By Sri Chiraan 2008/10/13
Phalani grahacharena suchayanti manishinah ko vaktah taratamyasya tamekam vedhasam vina
Can astrologers claim he can give most accurate predictions?
The above shloka says Astrologers can only indicate the results of the planets , only Bramha can give exact quantum of the result.
This shows that when somebody has forecasted a good phase , it cannot turn out to be opposite. but how good? it is not the purview of the astrologer. Only bramha can say that because he is the provider. Lets dwell more on it.
a capacity of astrologer is limited to the domain he is inspecting. what are domains, luck pours from heavens, it also pours from blessings of elders, it also is enhanced by good wishes of friends and acquaintance. now how much each influence is subject to the domain under analysis. friends good wishes can get nullified by curses of elders. heavens gift can overcome a curse.
similarly a heavens wrath can overtake a boon. if you are predicting only considering a previous gift , and overlook a present curse , predictionswould go offtrack.
example: Shiva had given boons to jarasandha kichaka, bakasura,hidimba etc boons of being never faced with death, immortality. all astrologers looking at these horoscopes say they are immortals.even Indra and others could not match these demons because of the boons and had to flee. suggesting immortality. Bheemasena killed all these ,that means he has overtaken these boons. Bheemasena was more powerful, for these demons a brush with more powerful nullified their boons. Bheemasena was devotee of Krishna , if Bheemasena could kill these demons mean he is superior to Shiva, because He is devotee of Krishna , Krishna is supreme than Vayu (Bheema) and Shiva.
Only to prove this Krishna avoided killing jarasandha ,to the extent he settledin Dwaraka than Mathura. he wanted to show if my devotee can nullify the boons of Shiva ,so can I. only superiors can overtake juniors’ orders.Hence when sages predict , they predicted immortality to jarasandha, because they fell short of analysis beyond Shiva. However VedVyasa predicted death to these.
Never hurt elders, superiors and Devatas, these can foretell misfortune, even death, even if you are in good phase of your life.
srikrishnarpanamastu
Chiraan said: July 5, 2012 at 11:24
ReplyDelete(Reply to some questions)
is prana dana not called as receiving favour … shiva being saved By NARAYANA from BAHASMASUR ….why did SHIVA RUN after BHASMASUR insisted on keeping his hand on SHIVA’s head …. [ DIdnt SHIVA fear death here ] If SIVA could not overtake his own VARA [ he had given vara that whoever BHASMASUR places his hand on he will be reduced to ashes ] HOW COME SHIVA feared being reduced to ASHES … and WHO DID HE GO TO … what ddi he ask OH NARAYANA SAVE ME ! isnt this asking VARA ,..
AND WHAT NARAYANA did killed BHASMASUR …. what did HE DO HE DID A FAVOUR ie gave boon .. fulfilled desire of SHIVA of saving HIM fro being Reduced to ashes …
now after showing this you must straight away come to the point .. show us the verses WHICH DESCRIBES SHIVA engaged in creation … WE CAN SHOW YOU VERSES IND ETAIL AS NARAYANA CREATED UNIVERSE SRISHTI …
Pradnya said: July 3, 2012 at 22:05
ReplyDeletepranaam guruji,
charanspasht!!!thanks to yours and Mr Parijat`s discussion i have come to know more about lord vishnu :)..
Regards,
pradnya
Chiraan said: July 4, 2012 at 07:00
ReplyDeleteYES PARIJAAT has given us opportunity to make shaivasarvasva khandan
chiraan said:July 5, 2012 at 14:52
ReplyDelete(Reply to some posts)
PARIJAAT the logic you are using is miserable ..
SAY you do namaskaara to your parents and they pleased with you if they say … LIVE A LONG LIFE … is this not a boon … then are your elder asking permission from ANyone ..in saying so .. giving boons is very quality of DEVATAS including MAHADEV .. INDRA has given boons SURYA HAS GIVEN BOONS .. and no one ever consults anyone while giving boons . they give boons out of their capacity ,.. .. BUT not consulting does not entitle anyone to be superior most … BY giving boons without consulting SHIVA DID INDRA become greater than SHIVA ?
Parijat Mathur said:July 5, 2012 at 17:43
ReplyDelete“PARIJAAT the logic you are using is miserable ..
SAY you do namaskaara to your parents and they pleased with you if they say … LIVE A LONG LIFE … is this not a boon … then are your elder asking permission from ANyone ..in saying so .. giving boons is very quality of DEVATAS including MAHADEV .. INDRA has given boons SURYA HAS GIVEN BOONS .. and no one ever consults anyone while giving boons . they give boons out of their capacity ,.. .. BUT not consulting does not entitle anyone to be superior most … BY giving boons without consulting SHIVA DID INDRA become greater than SHIVA ?”
43. Chiraan, I will point a few facts to you. Now if you are capable of using tarka khanda yuti, you shall be able to see Shiva > Krishna/Narayana/Rama/Hari
1. Point any 1 instance where Shiva does tapa for any other devata & obtains vara from him. Surya does not give vara to Indra nor is reverse true, they give vara to bhutalvasi who are lower than them & seek/need vara from higher loka.
2. Krishna says in Mahabharat himself that none other than Rudra is capable of giving vara to him
3.Krishna himself says in Purana nobody other than him can bear bhaara of Shiva. Krishna in form of Nandi Vrishabh himself bears him.
Why Rama need Vanars. See shapa of Nandi(kapi faced) to Ravana.
4. Krishna himself says to Shiva that I have come to do your will(Bana)
5. Krishna himself comes to help Shiva in Vrikasura episode, Shiva does not seek his help, Shiva can kill Vrika son of Shakuni but how can varadah give darshana & vara & then do ahita. Shiva himself is giver of Tamasi maya antardhana vidya data to Meghnada. Darshana/Avadhana & Antardhana is natural for him. Why he should run from Vrika. At beginning of Vrika kathanaka aradhana of Shiva-Krishna is compared. Krishna does not give darshana until devotee is fully pure & hence his darshana gives mukti. Shiva gives darshana easily but tests & deludes by offering shree. Both do not give mukti easily. Krishna himself says after tricking Vrika that who is there who can be kushala after attempting akushala of Shiva. => he himself will destroy who tries to do so.
6. Krishna is the weapon of Shiva which keeps/maintains dharma(refer tripura) so he is provided all astra by Shiva including Sudarshana for upholding dharma
7. Before Bharata battle begins, Arjuna has to obtain vara from Durga ensuring victory
8. Indra refuses to give Arjuna divyastra till he has done tapa to Shiva
Why Arjuna has to do tapa to Shiva when his nitya sakha is Krishna
9. Why Vyasa says to Arjuna tama gachcha sharnama of Rudra
10. Why Vyasa prays to Shiva for putra(Shuka)
11. Who is capable of drinking visha from samudra manthana, visha which had turned all deva blue/black.
12. If parents have that aishvarya that child wants like toy, home, then why they can’t give. Shiva holds all aishvarya & can give any vara he does not need/free to/from care for he is the sarveshvara(see Vrika). Everything happens with ichcha/will of his(see Banasura).
13. Brahma who’s uvacha is veda does not rely on veda on judging Shiva(see Ramayana tulana b/w Shiva-Vishnu & in Bhagavata)
14. You are quoting veda vachana, veda or Brahma does not know Krishna(Atma- see Krishna atma, Indra indriya, Surya netra, Chandra manas, Vayu prana … in Purana)
15. Narayano eko & et. al. only say Narayana is unable to sense/see(paraveda) presence of anybody else
16. Veda themselves say Shiva is rahasya in Veda
17. Krishna in Virata rupa in Kaurav Rajsabha who is his atma
18. Shiva is sarvadhika bali & so is Krishna(see 43.1)
19. Durga is tripura sundari & Krishna is tripura sundara
20. All shastra warn that insulting either of Shiva-Krishna is insulting both, insulter has known neither
Some of above points are pratyaksha pramana by krishna himself , some are aanumanika.
Chiraan said: July 6, 2012 at 10:48
ReplyDeleteThis post of yours is only meaningful post in all .. i can see someone has guided you well NOW ..
For each and every episode you have given from the purana … there is equivalent and opposite illustration in the other purana …
1.NArsimha KILLING SHARABHA [ Sharabha is SHIVA AVATARA killed BY NARSIMHA
2. SHIVA becoming immovable to even fight before RAAMA and losing miserably only getting revived after stuti
3. SHIVA unable to defeat TRIPURASUR seeks a way out …. where He is asked to Recite VISHNU PANJAR stuti to get VIJAY siddhi over TRIPURASUR .. [ If SHIV were all powerful why did he need to worship VISHNU to gain win ]
4. BHEEMSEN defeating SHIVA in VYAGRA form [vyagralinga shardula kshetra ]
5. ITS VAYU who drank HALAHAL and shiva after licking it fell unconscious and became neelkantha .. his neck became blue BUT VAYU was not affected ..
6. SHIVA running for LIFE in bhasmasura episode .
7 Durvasa running for life from SUDARSHAN .. if SUDARSHA WAS GIVEN BY SHIVA why SHIVA AVATARA DURVAS HAD TO FEAR SUDARSHANA ..did powers of SHIVA REDUCE AFTER GVING SUDARSHANA so that he could not counter his own weapon ..
8. SHIVA loses SELF CONTROL BY SEEING MOHINI .. HE RUNS BEHIND HER LEAVIG PARVATI all along ejaculating .. while SHIVA COULD BURN MANMATH but with MOHINI he loses control … [ So whose maya is stronger KRSIHNA MAYA ]
9. Shiva’s avatara ASHWATHTHAMA could neither defeat ARJUN or BHEEMA instead was insulted .. and had to retreat ..
10. SHIVA ran and hid in SAMUDRA for the fear of SHANI .. why ? SHANI could not TRouble leave NARAYANA not also HANUMAN ..
11. In BUDDHA AVATARA BUDHA SWALLOWS SHIVA’S TRISHUL ..
12. SHIVA is he is the creator then why does he lament for years keeping the dead corpse on his shoudler of SATI DEVI .. and still could not revive her …he had cry for her ..
