look boss I am a second generation delhi tamil . I have no faith in rituals or reciting slokas to purify my soul. hence challenge to recite shaivite slokas i can take up though I have an iyengar label since birth.since i know hindi,sanskrit is not a problem . when i have no work i can occupy myself with such slokas. This will be a good time pass as they say in north
-
This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
-
Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Why so much animosity??
- Thread starter amoghvarsha
- Start date
- Status
I am a North-Indian( As for Brahmin by orgininal definition I presume I am not yet). But Cann't understand How knowing Hindi helps to learn Sanskrit as Hindi is itself heavily persianized. I find people of South more fluent in Sanskrit.
Coming to the topic ,my queries were converted into again a battleground b/w Iyengars and Iyers, Smarthas and Vaishnavas. I wanted to know basically Why so much enmity between Shaivites and Vaishnavites in TN, when there the expression of monism( Smatha Tradition) is deep-rooted theoritically. Is it coz they didn't have to face much persecutions as Northerners in the name of religion?? Historic Answers Plz?? I just wanted to know cann't a person be a Shaiva, Vaishnava and Sakta all in one ( As Smarthas presumely believe) considering manifestations of Brahman. I am just giving my example(Not in praising sense), I personally feel myself more near to Lord ShriKrishna, but I also like Lord Rama, Lord Shiva, Maa Shakti, etc and am not hesitant to go their temples. Rather I also like to go to Gurudwara( for Langars.....), Church, Jain Temples. And if given a chance can go to mosque also.
As for Vaagmij's ques:
If you are a Hindu, have you ever thought as to why we should have so many gods? A Vishnu, a Shiva, a brahma, a Ganesh, a Muruga etc, etc,? God can be just only one. Is it not so?
I don't know the Answer to this as it would be better known to ones who compiled Hinduism. Although u can hopefully get one good explaination in Upanishad Ganga( Epi-38--Akbar_Birbal discussion){ Provided u know Hindi as the serial is in Hindi). For me, definition of Hindus is a guy who broadly adheres to the philosophy of Upanishads( acceptance of whole) and knows How to discover god in anything possible & who has no hesitation to accept any deity as manifestation of Supreme. Kindly stick to the queries' solution and don't get offtracked to just Iyer-Iyengar business. Its my humble request to all the " Rasiks" and " Jigyasus" on this forum.......
I don't know the Answer to this as it would be better known to ones who compiled Hinduism. Although u can hopefully get one good explaination in Upanishad Ganga( Epi-38--Akbar_Birbal discussion){ Provided u know Hindi as the serial is in Hindi). For me, definition of Hindus is a guy who broadly adheres to the philosophy of Upanishads( acceptance of whole) and knows How to discover god in anything possible & who has no hesitation to accept any deity as manifestation of Supreme. Kindly stick to the queries' solution and don't get offtracked to just Iyer-Iyengar business. Its my humble request to all the " Rasiks" and " Jigyasus" on this forum.......
renuka
Well-known member
Dear Krish ji,
Many people think that by knowing Hindi..Sanskrit should not be a problem..but if you ask me..a person who knew nuts about Hindi and not even knowing the Devanagari script when I first started my journey of self study of Sanskrit all I can say is knowing Hindi does not really aid knowing Sanskrit that much..the only thing in common is the Devanagari script.
The grammar for Sanskrit and regional languages are very different.Paninis Sutras are a proof for this.
For example as far as I know most regional languages only have Singular and Plural and only Sanskrit has Dual besided Singular and Plural.
Hindi does not have VisargaH like Sanskrit.
Most regional languages are similar in grammar pattern..the way we say "I am son of Rama" in Tamil and Hindi is not that different but in Sanskrit it has its Genetive case endings which differs depending on the final letter. This is not seen in Regional Languages.
The knowledge of Sanskrit does improves ones Hindi or Tamil etc..after knowing Sanskrit I can read Hindi and also know enough to understand at least 90% of songs and enough to watch a Movie and also enough to understand Gaalis!LOL..even my Tamil has improved after knowing Sanskrit..previously while watching old Tamil movies if the word Abharanam was used I would be wondering what it was..now I know it means Ornament.
Last edited:
C
CHANDRU1849
Guest
Chandru1849 can also express in lower case.
No doubt, Ramanujar was responsible for the growth of SV.
In my earlier blog, I said Adi Sankar might not be a Saivite, but it was denied. Adi Sankara might have belonged to Krishna Cult, since be belonged to Namboodri Sect, which might have prompted to do translation of some Vaishnative works. Therefore, the usual photograph of Adi Sankara with 'Vibhuthi' in three clear lines may be a wrong indication.
The presiding deity of Smarthas is Lord Shiva and the primary requirement is sporting 'Vibhuthi' and giving importance to Saivite Gods and Works. Religious leaders who sport 'Vibhuthi' must at first give prominence to Saivism. Sankara Mutts have no right to deviate. Sankara Mutts are getting most of the support from Smarthas and like minded Hindus, mostly from Saivites. The binding factor is 'Vibhuthi'.
