Re: ramayan clarification
Quote:
I can understand where you're going with that, he does seem to be quite devoted. Still, there are some aspects of shrI vaiShNavism that I just can't agree with. Why does he (and other shrI vaiShNava-s) accept AnDAl as an avatAra of bhUmIdevI, but not consider rAdhA to be an aMsha of shrI lakShmI (they view rAdhA as merely a gopI)? Their argument is that the latter is only mentioned in rAjasika purANam-s (like the padmapurANam) and "tAmasika" purANam-s (like the devi bhAgavatam), yet I've never, ever heard AnDAl mentioned in any shAstra-s. Isn't that kind of a double standard?
Very interesting question... Hope some learned men following Sri Vaishnava can throw light on this...
Re: ramayan clarification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jaskaran Singh
I can understand where you're going with that, he does seem to be quite devoted. Still, there are some aspects of shrI vaiShNavism that I just can't agree with. Why does he (and other shrI vaiShNava-s) accept AnDAl as an avatAra of bhUmIdevI, but not consider rAdhA to be an aMsha of shrI lakShmI (they view rAdhA as merely a gopI)? Their argument is that the latter is only mentioned in rAjasika purANam-s (like the padmapurANam) and "tAmasika" purANam-s (like the devi bhAgavatam), yet I've never, ever heard AnDAl mentioned in any shAstra-s. Isn't that kind of a double standard?
Our scriptures have been available to us from pre-historical times, whereas Andal was born just in 8th Century AD. So naturally her name isn't available in the scriptures, as also does the names of other Alwars including Ramanujacharya. Some people say that Nammazhwar was aware of Sri Ramanujacharya's avatara many centuries later but that's just that - no scripture documents any of the Alwars' avatara. So that way, SriVaishnavas who have been first-hand witness to Sri Andal's avatara and her works, owing to her birth to Bhumi devi call her an 'avatara' and that of 'Bhuma'. But most SriVaishnavas being Tamilians or belonging to down South, do not know much about the more popular Radha-vatara in Northern India, only those who know the scriptures do. And I honestly don't know why these scripture-literate people do not consider her to be an avatara of Lakshmi.
Re: ramayan clarification
hi,
thanks for the answers,and no i have not made any typing mistake & i have asked for the reference tat when WHEN SITA LIFTS THE BOW IN HER CHILDHOOD,& NOT RAM.its given in WIKI UNDER SHIV DHANUSH bt has no reference (tats the prob),viraja had also mentioned when she made a post under ramayan & if its not in ramayan where is it mentioned.can anyone help pls?.i have asked all the religious blogs bt to no avail,any help will be highly appreciated
Re: ramayan clarification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
keerthi
hi,
thanks for the answers,and no i have not made any typing mistake & i have asked for the reference tat when WHEN SITA LIFTS THE BOW IN HER CHILDHOOD,& NOT RAM.its given in WIKI UNDER SHIV DHANUSH bt has no reference (tats the prob),viraja had also mentioned when she made a post under ramayan & if its not in ramayan where is it mentioned.can anyone help pls?.i have asked all the religious blogs bt to no avail,any help will be highly appreciated
I know you didn't make a typo; I just thought you made a typo when I made my original response (before virAja responded). I don't think there is any reference to this anywhere, probably just in folk tales or something, although I'm prob. wrong. I'm just as clueless as you, probably moreso since I haven't even heard of sItA moving the shiv dhanuSh before.
Re: ramayan clarification
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Anirudh
Few popular "stories" (I call them as value additions) do not find their place in Vaalmiki Raamaayan. What we don't find in Vaalmiki Raamaayan should not be considered as truth.
There are many Ramayanas other than those of Valmiki and Tulsidas. And they are all true. So, perhaps the incident is in some other Ramayana.