13 . The same shiva married again PARVATI ..PARVATi WORSHIPPED WHOM to get SHIVA .. RAMA ..
14 SHIVA HIMSELF tells PARVATI that HE SI ALWAYS in DHYANA of RAAMA [ NARAYANA ] .. now is that not tapas stuti
15 .HOW COME BHRIGU gives CURSE to SHIVA .. and his LINGA is worshipped not HE ..
since VEDAS dint entertain SHIVA you say he is above veda .. BUT then how will you reconcile that only one purana is enough to know truth while all other puranas show the same incident in other light .. BOTH version cannot be true .. only one can be true .. which is true can be decided by anmolies that occur in the recounting of the event ..
In NArsimha kiling Sharabha …
MARKANDEYA getting exension of life through NARAYANA .. there is exclusive markandeya purana .. and the incident that he gets extended life by NARAYAN upasana is reietrated in NARSIMHA purana ..which si narration of mARKANDEYA himself ..
BHASMASURA episode …
Tripurasur .”
Shivas vara to Indrasena which never materialises ..IMAGINA SHIVAS” BOON NOT MATERIALISING ..
DURING PRALAYA SHIVAS BODY IS MADE INTO NUPUR BY NARSIMHA and SHIVA TREMBLES …. with fear ..
HOW WILL ALL THESE INCIDENTS BE RECONCILED … why does SHIVA encounter fear misery veeryaskhalan moha and rodan defeat paschaptaap sthamban .failure of words [ boon not materialising ] and finally death ..
all these point to the fact that he is mortal like any other jeeva … but MAHADEV ..and not SUpreme only NARAYANA is supreme ..
chiraan said:July 3, 2012 at 00:43
ReplyDelete(Reply to Parijat's posts)
The more you write more it is evident that your knowledge of puranas and sanskrit language is miserable …
NOW Initially YOu started the discussion saying KEshava Sandhi vichcheda is faulty .. then you asked SHow verses for K as Bramha ..
we have shown verses ..
WHere k is Hiranyagarbha … NOW in the verse .. you have said Hirangarbha is SHIVA .. that means YOU have accepted the VERSE as PRAMAANA ..
NOW WHAT VERSE says k and esha makes KESHAVA … NOW that means by accepting it as pramaana you ahve accepted KESHAVA sandhi viccheda is correct … [ so you have eaten your own words ] — shows how much you miserable is your grammar ..
second
YOU say Geeta words are pramaana and meanings should be seen by them ,,
BUT PARIJAAT … its SHIVA himself who is saying HE IS REGULATED by KESHAVA .. now is that not PRAMAANA a PURANA vachan .. [ this is second time you have to eat your words ]
MULTIPLE MEANINGS of KESHAVA can be seen in various Upanishads .. but you dont understand them because what you understand is weblinks and devanagari written in germany and posted at astrojyoti .. this is YOUR VYASA BHARAT ,,
YOU asked SHOW one verse which shows NARAYANA existed and others did not …
WE ahve shown many verses .. [ Here again you had to eat your own words ]
You asked to Show where in mahabharata it is written BHEEMAbroke SHivalinga .. It is shown relevant verses are typed … YOUR silence shows [ you had to eat your own words , miserably ]
You said VALMIKI writes that HANUMAN was helpless and cite verse .. BUt we HAVE SHOWN that verse does not show anywhere the word HELPLESS .. you have extrapolated .. such blunderous translations and yet shame has descended on you neither you have addressed these issues …
have you made any attempt to show how VALMIKI verse shows HELPLESSENESS … whereas we ahve shown HOW verses show that HANUMAAN was not at all troubled by astra .. i many verses .. YOUR SILENCE SHOWS you have no knwoledge of either RAMAYANA BHAGAVAT or for that matter any purana .. just illogically discussing is NOT DEBATE ..
NOW your qualification to debate on subject matters where you ahve no proficiency is seriously under threat .. first get your facts and sanskrit right .. or get a good sanskrit expert to accompany you .. so that debate is fruitful .
chiraan said:July 3, 2012 at 00:56
ReplyDelete(Reply for Parijat's posts)
wherever his answers are wrong he will not revisit that comment … wherever he is cornered he will conveniently skip and start a new debate on new topic …
his logic is very poor ,…
in one place he asks how K +isha becomes kesha .. and points fingure at sanskrit language of SHIVA himself who has said it as faulty .. in the same breath he says keshav can be killer of kesi … MAadhav can be translated as madhu and va as killer …. for this he has no sandhi viccheda problem .. and he doesnt bother to clear this ..nor his expertise in sanskrit is enough to explain these to HUMBLE READERS …
he is entitled to ask .. how va as one who gives vara .. can be applied to MADHU .. that means he wants to ask but NOT answer .. in the name of answer all he has is ASTROJYOTI links which is universal truth .. and SANGRAHA RAMAYANA composed by SHIVA is spurious .. poor fellow doesnt even know what his ARADHYA DEVATA has written or said .. and yes HE DOESNt even know that there can be other meanings of word KESHAVA MADHAV in upanishads because they are not present at ASTROJYOTIweblinks …
so much for his knowledge and expertise ……
Chiraan said: July 3, 2012 at 01:05
ReplyDeleteIf somebody cites PURUSHSUKTA for NARAYANA as supreme …
PARIJAAT asks where is PURUSH SUKTA what is it
kindly give weblink …
SO pARIJAAT if you dont know purush sukta and its meanings ..
is it your ignorance that we should be laughing at OR you should be blaming internet for not having a weblink to educate you ..
when you come to debate and claim that you have expertise enough to SHOW FAULT in sandhi vicheda of something composed in Puranas ,,, then it follows that you have knowledge of PURUSH SUKTA HIRAYAAGARBHA SUKTA .. why do you need a web link ..
HAVEnt you ever heard of PURUSH SUKTA ..MAHOPANISHAt , BHAGAVAT HARIVANSHA , SANGRAHA RAMAYANA , ADHYATMA RAMAYANA . or you .only VALIMIKI RAMAYANa and that Gorakhpress Translations ..[ which gives translation in hindi different then the original sanskrit and you take them as eternal truths ]
R.J. said:July 1, 2012 at 11:49
ReplyDeleteOm Sri hanumate namaha
As per one concept of jyotish, all our karmas of our current life are predefined and predetermined which reflect in our janma kundali.
so all good bad phase in life are already written..then how karmas of our current life, which according to this above write-up affect our life and accuracy of prediction of a jyotishi?
If i was destined that I would hurt an elder and that would adversely affect my life, then how it can be a new factor in the equation? does it mean that current good or bad deeds are not pre-defined and hence don’t reflect in our horoscope, dasha-antardasha??? So then what is pre-determined and destiny? OR destiny is also vague and conditional?
Om shri hanumate namaha
Chiraan said: July 1, 2012 at 17:50
ReplyDeleteyour question is good ..
When presented with a situation every person reacts … HOw does he react …he reacts only according to KNOWLEDGE BASE and QUALITIES developed so far in him [ upto that point ]
now what is the purpose of life ? it is to know and learn the perfet way of reacting to THE SITUATIOn as per dharma … untill one gets the right reaction he is always in samsaara .. so one learns at every step …
IS the learning pre destined .? this is udaaseen question ! if one says my learning is predestined and I will not go to guru or make any efforts to learn ..then one will never learn … one will learn only when one thinks yes Getting a guru is important and i have to serve him … then learning is possible .. so what is what .. if learning is predestined one gets learning automatically or when it is predesatined one gets zeal to learn ..
it is the second .. BUT then again learn is process a karma which one should undergo /. HOW much … that is the qulity of jeeva …
so our presnt karmas are reflective of our nature … IF one wants optimum exhibition of ones quality one will strive hard to get his present karma right .. one who is dull witted will squander the chance of development ..
So ones present karma is dependent on qualities .. one must develop ones own qualities to optimum
Parijat Mathur said:June 30, 2012 at 11:42
ReplyDelete1. For the benefit of all who seek knowledge, quote verses or cite their no. from Veda/Purana which state(explicit) your conceived notion that Krishna/Vayu is superior to Shiva. Krishna is Purushottama i.e. he is uttama(superior) to Purusha(Brahma) but he is not Ishwara(Shiva).
2. Coming to Hanumana, he had vara from Brahma that his Brahmastra would release/free him after 1 muhurta only. He was captured by Meghnada, capture while battle is defeat. [Refer Valmiki Ramayana Sarga 48 of Sundarkanda]. Hanumana is helpless against Brahmastra for 1 muhurta.
Meghnada had conducted 7 yagyas- Agnishtoma, Ashvamedha, Bahusuvarnaka, Rajsuya, Gomedha, Vaishnava & at last Maheshvara yagya through Shukracharya. Indra(through Brihaspati) had capacity of 1st 6 yagyas only. On completion of 7th yagya, he had many vara’s from Pashupati(deity of Maheshvara yagya). They were:
a. Divya Ratha which can fly at will of its user(Rakshas’s can fly by birth but Ratha flies faster)
b. Tamasi Maya used for creating darkness to hide user from even deva/asura(who have divine vision)
c. 2 Divine Akshaya Quivers full of arrows
d. Unbreakable Bow
e. Powerful weapon which destroys enemy in battle(name of this astra is not mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana I have, however the version I have is condensed not complete)
He also obtained vara from Brahma in exchange of releasing Indra: That when I pray to Agni with havya, then from Agni should appear a Ratha, on which if seated nobody can kill me.
Had Megnnada mounted this Ratha, not even Lakshmama could have defeated him, that is why his yagya to Agni had to be disrupted in between.
Shiva did not grant Meghnada to be invincible, it was Brahma.
I do not have shastra relating to Mahabharata events with me now(as on vacation), so will respond accordingly
Chiraan said: June 30, 2012 at 17:18
ReplyDeleteRavana’s mentioned was not reference to MEGHNAAD , HANUMAAN did not kill MEghnaad , but he killed all other sons of RAVANa in ashoka vatika ,
Bramhastra did not bind HANUMAAN , HANumaan chose to honour BRAMh’s words as he had overtaken all other boons …
I shall quote all the relevant verses That proves HANUMAAN greater than SHIVA .. and also VISHNU …
for the started … KESHAVA means one who gives vara to Ka = bramha and isha =ishvara … so his superiority is there …
NARAYANA samodeo na bhuto na bhavishyati is purana vakya which says there is NO one equal or greater to NARAYANA neither in the past nor in the future ..