Generations after generations, Smarthas give prominence to Vaishanavism. Then, where is the question of Smartha principle.
If Smarthas follow the principles correctly, it would have reduced the importance of Iyengars in Tamil Nadu. Unfortunately, it is not so.
sangom
0
Shri Amoghavarsha,
Let me give what little I have learned so far.
"Hindu" was the name given to all the people, tribes - wild and civilized - who lived beyond (i.e., to the east of) the Sindhu river group, by the people who lived just to the west of that river system. The word "Haftahendu" appears, for the first time, perhaps, in the Zend Avesta, the scripture of the Parsis or Zoroastrians. Hence the 'hindu' nomenclature has nothing to do with the Upanishads, their philosophy, finding some god or the other in anything and everything, etc.
The primitive (i.e., the most ancient) hindus knew one scripture which has now come down to us in the form of "Rigveda"; this is possibly the most ancient poetic/literary work by mankind which has come down to us without any damage, or, at least, with the minimum damage. These rigvedic people believed in a pantheon of many devas/devatas headed by Indra, agni, mitra, varuna, vaayu, aaditya/s, aswinee kumaras, and so on. They thought that fire (or a sacrificial fire lit in accordance with certain prescribed procedures and rules) alone represented the exhibited form of all the devas and that it was the same sacrificial fire which was the conduit (or internet connection!) between the world of these many devas (called 'svarloka') and humans. Hence they, like many other more ancient peoples of this world, called upon or appealed to each deva by saying 'swaahaa' (which means 'may your coming be good', i.e., welcome in different way) and offered whatever they thought would please each of these devas, into the sacrificial fire. The dead body of humans are also similarly offered into a sacrificial fire to the deva of death and the king of the world of the dead, Yama, in our cremation rite.
The sacrifices became most elaborate, intricate and involving the killing of many animals, as time passed and the priesthood managing this rigvedic religion tended to make their position unquestioned and to make maximum benefit out of their priestly duties. Opposition arose in several ways at several periods, to this high-handedness of the priests and the wanton cruelty to animals, despicable practices mandatory in some of the yaagas, and so on. The Chaarvakas (Lokaayatikas) who preached atheism, the aajeevikas who selected a nomadic mendicant life and disowned the vedas, Buddhism and Jainism both of which held the vedas to be worthless, etc., were the direct attack suffered by those vedic , sacrifice-oriented lifestyle. Alongside, there grew another discordant note from within their own people themselves and these differing voices were expressed in what we call today as the "Upanishads". Hence, when we eulogize the upanishads, we are, in a certain sense, deprecating the vedic way of life, but our people have very cleverly packaged the upanishads into the primary 'hinduism' bundle in such a way that upanishads came to be known widely as "vedanta" or ultimate destination of the vedas. (It is similar to Columbus travelling westwards to reach Asia/India but ended in discovering the Americas.)
The notions like an all-pervading creator god, finding that god in anything and everything (but quite significantly, they do not find this god in despicable items like urine, excreta, after-birth, menstrual fluid/discharge, etc.) are all part of the upanishadic teachings.
Now coming to your crucial doubt about animosity between Vaishnavites and non-vaishnavites, There are two reasons for such animosity being more visible in the south. One, because the rulers themselves practised either saivism or vaishnavism with great ferbour which meant animosity to the opposing pov. Two, chastising influence like the Islamic invasion and imposition of Islam as in the north was experienced very little in the southern most parts. But today, there is very little of animosity between the twoschisms but exclusivity is practised to a large extent still.
N
Nara
Guest
Do you have any authoritative Dharmashastra text to support this claim, or is it just your theory?
Are you saying that Smarthas have been Vaishnavas for generations and therefore there is no Smartha principle?
You are back to Smartha principles, what are they and don't just say Lord Shiva and Vibhuthi, give some justification for it.
Respected Sangomji,
Ur answer to my query is very useful and valuable. Very Thankful to ur response, although major part of it deals with with status of Upanishads and growth of development of thoughts in Hindus ( query of Vaagmiji), nevertheless this one is an interesting and important topic & I would love to share and gain with other members regarding it. As for a Christian "problem of evil" is a dilemma same is for Hindu regarding " definition of Hinduism". Thus I would love to deviate from my query for this healthy discussion.
Coming to Haptahendu, most probably u would be aware its ( presumebly) original Sanskrit word is SaptaSindhu( found in RV 4.28-1, 2.12-3) and it was the region of Punjab( Pak Punjab at the core) to which Aryans expanded from current West. UP and Haryana region( Read History of Rigveda by S.Talageri).
