• 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.

Can you place Amman's garland at your home pooja photos?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Mr Sangom,:

While I may not understand all the intricacies of the content of your messages, it has to make people think.

If a person believes there is one god by whatever name he calls it is fine. Why not realize that no amount of justification by history or other means is necessary since it is a belief after all. Why not let another believe whatever they want. It is all imaginations anyway. Why claim their god is superior? Instead cant they focus on developing compassion towards all people, animals and plants?

I think your tag line in Sanskrit seem to suggest this view
 
sangom said
(1)மாயோன் is the name of the god or deity worshipped specifically by one among the five kinds of land (as per the ancient Tamil system) and represents the "mullai" type of land in which Tulasi was abundant and Garuda was also commonly seen.

"ஐந்திணைத் தெய்வம்
“மாயோன் மேய காடுறை யுலகமும்
சேயோன் மேய மைவரை உலகமும்
வேந்தன் மேய தீம்புனல் உலகமும்
வருணன் மேய பெருமணல் உலகமும்
முல்லை குறிஞ்சி மருதம் நெய்தலெனச்
சொல்லிய முறையாற் சொல்லவும் படுமே”
(அகத். 5)
என்பது தொல்காப்பியம்.
முல்லைத்தெய்வம் மாயோன்

மா = கருப்பு. மாயோன் கரியோன். மாயோனுக்கு மால் என்றும் பெயர். மால் = கருப்பு, மேகம், வானம், கரி யோன். முல்லைநிலத்தில், மேலே எங்குப் பார்த்தாலும் நீல அல்லது கரிய வானமும் மேகமுமாய்த் தோன்றுவதாலும், ஆநிரைக்கு வேண்டிய புல்லும் ஆயர்க்கு வேண்டிய வான வாரி அல்லது புன்செய்ப் பயிர்களும் வளர்வதற்கு மழை வேண்டியிருப்பதாலும், மேகத்தை வானத்தோடொப்பக் கொண்டதினாலும், முல்லை நிலத்தார் தங்கள் தெய்வத்தைக் கருமையானதென்று கருதி, மாயோன் என்றும் மால் என்றும் பெயரிட்டனர். திருமால் என்பதில் திரு என்பது அடை.
முல்லைநிலத்திற்குரிய கலுழனை(கருடனை)யும் துளசியையும், முறையே மாயோனுக்குரிய ஊர்தியாகவும் பூவாகவும் கொண்டார்கள்."

Here there is nothing to indicate that the ancient Tamils identified mAyOn with vasudeva-krishna or vishnu.

What are you trying to tell? All the above are statement of the obvious. You have not presented anything which is new. Thirumal is not Saivam/samanam/boudhdham. Thirumal is vishnu. Thirumal worship is Vaishnavam. Vasudeva Krishna might have been brought in by vaishnavas as Krishna was accepted as an avatar of Thirumal by them. You may have objections. But that is not reasonable. Certainly vasudeva krishna was not adopted by Saivam/samanam/boudhdham as their avatar/Tirtankara/bikshu. If you accept the antiquity of Tholkappiyam you also accept the antiquity of vaishnavam. That was the point that was made in my post. I hope you are not going to tell me that Tholkappiyam was written by Kannadasan in the twentieth century AD/or by ONV Kurup in the 21st century. LOL.

(2)The Sangam literature is not as ancient as the vedas or braahmanas (a portion of vedas themselves). Experts date the sangam literature to the early christian era or one or two centuries before Christ. Shri Vaiyapuri Pillai has dated some of these to somewhat later times as well. Hence, as seen already, these sangam literatures must be coeval with the merging of the vasudeva, bhagavata and vishnu cults during the Gupta empire's times. It is for informed readers, therefore, to decide how far these sangam literature references give any antiquity to the Vaishnava cult.

No one ever claimed that Sangam literature is older than Vedas. Please read my post again. I said just this much. Vedas mention about Vishnu worship. Sangom literature mentions about vishnu worship. I had shown examples. My contention is that the vaishnavam which is the subject under discussion has been mentioned in vedas and Sangam literature and so vaishnavam is an ancient religion of not only Bharath but also of Tamilnadu. Period. If you cling on to some straw and deny it is not so, happily do that. No objection. You may also go ahead and prove with similar proof that the smartha cult is ancient in India and Tamilnadu. I would only be happy.

