Who was 'that' Rama?

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Good advice - could'nt have said better

Shri a-TB,

you have in a way, chastised me in this thread here and you have also clapped for RR's post restraining Shri Chandru. Looks as though your sympathies are with the other side but you are neither able to keep quiet nor speak out your own views boldly. Are you a vaishnavite, Sir?

 

[Raji Ram]

Why are you blaming me madam? Since Smarthas have been showing utmost restraint, centuries after centuries, people are taking advantage of it.

We need to retaliate if situation arises.

Read all posts and review the terminologies used - for eg. semon

Dear Chandru Sir,
That objectionable post and one of yours got deleted, though the former is still in one of the quotes in your post. Record!! :ranger:

The self appointed saviours of Vishnu will jump in, to attack, if you start degrading Krishna. For heavens sake stop such posts

so that those saviours will also :tape:. BTW, it is very disturbing to see such derogatory posts in a Tamil brahmin forum!

Let eace: prevail!

 

[sangom]

Refutation:

(1) MahAnArAyaNa upaniSad says:

puruSasya vidhma sahasrAkshasya mahAdevasya DheemaHi tannO rudraH prachOdayAt

tat puruSAya vidhmahe, mahAdevAya DheemaHi, tannO rudraH prachOdayAt

It also says tat pruSa to so many other deities like vakra-tundA (danti- GaneshA), chakra-tundA (nandi), mahAsenA (SanmukhA), including suvarNa-pakshi GarudA.

There is no point to adding exclusivity of puruSa to Vishnu alone

(2) Shree sUktam, which is also a Rg vedic composition on Shree or Lakshmi, does not make even a passing reference to Vishnu as her consort.

(3) There is no mention of even the word “viSnu” in puruSa-sUktam, if at all it makes a mention of anyone it makes a reference to “prajApati” and he is referred to as “kA” or Brahma in Yajur veda.

(4) The connection of viSnu to puruSa-sUktam, by adding uttara-nArayaNam as an appendage is tenuous at best, because the only sentence that is supposed to connect viSnu is “hreescha te lakshmeescha patnyou”. Any person possessing working knowledge Sanskrit will tell that “hree” and “lakshmee” as consorts (meaning modesty and prosperity) are used merely metaphorically as the very next line says “aho rAtre pArshvE”, meaning one who has days and nights as his two sides. If anything, this line (second line) would be more applicable to sUrya Bhagwan than viSnu.

(5) Hree is never referred to viSnu patni in any one of the scriptures.

(6) To equate “Aditya varNam” of puruSa sUktam with mAyOn is a long stretch of imagination.

It is very likely that a “fusion” of vedic Visnu and mAyOn took place in the distant post, but to say that vaishnavism is advocated by vedAs would be incorrect.

Thank you, Shri Narayanan, for your timely intervention!

 

[zebra16]

To propagate Bhakti one needs to create a mental enemy

This sentence is worth its weight in gold.

 

[Vaagmi]

Mr Vaagmi:

No one should put up with 'put downs' of their faith.

The question is who determines what is a 'put down/needling' and 'what the right response should be'. It is not that obvious. There is a fine line between protecting a faith and becoming an extremist.

There are stories that Rama worshiped Siva in certain versions of Ramayana. Some think that is how Rameswaram is named.

Why should a post like that be considered an attack against Vaishnavism??? After all people who say that may worship Siva and Vishnu both.

I do not think anyone cared to 'needle' you when they post about Rameswaram. I do not think it is a provocation at all.

I do know some under the banner of hitting Vaishanvism had motives to put down Brahmins overallor. That is entirely different and calls for a united front - brahmins and non-brahmins - that no one need to be put down for who they are or what their tradition is.

Worshiping Vishnu is not the exclusive domain of Vaishnavas. Worshiping Krishna is not an exclusive domain of Hare Krishna people. Worshiping Siva is not an exclusive domain of Saivites only.

Each can have their god, need not claim exclusivity and need not think there is one god for all of humanity. All they can say is their god is so and so. That thinking by ALL will reform all children here.

Mr/Mrs/Miss a-TB,

Thank you for the lecturing.

Please read the thread Think or Stink carefully once more. Note down the chronological order of the posts. somebody said Rama worshiped Siva at Rameswaram. I said Valmiki or Kamba Ramayana which are the authentic texts available from which the various episodes of Rama's time are known today, have no where mentioned that Rama worshipped Siva and I asked for the reference if there is any. I did not start the argument for any needling this time. It was a plain questioning of a lie posted here. And then hell broke lose. And we are all here lecturing left and right. I was threatened with annihilation by a senior member in the forum. She went to the extent of calling me names --a stalker who stalked her trying to know her phone number and identity, a dirty God who took avatars to come back again and again to torment her here etc., etc., The pity is that those who come here now to lecture because of a no-nonsense fight that I have deliberately taken up, were no where there with their advices/lectures to that senior member even after days of her post. Praveen had been thoughtful and deleted that post quietly (without advising the member about her misdemeanor) which he does rarely (he uses red ink to first chastise and warn which he did not do this time). And 'a TB' was no where near the scene when I was abused.