Chiraan said: July 1, 2012 at 17:22
ReplyDeletePARIJAAT , I have seen all your posts … They will appear in blog …
NOw lets us see the verse you have not quoted but given ref …
Verse 40 sarga 48 valmiki RAmayana
tatah swayambhuvairmantrairbramhastram chabhimantritam | hanumaanshchintayaamaas vardaanam pitamahat |
NOW what you have quoted is above verses translates as HANUMAN was troubled by BRAMHAASTRA for ONE MUHURTA time …. CAN you please show by the grace of your great sanskrit learning where in the verse it is givcen as ONE MUHURTA it troubled …
what YOU HAVE DONE is like a rote parrot given ref of verse and translated HINDI portion of Gorakhpress translation …
The above verse means .. ” The mantra abhimaani devata of BRAMHASTRA is BRAmha and HANUMAAN thought of boon from BRAMHA …
there is no mention of one mhurta trouble it is your figment of imagination ….
now let us see where VALMIKI SAYS HANUMAAN was not troubled but Chose to be bind by BRMHASTAR out of SELF WILL …
verse 45 sarga 48 and verse 17 sarga 50 valmiki ramayana
first one is
grahaNe chaapi rakshobhirmahanme guNa darshanam | RakshasendreNa sanvaadastasmaad gruhnantu maam pare |
let me translate corectly lest you look into wrong one again
This means , HANUMAAN is thinking , I see a great benefit in this binding by astra , because it will give scope to see the RAKSHANEDRA RAVAN ..
the verse before this says ..,ASTRENAPI hi baddasya bhayam mama na jayate .. ie there was no fear of ASTRA even if it bound him as it had no effect as BRAMHA VAYU INDRA always protect HANUMAAN ..
and the verse before that says .. PITAMAHAAAGNYAAManuvartate … anuvartate shows HANUMAN did so out of his own will as he had VIMOKSHASHAKTIM pitamahanugrahaat ..
now TO PUT A SEAL onto the argument
verse 16 Sarga 50 valmiki ramayana
ASTRA paashair na shakyoham baddum devaasurairapi |
HANUMAANji says astra and paasha cannot bind him even though from it is of any devata or asura …
verse 17
RAJAANAm drashtu kaamen mayaastramanuvartitam ..
ONLY to have a LOOK at the KING I chose to honour ASTRA …
so with faulty translations and extrapolation of muhurta your claim is falsified …
verse
Chiraan said: July 1, 2012 at 18:43
ReplyDeleteYou have asked IS THERE ANY references to RUDRA vardaan to those killed by HANUMAAN … I shall give the same ..
sangraha Ramayana
avadhyaan SHANKARVARAAT kinkaraan naam rakshaan | saashiteekotiyuthesham sapurogaashtakayutam |
vaalmiki mentions asheetikoti .. as ravan sena sent to capture HANUMAAN .. even though they had avadhyavtva [ no death ] by shiva as varaa they were killed by HANUMAAN
ie 80 crores came to fight HANUMAAN in ashoka vaatika .. and they were killed in minutes … DO you remember any SHIVA episode of this magnitude ..
even in case of SIMHIKA .. she had bramha vara ..
samarthyam pratihatham pradadau VIDHATA
whose vara VIDHATA ie BRAMHA ….
and what happened HANUMAAN killed her … how did HANUMAAN not get bind by BRAMHA’s vara here .. HANUMAAN is capable of overtaking this it is amply evident ..
AKSHAKUMAAr is praised to be equal to RAVANA how
varbalasya astrabalasya nijabalasya ch trishvapi saamya prasiddham
so aksha kummara too had varabala just like RAVANA and indrajeet and yet HE DIED at the ands of HANUMAAN .. what happened with that …
RAVANA lost his 1/3rd bala ..
RAVAN 1 part Indrajit 1 part and akshakumaar 1 part .. these contained RAVANA s core strength … HANUMAN finished off 1/3 army and 1/3 bala of RAVANA .. rest he left it to RAAMA … consciously ..
Parijat Mathur said: July 3, 2012 at 01:33
ReplyDelete33.1. “even in case of SIMHIKA .. she had bramha vara ..
samarthyam pratihatham pradadau VIDHATA whose vara VIDHATA ie BRAMHA ….
and what happened HANUMAAN killed her … how did HANUMAAN not get bind by BRAMHA’s vara here .. HANUMAAN is capable of overtaking this it is amply evident ..”
Note Hanumana had not overcome any vara of Simhika, he was grabbed along with his chaaya thus fulfilling Simhika’s ability to grab chaaya. Vara to Simhika is proven true. That he kills Simhika even when caught is another thing. Valmiki never mentions that Simhika had any vara of invincibility whatsoever.
Refer Verse 165-178/ Sarga 1/ Sundarakanda/Valmiki Ramayana here:
Click to access ramayana5_sundara.pdf
33.2. What is Ramayana Sangraha? A search on web reveals it is text written as per interpretation of story of Rama as directed by some Madhavacharya. Mahavacharya or anybody else other than Valmiki is not authorized to write/interpret & propagate story of Rama by Brahma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narayana_Panditacharya
Why you need refer spurious texts such as these, these have no admissibility as pramana, is Valmiki not good enough a source on Rama for you?
33.3 You make opinion that I may be referring bhashya/commentaries/translations. For all you know I may be referring Svarga loka editions of shastra uncondensed by Vyasa. Why should this be of concern to you. You cannot find any verses in support of your claim that Shiva vara is counterable so you attempt to denigrate/raise suspicion about source of your opponent. Your opinion does not matter/of no consequence until you can convert it into concrete evidence that source of opponent is apramanika.
chiraan said: July 3, 2012 at 02:06
ReplyDeleteThe boon to SIMHIKA is whomseover shadow it catches it becomes incapable of movement and simhika becomes capable of killing that .. WAS HANUMAN INCAPABLE of MOvement CA ANYBODY KILL SIMHIKA , himself being immovable ..
SAMArthyam pratihatam …… do you understand the meaning .. or the translation that you refer does not contain the proper meaning …
now LET ME CUT YOUR NONSENSE RANT about SANGRAHA RAMAYANA ..
you have written “anybody else other than Valmiki is not authorized to write/interpret & propagate story of Rama by Brahma.”
VALMIKI wrote RAMAYANA after gettig UPADESHA FROM NARADA on RAMAYANA ..
NARADA git Upadesha from BRAMHA .. who was GIVEN UPADESHA OF RAMAYANA by LORD HAYAGREEVA ..
the original RAMAYANA is known as MOOLRAMAYANA and is 100 crore verses … VALMIKI CONDENSED it to 28000
THE PRAMAANA for this is MATSYA PURANA words
matsya PURANA adhyaya 53 shloka 5, 8 , 80 ,81
“निर्दग्धेषु च लोकेषु वाजिरुपेण वै मया । श्रुत्वाजगाद च मुनीन प्रतिदेवश्चतुर्मुखः ॥….
वाल्मीकिना च यत्प्रोक्तम रामोपाख्यानमुत्तमम् । ब्रह्मणाऽà¤िहितम तच्चशतकोटिप्रविसतरम् आह्रत्य नारदायैव तेन वाल्मीकिना पुनः ॥
the above verse s of MATSYA PURANA is pramaana that RAMAYANA is 100 crores in MOOL RAMAYANA [ which is sangraha RAMAYANA ]
Every where in InDIA it is a practise to recite following verses before and after RAMAYANA recital
that is
charitam raghunathasya SHATKOTIPRAVISTARAM | ekaikamaksharam proktam Mahapataknashanam ||
this tradition gives more strength to the argument that RAMAYANA is actually 100 crore shatkoti verses whereas VALMIKI wrote only 28000 out of it .. [ so many things in RAMAYANA is not known by VALMIKI alone .. VALMIKI is not be all of RAMAYANA ..
pramana is in adhbut ramayana also ” RAMAYANAmiti khyatam shatkoti pravistaram ”
RAMAYAN told by HAYAGREEVA is authentic RAMAYANA ..
this can be found in detail as ramayana in padma PURANA .. there is RAMAYANa in NARSIMHA PURANA .. there are other RAMAYANAs
ADHYATMA RAMAYANA [ shiva parvati samvaada ]
ADHBHUT RAMAYANA
vasishtha ramayana
and SADASHIVA [ krittivasa ] RAMAYANA ..
every RAMAYAN attributes its roots to MAHARAMAYANA MOOLARAMAYANA SANGRAHA RAMAYANA ..
KIndly grow up boy PARIJAAT .. your ignorance has been amply demonstrated ..
Parijat Mathur said: July 5, 2012 at 04:01
ReplyDelete“sangraha Ramayana
avadhyaan SHANKARVARAAT kinkaraan naam rakshaan | saashiteekotiyuthesham sapurogaashtakayutam |”
Show me how this says what the vara from Shiva was. Did Shiva give vara that Kinkaraan cannot be killed? For all you know he could as well have given vara of 1 svarana mudra!
Svarga loka edtions of shastra though they may be koti-koti shloka long, are not available to us on Bhutala, they exist in Svarga only in Kaliyuga. We cannot refer to them as pramana.
chiraan said:July 5, 2012 at 11:04
ReplyDeleteavadhyaan means cannot be killed [ avadhya by shakar vara ].. I thought you knew sanskrit
Now we are quoting from the mool ramayana that measn it is available to us .. and it treated as parmana MATSYA PURANA says so
Parijat Mathur said:July 5, 2012 at 04:15
ReplyDelete“samarthyam pratihatham pradadau VIDHATA whose vara VIDHATA ie BRAMHA ….
and what happened HANUMAAN killed her … how did HANUMAAN not get bind by BRAMHA’s vara here .. HANUMAAN is capable of overtaking this it is amply evident ..”
Simhika had Pratihata vega of Hanumana. Hanumana is able to achieve this feat using siddhi of Anima ie up-down his size. Brahma is forefather of all in his Brahmanda. So how can his vara be countered by any of his creatures(also his descendant).
I repeat, any vara of Brahma cannot be countered inside his creation/Brahmanda.
Why then do you think Narsimha avatara took place. Why not Hari go & kill Hiranyakashipu in chaturbhuja form.
Parijat Mathur said: July 5, 2012 at 04:26
ReplyDeleteIn case you still cannot see how that happened. Simhika held/grabbed/grahana chaya of Hanumana in her hands. Hanumana vega gets pratihata. He looks down to samudra & Simhika is there. Sugriva had already forewarned Hanumana of this chaya grabbing Simhika in the ocean. Hanumana chaya is grabbed. Now where Simhika move her hand there chaya will go engrossed in hand & since vara is of chayagrahana, Hanumana would also be forced to move identical to his grabbed chaya. Now before Simhika can move her hands & put his chaya into her mouth, Hanumana uses Anima to change his size. As Hanumana size changes & Surya is shining, his chaya size changes in proportion. Now chaya is bigger than Simhika’s hand & chaya being out of clasp of hand, Hanumana is free to move again. He kills her before she can attempt to grab her again.
How Simhika can grab chaya bigger than her hand again. Because Simhika is ichchanusara rupdadhari. She can make her hand bigger than chaya. But Hanumana kills her before that.
Chiraan said: July 5, 2012 at 11:15
ReplyDeletePAIJAAT quotes – “Brahma is forefather of all in his Brahmanda. So how can his vara be countered by any of his creatures(also his descendant).
I repeat, any vara of Brahma cannot be countered inside his creation/Brahmanda. ”
the following lines which exclusively says SIMHIKA HAD VARA boon from BRAMHA of being immortal [ no death ]
and HANUMAN KILLED HER
” vidhervaraadavadhya sa lankapaalan tatpara | CHAYAgraha iti khyata chayaam jagraah maarute ||
vidhervaraadavadhya .. that is bramha vara is boon for avadhya
So it is amply clear that HANUMAAN could nullify BRAMHA boon by killing her … so Bramhastra pasha was also overtaken but HAnuman chose to be in it to see RAVANA ..
isnt your claim that vara cannot be overtken in bramhanda is pooh pooohed ..
Krishna Kadiri said:July 4, 2012 at 16:46
ReplyDeleteParijat said –
4. You attempt to dissect Keshava as = Ka+Isha+Vara as meaning who gives Vara to Isha as Keshava. This attempt to sandhi is wrong as Ka+Isha+Vara=Keshavara not Keshava. Also if meaning intended is that who gives vara then it should be Varadah not Vara.
Also if Ka+Isha+Vara means that who gives vara to Ka & Isha then Ishvara=Isha+Vara should also mean that who gives vara to Isha but Isha & Ishavara are same or do you purport that they be different? This is bad sandhi from your part.
—
What nonsense is this? From the following quote given by Sri Madhvacharya, i.e.
hiraNyagarbhaH kaH prokta IshaH shaN^kara eva cha |
sR^ishhTyAdinA vartayati tau yataH keshavo bhavAn ||
the meaning is – Hiranyagarbha is called as ka, Shankara is called as Isha. Whoever instigates these two, through srishti, samhaara, is called Keshava for that reason. Why are you imagining vara? So grammatically, the name is derived from — ka and iisha’s vartaka . ka + iisha = kesha. Their vartaka (from vRuthu vartana dhaatu). This eventually gets Da-pratyaya (vaD) which becomes lopa, leaving only va. Hence keshava.
Parijat Mathur said:June 30, 2012 at 23:29
ReplyDeleteYou claim Ka refers to Brahma, any reasons for that?(though Ka is not necessary for your argument , just Isha should suffice)
Chiraan said: July 1, 2012 at 00:10
ReplyDeleteKa is Bramha by sankrit root , ka mean akaash .k is for king of birds, and similarly k is for chaturmukha bramha as well .. one must have knowledge nirukta to know these … nirukta is vedanga … without vedanga vedas or any sahstra cannot be knwn fully .. what are vedangas … vyakarana nirukta kalpa chandas shiksha jyotishya … without these six one should not attempt to interpret the shastras all by oneself
Parijat Mathur said:July 1, 2012 at 15:19
ReplyDeleteIt is Krishna alone who is referred to as Keshava, never Rama/Visnu/Hari/Narayana as he is killer of Kesi sent by Kansa in Krishna avatara.
Chiraan said: July 1, 2012 at 18:11
ReplyDeleteThere is no difference between avatara of Vishnu .. as VISHNU is aprakrut .. he is not born ..even in avataras he is not born .. so what applies to KRISHNA also applies to RAAMA as both are same ,.,
I have already given HARIVANSHa vachan mentioning the meaning of KESHAVA as regulator of SHIVA and BRAMHA
one word in sanskrit can have multiple meanings ..
for example ..
NARAYANA …
ara means dosha .. na ara means opposite of doshas ie GUnas [ auspicious qualities ] … ayana means ashraya .. so ashrya to gunas .. is NARAYANA ie guna porrna ..
ara means dosha … na can be taken as negative abhaava … arashrayam na bhavati .. that makes NARAYANA as defectless …
nar is chetana … the knwoledge of nara is NAARam .. it is VEDA …. ashraya to vedas ie subject matter of vedas is NARAYANA ,,
ara is dukha ..one who does not have dukh is naar ie MUKTAS those who have attained moxa are Muktas .. and one who is ashraya shelter to these is NARAYANA .. ayana means ashraya ..
so one word can have thousands of meanings .. so saying krishna is keshava and that means one who slayed kesi is very limited thought ..
see in all the above explanation of NARAYANA , he is guna poorna .. defectless and also one who is bestower of MOXA … these attrbutes are not given for SHIVA … now you have to give verses and explanation to prove your claim .. and not just make statements in AIR
Parijat Mathur said: July 1, 2012 at 15:24
ReplyDelete4. It is Krishna alone who is referred to as Keshava, never Rama/Visnu/Narayana as he is killer of Kesi sent by Kansa in Krishna avatara.
5. “Narayana Samodeo”- samo(equal)+deo(deva), it means there can be no deva equal to Narayana. Shiva is not deva(not son of Aditi) as he is unborn/Ajah rather he is devasuranamaskritaya(prayed by deva/asura). I agree Narayana to be the foremost amongst deva = devashiromani. This verse is applicable to Narayana, as Shiva granted him vara that there will never be anybody exceeding Narayana. This is the basis of this verse you quote. Mind that Shiva is Ajah while Brahma is Svayambhu. If you understand what this implies then you will know that Brahma was born through womb of Narayana(connected to his nabhi like child connected to nabhi of mother at birth) so Narayana is his mother. But who then is Brahma’s father. Who sowed the seed into sleeping Narayana?
Chiraan said: July 1, 2012 at 17:36
ReplyDeleteDEVA means one who does kreeda inside and outside BRAMHANDA … IF SHIVA does not do this KREEEDA and if he is not DEVA than by your own admission you are reducing SHIVA to a mere mortal …
KINDLY GIVE one pramaana from veda where it is said SHIVA is unborn …
KINDLY give the state of SHIVA before the CREATION .. you must quote the verse … then I shall prove SHIVA is not Sarvottam but a son OF VAYU .. I shall quote relevant references …
regarding your other post ,.. you have shown total ignorance towards the root verbs .. so it makes no sense in educating you on meanings of words K ..
and k is bramha is given in the verse of HARIVANSHA puraana
” hiranyagarbhah k: prokta eesha: shankar eva ch | srushtyaadina vartayati tau yatah KESHAVO bhavaan || “
kindly see the verse is from puraana and a pramaana which says as srishti begaan Keshava is regulator controller of both HIRANYAGARBHA who is known by ” ka ” and shankar [ shiva ] is known by eesha .
In case you dont know HIRANYAGARBHA is BRAMHA chaturmukha BRAMHA .. so learn nirukta and then come for debate .. and quote verses before making statements .. and not extrapolations ..
NOW give verses from VEDA where SHIVA is extolled as one before Srishti … FOR NARAYANA I can give many such verses …
Chiraan said: July 1, 2012 at 18:16
ReplyDeletewhen BRAMHA udbhava happened .. by your own admission THERE IS VISHNU NARAYANA there ,,, that shows NARYANA was existent even before BRAMHA came into existence ,.. is there a mention SHIVA here to be present when this episode of BRAMHA coming out of NABHI was happening .. where was SHIVA he was not even born .. he was not yet brought into SRISHTI so shiva came later to this EPISODE >.. in PADMA kalpa .. SHIVA was born to SUTRA NAMAK VAYU .. DO YOU WANT VERSES here …to prove my statement …
KINDLY GIVE ONE STATEMENT where SHIVA EXISTED BEFORE NARAYANA
Parijat Mathur said:July 1, 2012 at 19:59
ReplyDelete6.1 a+e=ai? Your purport escapes me here?? Though I guess you attempt to point to K+Isha+Va=Keshava, Kaa(consonant with matra)+Isha+Va=Kaishava. By Ka I meant just the consonant sans matras.
Again you claim Va means Vara. Where is it stated so? Why it cannot be Vata(tree), Vama(eject) etc. Even If this sandhi & meaning be valid then Ishava=who gives vara to Isha & Kava= who gives vara to Ka. But nowhere can one find words such as Ishava & Kava as addressed to Hari.
6.2 If va means vara(according to you), then Madhava which is another name to address Krishna should also mean that who grants vara to Madhu. But accepted meaning of Madhava is killer of Madhu(killed by Krishna in Krishna avatar). Hence your logic is flawed.
6.3 It is not necessary to master economics to point out wrong logic/policies employed by FM(intentionally). Likewise mastery of all Vedanga is not needed to refute flawed sandhi vichcheda.
Chiraan said: July 1, 2012 at 20:31
ReplyDeleteFlawed sandhi vichhceda .. this self assumption of mastery in sanskrit is laughable ,.. you have amply shown , kindly go through details in the previous post . and answer the questions raised
Chiraan said: July 1, 2012 at 20:43
ReplyDeleteVA also means knowledge .. where to use what needs training , you lack it .,hence incapability to understand …
“But nowhere can one find words such as Ishava & Kava as addressed to Hari.” this quote of yours is full of ignorance …
Infact shastras say all the words address HARI only … Its VEDAVYASA’s words … Kindly quote some verses to justify your statements …
The roots are always without matras .. this is basic … and again you have shown ample ignorance on this front ..