You said something like-vaishnavam came with Ramanuja when he came on the scene. My posts are in that context to refute your misconception. Please understand.
 
Indus Valley (IV) Civilization is supposed to be very old and there are no relics giving us any inkling about the religious beliefs and practices of the people in those days. The rigveda also does not give any indication about the IV people in any form. However, experts - even Indian experts - agree that the Pasupati and Rudra seals ( so named because of the closeness of the figures in these two seals) may represent the kind of god-belief which those people might have had.

Rigveda mentions vishnu, of course. But it is for everyone to see that the vishnu of the rigveda was a minor deva, subservient to the almighty Indra and most scholars agree that the rigvedic vishnu is no more than a sidekick for Indra, at best. I may add that in Satapatha Braahmana I.2.5.1, Devas fought asuras and the asuras defeated the devas. Hence the devas had to beg the asuras for a piece of land to live on. And the braahmana text continues in this way:—

"Now, vishnu was a dwarf. The Devas, however, were not offended at this, but said : much indeed they gave us, who gave us what is equal in size to the sacrifice.

Having then laid him (i.e., vishnu) eastwards, they enclosed him on all three sides with the metres, saying (Vaajasaneya Samhita I.27), on the south side, "with gaayatree metre I enclose thee!"; on the west side, "with the Trishtubh metre I enclose thee!": on the north side, "with the jagatee metre I enclose thee!".

Having thus enclosed him on all three sides, and having placed Agni on the east side, they went on worshipping and toiling with it (or, him, vishnu, the object of sacrifice). By it they obtained this entire earth and because they obtained this entire (earth), therefore it (the sacrificial ground) is called vEdi (the altar). ...and so on the story goes.

It should be clear from the above that vishnu was, after all, a spareable entity even for the Devas, which (who) could even be sacrificed in order to get some piece of land from the victorious asuras.

Hence it will not hold water to say that vishnu had become a "worshipped" entity even beyond the times of Vedas.



The vasudeva cult, the bhagavata cult, etc., were beliefs among some sections of the people living in the sub-continent and these could be no more than tribal beliefs which had begun to take the shape of cults. For example, the vasudeva cult had it that vasudeva -krishna was the brother of Samkarshana-Baladeva and that Vasudeva defeated his maternal uncle Kamsa in a fight and killed the latter. Kamsavadha was enacted as pantomimic drama in Patanjali's times and the people formed into two groups vasudevabhaktas and kamsabhaktas, the former overcoming the latter eventually as the drama closed. Having said in so much detail in his Mahabhashya (dated to 2nd. century BCE), Patanjali does not say that this vasudeva - krishna was vishnu, or was identified with vishnu.

The vishnu cult became popular during the Guptas' times most possibly and, in course of time, the three cults (Bhagavata, vasudeva-krishna and vishnu) merged to form what came to be known as Vaishnavam or Vaishnavism. Since most of the puranas also took shape during the reign of the Guptas (which came some time after the Sunga dynasty, and more as a rebellion against oppressive rulers), it was but natural that the newly formed vishnu cult got more than one purana/scripture to support its ancient origins etc.

Please also tell us what the Rig veda speaks about Rudra/Siva. Please give references. Also tell us which rudra-Rudra No.I or II or XII-is spoken about in the given context to avoid confusion. It will give some direction to this conversation.

Please do not give your opinions as facts. If you present a fact please give us the source and reference. Thank you.
 
hi

in early vedas ...ONLY AGNI SOMA /INDRA/VARUNA/TWESTA IN RIG VEDAS....LATER YAJURVEDA PERIODS....THESE VISHNU/RUDRA

WORSHIP......later purana periods...we got all kinds of gods/godess worship in detail....
 
Smarthas could never give up siva or vishnu because it was a question of survival.


The statement proves you are an agmark vaishnavite - illogical, superstitious and lack of application of mind.

For Smarthas, worshipping of God is not for survival - to get strength, peace of mind, confidence etc. to achieve in life.

Why should Smarthas give up Siva. It is their Prime Deity. Sporting of Vibhudhi is a perfect example. Most of the Smarthas are not sporting with either 'U' or 'V'.

Regarding Vishnu, it is one of the so many other deities being worshipped. Further, all Smarthas are not Bhagavathas, holding the feet of the two super Godmen, for survival.

Even the strength of Shastrigal, over the years, has come down drastically, which is a good sign. Their wards can switch over to other profession.

