Sri Rama Rama Rama

CHANDRU1849 said:

In front of God all are equal. There is no question of 'right or 'first opportunity'. It seems they are interested only in satisfying their ego and not Bhakti or service to God.

Regarding Adheenam, if the primary duty of Bhkthi is performed per procedure, it is in order. Other things, law will take its own course.

Click to expand...

For a mother all children are equal. But children compete with each other. That is the nature of children. Nothing good or bad about it and there is no scope to be judgmental about that.

Bhakti is not just a business process or "procedure". When bhakti is used to exploit women and to satisfy carnal cravings, it is to be condemned though the law will take its course like in the case of an ordinary man/woman. Adheenams are special and they need to follow a certain discipline and keep the police away from their doors.

You may differ. But that is just your right.

Vaagmi said:

For a mother all children are equal. But children compete with each other. That is the nature of children. Nothing good or bad about it and there is no scope to be judgmental about that.

Bhakti is not just a business process or "procedure". When bhakti is used to exploit women and to satisfy carnal cravings, it is to be condemned though the law will take its course like in the case of an ordinary man/woman. Adheenams are special and they need to follow a certain discipline and keep the police away from their doors.

You may differ. But that is just your right.

Click to expand...

How long an adult can behave like a children? God only has given different stages in human life, and expect to behave accordingly. Therefore, it is the sole responsibility of the individuals to behave according to stages/situations. You cannot put the blame on God for the misconduct, citing strange reasons.

Romance definitely plays an important role in Bhakthi, and it cannot be denied. However, it is being expressed in different forms. Major share of Krishna's popularity definitely attributes to his romance with Gopikas and Radha, which is still being talked in Bhagavatha Meals and Upanyasams, especially by Iyers (!) and the oldies are listening to it regularly, without getting bored.

In the case of Nithyananda, he did not have the guts to tell the truth about his relationship with the actress - her name also ends with 'tha'. The issue would have got buried at the first stage itself, and the channel which telecast this would have cut a sorry figure. Nithyananda hides the truth for the simple reason he believes that legal or illegal romance still plays an important role in a man's reputation. I feel, that days are over. People are not giving much importance to sex scandal these days.

thebigthinkg said:

Question

Why does Isvara tell pArvati 'Sri rAma rAma rAma iti rame rAme manorame sahasra nAma tatulyam rAma nAma varAnane".

Answer
When pArvati questions iSvara, if there is any simpler way to recite the sahasra nAma of Vishnu, iSvara answers in the above way. Often people translate, interpret this sloka in the way they wish.-TBT

Click to expand...

Interesting interpretation, and I agree. Raama is the essence of all mantras, especially the combination of the two letters ra (from the Narayana Astakshari) and ma (from the Siva Panchakshari).

This sloka is not part of the phalasruti of the Vishnu Sahasranama in the Mahabharata. It is taken from the Padmapurana, as part of the phalasruti of the (different) Vishnu Sahasranama in that Purana. However, as a sloka appropriate for daily recital, the Sishtas of yore included it in the parayana krama of the Vishnu Sahasranama of the Mahabharata, at the very end of the phalasruti.

In the sloka the question asked by parvati devi is "kenopayena laghunaa vishnornaama sahasrakam padyathe panditair nityam srothumichamyaham prabho"

ie, is there an easy way for the panditas to recite the thousand names of lord Vishnu daily.

the name pandita is defined by Adi Sankaracharya as
panda Atmavishayaa buddhiryeshaam te hi panditaah.' (Bhagavad Gita Bhashyam 2.11).

So the answer by Ishwara is applicable to such panditas.

Whereas the Vishnu Sahasranama that is frequently chanted, from the Mahabharata, is a response to some queries from Yudhishtira, like

stuvantam kam prapnuyuh manavaah subham? (ie, meant for all maanavaas, whether panditas or not)
kam arcanat praapnuyuh maanavaah subham? (ie, for all maanavaas)
kim japam mucyathe jantur janma samsaara bandhanaath? (for all creatures)

The name Raama itself is also found inside the Vishnu Sahasranama (raamo viraamo...) so it is anyway recited when one recites the Sahasranama.

thebigthinkg said:

In my understanding VSN should be very very old, may be along with Vedas, unlike other SahasranAma. I say this because many other sahasranAmas are actually names which do not give a coherent meaning when recited together.