Hiranyagarbhah k: prokta ” is purana vachan … i need not repeat again .. puraana know their sanskrit better than your non expert self [ ecponomics or otherwise ]
Parijat Mathur said:July 1, 2012 at 20:01
ReplyDelete7. Again you claim:
7.1. Ka is Brahma
Is it that evident? I do not see. Show the verse from Nirukta or whatever source you think this comes from to establish the intended meaning. If you think the meaning of root words/dhatus is disclosed/graced upon you, then establish the meaning of Ka from shastra. From what can be gathered from your reply, it is unthinkable that a creature like you who does not know Ishavara can know root words/dhatus propounded by him(Shiva).
7.2. Ka is Akasha
Show sandhi vichcheda of Akasha relating to Ka then.
7.3. Ka is King of Birds
Name this KIng of Birds then.
7.4. Ka is 4(chatura) & Ka is mukha
Again is that purport obvious? Cite the verses which you think establish so.
7.5. I have not attempted interpretation of shastra- it is you have attempted interpreting Keshava= vara bestower for Brahma+Shiva. By your logic, it should be you who should have knowledge of dhatus/root words to affirm your interpretation. The onus lies on you. I am merely pointing out flaw in your interpretation(which is manushye compared with apaurusheya shastra).
Chiraan said: July 1, 2012 at 20:28
ReplyDeleteI hope you have not read answers … kindly read answers …there is puraana vachan given to proove K as Bramha ..
Parijat Mathur said:July 1, 2012 at 20:01
ReplyDelete8. Regarding Jeemuta malla, nowhere in Vyasa Mahabharata is mentioned Jeemuta had any vara from whoever. Now one wonders where you are getting your (false) information from? I am forced to ask for your source again.
Refer Adhyaya12-21/Virata Parva/Vyasa Mahabharata here:
Click to access mahabharata04_virata.pdf
9. Same is case with Upakichaka vadha where Bhima kills 105 Upakichaka. There is no mention of any vara from Shiva by Vyasa.
See for yourself Adhyaya 22/Virata Parva/Vyasa Mahabharata here:
Click to access mahabharata04_virata.pdf
10. Jarasandha- Vara from Shiva mentioned in Mahabharata but Vyasa does not state what vara exactly was.
Refer Verse 63-64/Adhyaya 14/Sabha Parva/Vyasa Mahabharata here:
Click to access mahabharata02_sabha.pdf
Also note there is no mention that Bheema broke Shivlinga at Jarasandha’s fort.
Chiraan said: July 1, 2012 at 20:35
ReplyDeleteBefore this post you made similar claims with RAMAYANA and quoted a vague translation , so it is quiet evident your knowledge is limited to translations and not original … I have given many verses to cut your previous claims .. KINDLY Addres them before starting a fresh debate on MAHABHARTA .. I shall address thes eissues too by quoting relevant verses ..,
BUT WE ARE YET TO SEE single verse from YOU
Parijat Mathur said:July 1, 2012 at 20:04
ReplyDelete1.1 Now comes the last of your arguments- Saugandhika Vana where Bhima had killed a Rakshasa Manimana friend of Kubera. Nowhere Vyasa mentions any vara granted to Manimana by Shiva or others. In fact Vyasa explains that Manimana had once insulted Agastya by unprovoked spitting on him who in return had cursed Manimana to be reduced by a single Human along with his whole army of rakshasa’s. This does not even show superiority of Bhima over even Manimana as Bhima was just nimitta(means), cause was Agastya.
[Refer Vana Parva/Vyasa Mahabharata]
11.2 In case you imagine Bhima to be superior to Kubera- a Lokpala like Yama, was not Bhima paralyzed by Nahusha in form of Sarpa immediately after the Saugandhika Vana incident in Vana Parva. Nahusha releases Bhima only because he was satisfied with Yudhishthira.
Vyasa says in detail, that Nahusha had a vara on basis of which he paralyzed Bhima as soon as Sarpa Nahusha touched Bhima. Vyasa then shows futility of Bhima- Bhima struggles but finds himself unable to move. Then Bhima resorts to begging(anunaya-vinaya) but Nahusha does not free him. Resorting to beg shoes Bhima is afraid of death. When Bhima could not overcome vara given to Nahusha-Sarpa what makes you think Bhima/Hanumana & the like could overcome vara(if any) given by Shiva to their opponents?? Then how can Bhima be above a Lokpala like Indra/Yama/Varuna/Kubera?
You again attempt to claim Bhima can do anything he pleases yet “nothing happens to him”. This has no basis in shastra as Veda Vyasa himself points out that Bhima in his mada attempted to wander freely after Kubera honored Yudhishthira post Saugandika van a kana, is Bhima successful? No, immediately(after his dhristata displayed in Saugandhika van a kana) he is captured by Nahusha-Sarpa thus restraining his freedom.
Kubera complains to Yudhishthira that while Arjuna who is in Lokpala Indra’s realm harbors all the guna, Bhima who has entered Kubera’s realm possesses nil guna which is equivalent to behavior like an idiot. What is Bhima but an engine with 10000 elephant-bala condensed? (even this bala he obtains through steroid drink of Nagas it is not present in Bhima by birth). Bala in itself is not a guna.
[Refer Vana Parva/Vyasa Mahabharata]
Chiraan said: July 1, 2012 at 21:05
ReplyDeleteNAHUSHA became a sarpa by his karma of lusting Indras wife …
when he realised his folly he asked for means to get relief from curse [ of being a sarpa ] .. what was the condition for relief … when he catches One who does not react to his capturing then he will be relieved of the curse … so in order to relieve Nahusha from curse Bheema stayed still … kindly cross verify and of you want again we will provide VERSES.
Parijat Mathur said:July 3, 2012 at 13:48
ReplyDelete35. Do you claim Bhima could have resisted Nahusha?
Bhima is Vayuputra, Vayu is just 1 deva. Indra is Devaraja. Nahusha was Indra before in fact Indra even with advise of Vishnu was outclassed in every way by Nahusha. Do you think then that son of 1 Deva(Vayu) > Indra( < Nahusha)?
They had to trick Nahusha to insult a Brahmana to ensure his downfall. If Vishnu has Aishvarya(Ishita), why he cannot restore Indra even with his Aishvarya? Why they have to resort/rely to/on trickery(tamoguna)??
Chiraan said: July 3, 2012 at 14:07
ReplyDeleteAGAIN there is misconception about your understanding of VAYU and INDRA ….
In the previous manvantara VAYU was also INDRA , ASHWINI devatas were INDRA , YAMA was Indra and Purandar present INDRA …
all these previous manvantara INdras have become PANDAVAs ..
NEXT BALI becomes INDRA ..
NOW whether VAYU is greater than INDRA … yes INFINITELY …
Kindly read the episode of All devatas deciding to test strength to prove who is GREATEST among devatas .. and MUKHYAPRANA is declared greatest .. because when he enters BODY is called as ALIVE and when he leaves BODY is called as dead .. even though al devatas are present in it .. when MUKHYAPRAA leaves all have to leave forcibly …and when all devatas enter even then body does not function its only when VAYU enters .. Body fucntion ..
This test of strength is given in UPANISHAD .. you can ask for relevant verses ..
ENTIRE vedas and shastra declare VAYU as SUPREME devata ..
NAHUSHA had a boon .. kindly read about NAHUSHA in puranas ,.. not just bharat .. so you shall undrstand what was the condition for his release from CURSE ..
why VISHNU could not restore INDRA .. because .. INDRA had been cursed by DURVASA to loose aishwarya time to time .. VISHNU honours the words of DURVASA here ..
trickery is resorted ,only to save NAHUSHA from being a sinner by aspiring uttam stree SACHI .. they only act benevolently to bring good senses to NAHUSHA .. who had become blind with pride ..
Parijat Mathur said:July 3, 2012 at 14:38
ReplyDelete37. It is obvious that you do not realize Bhima is punished(through means of Nahusha-Sarpa)for his dhrishtata & encroachment on land of Kubera. This is simple cause-effect(Sarpa episode comes immediately post Saugandhika Vana).
Why Bhima only had to come in grips of Sarpa? Why not Yudhishthira, Nakula, Sahdeva?? Simply because they were not aparadhis of Kubera.
Chiraan said: July 3, 2012 at 14:44
ReplyDeleteKindly tell me how does NAHUSH recover his original form ie relieved from SARPA avastha .. ? and why
is NAHUSHA episode only in mahabahrata .. or it can be found else where in puranas as well ?
now again .. kindly quote [ means write the verses ] where it is written ” aparadhis of KUBERA ”
in vyasa mahabharta ..
second also quote the verse where YUDHISTHIRA rescues BHEEMA … please quote .. i think your reading translations faulty has not yet improved …
Parijat Mathur said:July 1, 2012 at 20:08
ReplyDelete12. I had asked to cite any one instance where Shiva vara had been countered. I give you more freedom to respond(easier task), you have been claiming vara of invincibility from Shiva without scriptural proof, so like I had asked you originally, give me any 1 instance of (any)vara(need not be invincibility any trivial vara is ok) from Shiva being countered anywhere in Veda/Purana.
12. As for your misguided notion that anybody can be supreme to Shiva, I can hint you that this is not possible to find in shastra else Shiva worship would have been extinct long ago.
13. i notice that you again claim that Hanumana “had overtaken all other boons”. If you claim then cite/quote so others can follow & verify your claims. Where in Ramayana, Valmiki says Hanumana could counter any vara.(I am giving you freedom/easier task to show any one instance)
Chiraan said: July 1, 2012 at 20:49
ReplyDeleteI have already shown many instances in Ramayana itself and relevant verses too… in previous post kindly back your statements with some verses …
the only verse which you gave ref you have miserably extrapolated by adding words of your own whereas the verse contain NONE ..