Rigveda's language is so old that its very hard to find the coherence of thought in it( Talageri although with reliable tools has come upon the internal chronology of RV). At one point seers talk about mundane things like money, wealth, victory in war, etc and on the other hand we come upon very profound statements( Nasadiya Sukta, Asya Vamasya sukta, Vamadeva suktas,etc). From Talageri's book one may infer that most these seers were perhaps singing for their patrons ,themselves or their people( Imagum Rudraya tavase karadine.....-RV 01.114-1 also part of Shri RudraNamakam) which at later point were compiled into present form. How much effective was their prayers, their actual meanings, etc are matter of speculations as we are long cutoff from them. Actually Vedas are full of contradictions. U may find polytheism, pantheism, Monism, Monotheism( Read 01.89-10 and Purusha Sukta), Agnosticism, etc in same book. For example refer RV 2.1-Hymn by Gritsamadas Shaunuhotra for Agni and u may find seeds of monism while same Rishi in 2.31-32 praises various gods( seems polytheism). Agastya MaitraVaruni talks about Brihaspati in 1.190 while abruptly switches to insects in 1.191 . Rigveda doesn't even seem like a religious book of modern religions( although if u read Arya Samaj interpretations it looks like it is Highest). In rigveda u can find blabberings of a gambler, prayer to press-stones, ghee, Weapons of War, and amazingly mockery of their own practises( as we think now) in Frog hymn(07.103). Even gods' positions also differ. At one point Indra is shown as a macho personality while at another place he is shown to be afraid also.
Perhaps Rigveda was a kind of Encyclopaedia of its time thus it was declared to be Eternal knowledge. Thus reading RV only shows the development in Hindu minds. As for Upanishads, U will find Older Upanishads( Redacted directly from Brahmanas or Aranyakas like BrihadAranyaka, Chhandogya, Aitreya, Taittirya,Kena, etc) conforming completely to Vedas. They contain direct quotations from Samhitas like In BrihadUp and Aitreya Up, Vamadeva suktas( From 4th mandala) are directly quoted to show nature of enlightenment while in Svetashvatara Up and Mundaka Up suktas from celebrated Asya Vamasya hymn are there. Almost all the peace prayers in Upanishads r from Samhitas. But yet Mundaka and Katha Up show theoritical knowledge of Samhitas and rituals as of lower level( Undoubtely). There is definitely a pattern of evolution in understanding the reality in Hinduism. It starts with rustic but simple hymns of Samhitas to the complex philosophies of Prasthantrayi and ShadDarshanas. And perhaps these evolutions and amalgamations are the reasons for its survival as well as its simultaneous outlook of ancientness and modernness. The religion which doesn't evolve continuously go into oblivion like Nordic, Greek and Egyptian religions. If u see all major religions, u may find this evolution pattern. Obviously in Hinduism, amalgamation and evolution is most due to its most ancient roots. for example: The most ancient Abrahamic religion of Judaism is said to have started with a favourite national god of " Jehovah" as Murugan is favourite god of Tamils. They used to practise sacrifice but abandoned it with course of time. Christianity is full of myriad examples of amalgamation of local cultures to suite the taste of local Christians. Buddha and Mahavira never instructed to make his idol and worship it. And yet across India and other countries u may see their idols worshipped no less than a god. They would have dumbfounded to see these practices among their "disciples". But Buddhism changed itself according to the countries it was propagated. The beauty of Hinduism lies in the diversity and yet a coherence in it throughout Indian subcontinent.
One more point, the range of yagyas is very broad acc. to orthodox definition. Almost all forms of worship, rituals, meditation, contemplation, etc constitute a Yagya. Samhitas and Brahmanas talk of outer yagya while Aranyakas and Upanishads talk of inner yagya( Mano yagyen Kalpatam, Atma Yagyen kalpatam). One thing is certain, as Isavaya Upanishad (Shukla YajurVeda- 40th chapter), commands one should accept the reality as whole including all contradictions. Therfore, Perhaps most of Hindus try to live with their interpretations as well as all the contradictions available around them to form a holistic society.
Now coming to main topic, U stated about the animosity among rulers due to their faith, but there seems to be contradictions in the nature of people in South & North in ancient & modern times. In our times, we find Northerners more radical and intolerant towards other religions than Southies, but acc to your attestation( about SouthIndian rulers-what I interpreted) it seems in olden days North-Indian rulers( mostly-except some sporadic cases) seem to be more tolerant towards other religions. I don't know How much part of this was played by the clergy in encouraging & instructing the ruling class. But often in olden days, rulers were quite influenced by the Purohits and their views about other sects. Thus it seems these animosities were also were brainchild of less tolerant priests and theologians of Kings.
Ur answer to my query is very useful and valuable. Very Thankful to ur response, although major part of it deals with with status of Upanishads and growth of development of thoughts in Hindus ( query of Vaagmiji), nevertheless this one is an interesting and important topic & I would love to share and gain with other members regarding it. As for a Christian "problem of evil" is a dilemma same is for Hindu regarding " definition of Hinduism". Thus I would love to deviate from my query for this healthy discussion.
Coming to Haptahendu, most probably u would be aware its ( presumebly) original Sanskrit word is SaptaSindhu( found in RV 4.28-1, 2.12-3) and it was the region of Punjab( Pak Punjab at the core) to which Aryans expanded from current West. UP and Haryana region( Read History of Rigveda by S.Talageri).
Rigveda's language is so old that its very hard to find the coherence of thought in it( Talageri although with reliable tools has come upon the internal chronology of RV). At one point seers talk about mundane things like money, wealth, victory in war, etc and on the other hand we come upon very profound statements( Nasadiya Sukta, Asya Vamasya sukta, Vamadeva suktas,etc). From Talageri's book one may infer that most these seers were perhaps singing for their patrons ,themselves or their people( Imagum Rudraya tavase karadine.....-RV 01.114-1 also part of Shri RudraNamakam) which at later point were compiled into present form. How much effective was their prayers, their actual meanings, etc are matter of speculations as we are long cutoff from them. Actually Vedas are full of contradictions. U may find polytheism, pantheism, Monism, Monotheism( Read 01.89-10 and Purusha Sukta), Agnosticism, etc in same book. For example refer RV 2.1-Hymn by Gritsamadas Shaunuhotra for Agni and u may find seeds of monism while same Rishi in 2.31-32 praises various gods( seems polytheism). Agastya MaitraVaruni talks about Brihaspati in 1.190 while abruptly switches to insects in 1.191 . Rigveda doesn't even seem like a religious book of modern religions( although if u read Arya Samaj interpretations it looks like it is Highest). In rigveda u can find blabberings of a gambler, prayer to press-stones, ghee, Weapons of War, and amazingly mockery of their own practises( as we think now) in Frog hymn(07.103). Even gods' positions also differ. At one point Indra is shown as a macho personality while at another place he is shown to be afraid also.
Perhaps Rigveda was a kind of Encyclopaedia of its time thus it was declared to be Eternal knowledge. Thus reading RV only shows the development in Hindu minds. As for Upanishads, U will find Older Upanishads( Redacted directly from Brahmanas or Aranyakas like BrihadAranyaka, Chhandogya, Aitreya, Taittirya,Kena, etc) conforming completely to Vedas. They contain direct quotations from Samhitas like In BrihadUp and Aitreya Up, Vamadeva suktas( From 4th mandala) are directly quoted to show nature of enlightenment while in Svetashvatara Up and Mundaka Up suktas from celebrated Asya Vamasya hymn are there. Almost all the peace prayers in Upanishads r from Samhitas. But yet Mundaka and Katha Up show theoritical knowledge of Samhitas and rituals as of lower level( Undoubtely). There is definitely a pattern of evolution in understanding the reality in Hinduism. It starts with rustic but simple hymns of Samhitas to the complex philosophies of Prasthantrayi and ShadDarshanas. And perhaps these evolutions and amalgamations are the reasons for its survival as well as its simultaneous outlook of ancientness and modernness. The religion which doesn't evolve continuously go into oblivion like Nordic, Greek and Egyptian religions. If u see all major religions, u may find this evolution pattern. Obviously in Hinduism, amalgamation and evolution is most due to its most ancient roots. for example: The most ancient Abrahamic religion of Judaism is said to have started with a favourite national god of " Jehovah" as Murugan is favourite god of Tamils. They used to practise sacrifice but abandoned it with course of time. Christianity is full of myriad examples of amalgamation of local cultures to suite the taste of local Christians. Buddha and Mahavira never instructed to make his idol and worship it. And yet across India and other countries u may see their idols worshipped no less than a god. They would have dumbfounded to see these practices among their "disciples". But Buddhism changed itself according to the countries it was propagated. The beauty of Hinduism lies in the diversity and yet a coherence in it throughout Indian subcontinent.
One more point, the range of yagyas is very broad acc. to orthodox definition. Almost all forms of worship, rituals, meditation, contemplation, etc constitute a Yagya. Samhitas and Brahmanas talk of outer yagya while Aranyakas and Upanishads talk of inner yagya( Mano yagyen Kalpatam, Atma Yagyen kalpatam). One thing is certain, as Isavaya Upanishad (Shukla YajurVeda- 40th chapter), commands one should accept the reality as whole including all contradictions. Therfore, Perhaps most of Hindus try to live with their interpretations as well as all the contradictions available around them to form a holistic society.
Now coming to main topic, U stated about the animosity among rulers due to their faith, but there seems to be contradictions in the nature of people in South & North in ancient & modern times. In our times, we find Northerners more radical and intolerant towards other religions than Southies, but acc to your attestation( about SouthIndian rulers-what I interpreted) it seems in olden days North-Indian rulers( mostly-except some sporadic cases) seem to be more tolerant towards other religions. I don't know How much part of this was played by the clergy in encouraging & instructing the ruling class. But often in olden days, rulers were quite influenced by the Purohits and their views about other sects. Thus it seems these animosities were also were brainchild of less tolerant priests and theologians of Kings.