Smarthas can survive well without Vishnu.

Some Internationally acclaimed scientists, politicians, journalist from Smartha community are non-believers. Some of them had taken the two God-men to task elaborately and survived very well.

Giving less importance to Vishnu will not undermine the community in any way. Even Sankara Mutts can survive, since almost the entire support emanates only from Smarthas.

Change your view and restrict your importance to Vishnu within your four walls.
 
Normally, a Saint of a particular religion or sect will talk only about the religion or sect he belongs to. If he/she discusses about all Gods, he will not be considered to be exclusive. Religion or sect, in fact, expects only the exclusiveness from the saints.

.

I think you just described a politician and his political party!LOL

A saint has no agenda to propagate closed minded one tracked ideology.
 
I think you just described a politician and his political party!LOL

A saint has no agenda to propagate closed minded one tracked ideology.

Again, you are wrong.

The common approach in all Religions is that if a Saint follows a particular religion or sect, he / she will confine only to that. Normally, deviation cannot be found. It can be seen in Abrahamic Religions also.

During 1985, when Pope visited Chennai, my boss, who was a strong Protestant and an Evangelist, did not visit and see him, though leave was declared for the office (a PSU), as the CEO was a Keralite Catholic.

Most of the Saints, irrespective of Religions, have promoted only their Religions / Sects. It cannot be treated as closed minded one tracked ideology.
 
Again, you are wrong.

The common approach in all Religions is that if a Saint follows a particular religion or sect, he / she will confine only to that. Normally, deviation cannot be found. It can be seen in Abrahamic Religions also.

During 1985, when Pope visited Chennai, my boss, who was a strong Protestant and an Evangelist, did not visit and see him, though leave was declared for the office (a PSU), as the CEO was a Keralite Catholic.

Most of the Saints, irrespective of Religions, have promoted only their Religions / Sects. It cannot be treated as closed minded one tracked ideology.


dear Chandru,

I dont know but I cant really think on such dividing rules.

I am reminded of an incident many years ago.

A known person had gone to Mecca and brought back the holy Zam Zam water.

I drank some and the rest I mixed it with my babies bath water and bathe my child with it.

My husband was really angry with me for that.

He felt as a Hindu I should have not done that.

For me I did not really bother cos anything holy is worthy of respect and I surely expect a saint to have Sama Darshinah.
 
Dear Mr Sangom,:

While I may not understand all the intricacies of the content of your messages, it has to make people think.

If a person believes there is one god by whatever name he calls it is fine. Why not realize that no amount of justification by history or other means is necessary since it is a belief after all. Why not let another believe whatever they want. It is all imaginations anyway. Why claim their god is superior? Instead cant they focus on developing compassion towards all people, animals and plants?

I think your tag line in Sanskrit seem to suggest this view

Dear Shri a-TB,

If my posts have given you the impression that I am trying to establish some god is superior to some one else, etc., then it is because I am lacking in my capacity to express clearly. As you know, this forum is for Tamil brahmins of all kinds and the Tamil brahmins are of different kinds, holding great bhakti towards one or another god/deity. And this forum had been going on smoothly for several years without any friction regarding the inter se superiority of gods.

It is only lately that some elements have come in with an agenda (I think so) of spreading ill-will amongst the vaishnava members and others. Sadly, some of our vaishnava members are overzealous in projecting their cultish worship of one god, but in many shapes, as the most magnificent thing humanity ever did. I am merely trying to say that if anyone really goes through all or most of our scriptures, it will be found that they contain a lot of conflicting and confusing material and any right-thinking person of this 21st. century will feel disgusted about religion itself.

Also, it is a commonly known fact that the kind of Vaishnavam with its two branches or 'kalais' fighting each other etc., is a comparatively later entrant into the mainstream hinduism. Claiming hoary antiquity, even older than the vedas, for this very late schism looked to me as carrying religious zealotry a bit too far.

In any case, I take it that your view may be held by other members also and so I refrain from writing my views on this topic, from now on; my only question to you is why you failed to notice the fanaticism of some others and picked only my post which contained some material which many tabras - including vaishnavas - may not even have heard of? Is it a case of the light of knowledge becoming too unbearable for certain weak eyes?
 
Please also tell us what the Rig veda speaks about Rudra/Siva. Please give references. Also tell us which rudra-Rudra No.I or II or XII-is spoken about in the given context to avoid confusion. It will give some direction to this conversation.

Please do not give your opinions as facts. If you present a fact please give us the source and reference. Thank you.

In the discussion about Kavasha story, what the numbers given of Aitareya Braahmanam actually denote, have not been given even now. So, the rule is different when it comes to the other person!
 
Mr. Sangom,
"Sadly, some of our vaishnava members are overzealous in projecting their cultish worship of one god, but in many shapes, as the most magnificent thing humanity ever did".
Also, it is a commonly known fact that the kind of Vaishnavam with its two branches or 'kalais' fighting each other etc., is a comparatively later entrant into the mainstream hinduism. Claiming hoary antiquity, even older than the vedas, for this very late schism looked to me as carrying religious zealotry a bit too far.

Arrow No.1. I will wait.
 
...

It is only lately that some elements have come in with an agenda (I think so) of spreading ill-will amongst the vaishnava members and others...

Dear Shri Sangom,

Very true... the agenda seems, to me, to be divisive not only amongst the vaishnava members but to create an animosity among members based on the S vs V clash.

Thanks,
 
In the discussion about Kavasha story, what the numbers given of Aitareya Braahmanam actually denote, have not been given even now. So, the rule is different when it comes to the other person!

Sangom,

I did not expect this kind of game playing from you.

I have no hesitation to tell you that the book (original aitareya Brahmana) with me is in tatters (the paper has become brittle and breaks when I lift it and I have several such pieces of paper). It is an edition brought out in the year 1942. I am not ble to read many of the lines as they are not readable. So I am unable to give you more info than what I gave in that earlier post which you are quoting now to hit me. Funny. I remember I had given several other instances from vedas and smritis in that post and this Kavasha story was just one of them. Moreover I had given other extracts about Kavasha - other than the 12-3 mentioned there. Please look into all the other evidences given by me there leaving this one if you want. This is childish to cling to a reference which had a tag connecting to AB's a particular panchika. If you can please read the whole of AB and if you do not find the reference come back to me and I will forward a scanned copy of the book I have after piecing together the jig saw puzzle that the sheet has become.

That does not release you from your obligation to tell us here about what Rig Veda says about all the 12 rudras. Please go ahead and start presenting them. We do not want your opinions. We want hard facts please, with references. Thank you.
 
Please also tell us what the Rig veda speaks about Rudra/Siva. Please give references. Also tell us which rudra-Rudra No.I or II or XII-is spoken about in the given context to avoid confusion. It will give some direction to this conversation.

Please do not give your opinions as facts. If you present a fact please give us the source and reference. Thank you.

Rg Veda speaks quite a bit of Rudra. In fact reference to Rudra is found in more than 70 places and three full hymns are dedicated to him.

Given below is Rg 2.33.9 which addresses Him as "Sovereign of the Whole Universe"

सथिरेभिरङगैः पुरुरूप उग्रो बभ्रुः शुक्रेभिः पिपिशेहिरण्यैः |
ईशानादस्य भुवनस्य भूरेर्न वा उ योषद रुद्रादसुर्यम ||

sthirebhiraṅghaiḥ pururūpa ughro babhruḥ śukrebhiḥ pipiśehiraṇyaiḥ
īśānādasya bhuvanasya bhūrerna vā u yoṣad rudrādasuryam

We can go about seralising rudra as Rudra - I, II, III etc. later on when you confirm that the same mantra appears at the same serial number in your book too.
 
Rg Veda speaks quite a bit of Rudra. In fact reference to Rudra is found in more than 70 places and three full hymns are dedicated to him.

Given below is Rg 2.33.9 which addresses Him as "Sovereign of the Whole Universe"

सथिरेभिरङगैः पुरुरूप उग्रो बभ्रुः शुक्रेभिः पिपिशेहिरण्यैः |
ईशानादस्य भुवनस्य भूरेर्न वा उ योषद रुद्रादसुर्यम ||

sthirebhiraṅghaiḥ pururūpa ughro babhruḥ śukrebhiḥ pipiśehiraṇyaiḥ
īśānādasya bhuvanasya bhūrerna vā u yoṣad rudrādasuryam

We can go about seralising rudra as Rudra - I, II, III etc. later on when you confirm that the same mantra appears at the same serial number in your book too.