I expect some verses where it says SHIVA was never born .. HE existed before SRISHTI …and if we give verses which exclusively says NARAYANA was never born .. And if we show SHIVA was born I think matter rests ..
So kindly come up with some verses ..
Chiraan said: July 2, 2012 at 14:15
ReplyDeletethere can be more than 100 meanings to KESHAVA showing alternate meanings does not mean shifting … if you are saying one word should mean only one meaning then your sanskrit understanding is disputabe …
GIVING VARA to mADHU is also acceptable .. here MADHU is not the demon MADHU .. VAYU is known as MADHU ..SO MADHAV becomes protector of VAYU … va is also protector ../// KINDLY refer Chandogyaupanushad ..
Now with more and more of ignorance you seem not to be a fit debator … you need to know many things in grammar … and without the knowledge of that One cannot educate you on every verse .. BETTER GET A GOOD SANSKRIT TEACHER OF YOUR CHOICE to accompany you in this debate wo can guide YOU ON THE COMPLEX GRAMMAR part without we taking pain to educate you and waste space on FORUM ..
SO i can address your SANSKRIT teacher accompanying easily to get right meanings .. and interpretation ..
IF PURANAS were accesible then please refer HARIVANSHA .. where esha as SHANKARA has been very clealy depicted … and VA as regulator .. as regulation is also giving boons … regulator is also one who controls ..
NOW what are you trying to say half[k] +a + e is not ke then you must get back get school again ..
please get a good sanskrit expert to accompany so that I can give exact quotes and sanskrity rules . and his agreement will also lead to your agreement .. because making blunders has become standard accompaniment of your posts ..\
PS you have already admitted to multiple meaning of a word .. SO I do not see any logic in sayng KESHAVA is surya chandra kesha ..and quoting a verse .. DOES THAT nullify KESHAVA being regulator of SHIVA .. if multiple meaning is accepted .. how proving KESHAVA as keshi killer stops him from being regulator of SHIVA ..
you should instead concentrate on showing a verse where it is exclusively said SHIVA is not regulated by KESHAVA …
and showing parva pdfs is not showing verses .. kindly quote them threadbare lets discuss your sanskrit knwoledge in verses ..and it will help readers tooo …..take some pains ..
Chiraan said: July 2, 2012 at 14:53
ReplyDeleteYOU seem to be saying you are an expert in Sanskrit … and are capable of showing defects …
and in one of your posts You have translated or rather given meaning of MADHAV as killer of MADHu the demon ..
NOw with your knowledge of sanskrit sandhi vichcheda please explain how MADHAV means killer of MADHU
for your ease i shall write in hindi ..
माधव
मधु
can you show your expertise .. how MAA DH v: becomes one who has done vadh of MADHU ?
because based on this YOU ASKED a question if VA is giving boon .. then MAADHAV should be one who gave boon ti madhu .. please explain your logic of MADHU from MAADHAV ..
Then I shall give actual ,meaning of MAADHAV
मा = ज्ञान / प्रमाण
धवः = येजमान
ब्रम्हादि सकल देवताओं को तत्वोपदेश देनेवाले / सकल शास्त्र प्रवर्तक को माधव के नाम से पुकारा जाता है ।
Chiraan said: July 2, 2012 at 15:02
ReplyDeleteIn one of the post you claimed ..Give one verse where it says only NARAYANA existed and no other did …
here is one
“eko ha vai nArAyaNa AsIt| na bramhA na ISANa: na Apah na
agnishomi yau na eme dyAvA pr*thvI na nakshatrANina sUryah na candramAh
| (mahopanishad)
NOw here is a verse which shows RUDRA was born
narayanad brahma jayate, narayanad prajapatih prajayate, narayanad indro jayate, narayanad astau vasavo jayante, narayanad ekadasa
rudra jayante, narayanad dvadasadityah.
eko vai narayana asin na brahma na isano napo nagni samau neme
dyav-aprthivi na naksatrani na suryah sa ekaki na ramate tasya
dhyanantah sthasya yatra chandogaih kriyamanastakadi-samjnaka
stuti-stomah stomam ucyate.
“In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Narayana. There was no Brahma, no Siva, no fire, no moon, no stars in the sky, no sun. There was only Krsna, who creates all and enjoys all”
In the many Puranas it is said that Lord Siva was born from the highest, the Supreme Lord Krsna, and the Vedas say that it is the Supreme Lord, the creator of Brahma and Siva, who is to be worshiped
In the Moksa-dharma Krsna also says,
prajapatim ca rudram capy aham eva srjami vai tau hi mam na vijanito mama maya-vimohitau. ”
The patriarchs, Siva and others are created by Me,
In the Varaha Purana it is also said,
narayanah paro devas tasmaj jatas caturmukhah tasmad rudro ‘bhavad devah sa ca sarva-jnatam gatah.
“Narayana is the Supreme God, and from Him Brahma was born, from whom Siva was born.”
Chiraan said: July 2, 2012 at 15:11
ReplyDeleteThus YOUR contention that Rudra is UNBORN … is refuted with verses from VEDAS PURANAS SMRITIS …
NARAYANA is Supreme and Rudra is not even equal to VAYU .. he is jeeva and NARAYANA is PArmatma ..
Chiraan said: July 2, 2012 at 15:22
ReplyDeleteOM narayana ewedam sarwam
Yad bhutam yas ca bhawyam
Niskalanko niranjano nirwikalpo
Nirakhyatah suddo dewa eko
Narayana na dwitiyo sti kascit
I hope you understand sanskrit
Chiraan said: July 7, 2012 at 14:24
ReplyDeletefirst and foremost .. get your basics right go to nursery .. veda is not Bramhouvach /.. veda is apaurusheya ..so one misconception leads to another .. when the founation on which you stand has beend scrapped .. again of you say i am standing on this seems out of place ..
Parijat Mathur said:July 2, 2012 at 10:19
ReplyDelete22. Your purport on Keshava is unestablished, contented, disputed & unacceptable as bestower of vara to Isha.
So you attempt ” hiranyagarbhah k: prokta eesha: shankar eva ch | srushtyaadina vartayati tau yatah KESHAVO bhavaan || “
Now you attempt to claim Hiranyagarbha means Brahma. If you attempt provide verses to this effect so can I provide verses(from Vyasa) stating Krishna, Shankara to be Hiranyagarbha.
Chiraan said: July 2, 2012 at 14:03
ReplyDeleteIllogical talk has been the nemesis of this discussion …
hiranyagarbhah k: prokta eesha: shankar eva ch | srushtyaadina vartayati tau yatah KESHAVO bhavaan || “
the above verse says …. HIRANGArbha is k and SHANKAR is known as esha .. one who regulates them is known as keshava ..
now If HIRANYGARBHA is shankar according to you … even then he becomes regulated by KESHAVA …
but the above verse gives definite regulation of SHIVA by NARAYANA .. because the regulator is keshava . now iof HIRANYAGARBHA is NARAYANA then verse becomes NARAYANA being regulator to self is illogical .. so Apart from SHIVA eesha the one regulated has to be HIRANYAGARBHA BRAMHA only / use logic [ you have not shown any valid logic for disputing the verse ] this verse from HARIVANSHA shows how k is bramha .. Kindly refer HIRANYAGARBHA SUKTA …
in entire shastra HIRANYAGARBHA one born out of golden anda ..is BRAHMA only
Parijat Mathur said:July 2, 2012 at 11:48
ReplyDelete24. I now have to ask you this:
Jaya -Vijaya apparently senior(residents of Vaikunth) have to face humiliation at hands of apparent juniors(Sanaka, Sanakadi residents of Janaloka). How do you resolve this contradiction then?(you claim juniors cannot overcome seniors in your original post)
Chiraan said: July 2, 2012 at 14:24
ReplyDeleteSANAKA is greater than JAYA VIJAYA where is the contradiction .. JAYA VIJAYA are not residents of VAKUNTHA [ MUKTA LOKA ] // they on the sansaara side of VIRAJA NADI .. the MUKTA LOKA VAIKUNTHA is on the other banks of VIRAJA NADI .
PARIJAAT asking question as a doubt is okay .. but being ignorant of facts [ you have not read bhagavat is evident ] and then posing as all knowing and disputing facts is different thing .
Chiraan said: July 4, 2012 at 07:10
ReplyDeleteMATHUR gyaani … CAN there not be MUKTA JAYA VIJAYA inside and AMUKTA JAYA VIJAYA … outside … even this logic is evading your celebrated mati …
there are gates inside MUKTA VAIKUNTHA .. and outside anantashayana is also a gate where JAYA VJAYA nand asunanada keep watch ..
SEE how many times do BRAMHA and other not GO to KSHEER SAGAR to pray and plead NARAYANA for avatara .. these are AMUKTA BRAMHA INDRA .. and BHAGAVT also mentions about MUKTA BRAMHA INDRA etc in VAIKUNTHA..
Chiraan said: July 4, 2012 at 11:25
ReplyDeleteMATHUR gyani .. there are multiple sets of PARIJAAT MATHUR as well .. several in mukta vaikuntha and one here discussing with us .. NOW obviously you will need verses .. do you expect entire puranas to be quoted to you … kindly read atleast once a single purana … and NOT SACRED CHRISTIAN VESRIONS which are distorted .. read ORIGINAL MATERIAL .. if dont have acess then admit it and we shall guide you tp real things …
GOOGLE and internet sites are not called original SOURCES .. if this small thing has entered your head .. LET US HAVE HEALTHY DEBATE where YU pose valid questions .. and also answer our queries too with quotes .. if you are on vacation and do not have access to granthas .. well finish your vacation and then resume …. we will welcome you ..
Chiraan said: July 4, 2012 at 14:05
ReplyDeletethe source of sacred text and astrojyoti is KM GANGULY version of MAHABHARATA .. we have had ample discussion and conclusively proved it to be faulty and corrupted … [ there are so many anamolies in sanskrit and trasnaltions too ..
the author KM GANGULY himslef admits that it is not a sincere representation of VYASA BHARATA ,, he has included many version from bengal and other places ..So it is khichadi …
in one version you will find SHIVA giving boon in other version you shall find otherwise … sometime sboth have been included sometimes only one .. so it is UNRELIABLE how and why you will have to search and see on this website detailed discussion running into many 100 pages to disprove ganguly … there have been many LIKE YOU who came here thinking weblinks are authentic and discussed for days and finally were disspapointed at having placed their faith on web links …
kindly get some original thoughts ,,,
Parijat Mathur said:June 29, 2012 at 23:11
ReplyDelete1. Why do you think Vayu or Krishna or anybody like them could be superior to Shiva??
2. cite any once instance where Shiva’ boon had been countered
3. Why Hari/Narayana/Rama/Krishna is dark colored, why he carries tamoguna inside??
Chiraan said: June 30, 2012 at 10:11
ReplyDeleteQ.Why do you think Vayu or Krishna or anybody like them could be superior to Shiva??
A.we dont think anything , our thinking does not carry any importance ,,,, KRISHNA is SUPREME and VAYU is superior to SHIVA are the words of VEDAS and Puranas ..
Q.cite any once instance where Shiva’ boon had been countered
A. why one incidents there are numerous …
1> sons of RAVANA had boons of SHIva , GEnerals[ senapatis of] RAVANA had boons from SHiva that thye could not be killed by anyone … YET HANUMAN kills them …
2> Jeemoot in MAHABHARTA had boon from shiva that he would be strongest in world and no one could defeat him in wrestling … BHEEMSENA not only defeats him but kills him ..similarly brothers of keechak had boons from shiva that they could be killed , they were killed by VAYUputra bHEEMA ..similarly rakshashas on MOuntain of KUBERA [ Saugandhika flower episode ] had boons from SHiva that there could be no death to them …. BHEEMA kills them ..
3> Jarasandha was great devotee of SHIVA ,,and had kept a SHIVALINGA in front of his palace … THis was destroyed by BHEEMA .. nothing happened to BHEEMA ..
Q.Why Hari/Narayana/Rama/Krishna is dark colored, why he carries tamoguna inside??
Neither RAMA NARYANA HARI is dark colored , they are very bright colored …Guna [ tamo sat raj ] does not apply to LORD ,.
Chiraan said: July 7, 2012 at 15:33
ReplyDeleteMATHUR’s logic is self contradictory
HE says VEDa cannot be considered as pramaana because it is BRAMHouvacha .. [ ie it is spoken by bramha ]
BUT he quotes all from purana whcih is SPoken by SHIVA ..
WHEn what is spoken by BRAMHA cannot be truth according to him then HOW cn something SPoken By SHIVA be truth ..
If we accept whatever SHiva sys as TRUTh then WE have amply shown SHIVA himself saying KESHAVA as SUPREME .. RAMA’s name as SUPEREME ..
BUT mathur is quiet on this ..
HE says SHow one verse where SHIVA’s boon vara is over taken ..
we have shown many verses which says UMAPATI var SHAnKAR vara ..
where the reciever is given boon of not being killed by anyone [ ie immortal ] and yet HANUMAN kills .
MATHUR now hides his face behind juggelery of words ,
he says DID UMAPATy give vara of being not killed by HANUMAN ..
NOw when one asks boon .. a warrior he may fight lakhs of warriors in his life .. does the GIVER of Boon ie SHANKAR or UMAPATi is expected to recite the names of all warriors that he may face and say you shall not be killed by these only then it will be valid .. and in the process if SHIVA misses the names ‘ SURESh MAHESH KALPESH ” he may get killed by them …
isnt the logic pathetic .. impractical .. once if shankar says you cannot be killed , you cannot be killed by anyone ..
THEN MATHUR say did SHIVA say not be killed by ant .. rat .. mouse , bandikoot , .. DOES HE EXPECT SHIVA to recite the names of 84 lakhs species to grant the boon ..
and just because he missed a grasshopper in the process so akampan could be killed by grasshopper .
MATHUR .. avahdyan avadhdhata means IMMorTALITY .. JUGGELERY OF WORDS WILL NOT GIVE YOU RIGHT knowledge ..
YOu have yet again fallen flat on ground ..
Parijat Mathur said:July 10, 2012 at 23:54
ReplyDelete“when SHIVA gives vara HARI and HARI BHAKTA HANUMAN can kill them …
BUT when HARI protects his BHAKTA . even SHIVA ,DURVASa have to run to save their own life , STORY of AMBARISH ..”
Durvasa runs as it is not a Brahmana’a dharma to attempt kill his host(Ambarisha). Durvasa attempts to give unproportionate/unjustified phala for Ambarisha’s fault. Shiva or Vishnu do not support/uphold a faulty person whoever he may be even Durvasa. Even an erring Brahmana like Durvasa is not supported. Shiva has given Sudarshana Chakra to Narayana to uphold dharma. Narayana is the carrier & chakra is the means/weapon. Ambarisha however is not perturbed by kritya created by Durvasa as he is not involved into bahya vishaya. In fact pious Ambarisha awaits Durvasa’s return for 1 year with jalahara alone then consumes anna. Whoever does wrong/adharma will get punished, that is the law & Durvasa is not above the law.
Chiraan said: July 11, 2012 at 05:54
ReplyDeleteBUT MATHUR , DURVASA is SHIVA himself ,
In your own word YOU ACCEPT SHIVE I NOT ABOVE LAW .
YES SHIVA IS BOUND BY LAWS SET BY NARAYANA ..
see things have strated to comeout of your mouth
HARI is ALONE MOKSHA giver , SHIVA is Bound by LAW , SHIVA is grandson .. SHIVA’s vara fail and can be overtaken by HANUMAN …SIva bHAKTAs have no answer to HARI’s anger . SHiva’s anger is always countered by HARI ..and also HARI BHAKTA hanuman ..
SHIVa himself needs help of HARI … HARI gives vara to SHIVA he regulates shiva , HE is infinitely Greater than SHIVA .. ARVADHIKA you ahve accepted these in these debate , now where is your locus standii
AND all these you HAVE accepted .. good progress
Chiraan said: July 5, 2012 at 12:08
ReplyDeletePARIJAAT quotes that this debate started with HANUMAN having overtaken vara of shiva we have not shown verses where such Vara has been granted and HANUMAAN overtakes it ..
SO PARIJAAT here is verse ..
when AKAMPAN is killed by HANUMAN .. AKAMPAN had SHIVA vara as being
akamapanoapi rakshaso nishachareshchoditaH | UMAPATIrvaro addhataH kshanaddhato hanumata |
even though akampana had immortality boon from UMAPATI he was killed in a second by HANUMAN
second PARIJAAT says wherever ther is NARAYANA sarvottamatva is given it has always the word DEVA and thus means NARAYANA reference is only to devtas ..
so here is the verse parijaat from MAHABHARATA which says there is none equal to NARAYANA nor in past or future .. which is inclusive of all .. there is no word deva here ..
MAHABHARTA 1/1/16
NASTI NARAYANA SAMAM N BHUTAM NA BHAVISHYATI ETENA SATYA VAAKYEN sarvaarthaan sadhyamyyaham ”
Now from RAMAYANA too we come to know that RAMA is SARVOTTAMA ..
AFTER using all the astras LAXMAN thought how to KIll INDRAJIT ..
Then HE took an arrow and made sankalpa that “RAAMA is sarvottama ” and let this kill INDRAJIT ..and this arrow killed INDRAJIT .. that shows RAAMA is SARVOTTAMA .. which is TRUE ..
Chiraan said: July 5, 2012 at 12:21
ReplyDeletePARIJAT opined BRAMHA vara could never be overtaken ..
here is another quote where BRAMHA’s boons has been nullified ..
RAVANA’s moolbala was 36 akshouhini sena …army .. this army had the boon of being always winner in war and immortality from BRAMHA the entire army died in RAMAYANA war
verse ..
varaadviranchasya parairajeyaam sarvairavadhyaam ch chamuum prayudhya | tarangiNitungatarangalolapalaanduvannasthirataam yayuste ||
By the boon of virinchi bramha the army which could not be defeated by any or killed by any in war ..troubled vanar sena like a dry onion caught in the ferocious flow of ocean water ..
but even this army was destroyed ..
mahabalena RAmena shrutva MOOLBALAM hatam | jevitaashaam sukhaashaam ch kshanaat tatyajya ravan |
seeing this detruction of his core strength army .. RAVAN for a second left hope on his life and happiness ..
Parijat Mathur said: July 9, 2012 at 03:23
ReplyDeleteRavana attacked Svarga, Indra asks Vishnu for help but Vishnu refuses stating that Ravana is unkillable by devasura.
See Verse6-18/Sarga27/Uttara kanda/Valmiki Ramayana here:
http://valmiki.iitk.ac.in/index.php?id=sloka1 [IIT Kanpur website]
This implies two things
1. Brahma vara cannot be countered even by Vishnu [Verse18]
2. Vishnu himself is just a deva [Verse15]
Chiraan said: July 9, 2012 at 10:52
ReplyDeleteTHEN why DID INDRA NOT RUN TO SHIVA .. if HE was not deva ..was INDRA ignorant of the fact that SHIAVAITES see to know ..AFTER ALL it was vara from BRAMHA which VISHNU chose to honour .. THEN SHIVA SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED TO TACKLE RAVANA .. BUT INDRA DID NOT DO because INDRA KNEW SHIVA could never overcome BRAMHA VARA ..as he is lower diety than BRAMHA ..
HANUMAN a VISHNU BHAKTA if he could counter BRAMHA VARA .. ie if SHISHYA CAN COUNTER It goes without mnetion that GURU ,master can automatically do it ..
there are many verses shown in valimiki RAMAYANA itself that RAMA is ALl powerful GOD ..
Chiraan said: July 9, 2012 at 11:02
ReplyDeleteRegrding your misconception UNKILLABLE by DEVASURA … let me show you fcat where even a DEVA could have killed RAVANA ..
RAVAN fights with YAMA ..angered YAMA [ a devata ] is instigated to USE YAMAPASHA …on RAVANA .. BRAMHA APPEARS before YAMA and asks YAMA to refrain from USING YAMA DANDA becuase as BRAMHa has given VARA to YAMA saying his use of YAMApasha will never go futile .. its use will invariably kill RAVAN … But then it will falsify the VARA given to RAVANA …. that he cannot be killed by DEVA ..
but if YAMA uses it will KIll RAVANA irrespective of RAVANA had vara or not ..
AS RAVANA is bad boy .. YAMA is good boy , tecaher is asking a good boy to refrain ..as ravana would not listen being rakshasha nd keep the sancitity of VARA ..
IF your missconception were true about DEVA not being able to kill .. then BRAMh’s ineterference would not have been necessaru YAMa would have used and nothing shoudl have happned to RAVANA ..
BEcause RAVAN would have died BRAMHA persuades YAMA to refrain from usin YAMA DANDA .. [ in case you do not know YAMA danda is one which when put on the body soul departs without resistance …, RAVANA AFTER DEATH had to be taken by this danda only … ]
Chiraan said: July 14, 2012 at 13:42
ReplyDeletemathur thinks kaaldanda destroys whole world .. if used on RAVANA …
this is again a misinformation , danda takes away life of the person [ without doubt ] when used whomsoever it is used on that is bRAHMA vara ..
Chiraan said: July 14, 2012 at 17:23
ReplyDeleteMATHUR has not quoted a single verse till date .. he harps on his own interpretation of words [ which are way out of logic and grammar , where even a layman can see that it is illogical ] and yet thinks he has given a great logic …
neither does MATHUR denate by giving answer to the questions raised , he conveniently ignores the criticla question and hops onto new topic with new garbage …
MATHUR is unaware that KM GANGULY is only version on mahbharta on net ,.. his opinion that whosover has uploaed this version borrowing it from freely avaialable data at various sites , is actually the creator of the content .. while it has been amply proved and demonstarted with links and statistics and proofs and quotes that only version available on net is one tranliterated as project outsider only … without this knwoledge if mathur again and again proudly says astrojyoti is my source and is authentic .. it is futile ..
even after showing umpteen verses if same question are reqrganised saying no one has answered is .. like cat drinking milk with closed eyes ..
so many stalwarts on this forum have given so many verses from valmiki ramayana , mahabharata .. and amply proved VISHNU SARVITTAMATVA ,,
recent debacle of MATHUR is he shows a verse which does not at all talk about UNBORN SHIVA .. yet he goes on harping the verse says .. ajaikpada .. etc etc and nowhere remotely UNBORN … and yet he feels he is debating ..when one does not even have basic knwoledge of whether he is speakings ense or not and upon that acuses others who have amply demonstrated logic .. it is only unfortunate that debate is directionless .. with illogical connotation from half brianed
Chiraan said: July 10, 2012 at 13:04
ReplyDeleteSo shiv is grandson OF NARAYANA is proved where is the ground for further discussion ….
when SHIVA gives vara HARI and HARI BHAKTA HANUMAN can kill them …
BUT when HARI protects his BHAKTA . even SHIVA ,DURVASa have to run to save their own life , STORY of AMBARAISH ..
STORY OF DURVASA running away thinking BHEEMA will punish when unable to consume food with full stomach ..in MAHABHARTA ..
DURVASA is AFRAID OF BHEEMA the avatra of VAYU
BHEEMASEN , captures ashwatthama ,tonsures and and sets him free only to run away into jungle insulted ..
ASHWATHTHAMA the avatara of SHIVA , is captured and shaved .. DOES SHIVA NOT DO ANYTHING WHY ? because he is not capable of countering BHEEMA
ASHWATHATHAMA is defeated in MAHABHARAT war by BHEEMSEN ARJUN ..why ?
Parijat Mathur said:July 7, 2012 at 04:30
ReplyDelete“UMAPATIrvaro addhataH kshanaddhato hanumata”
And what clarity of thought you display here in your interpretation!
So what is the vara by Umapati- avadhya by Deva, or by Danav or by Daitya or by Rakshasa or by Yaksha or by Gandharva or by Naga or by Garuda or by an Ant(krimi)!!
Has Umapati given vara that Akampana be avadhya from Hanumana.
Chiraan said: July 7, 2012 at 14:32
ReplyDeletesimilar logic you used with ant … parijat did simhika do tapasya only to ask that she be avadhya from an ant .. simhika stayed all her life in an OCEAN AND SHE WAS AFRAID OF ANT TO ASK BOON FROM BRAMHA THAT SHE BE AVADHYA FROM AN ANT …
WHE ONE ASKS BOON FROM BRAMHA DO THEY ASK BEING NOT KILLED FROM ANT . IS ANT A SUCH AFEARFUL CREATURE .. SERIOUSLY YOU NEED A DOCTOR … YOUR BRAIN IS TICKING A BIT TOO FAST ..AND MISSING COMMON SENSE ..
WHEN UMAPATI GIVES BOON OF ” BE AVADHYA ” BE NOT KILLED ” IT IS INCLUSIVE NOT KILLED BY ANYONE … NO ONE .CAN KIL YOU … DID BRAMHA IN CASE OF SIMHIKA OR UMA PATI IN CASE OF AKAMPANA SPECIFICALLY SAY YOU CAN BE KILLED BY HANUMAN …
HANUMAN KILED THEM DESPITE UMAPATIS VARA IS STRAIGHTFORWARD .. SEEING YOUR POINT AND CONETNTION FAIL YOU HAVE LOST SENSES … AND ANT SEEMS LIKE A WHALE TO YU //
HAPPENS … WHEN ONE SEES HIS STANCE ON SHAKY GROUNDS HE MAKES SILLY MISTAKES …
Parijat Mathur said:July 9, 2012 at 01:33
ReplyDeleteBy what you portray as your common sense, then Ravana & Hiranyakashipu both must have been “avadhya” by all. So why was Hari forced to take Rama & Narsimha avatar, why not Hari come & kill them in chaturbhuja rupa then.
Chiraan said: July 9, 2012 at 02:17
ReplyDeleteHe could have very well killed in Chaturbhuja rupa , he just chose to KIll him in narsiha rupa to honour the boon …HANUMAN doesnt honour boons of bRAMHA SHIVA .. we have showed ample evidence .. but now you are resorting to poor logic .. although you have acceoted SHANKAR had given boon and HANUMAN killed them now you have been caught off guard . you are trying to see loopholes in english language to fit the Killing of rakshas [ proetcted by SHANKAR boon of immortality ] by HANuman as some exception .. but you are failing miserably …. If one is given the boon of avadhyata .. and if his vadh takes place the boon has failed … in a duel between two if one dies he is called as slained by other no matter how ! the world say HANuman ne vadh kiya ..shankar ne avadhya hone ka var ka ullanghan hua ..
Parijat Mathur said:July 9, 2012 at 03:47
ReplyDeleteHow can vara of amaratva be given, who is born has to die. Nobody can bestow such a vara. Ravana had 1st asked for amaratva from Brahma but Ravana was given limited vara by Brahma of being unkillable except by Humans. Hence Hari was forced to take Human(Rama) form to be able to kill Ravana. Likewise is case of Hiranyakashipu where Hari was forced to take on identity of a new creature/sarga- Narsimha.
Chiraan said: July 9, 2012 at 11:08
ReplyDelete“How can vara of amaratva be given, ?”
well we have shown through many verses that it has been given and overtaken … so where is the argument , if you are complaining that it was not given to RAvana and HIARNAYAKASHIPU so it could not have been given to others , then it is silly ,
GIVING boon , what to be given what not is prerogative of BOON , how can your logic apply to the prerogatives of bRMAHA ..or SHIVA ,, They have given amaratva to some and they have not given some , the pramana is there in texts for it .. wy should you complain ..or how water does your rant hold …
a boss in an office grants leave to some and for some he says leave cannot be granted , its purely his prerogative .. just because he has not grated leave to you ..CAN YOU SAY his powers to grant leave is restricted ?
Chiraan said: July 7, 2012 at 14:39
ReplyDeletePLEASE HAVE A CHECK UP .. WHEN ONE SAYS YOU CANNOT BE SLAINED .. ALL ARE INCLUSIVE .. HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN WHAT CONSTITUTES A CONVERSATION …
THE VERSE SAYS DESPITE BEING GIVEN BOON OF BEING IMMORTAL BY UMAPATI // HANUMAN KILLED HIM IN A SECOND
THERE CANNOT BE ANY OTHER TRANSLATION /. SO YOU ARE INTROSPECTING WAS IT DEVA RAKSHAS ETC ETC …. ITS IMMORTALITY THAT REST THE MATTER
Chiraan said: July 9, 2012 at 02:05
ReplyDeleteSO HANUMAN killed all those with shankar umapati vara by DISEASE , strangulation .. [ so it does not tantamount to overtaking Shankar boon ] shankar says you cannot slained ..an HAnuman kills him it is not boon failing … [ bhidu pau ser toh nahi liya na ]
getting slained means one cannot get killed in a boxing match .. he can get killed by a sword or raampuri ..
Koi doctor hai kya is illogical express par
Parijat Mathur said:July 7, 2012 at 04:45
ReplyDelete“NASTI NARAYANA SAMAM N BHUTAM NA BHAVISHYATI ETENA SATYA VAAKYEN sarvaarthaan sadhyamyyaham ””
You really are overconfident in relying on Brahmovacha on Shiva when Brahma himself doesn’t.
It is clear that you are incapable of logical deduction except brute parrotism.
Sama means equal(=). The verse does not say/does not explore who is > Narayana, it merely makes the claim that nobody = Narayana.
See how trickily composed/crafted Veda vachana are & how they delude.
Chiraan said: July 7, 2012 at 14:36
ReplyDeleteNOW YOU NEED A REAL HELP FROM MEDICAL FRATERNITY …
WHEN THERE IS NO ONE EQUAL TO NARAYANA .. WHICH YOU HAVE ACCEPTED .. THEN SHIVA IS INCLUDED … LOGIC HAS EVADED YOU .. YOU HAVE BECOME ..SHAKY SEEING MANY QUOTES AND YOUR INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND BASIC WORDS ..WRITING ANYTHING WITHOUT HEAD AND TAIL MAKES YOU EVER FIT FOR A ….
TRY SHOWING POSTS TO EVEN A LAYAN HE WILL LAUGH ROLLING ON GROUND AT IT …