Raji Ram
Active member
While every member here is in :flame: arguments, I am just seeing the lighter side!
It is NOT 'adhu' added to the items! :lol: It is 'amudhu' added. So 'fishadhu' etc., have no meaning!
BTW, I learnt from my friend that 'sAththamudhu' (sAru + amudhu) means 'rasam' and there is no 'rasamadhu'!
prasad1
Active member
There seems to be too many confusions.
I know of Vaisnav Smarthas. WE belong to this group, My uncles used to have namam and tilakam just like Iyangars.
In my fathers family all the boys ware given vaishnav names, and our kuladaivam is Venkatajalapathi.
Secondly smarthas are not Shivites.
Smartha Sampradaya is an orthodox Hindu "family tradition" composed of Brahmins," certain category of brahmins", which follows Shanmata. The term Smārtha is used to denote a specific, specialized category of Brahmins, who specialize in the smriti, c.q. who hold the smriti as the most authoritative texts.
I know of Vaisnav Smarthas. WE belong to this group, My uncles used to have namam and tilakam just like Iyangars.
In my fathers family all the boys ware given vaishnav names, and our kuladaivam is Venkatajalapathi.
Secondly smarthas are not Shivites.
Smartha Sampradaya is an orthodox Hindu "family tradition" composed of Brahmins," certain category of brahmins", which follows Shanmata. The term Smārtha is used to denote a specific, specialized category of Brahmins, who specialize in the smriti, c.q. who hold the smriti as the most authoritative texts.
My feeling was since both hindi and sanskrit have devanagri scrpit ,and tamil as spoken by upper castes has many sanskrit words such as jalam ,theertham and the like it should not be difficult. I was forced to recite some sanskrit mantras during my marriage whose meaning I do not know even today,hence I thought I could get away reciting a few verses in sanskrit
I got educated by your elaboration on sanskrit grammar
on gaalis ,do you recognise sanskrit gaalis . are they any different from hindi ones
renuka
Well-known member
Dear Krish Ji,
As far as I know there are no documented Sanskrit Gaalis but I have coined a few!LOL
Till today the best of Gaalis are in Punjabi and Tamil..totally power packed..no doubt about that.
Jalam,teertham etc that everyone knows yaar..whether upper caste or not.
See one Sanskrit word Kasmalam has become a Tamil Gaali!
Marriage mantras I had no problem cos I used to read about those even before I studied Sanskrit and I used to wonder that the marriage mantra before tying Thali is in 1st person that means the priest is marrying the bride!!ha ha ha
So you see the groom should be made to recite the mantra or at least the grammar changed to 3rd person.
Sanskrit is not that all hard to study..its vast thats all..and its a never ending journey..when I look at my collection of books I start to wonder how many lives would it take me to learn even what I have.
C
CHANDRU1849
Guest
Being a Vaishnavite, first you try to find out what or who makes a good Vaishanavite
Brahmin.
Iyers have four sub-sects, whereas Iyengars have predominently two - Vadagalai
and Thengalai (how many are hidden - I don'nt know). Iyers, who are supposed
to be Saivites, must worship only God and not godmen like Rama and Krishna,
who are supposedly the forefathers of subsequent godmen in India.
Iyers should also keep a certain distance from Iyengars; but unfortunately it is not
happening.
chandru ji you have staged a comeback without capital letters
I was indicating that I know very little about iyers
you can approach ashwin ji about hidden kalais of iyengars
iyengars like parsis are a rare species, small in number and keep away from everyone else without discrimination
Last edited:
Last edited:
sangom
0
There are/were a few such smaartha families in Srivaikuntam (near Tirunelveli) and elsewhere in T.Nadu, but the vibhuti-wearing smaarthas refer to them as நாமம் போடறவன் (one who is likely to swindle you!). I hope that explains.
prasad1
Active member
There are/were a few such smaartha families in Srivaikuntam (near Tirunelveli) and elsewhere in T.Nadu, but the vibhuti-wearing smaarthas refer to them as நாமம் போடறவன் (one who is likely to swindle you!). I hope that explains.
Thanks for the explanation as well as the snide remarks (particularly after I identified myself as one of them).
My point was that Smarthas are not Shiva Bhaktas alone.
Adi Shankara wrote Bhasyam on Vishnu Saharanama, he is also credited with writing Kanakdhara Strotram, in praise of Lakshmi.
I wanted to dispel the myth that Smarthas are Shivites.
Smartas have free rein to choose whichever deity they wish to worship. They usually worship five deities (Pancopasana) or Panchadevata as personal formful manifestations of the impersonal Absolute, Brahman. Smartas accept and worship the six manifestations of God (Ganesha, Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu, Surya, and Skanda) and the choice of the nature of God is up to the individual worshiper since different manifestations of God are held to be equivalent. It is nonsectarian.
