Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: About Sri Venkateswara

  1. #11
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1121

    Re: About Sri Venkateswara

    The Brahmanda Purana contains the Adhyatma Ramayana which also contains the maya-sita story.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  2. #12

    Re: About Sri Venkateswara

    Quote Originally Posted by Sri Vaishnava View Post
    charitra vrata = sage who observed all sacred vows; kR^itsnam kaavyam = to entire, epic; raamaayaNam = Ramayana; siithayaH charitam mahat = Seetha's, legend, sublime; poulastya vadham = Ravana's, elimination; iti = thus [naming]; evam cakaara = that way, made, rendered.

    (~vAlmiki rAmAyaNa 1.4.7) (pasted from valmikiramayan.net)

    The ithihAsa has 3 names - rAmAyaNa, sita charitra and poulastya vadham (rAvaNa is the son of pulastya - hence, poulastya). Out of these, the first name is popular and the second name is favored by sri vaishnavas. Note the word "mahat" is used with respect to that name - her glory is greater than that of srI rAmA's!
    Thank you for this quote - I have added it to my notes, and will take great pleasure in pointing it out next time I am confronted with another feminist anti-Hindu hater.

    :-)

    PR
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  3. #13

    Re: About Sri Venkateswara

    Quote Originally Posted by Omkara View Post
    The Brahmanda Purana contains the Adhyatma Ramayana which also contains the maya-sita story.
    I checked the AITM translation that I have - could not find it. Do you have a chapter/verse reference?
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  4. #14

    Re: About Sri Venkateswara

    Quick addendum to my previous posting about vedavati. The rAmAyaNa (vALmIki) does say that vedavati became sItA - this is in the uttara-khANDa. Please disregard my previous note about the skanda purANa - I need to review what it says that clarify.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  5. #15
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1121

    Re: About Sri Venkateswara

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    I checked the AITM translation that I have - could not find it. Do you have a chapter/verse reference?
    Strange, It seems to be all over the internet that the Adhyatma Ramayana is in Brahmanda purana but no site provides the location....
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  6. #16

    Re: About Sri Venkateswara

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Pranams,

    I did not understand the reasoning offered above. But I can say this: the rAmAyaNa of vALmIki does not anywhere imply that anyone other than sItA was abducted.
    praNAm

    I am not contesting the event at all. Real SitA was abducted, acc. to Valmiki Ramayana. Fine.

    I am saying, I care not of which itihas purana says what. Do we see what happened? WHO was abducted? SitA's body i.e. mAyA-sitA. Her True Self remained untouched. This True AtmA inside Her, is the real SitA whose abode is the heart and Lotus Feet of Shri RAma.
    SitA was a walkie-talkie Bramhan. SitA is Shri Herself. She is alipta, achala, despite manifested itihAs.

    This was my point. For once, let us step out of the books and see what happened - on the level of adhyAtma.



    Just as Shri RAma and Shri KRshNa were always untouched by all the hardships and otherwise challenging and painful events in their lives from POV of ordinary humans.

    Sitadevi ki jay
    SiyA-vara rAmachandra ki jay
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  7. #17

    Re: About Sri Venkateswara

    Quote Originally Posted by smaranam View Post
    praNAm

    I am not contesting the event at all. Real SitA was abducted, acc. to Valmiki Ramayana. Fine.

    I am saying, I care not of which itihas purana says what. Do we see what happened? WHO was abducted? SitA's body i.e. mAyA-sitA. Her True Self remained untouched. This True AtmA inside Her, is the real SitA whose abode is the heart and Lotus Feet of Shri RAma.
    SitA was a walkie-talkie Bramhan. SitA is Shri Herself. She is alipta, achala, despite manifested itihAs.

    This was my point. For once, let us step out of the books and see what happened - on the level of adhyAtma.



    Just as Shri RAma and Shri KRshNa were always untouched by all the hardships and otherwise challenging and painful events in their lives from POV of ordinary humans.