Let me make it clear.

I have nothing against any vedic god. I do not belong to any kazhagam. But barbs at vaishnavas will be instantly understood and replied to. I have friends who are smarthas. We engage in decent exchange of arguments in other forums.

A 'put down' does not require a definition. It is understood by every one well

For 'the right response' also there can not be any definition.

A put down when presented should be pointed out by the forum manager. But as he is pressed for time many a time it goes unnoticed by him. When some one decides enough is enough and responds, further put-downs follow and it becomes an issue.

I do not care as long as intelligent and matured people in this forum understand my fight for justice.

I intend to follow the following method of defence in future:

The first time an arrow is shot at vaishnavam, I will identify it as one copy paste it and point out by just a word Arrow No.1. When the next arrow comes I will identify the same way and say Arrow No.2. and when the third one comes I will again identify it as arrow No.3 and then start my counter. I hope this keep people forewarned.

 

[Vaagmi]

Most of us here are very orthodox women who prefer males to take the lead in everything.

So there is no feminist in forum..feminist in my opinion are the greatest fools..they scream for all the wrong reasons and end up doing all work themselves.

Its better to "glorify" males and let them become our emotional slaves!LOL

So let it be Ramalingam or Jambulingam! No complains!

That sounds Machiavellian. Kudos. LOL.

 

[Raji Ram]

1. There is an option for every member to delete posts on second thoughts! This is time bound.

2. For some more-then-equal members, the posts are deleted - if reported - by the moderator, without red ink!

3. For others, red ink is given by the moderator.

And.......... there is no point in fighting over non existing posts!

 

[renuka]

1. There is an option for every member to delete posts on second thoughts! This is time bound.

2. For some more-then-equal members, the posts are deleted - if reported - by the moderator, without red ink!

3. For others, red ink is given by the moderator.

And.......... there is no point in fighting over non existing posts!

Dear RR ji,

Why spoil all the drama?

Let all types of fights comes from all directions!LOL

 

[zebra16]

Dear RR ji,

Why spoil all the drama?

Let all types of fights comes from all directions!LOL

A variant of Aano Bhadra kratvo yAntu vishwataH..? lol

 

[auh]

...

To propagate Bhakti one needs to create a mental enemy....most Bhakti movements are weak and they know they cant stand if no mental enemy is created...

I have my doubts about the highlighted; would a child require to be taught about hatred in order to love its mother? Bakthi, as taught, is about realizing that somebody up there is a mother/father to us...

disclaimer : I am not endorsing any particular movement here but merely pointing out a perspective...

 

[auh]

Dear Chandru Sir,

Please stop asking childish question and try to degrade the Gods/ Goddesses and get similar replies from others!

It is a always good to live and let live. Thank you!

Well said !

 

[zebra16]

I have my doubts about the highlighted; would a child require to be taught about hatred in order to love its mother? Bakthi, as taught, is about realizing that somebody up there is a mother/father to us...

disclaimer : I am not endorsing any particular movement here but merely pointing out a perspective...

I think there are a few loosely defined/equated terms in your doubt.

(a) If Bhakti = love, why is it being taught, unlike love for mother which flows naturally in a child.

(b) Evidence is lacking that somebody up there is a like a mother/father to us, because most of the petitions of the children here is dismissed out of hand.

(c) We have other "children" over here who mock at the children making appeals to their upstairs parents and say the petitioning children are delusional.

 

[renuka]

A variant of Aano Bhadra kratvo yAntu vishwataH..? lol

You read my mind!LOL

 

[renuka]

I have my doubts about the highlighted; would a child require to be taught about hatred in order to love its mother? Bakthi, as taught, is about realizing that somebody up there is a mother/father to us...

disclaimer : I am not endorsing any particular movement here but merely pointing out a perspective...

A child is not 'taught' to love his mother..it comes naturally..its a mammalian instinct..even animals display this even though animals do not have the God concept.

 

[auh]

A child is not 'taught' to love his mother..it comes naturally..its a mammalian instinct..even animals display this even though animals do not have the God concept.

You failed to see the connect; I am merely saying that Bhakthi is helping a child realize his parent... through acceptance and love, and not through an 'mental enemy'.

 

[auh]

I think there are a few loosely defined/equated terms in your doubt.

(a) If Bhakti = love, why is it being taught, unlike love for mother which flows naturally in a child.

A child who thinks he is an orphan needs to be slowly taken to understand that there is a parent. Hence the 'taught'.

(b) Evidence is lacking that somebody up there is a like a mother/father to us, because most of the petitions of the children here is dismissed out of hand.

I do not disagree with this. I merely pointed out that bhakti is not done by creating an enemy. I am not taking sides here.

(c) We have other "children" over here who mock at the children making appeals to their upstairs parents and say the petitioning children are delusional.

So what? When each child can have a different parent on earth, why cannnot it happen above?

 

[renuka]

I am merely saying that Bhakthi is helping a child realize his parent...

You mean to say without Bhakti one does not "know" his parents?

That sounds very out of the "wedlock"!LOL

 

[zebra16]

You failed to see the connect; I am merely saying that Bhakthi is helping a child realize his parent... through acceptance and love, and not through an 'mental enemy'.

May be a "mental enemy" is needed to reject those, who the child is being "taught" not to realize as his parent?

 

[auh]

You mean to say without Bhakti one does not "know" his parents?

No. Bhakthi is akin to a child's love for his parent. When a child knows, it loves.

May be a "mental enemy" is needed to reject those, who the child is being "taught" not to realize as his parent?

Maybe, but when teaching a language, say english, one need not say that a particular letter is not english. Of course, some may choose to do so, but again, as I said, it is a perspective.

 

[Raji Ram]

It is said that you think of the person whom you hate most, for most of the time!

Example: Kamsa!

Moral: Don't :boink: nonstop with someone because others might think ............ :lol:

 

[Vaagmi]

1. There is an option for every member to delete posts on second thoughts! This is time bound.

2. For some more-then-equal members, the posts are deleted - if reported - by the moderator, without red ink!

3. For others, red ink is given by the moderator.

And.......... there is no point in fighting over non existing posts!

A member can come here, post a few stupid things followed by shooting out abuses directed at another member for questioning those stupid things posted. All the friends of the said member enjoy the drama chuckling and laughing all the time without uttering a word in protest at the bad mouthing antics. Then after a few days of leaving the post to be read by all, the deviant member quietly deletes that original abusive post. There comes a good samaritan kindred soul who says he/she is shifting the discussion by opening a fresh thread hoping that all the abuse showered will be forgotten at the waving of the magic wand. And the same crowd which was enjoying the drama from vantage points will all come out and start lecturing about what God is, what religion is etc., etc.,

The moderator will not issue any warning to the member who did the mischief because the member is perhaps more than equal.

And finally the kindred soul/samaritan will very liberally tell all that "there is no point in fighting over non existing posts!".

The bttom line is that the member who made allegations and abused personally another member goes scot free. No apology, no pulling up and no consequences. Great indeed.

 

[Raji Ram]

Vaagmi Sir forgets that he and some others are ALSO more than equal! :thumb:

When reported, their posts vanish off in thin air, without ANY trace of red!

There is one such post, left in a quote, for records, perhaps!

Okay! It is high time I give up this endless and meaningless discussion.

 

[zebra16]

Vaagmi Sir forgets that he and some others are ALSO more than equal! :thumb:

When reported, their posts vanish off in thin air, without ANY trace of red!

There is one such post, left in a quote, for records, perhaps!

Okay! It is high time I give up this endless and meaningless discussion.

Ok.. Back to the basics.

Who was that Other Rama...?

 

[Vaagmi]

Vaagmi Sir forgets that he and some others are ALSO more than equal! :thumb:

When reported, their posts vanish off in thin air, without ANY trace of red!

There is one such post, left in a quote, for records, perhaps!

Okay! It is high time I give up this endless and meaningless discussion.

You should always read one or a few posts prior to those posts of me. You would know that they are always reactions to some post. If anything it is I who should protest the vanishing and not you. I want my posts to be there because they are mostly a cry in anguish and pain. They would remain sign posts for unreasonable provocative posts by others. Please show me a single instance where I have provoked someone first.

Perhaps the moderator thinks that the reactions and actions go out together into the dustbin. Until another day, another provocation and another reaction. Poor soul. He is facing the toughest situation.

A false equivalence may be okay for you but not for me.

 

[a-TB]

Shri a-TB,

you have in a way, chastised me in this thread here and you have also clapped for RR's post restraining Shri Chandru. Looks as though your sympathies are with the other side but you are neither able to keep quiet nor speak out your own views boldly. Are you a vaishnavite, Sir?

Dear Mr Sangom - Just replied to your post in the other thread. I had no intention to chastise anyone, certainly not you! I am not a vaishnavite, just come from a smartha family. But I have limited exposure to our scriptures compared to many here.

I have no sympathies with any side - simply that if a person has a god in his style or worship (even a cult) he can maintain that within his religious group. Why come and put the other side down like Mr Vaagmi and Mr Chandru do periodically? They both say it is because they were provoked first which to my limited knowledge does not make sense.