It is the Smarta view that dominates the view of Hinduism in the West as Smarta belief includes Advaita belief (Advaita was revived by Adi Sankara in India) and the first Hindu saint, who significantly brought Hinduism to the west was Swami Vivekananda, an adherent of Advaita. Not till much later, gurus, such as A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, and others, brought a Vaishnavite perspective to the West.
In contrast with the Smarta/Advaita belief, the Vaishnavite and Shaivite beliefs teach a singular concept of God best explained as panentheistic monotheism or panentheistic monism.
renuka
Well-known member
Dear Krish ji,
What Honda,Toyota,Hyundai?
BTW Main Punjabi Nahi Hoon.
I dont know spoken Punjabi yaar....only very select important words which I am sure you also would have picked up in Delhi.
I speak Tamil fairly well.
Last edited:
Vaagmi
0
Perhaps the fatal attraction!!!
N
Nara
Guest
I have heard from SV orthodox people that smartha iyers started wearing vibhuti on their forehead only after Appaiya Deekshithar, don't know whether true or not .....
kasmalam endral samskithil yenna artham . tamililum sollalam neenga
prasad1
Active member
Vedic scriptures say as follows "Lalaata Shoonyam Smashaana Tulyam", which means that "an empty forehead is comparable to a cemetery". So,upper caste Hindus pay special attention that their forehead is smeared with vibhooti and it remains all the time over their body in a day. Even the Almighty Lord Shiva who sports vibhuti all the time stands as an example to his followers that however one be considered as great person in this mortal world, he needs to smear his forehead and the body with holy ash prepared from a special kind of wood as he does (Lord Shiva) in the Immortal abode of Kailasa. So,it is considered by vedic scholars that even great saints,seers,yogis and the like should wear vibhuthi all the time over forehead and other parts of the body in form of three lines to make a Tripundra. Vibhuthi smeared horizontally to make three parallel lines with forefinger, middle finger and ring finger across the forehead and other parts of the body like chest, stomach, arms, elbows, wrists etc is called as Tripundra. It is mandatory for the devotees of Lord Shiva to have Tripundra over their body all the time. This is a quality among classifications of Shaivites. Those who do not wear vibhuti on forehead are wearing it on their chest and stomach, upper arms, next to the shoulders. People who smear Vibhuti purify themselves from sins and also remove the sins of people who look at them besmeared with Vibhuti.
Vibhuti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vibhuti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Respected Sangomji,
Ur answer to my query is very useful and valuable. Very Thankful to ur response, although major part of it deals with with status of Upanishads and growth of development of thoughts in Hindus ( query of Vaagmiji), nevertheless this one is an interesting and important topic & I would love to share and gain with other members regarding it. As for a Christian "problem of evil" is a dilemma same is for Hindu regarding " definition of Hinduism". Thus I would love to deviate from my query for this healthy discussion.
Coming to Haptahendu, most probably u would be aware its ( presumebly) original Sanskrit word is SaptaSindhu( found in RV 4.28-1, 2.12-3) and it was the region of Punjab( Pak Punjab at the core) to which Aryans expanded from current West. UP and Haryana region( Read History of Rigveda by S.Talageri).
Rigveda's language is so old that its very hard to find the coherence of thought in it( Talageri although with reliable tools has come upon the internal chronology of RV). At one point seers talk about mundane things like money, wealth, victory in war, etc and on the other hand we come upon very profound statements( Nasadiya Sukta, Asya Vamasya sukta, Vamadeva suktas,etc). From Talageri's book one may infer that most these seers were perhaps singing for their patrons ,themselves or their people( Imagum Rudraya tavase karadine.....-RV 01.114-1 also part of Shri RudraNamakam) which at later point were compiled into present form. How much effective was their prayers, their actual meanings, etc are matter of speculations as we are long cutoff from them. Actually Vedas are full of contradictions. U may find polytheism, pantheism, Monism, Monotheism( Read 01.89-10 and Purusha Sukta), Agnosticism, etc in same book. For example refer RV 2.1-Hymn by Gritsamadas Shaunuhotra for Agni and u may find seeds of monism while same Rishi in 2.31-32 praises various gods( seems polytheism). Agastya MaitraVaruni talks about Brihaspati in 1.190 while abruptly switches to insects in 1.191 . Rigveda doesn't even seem like a religious book of modern religions( although if u read Arya Samaj interpretations it looks like it is Highest). In rigveda u can find blabberings of a gambler, prayer to press-stones, ghee, Weapons of War, and amazingly mockery of their own practises( as we think now) in Frog hymn(07.103). Even gods' positions also differ. At one point Indra is shown as a macho personality while at another place he is shown to be afraid also.