Please give me other references also. I am happy that Rudra was the "sovereign of the whole universe". Please keep posting. Also give me some info about the 11/12 rudras that scriptures speak about. Thank you.
 
Dear Shri a-TB,

If my posts have given you the impression that I am trying to establish some god is superior to some one else, etc., then it is because I am lacking in my capacity to express clearly. As you know, this forum is for Tamil brahmins of all kinds and the Tamil brahmins are of different kinds, holding great bhakti towards one or another god/deity. And this forum had been going on smoothly for several years without any friction regarding the inter se superiority of gods.

It is only lately that some elements have come in with an agenda (I think so) of spreading ill-will amongst the vaishnava members and others. Sadly, some of our vaishnava members are overzealous in projecting their cultish worship of one god, but in many shapes, as the most magnificent thing humanity ever did. I am merely trying to say that if anyone really goes through all or most of our scriptures, it will be found that they contain a lot of conflicting and confusing material and any right-thinking person of this 21st. century will feel disgusted about religion itself.

Also, it is a commonly known fact that the kind of Vaishnavam with its two branches or 'kalais' fighting each other etc., is a comparatively later entrant into the mainstream hinduism. Claiming hoary antiquity, even older than the vedas, for this very late schism looked to me as carrying religious zealotry a bit too far.

In any case, I take it that your view may be held by other members also and so I refrain from writing my views on this topic, from now on; my only question to you is why you failed to notice the fanaticism of some others and picked only my post which contained some material which many tabras - including vaishnavas - may not even have heard of? Is it a case of the light of knowledge becoming too unbearable for certain weak eyes?

Dear Mr Sangom

I admire your writing here for the boldness in stating your views even if it is contrary to the mainstream. I must have given a wrong impression due to lack of my knowledge of details of our scriptures and my ability to communicate. I do not think you were trying to establish superiority of any god, only that you were showing opposing points found in our scriptures.

Please do not refrain from writing your views. There is no fanaticism, but rational discussion in your posts. If people do not agree with your views I am sure they will be providing opposing views.

I did not pick your post to make a point.
Thanks for your detailed response.

Best Regards
 
Sangom,

I did not expect this kind of game playing from you.

I have no hesitation to tell you that the book (original aitareya Brahmana) with me is in tatters (the paper has become brittle and breaks when I lift it and I have several such pieces of paper). It is an edition brought out in the year 1942. I am not ble to read many of the lines as they are not readable. So I am unable to give you more info than what I gave in that earlier post which you are quoting now to hit me. Funny. I remember I had given several other instances from vedas and smritis in that post and this Kavasha story was just one of them. Moreover I had given other extracts about Kavasha - other than the 12-3 mentioned there. Please look into all the other evidences given by me there leaving this one if you want. This is childish to cling to a reference which had a tag connecting to AB's a particular panchika. If you can please read the whole of AB and if you do not find the reference come back to me and I will forward a scanned copy of the book I have after piecing together the jig saw puzzle that the sheet has become.

That does not release you from your obligation to tell us here about what Rig Veda says about all the 12 rudras. Please go ahead and start presenting them. We do not want your opinions. We want hard facts please, with references. Thank you.

Mr Vaagmi - You stated elsewhere about 'arrow 1' etc. In the similar spirit let me point out that you may confuse differences in views about a faith into personal attacks.
The first line is attack on a member, not on the views or points. Why should anyone come here and play games with you??
 
Mr Vaagmi - You stated elsewhere about 'arrow 1' etc. In the similar spirit let me point out that you may confuse differences in views about a faith into personal attacks.
The first line is attack on a member, not on the views or points. Why should anyone come here and play games with you??

dear a-TB,

Vaagmi Ji also goes by another name here...Kandarpha..cupid with 5 arrows.
For all practical purposes..I dont think Kandarpha was very fond of Shiva!LOL
 
Mr Vaagmi - You stated elsewhere about 'arrow 1' etc. In the similar spirit let me point out that you may confuse differences in views about a faith into personal attacks.
The first line is attack on a member, not on the views or points. Why should anyone come here and play games with you??

The post was addressed to sangom. Sangom knows what I speak about. There is an issue. He understands it and I understand it. You have no locus standi in this matter. so please mind your business.
 
Dear Mr Sangom

I admire your writing here for the boldness in stating your views even if it is contrary to the mainstream. I must have given a wrong impression due to lack of my knowledge of details of our scriptures and my ability to communicate. I do not think you were trying to establish superiority of any god, only that you were showing opposing points found in our scriptures.