    Sitadevi ki jay
    SiyA-vara rAmachandra ki jay
    Pranams,

    Perhaps I simply lack your level of realization. I get all my information from shAstra, and when apparent contradictions arise, I seek out reconciliation or at least explanation of why the contradiction exists. vALmIki is quite clear that real sItA-devI was abducted, real sItA-devI was tormented, and real sItA-devI showed the position of the surrendered devotee who always thinks of the Lord even during adversity.

    Now, I'm still stuck at the level of trying to reconcile this with the mAyA-sItA story. Is the latter merely an interpolation? Or are both stories true, and this is merely an example of kalpa-bedha? I don't pretend that I will certainly get the answers here, but, like many issues, I find it helpful to put the issue out there and let people take it apart, discuss the merits of different points of view, etc.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  8. #18

    Re: About Sri Venkateswara

    praNAm
    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Perhaps I simply lack your level of realization.
    I am sorry if I wrote something that made you say this.

    vALmIki is quite clear that real sItA-devI was abducted, real sItA-devI was tormented, and real sItA-devI showed the position of the surrendered devotee who always thinks of the Lord even during adversity.

    Now, I'm still stuck at the level of trying to reconcile this with the mAyA-sItA story. Is the latter merely an interpolation? Or are both stories true, and this is merely an example of kalpa-bedha?
    What I am suggesting, and this is only a suggestion, is that these two things can be simultaneously true even if there is no kalpa-bheda.

    Truth exists on multiple levels.
    adhibhautic - physical
    adhidaivic - owing to Divine choice, luck
    adhyAtmic - internal, Atmic

    1. RAvan kidnapped SitA ---- adhibhautic truth. WHO was kidnapped? A kAyA worn by SitA mAtA. Now we are getting into sAnkhya, tattva, neti neti.

    2. Unfortunate events took place - Ram ran after deer for Sita, Lakshman left... -------- adhidaivic

    3. Internally SitA remained calm, surrendered to Her Lord, Shri RAm, at His Lotus Feet as always irrespective of where she was geographically - Ashok van in Lanka or the kutir (RAm's hut) in the araNya (forest).

    1. shows mAyA-sitA was abducted (adhibhautic satya - physical level truth). What does mAyA-sitA mean? It means this body, and not the AtmA. The real sitA is actually the sacchidananda AtmA.

    3. Shows that real sitA i.e. AtmA stayed untouched. (adhyAtmic satya - intrinsic soul-level truth)

    The fact that SitA refused to go with Hanuman because She wanted Shri RAm to win Her back, for His Glory, just showed what the consciousness of the real Sita was like.

    - She could have gone back with Hanuman but didn't
    - She could have done multiple things to Ravan and his palace but didn't
    - She could have retaliated when the rAkshasis harrassed Her, but she didn't.

    This is the real sita that knew she is not a product of maya that ravan thinks she is, but eternal saccidananda AtmA.

    There is no contradiction. The maya-sita story found in puranas is valid on the adhyatmic level (- this is a realizaton I had just yesterday while reading this thread - thanks to all 3 of you),

    while vAlmiki describes the adhibhautic itihas and leaves it to the readers to have their realizations (read between lines) by the grace of Shri RAm and Hanuman.

    Vedavati was a previous birth of Sita (Lakshmi). At that time she was doing her tapascharya for VishNu, but thanks to Ravan her tapascharya remained incomplete. She gave ravan a shaap that she will come back to avenge this, and then burned herself in the yogic fire i.e. gave up the body via a yogic process.

    The same Lakshmi Devi came here as Vedavati, Sita and Padmavati.

    Kalpa-bheda may or may not be there.

    I also remember reading/hearing (shravanam) that Vedavati went to Lord Shiva and said "Please give me my husband back" 5 times (she was distressed). Since she said this 5 times, Shiva said tathAstu (so be it) with a secret plan, and vedavati came back as Draupadi and had 5 husbands (pandav) because of this. Some say Shiva suppressed a smile while saying tathastu. While elsewhere we see that Draupadi was Durga or Yogmaya.

    Now this could as well be kalpa-bheda and/or interpretations of shastra by saints pundits acharya. Ramayana occurs in each kalpa after all.

    like many issues, I find it helpful to put the issue out there and let people take it apart, discuss the merits of different points of view, etc.
    Of course. This is what makes HDF very enriching.