Perhaps Rigveda was a kind of Encyclopaedia of its time thus it was declared to be Eternal knowledge. Thus reading RV only shows the development in Hindu minds. As for Upanishads, U will find Older Upanishads( Redacted directly from Brahmanas or Aranyakas like BrihadAranyaka, Chhandogya, Aitreya, Taittirya,Kena, etc) conforming completely to Vedas. They contain direct quotations from Samhitas like In BrihadUp and Aitreya Up, Vamadeva suktas( From 4th mandala) are directly quoted to show nature of enlightenment while in Svetashvatara Up and Mundaka Up suktas from celebrated Asya Vamasya hymn are there. Almost all the peace prayers in Upanishads r from Samhitas. But yet Mundaka and Katha Up show theoritical knowledge of Samhitas and rituals as of lower level( Undoubtely). There is definitely a pattern of evolution in understanding the reality in Hinduism. It starts with rustic but simple hymns of Samhitas to the complex philosophies of Prasthantrayi and ShadDarshanas. And perhaps these evolutions and amalgamations are the reasons for its survival as well as its simultaneous outlook of ancientness and modernness. The religion which doesn't evolve continuously go into oblivion like Nordic, Greek and Egyptian religions. If u see all major religions, u may find this evolution pattern. Obviously in Hinduism, amalgamation and evolution is most due to its most ancient roots. for example: The most ancient Abrahamic religion of Judaism is said to have started with a favourite national god of " Jehovah" as Murugan is favourite god of Tamils. They used to practise sacrifice but abandoned it with course of time. Christianity is full of myriad examples of amalgamation of local cultures to suite the taste of local Christians. Buddha and Mahavira never instructed to make his idol and worship it. And yet across India and other countries u may see their idols worshipped no less than a god. They would have dumbfounded to see these practices among their "disciples". But Buddhism changed itself according to the countries it was propagated. The beauty of Hinduism lies in the diversity and yet a coherence in it throughout Indian subcontinent.
One more point, the range of yagyas is very broad acc. to orthodox definition. Almost all forms of worship, rituals, meditation, contemplation, etc constitute a Yagya. Samhitas and Brahmanas talk of outer yagya while Aranyakas and Upanishads talk of inner yagya( Mano yagyen Kalpatam, Atma Yagyen kalpatam). One thing is certain, as Isavaya Upanishad (Shukla YajurVeda- 40th chapter), commands one should accept the reality as whole including all contradictions. Therfore, Perhaps most of Hindus try to live with their interpretations as well as all the contradictions available around them to form a holistic society.
Now coming to main topic, U stated about the animosity among rulers due to their faith, but there seems to be contradictions in the nature of people in South & North in ancient & modern times. In our times, we find Northerners more radical and intolerant towards other religions than Southies, but acc to your attestation( about SouthIndian rulers-what I interpreted) it seems in olden days North-Indian rulers( mostly-except some sporadic cases) seem to be more tolerant towards other religions. I don't know How much part of this was played by the clergy( Brahmin Pandas) in encouraging & instructing the ruling class. But often in olden days, rulers were quite influenced by the Purohits and their views about other sects. Thus it seems these animosities were also were brainchild of less tolerant priests of Kings.
Ur answer to my query is very useful and valuable. Very Thankful to ur response, although major part of it deals with with status of Upanishads and growth of development of thoughts in Hindus ( query of Vaagmiji), nevertheless this one is an interesting and important topic & I would love to share and gain with other members regarding it. As for a Christian "problem of evil" is a dilemma same is for Hindu regarding " definition of Hinduism". Thus I would love to deviate from my query for this healthy discussion.
Coming to Haptahendu, most probably u would be aware its ( presumebly) original Sanskrit word is SaptaSindhu( found in RV 4.28-1, 2.12-3) and it was the region of Punjab( Pak Punjab at the core) to which Aryans expanded from current West. UP and Haryana region( Read History of Rigveda by S.Talageri).
Rigveda's language is so old that its very hard to find the coherence of thought in it( Talageri although with reliable tools has come upon the internal chronology of RV). At one point seers talk about mundane things like money, wealth, victory in war, etc and on the other hand we come upon very profound statements( Nasadiya Sukta, Asya Vamasya sukta, Vamadeva suktas,etc). From Talageri's book one may infer that most these seers were perhaps singing for their patrons ,themselves or their people( Imagum Rudraya tavase karadine.....-RV 01.114-1 also part of Shri RudraNamakam) which at later point were compiled into present form. How much effective was their prayers, their actual meanings, etc are matter of speculations as we are long cutoff from them. Actually Vedas are full of contradictions. U may find polytheism, pantheism, Monism, Monotheism( Read 01.89-10 and Purusha Sukta), Agnosticism, etc in same book. For example refer RV 2.1-Hymn by Gritsamadas Shaunuhotra for Agni and u may find seeds of monism while same Rishi in 2.31-32 praises various gods( seems polytheism). Agastya MaitraVaruni talks about Brihaspati in 1.190 while abruptly switches to insects in 1.191 . Rigveda doesn't even seem like a religious book of modern religions( although if u read Arya Samaj interpretations it looks like it is Highest). In rigveda u can find blabberings of a gambler, prayer to press-stones, ghee, Weapons of War, and amazingly mockery of their own practises( as we think now) in Frog hymn(07.103). Even gods' positions also differ. At one point Indra is shown as a macho personality while at another place he is shown to be afraid also.