Please do not refrain from writing your views. There is no fanaticism, but rational discussion in your posts. If people do not agree with your views I am sure they will be providing opposing views.

I did not pick your post to make a point.
Thanks for your detailed response.

Best Regards

Dear Shri a-TB,

Thank you very much. But I think I should stick to my decision and refrain from posting anything further in this thread, for the sake of peace in this forum.
 
The post was addressed to sangom. Sangom knows what I speak about. There is an issue. He understands it and I understand it. You have no locus standi in this matter. so please mind your business.

Dear Shri a-TB,

This is a very peculiar issue, if I may say so. I also have a few tattered books but ordinarily, if one page shows some reference such as 12-3, if not from the next page, from some other page/s, it should be feasible to say what each of these numbers stand for.

The issue here is that Shri Vaagmi is able to open only one page of the whole book, whereas, I have a book (Aitareya Braahmanam) which is divided into Panchikas (P), Adhyaayas (A) and sections (S) within the adhyaaya. Since only two numbers 13 & 2 could be given by shri. vaagmi, I tried the combinations possible, viz., PA, PS and AS but I am unable to find the verse which shri. vaagmi has cited. Hope this clarifies the matter.

You, as a member of this forum, have (I think) every right to interfere in whatever thread or conversation is going on/has gone on in the past and ask for information/rake up old issues already buried but the thread has not been deliberately closed by Shri Praveen. Even in such cases you can start a fresh thread giving reference to the old thread/post. I do not subscribe to the idea of private chat rooms as is probably envisaged by Shri Vaagmi.
 
Dear Shri a-TB,

This is a very peculiar issue, if I may say so. I also have a few tattered books but ordinarily, if one page shows some reference such as 12-3, if not from the next page, from some other page/s, it should be feasible to say what each of these numbers stand for.

The issue here is that Shri Vaagmi is able to open only one page of the whole book, whereas, I have a book (Aitareya Braahmanam) which is divided into Panchikas (P), Adhyaayas (A) and sections (S) within the adhyaaya. Since only two numbers 13 & 2 could be given by shri. vaagmi, I tried the combinations possible, viz., PA, PS and AS but I am unable to find the verse which shri. vaagmi has cited. Hope this clarifies the matter.

You, as a member of this forum, have (I think) every right to interfere in whatever thread or conversation is going on/has gone on in the past and ask for information/rake up old issues already buried but the thread has not been deliberately closed by Shri Praveen. Even in such cases you can start a fresh thread giving reference to the old thread/post. I do not subscribe to the idea of private chat rooms as is probably envisaged by Shri Vaagmi.

Private chat room was not what was envisaged. The a-TB does not know what was going on between you and me about the antiquity of Vaishnavam. That was what was meant when I said it is an issue between you and me.

I said I am working with a paper torn like a jig saw puzzle. Give me your address by PM I will send you a scanned copy of all the torn pieces. You can try your hand to make out some meaning.
 
Namsthe!!!

I would like to give 4 points regarding your doubt..

1. Flowers and garland which is offered to deities in the temple becomes nirmalyam (yesterday's offering/remains) for bagavan the next day. This nirmalyam now becomes prasadam when it is distributed to devotees. Anything that is given to us from templeas prasadam should be accepted, preserved and disposed(depends upon prasadam eg: flowers, garland) with at-most respect....

2. Even if it is the 100th day after the garland was offered to god,it is prasadam for us......, but it becomes nirmalyam for bagavan the very next day.... So as far as devotees are concerned nirmalyam is pavithram..... but for bagavan it is remains....So i make it very clear that offering nirmalyam from temple to pooja room photos or statues is like offering remains....I will tell one drishtandham if women wears a flower on her head does she take it off, keep it in fridge n wear it again???? or do she remove it and give it to her mother sister or daughter...... once kept on hair... they dispose it..... they neither use it for themselves nor give it to others.. is that not????

3. So it is a general practice that the flower garlands from temple are hung on the front entrance or at the entrance of puja room till it becomes dry.

4. After the flower becomes dry, since this is prasadam we should even dispose it with respect, It should be disposed in place where no one stamps or spits ....... so tulasi madam is considered as a idol place to dispose prasadam.....


Sarve bavanthu sukinaha........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top