In VSN, for eg, Visvam vishnor VashatkAro is simply 'The entire Universe is in the realm of Vishnu". "Atma Yoni Swayam JAto" means one who was self-born from the Yoni of Atma. My thesis is other sahasranAmas got written based on VSN, later.

-TBT

Click to expand...

Rig Veda says,
tamu stotaarah puurvyam yathaavida rtasya garbham januṣhaa pipartana |
aasya jaananto naama cidvivaktana mahaaste vishnoh sumatim bhajaamahe || (Rig Veda 1.156.3)

O Rishis, Praise that Vishnu as directed by your minds and through utterance of his names. That Vishnu is the garbha of Rta as expounded through vedas. Through his praises one can avoid rebirth.

Hence the recital of the names of Vishnu is apparently as old as the Rig Veda.

I read posts in this thread and I am dismayed.
People try to proclaim a Historic point by saying "I feel". What happened to fact-based arguments?
If you do not have facts, accept that Truth.
I for one do not have the scholarship and I am not gullible to have faith in these opinions.
I too can read, and judge on that basis.


We do not have the definite time sequence of when a Bhasyam or book was written. People have been less than honest. They take an existing book and "embellish" it.

For example "Satyanarayan Pooja" is popular in most of India.
Starts with a lie.

This puja is first mentioned inSkanda Purana, Reva Kanda by Suta Puranik to the rishis in Naimisharanya.

Click to expand...

The earliest text titled Skanda Purana likely existed by the 6th century CE, but the Skanda Purana that has survived into the modern era exists in many versions. It is considered by scholars, in a historic sense, as among the "shiftiest, living" texts which was widely edited, over many centuries, creating numerous variants. The common elements in the variant editions encyclopedically cover cosmogony, mythology, genealogy, dharma, festivals, gemology, temples, geography, discussion of virtues and evil, of theology and of the nature and qualities of Shiva as the Absolute and the source of true knowledge.

This Mahāpurāṇa, like others, is attributed to the sage Vyasa.

The oldest versions of the Skandapurana texts have been discovered in the Himalayan region of South Asia such as Nepal, and the northeastern states of India such asAssam. The critical editions of the text, for scholarly studies, rely on the Nepalese manuscripts.

Additional texts style themselves as khandas (sections) of Skandapurana, but these came into existence after the 12th century. It is unclear if their root texts did belong to the Skandapurana, and in some cases replaced the corresponding chapters of the original. Some recensions and sections of the Skandapurana manuscripts, states Judit Torzsok, have been traced to be from the 17th century or later, but the first 162 chapters in many versions are the same as the older Nepalese editions except for occasional omissions and insertions.

There are a number of texts and manuscripts that bear the title Skanda Purana. Some of these texts, except for the title, have little in common with the well-known Skandapurana traced to the 1st millennium CE. The original text has accrued several additions, resulting in several different versions. It is, therefore, very difficult to establish an exact date of composition for the Skanda Purana.

Stylistically, the Skanda Purana is related to the Mahabharata, and it appears that its composers borrowed from the Mahabharata. The two texts employ similar stock phrases and compounds that are not found in the Ramayana. Some of the mythology mentioned in the present version of the Skanda Purana is undoubtedly post-Gupta period, consistent with that of medieval South India. This indicates that several additions were made to the original text over the centuries. The Kashi Khanda, for example, acquired its present form around the mid-13th century CE. The latest part of the text might have been composed in as late as the 15th century CE.

It consists of The seven khandas:


The Maheśvara Khaṇḍa
The Vishnu Khanda
The Brahma Khanda
The Kashi Khanda
The Avantya Khanda
The Nagara Khanda
The Prabhasa Khanda


The 1910 edition included seven khaṇḍas (parts): Maheśvara, Viṣṇu or Vaiṣṇava, Brahma, Kāśī, Āvantya, Nāgara and Prabhāsa.
Shastri, P. (1995) Introduction to the Puranas, New Delhi: Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, pp.118–20

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skanda_Purana#The_seven_khandas

There never was a "REVA KHANDA" in Skanda Purana even in 1910, This khanda was interpolated in the near past and the majority in India believe in this charade.

When we turn to these texts for their ideas on history, and this has been done and is continuing to be done, various problems have surfaced. Among them, are the problems of the range of versions of the texts, and of their periods of composition. There are many versions either of an entire text or of segments of the texts. Even if we take what are regarded by some as the earliest versions of the epics, each was put together over a period of a few centuries. The period of composition is debated, some taking it from about 400 BC to AD 400, others arguing for one century but the particular century remains uncertain.

Composition over a period of time means diverse authors, so we need to ask who they were and what were their frameworks of reference? The Valmiki Ramayana, in the period between 400 BC and AD 400, had at least two contenders – the Buddhist version, the Dasaratha Jataka, and the Jaina version, Vimalasuri’s Paumachariyam – both contradicting the Valmiki version. In the Buddhist version Rama and Sita are siblings, and in the Jaina version Ravana is not a rakshasa but a respectable member of the Meghavahana lineage and the fantasies of the other Ramayana are given rational explanations.

Narrative segments from the Mahabharata, some linked to the main events, when narrated in the Jatakas are not always in agreement with the epic. Yet the way in which the narrative is told and events explained gives us a glimpse of a sense of history in historical texts. The Buddhist and Jaina versions are alternate texts to the Valmiki and Vyasa versions. Should we just ignore these or do we ask why are they saying something different? What does this mean for historical reconstruction?


http://www.sacw.net/article10319.html

Each century produced different versions of the epic stories, some with significant variations. They were composed in a variety of languages by a variety of authors all over the subcontinent. And then the Mahabharata and the Ramayana narratives spread to south-east Asia and, apart from being sculpted as panels on temple walls, were also rendered into epic texts in various local languages by local authors. Are these still to be treated as the authentic histories of India, conveying the Indian sense of history?

Which Purana do we take as representing an authentic view of the Indian past? The structure and contents of the Vishnu Purana are quite different from the Skanda Purana written at very different periods – so which is an authentic history? Those that advocate these texts as their preferred history of India are perhaps unfamiliar with the text and its variants. By what methods do we decide on the historicity of these texts? Or are we supposed to argue that historicity like history is irrelevant? However, we can at least see how these historical texts have represented their own society and the society that preceded them, if we are to treat them as historiography. This has been done and is continuing to be done by historians of early India. But it seems that those wanting to write history from the epics and Puranas are unaware of this research and the publications that have followed.

http://www.sacw.net/article10319.html

[FONT=q_serif]SHIVA GITA is a conversation between and Lord Shiva and Sri Ramachandramoorthy, where Lord Shiva gives transcendental knowledge to Lord Rama and finally shows his Viraat Roopa to Sri Rama. It comes in Padma Purana. It talks about Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Kriya Yoga and so on. Below is the link.[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
Shiva Gita Archives - महापाशुपतास्त्र[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
In the 13th Chapter Moksha Yoga Lord Shiva talks about various kinds of Mukti:[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
Rama said: O graceful lord! Kindly grace me by explaining the symptoms of Mukti and related details. Sri Bhagawan said: O Rama, Listen! Mukti is of five types by names Salokyam, Sarupyam, Sarsthyam (Sameepyam), Sayujyam, and Kaivalyam. One who worships me without asking anything (nishkama), he comes to my abode and enjoys all fruition, and gets to live in an equal abode. This is called as Salokya Mukti. One who doesn’t have any desires and realizes me among the superior ones and worships me, he gets my kind of form. This is called as Sarupya Mukti.[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
One who performs Ishtapoortadi-Karmas (rituals) for me, whatever he does, whatever he eats, whatever he offers to the sacrificial fire, whatever he donates, whatever penance he performs, when he does that keeping me in mind for my sake, he enjoys prosperity in my abode alongwith me. This is called Sarshtya Mukti (also known as sameepyam Mukti because he stays close to lord). One who has all good qualities and realizes me as the Paramatman and knows the non-duality between him and me, he gains Sayujyam Mukti and then gains the Advaita (non-duality) Kaivalya Mukti by becoming one with the Paramjyoti. Becomong one with the self is Mukti, the Kaivalyam.[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
Nothing exists other than me and I alone remain. It is not possible to see my form. None can see me with the eyes of flesh. However with a steady mind, inside his own heart being inward focussed one can see me within him, such a one gains final bestitude called liberation.[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
In the 14th Chapter Panchakoshopasana talks about surrender:[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
Lord Shiva said: O Rama of mighty arms! No need to worry about these things. This Maya which comprises of Satwa, rajo and Tamo qualities; cannot be sailed accross by anyone. Only those who surrendering themselves totally take my refuge, such humans only get fried from this maya.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Lord-Vishnu-and-Lord-Shiva-originate



