Re: Questions Regarding No Worship of Shiva By Rama

10-24-2001, 06:26 AM

Priya Sriman Srinivasa Kumar!
Jai Srimannarayana!

You are very very little, so far as
your knowledge is concerned.

Authenticity of the scriptures and
the history, is accepted by the great
people like Sankaracharya, RAmanujacharya
and Madhwacharya etc., not by the people
born today and yesterday, here and there.

You may paint a picture with your face
and a lion body and if you have some money
you may construct a temple with that
figure also. It may, people think, become
authority after a few hundereds of years.
But not.

Rameswaram also became like that. As there
are some people to authenticate the
scientific facts, there are some people to
recommend ancient history and puranas also.
Some are accepted in total, some partially
and some are not accepted as authority.
Yet, they are called as puranas only. For
Itiha:sas, which are nothing but the world's
ancient history, no one is authorized to
meddle with them and they are unchangeable
so far as their story is concerned, for they
were written, when it was happening.

Our mangalasasanams to you all on the eve of
Vijayadasami.
=chinnajeeyar=

--- sreenivasa kumar wrote:
> Swamiji,
>
> My name is Sreenivasa Kumar and I'm at Washington
> D.C
>
> I read your explanation about "No worship to Lord
> Siva by Sri Rama"
>
> If we take this explanation for granted, can we say
> that the history of
> Rameswaram and the Lord Ramanathaswamy is false. If
> the foresaid Ramayana
> history of Rameshwaram is not true, what could we
> say about identity of
> Rameshwaram?
>
> Considering Valmiki's Ramayana as authentic you have
> said that the writers,
> other than valmiki, added stories like worship of
> Shiva. Considering
> Tulasidas's or some other writers Ramayana to be
> authentic, one could say
> that Valimiki missed to add this event or changed
> the story.
>
> Here would come the question of authenticity - how
> one is more authentic
> than other so as to trust the one and take it for
> granted for what is said
> in it?
>
> Thanks
>
> Sreenivasa S Kumar