Perhaps Rigveda was a kind of Encyclopaedia of its time thus it was declared to be Eternal knowledge. Thus reading RV only shows the development in Hindu minds. As for Upanishads, U will find Older Upanishads( Redacted directly from Brahmanas or Aranyakas like BrihadAranyaka, Chhandogya, Aitreya, Taittirya,Kena, etc) conforming completely to Vedas. They contain direct quotations from Samhitas like In BrihadUp and Aitreya Up, Vamadeva suktas( From 4th mandala) are directly quoted to show nature of enlightenment while in Svetashvatara Up and Mundaka Up suktas from celebrated Asya Vamasya hymn are there. Almost all the peace prayers in Upanishads r from Samhitas. But yet Mundaka and Katha Up show theoritical knowledge of Samhitas and rituals as of lower level( Undoubtely). There is definitely a pattern of evolution in understanding the reality in Hinduism. It starts with rustic but simple hymns of Samhitas to the complex philosophies of Prasthantrayi and ShadDarshanas. And perhaps these evolutions and amalgamations are the reasons for its survival as well as its simultaneous outlook of ancientness and modernness. The religion which doesn't evolve continuously go into oblivion like Nordic, Greek and Egyptian religions. If u see all major religions, u may find this evolution pattern. Obviously in Hinduism, amalgamation and evolution is most due to its most ancient roots. for example: The most ancient Abrahamic religion of Judaism is said to have started with a favourite national god of " Jehovah" as Murugan is favourite god of Tamils. They used to practise sacrifice but abandoned it with course of time. Christianity is full of myriad examples of amalgamation of local cultures to suite the taste of local Christians. Buddha and Mahavira never instructed to make his idol and worship it. And yet across India and other countries u may see their idols worshipped no less than a god. They would have dumbfounded to see these practices among their "disciples". But Buddhism changed itself according to the countries it was propagated. The beauty of Hinduism lies in the diversity and yet a coherence in it throughout Indian subcontinent.
One more point, the range of yagyas is very broad acc. to orthodox definition. Almost all forms of worship, rituals, meditation, contemplation, etc constitute a Yagya. Samhitas and Brahmanas talk of outer yagya while Aranyakas and Upanishads talk of inner yagya( Mano yagyen Kalpatam, Atma Yagyen kalpatam). One thing is certain, as Isavaya Upanishad (Shukla YajurVeda- 40th chapter), commands one should accept the reality as whole including all contradictions. Therfore, Perhaps most of Hindus try to live with their interpretations as well as all the contradictions available around them to form a holistic society.
Now coming to main topic, U stated about the animosity among rulers due to their faith, but there seems to be contradictions in the nature of people in South & North in ancient & modern times. In our times, we find Northerners more radical and intolerant towards other religions than Southies, but acc to your attestation( about SouthIndian rulers-what I interpreted) it seems in olden days North-Indian rulers( mostly-except some sporadic cases) seem to be more tolerant towards other religions. I don't know How much part of this was played by the clergy( Brahmin Pandas) in encouraging & instructing the ruling class. But often in olden days, rulers were quite influenced by the Purohits and their views about other sects. Thus it seems these animosities were also were brainchild of less tolerant priests of Kings.
sangom
0
Shri Prasad,
I had absolutely no intention to make any remark about you. But when I see the posts, I can well realize that you are justified in making the accusation. At this stage I can only tender my unconditional apologies to you.
BTW, though we clash often here in this forum posts, I do not even doubt that you are a நாமம் போடறவன்.
As regards smaartha/advaitha or vaishnavite view points, my take is that all of those are misleading, driving people further and further away from Truth, as this state of affairs helps the religions, priests, temples, etc., very very much.
prasad1
Active member
Yes sir, no apology needed, but welcome and understood.
I have clashed with you and probably will clash in future, but I respect you for your knowledge (always).
I too can only claim Brahmin by birth category.
I am more of Kabir panthi than any other isms.
- Status
Share this page
Share this page
Latest posts
-
-
-
Good news for senior citizens visiting Tirupati Balaji,
- Latest: Padmanabhan Janakiraman
-
-
Latest ads
-
Wanted Fulltime care person neededLooking for a fulltime lady who can look after 80 yr old person who has dementia. She can manage...
- vashok (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Free [Bride Wanted] Bride WantedLooking for Bride - Family Oriented and brought up from Cultured Family
- SRIKANT S -(Bride Wanted) (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
-
Free [Bride Wanted] TAMIL BRAHMIN VADAMA BRIDE WANTEDMust to be willing to relocate to Bengaluru Must be willing to accommodate joint family
- self today (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Wanted [Cook Wanted] Wanted cook for Home at Gandhipuram Coimbatore. Decent Salary offeredHi, we need a female Brahmin cook for home ( 5 members family) at Coimbatore. Morning and...
- gchitra (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated: