War cry in holy cities A storm is gathering along the banks of river Ganges.

[CHANDRU1849]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

It is objectionable to attach views of non-hindus like Javed Jamil, in this thread. As a counter I can also quote Geert Wilders, a rabble rouser of Netherlands. Kindly keep this discussion solely Hindu and brahmin.If you take a head-count, I wager that the majority of TBs finding fault with the statement of his Holiness would be Tamil Iyers.Tamil Iyers have lost two precious things in the past 50 years viz-Guru Bhakthi and Tamil mastery.Contrast this with Iyengars, all aspects of whose lives, is centred around their Mutt and the Acharya.They use tamil Pasurams in praise of God.The Majority of Iyers, on the other hand, have no respect for Kanchi or any other Mutt.They do not know Thevaram, tiruvachagam etc.No wonder many of them are joining the chorus against their own Acharya. Fortunately, the younger generations have more pride in their language and religion and wil surely rejuvenate our heritage.
குருவே சரணம்
अखण्डमण्डलाकारं व्याप्तं येन चराचरम् ।
तत्पदं दर्शितं येन तस्मै श्रीगुरवे नमः ॥

Salutation to the noble Guru,, who has made it possible to realise the state which pervades the entire cosmos, everything animate and inanimate.

Does Kanchi Acharya know about Thevaram and Thiruvachagam and talk about at any time?Which Acharya (Kanchi/Srigeri) talks about Saivite works like Thevaram, Thiruvasagem, Thiruvembavai etc. regularly. Probably they don't give importance due to the fact they are written by NBs.

Not only Acharyas but his ardent supporters talk only about only Vaishnavite works. Could you please tell me whether it is correct on the part of a Saivite Acharya (if said so because sporting Vibhudhi) to conclude by saying Narayana, Narayana? Unfortunately, the house is not in order, and Iyers lack seriousness about their religious texts.

I have been repeatedly telling majority of Iyers in Tamil Nadu become pseudo-Vaishnavites.

 

[Vaagmi]

No thanks Vaagmi Ji,

Nahi Nahi Rakshatin Dukren Karane..why do I need to know the details on why डु and ञ् are इत् संज्ञ and तस्य लोपः when all I need to say is Narayana Narayana?

No. Not you too. Don't become a convert. Be loyal to your Sivoham, Sivoham (not shivoham because shi of Sanskrit is not the shi in English just as the si of Sanskrit does not have an equivalent in English or Tamil) and do not convert. A flower is more beautiful when it stays in the plant than when it is made into a garland.

And by the by the question still stays there-who was the founder?

 

[prasad1]

It is absolutely irrational to talk about something we know very little of. It is like the blind men trying to explain an elephant.
I know a little Adi Shankaracharya and his Advaita philosophy from the various sources. I am not a master of it.
If his advaita views are to be accepted to him everything is Brahman, you can call it by any name.

Advaita (not-two in Sanskrit) refers to the identity of the true Self, Atman, which is pure consciousness, and the highest Reality, Brahman, which is also pure consciousness.
Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, synthesised and rejuvenated the doctrine of Advaita. Even though he lived for only thirty-two years his impact on India and on Hinduism was striking. He reintroduced a purer form of Vedic thought. His teachings and tradition form the basis of Smartism and have influenced Sant Mat lineages.
You will understand that great scholars like Shankaracharya saw no difference between Vishnu and Shiva. Both are born out of our fertile imaginations.

So some of us still hung up on this definition of God.
I do not think Adi Shankaracharya would care one way or the other.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

You will understand that great scholars like Shankaracharya saw no difference between Vishnu and Shiva. Both are born out of our fertile imaginations.

So some of us still hung up on this definition of God.
I do not think Adi Shankaracharya would care one way or the other.

Per your statement, the Saints who talk exclusively about Shiva and Vishnu are not on par with Adi Shankara. Then the Saivite and Vaishnavite Scholars of Tamil Nadu are inferior to him. Quite amusing.

Advaitham is only a philosophy, like the other two, and not a Religion and it can be accepted or rejected altogether. If a philosophy does not go with a Religion completely or one of its branches, and in this case, Saivism or Vaishnavism, then what is the significance of that philosophy. Only Advaitham is not very clear about the path to be taken, the other two Dwaitham and Vishisdathdwaitham are clear and they go only with Vaishnavism. Naturally, the followers of Advaitham will shuttle between two sects without settling permanently in one side. This may definitely affect consistency.

If Adi Shankara did not find any difference between Shiva and Vishnu, what is his contribution to the worship of Lord Shiva, like the four Tamil Saints, while he had written about Krishna.

 

[tks]

Per your statement, the Saints who talk exclusively about Shiva and Vishnu are not on par with Adi Shankara. Then the Saivite and Vaishnavite Scholars of Tamil Nadu are inferior to him. Quite amusing.

Advaitham is only a philosophy, like the other two, and not a Religion and it can be accepted or rejected altogether. If a philosophy does not go with a Religion completely or one of its branches, and in this case, Saivism or Vaishnavism, then what is the significance of that philosophy. Only Advaitham is not very clear about the path to be taken, the other two Dwaitham and Vishisdathdwaitham are clear and they go only with Vaishnavism. Naturally, the followers of Advaitham will shuttle between two sects without settling permanently in one side. This may definitely affect consistency.

If Adi Shankara did not find any difference between Shiva and Vishnu, what is his contribution to the worship of Lord Shiva, like the four Tamil Saints, while he had written about Krishna.

Hinduism offers a big tent and can include all kinds of beliefs including various brands of atheism as well (provided they accept Vedas as source of knowledge)

For everyone to co-exist a person's belief cannot cause harm to others.

All beliefs including those described in the this thread (like post #77 referenced by Dr Renu and Post #41 referenced by Sri Vaagmi) are accommodated within India in the air of mutual respect. All such beliefs including Saivism etc are not subject to reason since they are beliefs- Therefore it is meaningless to even talk about what is right and what is not since conversation between two beliefs is not possible.

The key is that we cannot attack any form of belief provided there is no proactive effort to convert others or cause other harm.

What Sri Sankara taught in his commentaries are *mostly* not belief based. In all debates the assertions are done at doctrinal level with true desire to understand the nature of reality.

Sri Sankara has also provided practical interpretations and applications.

At a conceptual level the notion of Saguna Brahman ( which parallel descriptions of Isvara be it Sriman Narayana or Siva) is diametrically opposed to the notion of Nirguna Brahman. Both are described in B.Gita.

Sri Sankara's commentary on B.Gita therefore starts out by providing a practical direction - Saguna Brahman notion is for meditation and Nirguna is for understanding. For those that want to go beyond practical suggestions there are detailed descriptions in other areas as to how these concepts with seemingly diametric in description are not only consistent but need one for the definition of the other.

My overall point is that most teachers have provided unified views that allows for ordinary people who is not into doctrinal level discussions to co-exist with their independent and often contradictory beliefs. The key for this co-existence to continue in harmony is - mutual respect for each other.

 

[prasad1]

Per your statement, the Saints who talk exclusively about Shiva and Vishnu are not on par with Adi Shankara. Then the Saivite and Vaishnavite Scholars of Tamil Nadu are inferior to him. Quite amusing.

Chandruji,
There you go again. You have got hold of Hinduism Tiger by the tail. There is no conflict is Brahman. Everything exists in Brahman. Sri Sankaracharya sums up the entire message of Vedanta in three crisp aphorism like sentences. They are :

(a) Brahma Satyam, (b) Jagat Mithya, and (c) Jivo Brahmaiva naparah.

I never talked about anyone else being inferior. So may be you need new glasses or reread my post. I do not want to enter in an discussion with you, when you are manufacturing statements and attributing it to me.

 

[renuka]

N
And by the by the question still stays there-who was the founder?

And my answer yet remains the same.."I know you know"

Your question and my answer somehow remind me of the famous Senthil Goundamani Banana Joke.

[video=youtube_share;pv40dglennA]http://youtu.be/pv40dglennA[/video]

 

[renuka]

Dear Vaagmi ji,

I checked what you asked me to check about the Karma Kandha and Brahma portion.

I am typing from the Shankara Digvijaya book.

Where Lord Shiva says to Kartikeya:"Now you have to do your part of the work and that is the revival of the ritualistic section of the Brahma(Veda) codified by Jaimini and thereby gain the reputed name of Subrahmanya(promoter of the Brahmanya) besides the commonly known name as Kumarila Bhatta the preacher of the Vedic Karma Kandha"

 

[natkaushik]

Does Kanchi Acharya know about Thevaram and Thiruvachagam and talk about at any time?Which Acharya (Kanchi/Srigeri) talks about Saivite works like Thevaram, Thiruvasagem, Thiruvembavai etc. regularly. Probably they don't give importance due to the fact they are written by NBs.

Not only Acharyas but his ardent supporters talk only about only Vaishnavite works. Could you please tell me whether it is correct on the part of a Saivite Acharya (if said so because sporting Vibhudhi) to conclude by saying Narayana, Narayana? Unfortunately, the house is not in order, and Iyers lack seriousness about their religious texts.

I have been repeatedly telling majority of Iyers in Tamil Nadu become pseudo-Vaishnavites.

Dear Chandru Avl.

First Kanchi Mutt is not a Saivite Mutt, and Iyers are not saivites. Iyers are termed Smarthas and practise the prayers as per the "Shanmatha"Viz_ Ganapathyam,Kaumaram,Saktham,Saivam,Vaishnavam and Sauryam-established by Adi Sankara and continued by the Sankaramatams. Lord Narayana is to Iyers as venerable as Lord Neelakanta. Frankly speaking, being a pseudo-Vaishnavites may be preferable to being agnostic-Iyers.

 

[natkaushik]

To Knowabout Kanchi-Matam's involvement with Tamil, visit ": kamakoti.org:". .Make a visit to Kanchi during Chathurmasya in the next two months. : ": kamakoti.org"

 

[sarang]

Wrong!

# Vishnu and Shiva. Both are born out of our fertile imaginations.

So some of us still hung up on this definition of God.
I do not think Adi Shankaracharya would care one way or the other.

 

[renuka]

Wrong!

I know why you know that you are right!

 

[Vaagmi]

I know why you know that you are right!

ஐயோ! ஐயோ!! ரேணும்மா தாங்கமுடியலம்மா. போதும்மா.

 

[prasad1]

Wrong!

Oh now you are an authority about Vishnu and Shiva? You must have visited both of them and they must have introduced themselves to you.

Or you can read the mind of Adi Shankara, and he told you that he cared,
What is wrong!

 

[renuka]

ஐயோ! ஐயோ!! ரேணும்மா தாங்கமுடியலம்மா. போதும்மா.

Aiyo Vaagmi Ji..why you cant stand it anymore? I know that too!LOL

 

[renuka]

Dear Prasad ji,

Right and Wrong is very subjective..Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva has to exist for some otherwise there will be nothing for the mind to hold on.

I prefer to use the word The Vishnu Principle and the The Shiva Principle where Vishnu Principle is all about being All Pervasive and The Shiva Principle being about Auspiciousness.

So for the human mind to grasp that deification become a need...and not everyone wants to give that up.

I was reading in Vivekachudamani that The mind produces for the enjoyer different kinds of objects of senses,either gross or subtle,Body,color,caste and the ashrama(4stages of live) as also the qualities,actions and their results--------these are all the creations of the mind.

And another stanza in the Vivekachudamani says that In the time of shusupti(dreamless sleep) when the mind is absorbed in Maya------when there is no mind------there is nothing.Therefore everything is created by the mind.

Now as far as I know the microcosm is supposed to mimic the macrocosm..so when a mind which is absorbed by Maya in dreamless sleep makes everything cease to exists that means that one stage of dissolution of creation nothing will exists too..so when nothing exists that means everything has to go..so even our Shiva Principle or Vishnu Principle will have to cease to exists isnt it?

So I really wonder why Sarang ji said your are wrong (even though I sort of know why!LOL)

 

[prasad1]

So I really wonder why Sarang ji said your are wrong (even though I sort of know why!LOL)

I too know it. But I can not stand idiocy, Ignorance must be stomped. Ignorant needs to be educated.

 

[tks]

ஐயோ! ஐயோ!! ரேணும்மா தாங்கமுடியலம்மா. போதும்மா.

When I was young we were told ஐயோ is not a good expression .. what is the significance of this word. I remember hearing from a primary school friend decades ago that ஐயோ is calling out the mother of Yaman - lord of death

 

[sarang]

If one thinks vedic gods are from fertile imagination, he doesn't believe in the vedas, upanishads, brahma sutra and gita. Nothing more need be said.

 

[prasad1]

If one thinks vedic gods are from fertile imagination, he doesn't believe in the vedas, upanishads, brahma sutra and gita. Nothing more need be said.

Sir,
You rudely interrupted the thread about Shankarachrya Swaroopananda and his observation about Sai Baba. Now you are dragging this thread to Vedas and other books. If you want a discussion about Vedas etc., start a new thread. I am not going to be drawn into your childish pranks. Think what you may of Vedas or any other subject under the sun.

 

[sarang]

<edited. As always, kindly stay away from posting personal remarks against another member. If at all there is a difference of opinion, it is best to discuss and dish out in private than in public - Praveen>

 

[renuka]

If one thinks vedic gods are from fertile imagination, he doesn't believe in the vedas, upanishads, brahma sutra and gita. Nothing more need be said.

But isnt the final diagnosis of Vedas,Upanishads,Brahma Sutra,Gita actually Ekam Advaitam Brahman?

So the assumed multitude of Vedic Gods is merely a projection isnt it?

In fact I feel its a person who truly believes in the Vedas,Upanishads,Brahma Sutras and Geeta who would say that its the Fertile Imagination of Men which deified the Forces of Prakirti(Nature) and gave them names and called them Vedic Gods...I am not saying that it is wrong to deify Nature..in fact its part of Evolution of Thought but it just that we need to go to the source of its very existence that finally everything is just the One and Only Brahman which we choose to imagine in so many ways.


I feel if we still prefer to project an understanding of Polytheism then on technical grounds we are actually giving the Vedas,Upanishads,Brahma Sutras and Geeta a "bad name".

But if you choose to call Sriman Narayana as the One and Only God(which I feel you do)....then I guess you will never agree with what I wrote.


Note: The word Imagination in a Philosophical context does not convey the meaning of Insanity.
Imagination in this context means the Projection of The Mind.

 

[Vaagmi]

When I was young we were told ஐயோ is not a good expression .. what is the significance of this word. I remember hearing from a primary school friend decades ago that ஐயோ is calling out the mother of Yaman - lord of death

1. I do not know the source of the meaning that Aiyo represents the mother of Yama. I haven't heard it said by anyone either. The Tamil word is just an expression of anxiety, bewilderment, pain as well as happiness. Like in ஐயோ இன்னும் வரலியே என்ன செய்வது தெரியலியே, ஐயோ எம்மாம் பெரிசு, ஐயோ வலிதாங்கலியே and ஐயோ கொள்ளையழகுதான் போங்க.

2. It is not inauspicious to use the word freely. Thiruppaanaazhwaar sang just 10 pasurams alone on the deity in Srirangam and got a place as an Azhwar among the ten. He has used the word ஐயோ in two places in that work called அமலனாதிபிரான். The context and the meaning in which he used them has been explained by commentators well and I had posted it earlier in another thread. Here I just stop with mentioning the fact that the Azhwar has used it in his pasuram while singing about Ranganatha.

 

[sarang]

This other member despite several requests and warnings not to engage in direct naming references continues to drop innuendoes and snide remarks. He is ready to admonish others not to post hurting messages, but says he does not mind rather revels in hurting others, does not suffer fools etc. He has to mend his ways rather than behaving like kejri.

A senior respectable member pmed me to ignore the 'person and his posts', I replied 'yes', now I will put it in practice.

<edited. As always, kindly stay away from posting personal remarks against another member. If at all there is a difference of opinion, it is best to discuss and dish out in private than in public - Praveen>

 

[tks]

1. I do not know the source of the meaning that Aiyo represents the mother of Yama. I haven't heard it said by anyone either. The Tamil word is just an expression of anxiety, bewilderment, pain as well as happiness. Like in ஐயோ இன்னும் வரலியே என்ன செய்வது தெரியலியே, ஐயோ எம்மாம் பெரிசு, ஐயோ வலிதாங்கலியே and ஐயோ கொள்ளையழகுதான் போங்க.

2. It is not inauspicious to use the word freely. Thiruppaanaazhwaar sang just 10 pasurams alone on the deity in Srirangam and got a place as an Azhwar among the ten. He has used the word ஐயோ in two places in that work called அமலனாதிபிரான். The context and the meaning in which he used them has been explained by commentators well and I had posted it earlier in another thread. Here I just stop with mentioning the fact that the Azhwar has used it in his pasuram while singing about Ranganatha.

Sri Vaagmi

Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

I guess people use the expression in many context especially in a house where someone has died.

You have helped to make the expression not inauspicious in my mind by showing its use in a Pasuram

Regards