If Shiva had to educate Rama, why would Shiva then praise "RAMA"? [/FONT]

[FONT=q_serif]In the Kurma Purana, Ishvara Gita, Lord Shiva says:[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
He who is called Narayana, the infinite one, the immutable source of all worlds and who is only another form of mine, performs the duty of protection.[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
One more interesting fact of Ishvara Gita is that it is the original Bhagavad Gita. At the end of Ishvara Gita, it is said that:[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]Lord Narayana, Hari, the son of Devaki, himself gave this excellent knowledge to Arjuna (2.11.131-132)[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
This confirms the fact that Bhagavad Gita was originally spoken by Lord Shiva to Lord Narayana and all the sages.
[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]One of the names of Lord Shiva to mention in Shiva Sahasranamam:[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
* 904 * Om Paryayonaraya nama - He (Lord Shiva) is the soul of Virat Pursha (Maha Vishnu) which is spread everywhere.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Lord-Vishnu-and-Lord-Shiva-originate


[/FONT][FONT=q_serif]It just goes to show that our ancient literature, were pure fictions.
Who is superior to all other is a pure bias of the writer, and his/her followers.[/FONT][FONT=q_serif][/FONT]

prasad1 said:

[FONT=q_serif]In the Kurma Purana, Ishvara Gita, Lord Shiva says:[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
He who is called Narayana, the infinite one, the immutable source of all worlds and who is only another form of mine, performs the duty of protection.[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
One more interesting fact of Ishvara Gita is that it is the original Bhagavad Gita. At the end of Ishvara Gita, it is said that:[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]Lord Narayana, Hari, the son of Devaki, himself gave this excellent knowledge to Arjuna (2.11.131-132)[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
This confirms the fact that Bhagavad Gita was originally spoken by Lord Shiva to Lord Narayana and all the sages.
[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]One of the names of Lord Shiva to mention in Shiva Sahasranamam:[/FONT]
[FONT=q_serif]
* 904 * Om Paryayonaraya nama - He (Lord Shiva) is the soul of Virat Pursha (Maha Vishnu) which is spread everywhere.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Lord-Vishnu-and-Lord-Shiva-originate


[/FONT][FONT=q_serif]It just goes to show that our ancient literature, were pure fictions.
Who is superior to all other is a pure bias of the writer, and his/her followers.[/FONT][FONT=q_serif][/FONT]

Click to expand...

So finally what is true?
It is becoming depressing to note so much " fabrication" and biasness in texts all written according to the perception of the writer.

What is Real and what in Unreal?

Finally one feels " cheated" !

renuka said:

So finally what is true?
It is becoming depressing to note so much " fabrication" and biasness in texts all written according to the perception of the writer.

What is Real and what in Unreal?

Finally one feels " cheated" !

Click to expand...

Probably ignorance is bliss!!!!! NOT

prasad1 said:

Probably ignorance is bliss!!!!! NOT

Click to expand...

Exactly!

At times I admire simple minds and simple hearts..they pray from their hearts with faith and love.

I am such an idiot...keep reading and analyzing and finally feel " cheated"! LOL

prasad1 said:

When we turn to these texts for their ideas on history, and this has been done and is continuing to be done, various problems have surfaced. Among them, are the problems of the range of versions of the texts, and of their periods of composition. There are many versions either of an entire text or of segments of the texts. Even if we take what are regarded by some as the earliest versions of the epics, each was put together over a period of a few centuries. The period of composition is debated, some taking it from about 400 BC to AD 400, others arguing for one century but the particular century remains uncertain.

Composition over a period of time means diverse authors, so we need to ask who they were and what were their frameworks of reference? The Valmiki Ramayana, in the period between 400 BC and AD 400, had at least two contenders – the Buddhist version, the Dasaratha Jataka, and the Jaina version, Vimalasuri’s Paumachariyam – both contradicting the Valmiki version. In the Buddhist version Rama and Sita are siblings, and in the Jaina version Ravana is not a rakshasa but a respectable member of the Meghavahana lineage and the fantasies of the other Ramayana are given rational explanations.

Narrative segments from the Mahabharata, some linked to the main events, when narrated in the Jatakas are not always in agreement with the epic. Yet the way in which the narrative is told and events explained gives us a glimpse of a sense of history in historical texts. The Buddhist and Jaina versions are alternate texts to the Valmiki and Vyasa versions. Should we just ignore these or do we ask why are they saying something different? What does this mean for historical reconstruction?


http://www.sacw.net/article10319.html

Click to expand...

Oh my kaduvale!

It only gets worse!

Rama and Sita are siblings..in Buddhist version?

I am not getting into this Siva - Vishnu debate. In my view it is the same as Energy- Mass debate. They are equivalent. Mass is also energy impeded by Higgs field. So it's ultimately all energy (Siva). But then it is 'mass' (Vishnu) that creates, sustains and evolves the Universe. Vishnu/Mass is the 'Will' that is getting expressed.

As 'KRN' pointed out 'rAmo virAmo virajo mArgo neyA nayonaya' says VSN. My translation of it (strictly mine) is

The enjoyer (rAma) detached (virAmo) causal ocean (viraja) path (mArga) governed/managed by (neya) by drawing to Himself.

"Vishnu is the detached enjoyer in the Causal Ocean path which governs/ manages by drawing to Himself"

I translate it as the 'Higgs field' (causual ocean) that draws to itself the 'energy' (impedes movement of energy). Ofcourse, it's just my translation.

For eg TRS Iyengar translates it as 'rAma- who delights, virAma - the final goal, virAja-mArga - the unattached path, neyanayo - who draws to himself'.

The rAma referred to by 'Shiva' is this 'rAma' and not the dasaratha rAma, who came later (in my understanding).

-TBT

thebigthinkg said:

I am not getting into this Siva - Vishnu debate. In my view it is the same as Energy- Mass debate. They are equivalent. Mass is also energy impeded by Higgs field. So it's ultimately all energy (Siva). But then it is 'mass' (Vishnu) that creates, sustains and evolves the Universe. Vishnu/Mass is the 'Will' that is getting expressed.

As 'KRN' pointed out 'rAmo virAmo virajo mArgo neyA nayonaya' says VSN. My translation of it (strictly mine) is

The enjoyer (rAma) detached (virAmo) causal ocean (viraja) path (mArga) governed/managed by (neya) by drawing to Himself.

"Vishnu is the detached enjoyer in the Causal Ocean path which governs/ manages by drawing to Himself"

I translate it as the 'Higgs field' (causual ocean) that draws to itself the 'energy' (impedes movement of energy). Ofcourse, it's just my translation.

For eg TRS Iyengar translates it as 'rAma- who delights, virAma - the final goal, virAja-mArga - the unattached path, neyanayo - who draws to himself'.

The rAma referred to by 'Shiva' is this 'rAma' and not the dasaratha rAma, who came later (in my understanding).

-TBT

Click to expand...

Might be Ramadhan for all I know! LOL