    _/\_
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  9. #19

    Re: About Sri Venkateswara

    Sita Ram,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sri Vaishnava View Post
    And yes, Sita did not burn rAvaNa because of her dependence on srI rAmA. Wanting srI rAmA to have the fame of killing rAvaNa is one aspect of such dependence, ie, the jivA does not make self-efforts to attain bhagavAn.
    Can you please expand on what you mean by "self-efforts"? I understand that moksha ultimately comes from Bhagavan's grace alone, but is our sadhana not a "self-effort" towards that attainment?

    Jai Sri Ram
    Sanatana Dharma ki Jai!
    Jai Hanuman

  10. #20
    Join Date
    October 2007
    Location
    UAE
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: About Sri Venkateswara

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramakrishna View Post
    Sita Ram,



    Can you please expand on what you mean by "self-efforts"? I understand that moksha ultimately comes from Bhagavan's grace alone, but is our sadhana not a "self-effort" towards that attainment?

    Jai Sri Ram
    Let me give you an example. You want to grow a tree in your garden (hypothetically, of gardens have trees!). So, you purchase the right type of soil, buy a plot of land, buy the seed, plant the seed, water the seed, feed it with fertilizer and then watch the tree grow.

    How would you feel now, if the tree (hypothetically speaking) said, "I grew by my self-effort"? Is not the growth of the tree merely a course of nature, ie, a natural response to the actions taken by you, rather than a sAdhaNa?

    Similarly, whatever we do is just the nature of the AtmA manifesting in response to bhagavAn's efforts. He provides the body. He provides a conducive birth. He gives us the sAstras. He waits for a lame excuse such as you walking accidentally into a temple (not even out of devotion) and foists punya karma on you. Then, using that punya as an excuse, he makes an AchArya appear in your life to guide you.

    So, once all this has been done, and you do ths sAdhaNa, then to say "this is my self-effort" is as illogical as the tree claiming its growth is its self effort. It is the very nature of the jivA to do bhakti. It is not a self effort because it is not an alien effort taken by you, it is just a realisation of your nature.

    This point is hammered home by the upanishads. On one hand, the upanshads say that the AtmA (Brahman) can be attained by hearing, seeing and meditating. On the other hand, Yama tells Nachiketa that the AtMA is only attained by those whom it chooses and not by those other means. The reconciliation is that those "means" are not really the "means", rather, it is just the manifestation of your true nature when you hear, see and meditate on sriman nArAyaNa. It is his grace which is the sAdhaNa, which is mentioned as "amrtasya sethu", ie, Brahman is the bridge.

    The sAstras say that we passed through even animal births to become human? Can you imagine what sAdhaNa an animal can do to become a human in the next life? Nothing. It is bhagavAn who does the work. Perhaps, he sees an ant crawling over him in a temple and says "this creature has entered my temple" and heaps punya on it. That ant becomes a manushya in the next life, eligible for sAdhaNa. And so on.

    Then, why do the sAstras call these other things like hearing, etc as sAdhaNas? All from our perspective. As we see these things as sAdhaNa, we call them sAdhaNa. But they make it clear that Brahman himself is the true sAdhaNa.
    [CENTER][COLOR="Black"][COLOR="Red"][COLOR="DarkRed"]No holiness rules over my freedom
    No commands from above I obey
    I seek the ruin, I shake the worlds
    Behold! I am blackest ov the black

    Ov khaos I am, the disobediant one
    Depraved son who hath dwelt in nothingness
    Upon the ninth I fell, from grace up above
    To taste this life ov sin, to give birth to the "I"[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]

    [B]~ "Blackest Ov the Black" - Behemoth.[/B]

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P-JdwtK1DY[/url] [/CENTER]

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sri Annamachraya Jayanti
    By sanatana in forum Vaishnava
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16 May 2013, 02:29 AM
  2. Question about Venkateswara Temples.
    By bhargavsai in forum Vaishnava
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 24 July 2012, 10:02 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •