being basicaly civil and respectfull and are not in an attacking mode. In some instances too it may seem the topic digresses, but without starting a new topic, I think most can easily follow digressions as they do in turn relate to the original post. I do hope that you don't leave this discussion, Jagdeep, for your input is just as important. we need to hear everyones view. It keeps the discussion alive and ongoing, what to speak interesting. I encourage you to remain as one of the key debaters and continue to input your stance on this issue. With out it it will just be one sided. Not everyone has the talent for debate or argument(like myself /images/graemlins/grin.gif) ... never the less, their input is just as important to hear, don't you think? I have to disagree that just because Maadhav may counterpoint a statement, he does not come off like he thinks that they are a "lamer" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 hi friend u can very well say that u dont find maadhav's statement as not fanatical as u dont know much about the history of our country... u dont know what the Mahatma stands for.. and i do understand ur position as well..being brought up abroad u might not hav had a link to it.. but being born and brought up in India we know what that great man stands for.... what was his thinking.... it will be disrespectful to not to call the mahatma the saint... he was a man of values... a Gods man.... people envy him because they cant be like him...they dont hav the courage to stand in front of a voilent sadist people and yet not raise their hands... that is courage... its very easy to raise hands and hit someone... but it is really very difficult to stay calm when somebody hits u... Mahatma Gandhi teaches u this.... Thats not cowardice by anychance.... i can understand what sort of people they might be who praise people like Nathuram ghodse... a killer... Ask maadhav why did nathuram kill Gandhi... Just because Gandhi's views were contradicting his and many of the other like-minded peopl'z views... but doesnt everybody has the right to put forth their views? didnt u say so?? then why did he kill him ?? they did that because they were afraid of him... that people will follow him.... and they couldnt stand that... so whenever somebody talks about anyother person dont believe him untill u know the exact facts... then u wont say that maadhav's thinking is not fanatical... it is very much.... if u understand what he is thinking when he is writing these things.... i completely agree with jagdeep in what he said... I alwayz found my religion to be very ancient, very pure and very accomodating... alwayz keep it that way.... that makes us different from others..... raj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 u said when arjun said he doesnt want to fight, Lord krishna said he must.... tell the exact story mr.maadhav... on what context did he say that... after all the other alternatives were exhausted... He was ready for all the possible options to avoid war.. He was even ready to give the major piece of land to duryodhana... when everything got exhausted and war was the only last option left The Lord said these words... dont misinterpret it... He said war should never be an option till the last moment even if the other person is doin sin... doin wrong things.. but when it is war it is war... Isnt this the complete version of it.... reason me if i am wrong... the Lord said that forgiveness should be the first quality a person should alwayz have... i dont remember the name of the person whose mistake was forgiven by Krishna hundred times and then the hundred and first time he insulted the Lord, the Lord cut his neck off... Thats not wrong as killin was never the first option... I dont know what did u learn from the Mahabaratha... I think u learnt only the killing part... killin people who did wrong.. u didnt learn loving every being on earth, forgiving people who did wrong to u, taking peace as the best option... u said the Mahatma failed to make muslims non-voilent... the fact is he failed to make the Hindus non-voilent as well... that is the reason he was killed... during the partition killing happened at both sides...because there were people like u on the other side as well..... that is the actual truth... the Mahatma only put forth his views.. how he thinks people should behave... and it is upto the people of the country to take it or not to take it... some took it and people like u didnt.. who preferred being voilent... u said that no mosque sings the song raghu pati raghava raja ram... so we too should stop singing... is that what u meant to say.... u mean to say we should be following their path.... shri madhavji think before u talk... If they dont do it doesnt mean that it is wrong...let them not do it... that is their religion.... why r we bothered... we do because we believe in it.... and plz do explain it to me what are the phrases in the Holy Gita and the Holy Kuran that are 180 degree apart... I would surely like to know from a intellectual person like u..... secondly u said Jinnah is perfectly right in whatever he said... so u now agree with Jinnah... the man who actually divided India... the man who was responsible for everything.... I dont hav words to say..... i hope the other readers do understand..... shri maaadhavji Gandhi never posed himself as a Mahatma... This title was given to him by a man who believed in force... the man whose phrases where "give me blood and I will give u freedom"...the great Subash Chandra Bose as he too respected the mahatma and called him a saint.. Trust me even today we believe our country as a secular country because there r more people like jagdeep who believe in unity, who believe in our constitution than people like u.. i dont want to reply each of ur answers which i can very well do but i find it senseless... hope u got my point.... and give everyone the exact version of what is said in our Holy books and not the half cut version..... tnx raj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhaktaneal Posted November 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Hari bol! Thank you for your comments. I am in a unique position in the argument as I initialy asked a simple question, not knowing the contraversy behind. and too, I am not privy to the whole story, or history, therefor I cannot quite reach my own conclusions until I have more knowledge on the subject. I wanted to just say that my reply to Jagdeep was more a plea for him not to abandon the argument. I value his comments as much as others. There are many sides to this and I am interested in hearing them all for what they are so that I may come to my own conclusions /images/graemlins/smile.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganeshprasad Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Jai Ganesh Hari bol Bhaktaneal Thank you again Re ( I am going to see if I can find some more to support that the original was infact written by Tulsidas...but it does look to be clear that Gandhi changed or introduced "Ishvara Allah tere naam" and I guess it wouldn't take a sanskrit scholar to come up with that, eh?) Your affort is apreciated very much it one thing trying to appease others(without the desired result)and another to loose the original now that would be sacrilege. My apology to maadhav, not because ishvara allah is right or wrong, but to change the original is an insult the original composer, whose sole aim would have been to glorify the lord, therefore i shall keep singing minus the ishvar allah. if some one knows the original please post it. Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhaktaneal Posted November 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Hari bol! PAMHO! AGTSP! I found this in a paper apparently by the Hindu Students Council at Cornell Universitywhich lists a number of Tulsidas bhajans. (all?) I must say that I am viewing as cache and may be skimming over evidence to the contrary... I am between work and home and am a bit rushed, if anyone else would want to take the time to pour over this paper in its entirty, the url is: 216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:6MhwWSnc4DoJ:www.sas.cornell.edu /CURW/hindu/02-03/inside/puja/sp03-2. pdf++Tulsidas+Raghupati+raghava+raja+ram&hl=en%20target=nw (sorry , you'll have to cut and paste, it was too long) It lists the words to Raghupati Raghava and curiously enough does not contain the Isvara alaah line... I will bold type what seems to be the original: Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram, Patita-Pavan Seetaram, Raghupati Seetaram, Seetaram, Bhaja Pyare Tu Seetaram, Raghupati Ram-Krishna Hai Tere Nam, Sabko Sanmati De Bhagavan, Raghupati Deena-Dayaloo Raja Ram, Patita-Pavan Seetaram, Raghupati Jaya Raghunandana Jaya Siyaram, Janaki-Vallabha Seetaram, Raghupati Jaya Yadunandana Jaya Ghanashyam, Rukmini-Vallabha Radheshyam, Raghupati Jaya Madhusoodana Jaya Gopal, Jaya Muralidhara Jaya Nandalal, Raghupati Jaya Damodara Krishna Murare, Devaki Nanadana Sarvaa Dhaar, Raghupati Jaya Govinda Jaya Gopal, Keshava Madhava Deena Dayal, Raghupati Radhakrishna Jaya Kunjabihari, Muralidhara Govardhana Dhari, Raghupati Dasharatha Nandana Avadhakishore, Yashumathi Sutha Jaya Makhana Chor, Raghupati Kaushalya ke Pyare Ram, Yashumati Sutha Jaya Nava Ghanashyam, Raghupati Vrindavana Mathura me Shyam, Avadhpuri me Seetaram, Raghupati Those are all the lines under the heading of Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram. I hope this is correct. I would be embarresed otherwise So it would seem to me that it originally said the names of Ram and Krishna are the same? correct me if I am wrong... Interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 So it would seem to me that it originally said the names of Ram and Krishna are the same? correct me if I am wrong... Interesting... By saying this u are starting one more debate, now people will say ram and krishna are not the same, krishna is above rama , rama is below this and this god. In of the discussion forums here somebody was saying Hari and Narayan are below krishna . I dont know from where they get this kind of idea. Vedas say "Aum ithi ekaksharam brahmam", "Pragyanam Brahman" . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhaktaneal Posted November 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 That was not my intention.... Simply sharing, iz all /images/graemlins/smile.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maadhav Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 good! thanks. it is correct. no vedic bhajan or bhajna-like song should have allah word in it. why? because no mosque talks about krishna, rama, etc. in reverance as the names of god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maadhav Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 ganeshprasad ji, thanks for the understanding. Bhaktaneal found the original. here it is: Raghupati Raghava Raja Ram, Patita-Pavan Seetaram, Raghupati Seetaram, Seetaram, Bhaja Pyare Tu Seetaram, Raghupati Ram-Krishna Hai Tere Nam, Sabko Sanmati De Bhagavan, Raghupati Deena-Dayaloo Raja Ram, Patita-Pavan Seetaram, Raghupati Jaya Raghunandana Jaya Siyaram, Janaki-Vallabha Seetaram, Raghupati Jaya Yadunandana Jaya Ghanashyam, Rukmini-Vallabha Radheshyam, Raghupati Jaya Madhusoodana Jaya Gopal, Jaya Muralidhara Jaya Nandalal, Raghupati Jaya Damodara Krishna Murare, Devaki Nanadana Sarvaa Dhaar, Raghupati Jaya Govinda Jaya Gopal, Keshava Madhava Deena Dayal, Raghupati Radhakrishna Jaya Kunjabihari, Muralidhara Govardhana Dhari, Raghupati Dasharatha Nandana Avadhakishore, Yashumathi Sutha Jaya Makhana Chor, Raghupati Kaushalya ke Pyare Ram, Yashumati Sutha Jaya Nava Ghanashyam, Raghupati Vrindavana Mathura me Shyam, Avadhpuri me Seetaram, Raghupati ====================================== do not know who composed it though. but any one can make a composition of the the vedic names of god or deva/devis and chant. that is perfectly proper for the hindus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhaktaneal Posted November 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Upon re-reding the paper from which I seem to have gotten the original lyrics, it doesn't say that Tulsidas wrote it. I did learn from another site that Tulsidas and Valmiki are the same, apparently, according to these excerpts from an article I found: Goswami Tulsidas was considered to be an incarnation of the Sage Valmiki.He was born in Rajpur, Uttar Pradesh in the year 1532 and was the son of Atmaram Shukla Dube and Hulsi. His travels took him to a temple where Hanuman used to appear in the disguise of a leper.Hanuman was the first to arrive there and the last to leave.Tulsidas met with Hanuman who bestowed upon him the vision of Shree Raama.Under the directions of Hanuman,Tulsidas wrote the Ramacharitra Manas.He spared no effort to express the emotions contained therein. Tulsidas wrote twelve books and the most renowned was and still is the Ramayana also called the Ramacharitra Manas. At the age of ninety one in the year 1623 A.D. at Asighat in Varanasi,Goswami Tulsidas departed from this mortal world and achieved the ultimate grace of Shree Raama. (the full article can be viewed at: www.trinihindu.faithweb.com/tulsidas.html I am pretty sure I had read somewhere last night that he also composed many Ram bhajans.. I am trying to find that again, if there is still interest in this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Bhaktaneal, Tulsidas is not considered authentic by the iskconites as he does belong to paramapara or does not have a guru who is from a renowned parampara . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhaktaneal Posted November 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 That is interesting to note... Thank you, who ever you are /images/graemlins/smile.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Thanks for the extensive search you have done for this post. Please spend some time to look for Dohas of Tulsi. They are very nice. YOu can even learn them by heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganeshprasad Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Jai Shree Ganesh Re (Tulsidas is not considered authentic by the iskconites as he does belong to paramapara or does not have a guru who is from a renowned parampara . ) Those off us who are born in the vedic tradition are already belonging to the parampara, where does Krishna says approach a guru who belongs to a certain sampradaya, he say approach a tatvadarshi who knows the truth, our first and formost guru is our parents. Mothers like jijabai who trained his son Shivaji maharaj from when he was still in the womb to protect the dharama why? Because see belonged to vedic parampara. Saints like Goswami Tulsidas, Tukaram, Surdas, Jalarambapu, Narsimetha, Meerabai and many others needs no authenticity there work and bhagan speaks volume. Krishna also says na hi jnanena sadrsam pavitram iha vidyate tat svayam yoga-samsiddhah kalenatmani vindati Verily there is no purifier in this world like knowledge. One who becomes purified by Karma-yoga discovers this knowledge within (naturally) in course of time. ((4.38) Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhaktaneal Posted November 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 I was going over all that has been said in this thread and musing over what started as a simple inquiry for a translation... and it developed into this big discussion. I dig that. I was also thinking about The Bhagavan das version of Raghupati Raghava, and I realized that he doesn't sing the Isvara Allaah line... but sings other lines like Sri Ram Jaya Ram Jaya Jaya Ram... etc.. But it's not the original. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 GP Ji In this link tulsidas and his works are thoroughly analysed, http://www.hindu-religion.net/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=hinduism&Number=50658&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=1&vc=1 Prabhupada says tulsidas is not bonafide . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Bhaktaneel what is that picture that accompanies allyour posting, i can see some people standing, can tell about it . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.