BinduMadhav

Atanu wrote: ________________________ ****who says there weren't ragas more than 1000 years ago. seems a bit strange to me.***** Bindu said so. ________________________ The only Raga in the old times that I have read about was Mohana Raga. I remember Mahabharat saying that Kacha used to play it on his flute while Devayani used to dance to it. But most of the Raga classifications and theories were developed in the last few hundred years.

My dear Atanu, This is a nice note. Thank you for writing it. {I do not seek your respect. What is gaining respect and being happy about that if not ego gratification? All respect and awe should go to Bhagawan alone. } True. Or to our Acharyas. {May be I seek you as a friend.} Our differences and our expressions of our differences should enhance our friendship. We all should celebrate diversity. But with that, should also come patient and respectful disagreements with others' opinions. {But can you sing with me: Om Namah Sivayya? I doubt that at present you can do it.} I will be happy to sing it with you. But I personally prefer to chant Sri Rudram, which I have mastered. I truly believe that Siva is Parama Vaishnav and therefore I have immense respect for him. I am Siva's greatest devotee because I would like to think of myself as DasAnudAsa for Lord Krishna. {One is immature who does not get ones eyes wet remembering that God lives owning nothing, though everything belongs to Him.} I have to agree that this is a lovely concept by Saivites. Siva, the Lord of the world, goes to Goddess Annapurneshvari for Bhiksha. Siva is the true renunciate. But I think you are dragging Siva to our level. The Supreme Being that you would like to call Siva, gives away everything to others not because he wants to sacrifice for his children, but because he does not need anything, being God. And the Supreme Reality that you would like to call Siva is the protector, not because he is willing to take a risk by drinking all-consuming poison but because he can do it and knows it well. Yes, I know the Ying-Yang theory. The Chinese are brillint in their own way. In fact, we have borrowed it in a way, since we believe that we will be born as our children's grandchildren (although these days, because of longevity, perhaps as our children's great-grandchildren). Do I not know that everything or the whole is God? Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma. That is an Upanishadic VAkya. But is that how I and many other Vaishnavites would like to imagine God? No. I would like to imagine God in the form of Lord Krishna. If Siva wants me to love him, he has to come to me in the form of Lord Krishna. Since Siva is an all-powerful god, he is fully capable of doing that. But, on the other hand, how could he expect me, a finite immature being, to change my preferences? Or even why would he? And, knowing it fully well, why would he want to punish me because I don't like him in his form (as you and others have pointed out innumerable times?) In another post, I asked you if you are telling me that YOUR preference is to imagine God as Siva. You never replied. We all have our personal preferences. Therein comes our diversity. If you start respecting my opinions, I will start respecting yours and our friendship will prosper. If you drop hypocrisy, it will prosper much faster. With that, we will be able to stand against the onslaught of the Muslims and the Christians, as Maadhavji so correctly points out in his note.

Shankar wrote: {You will dwell in the darkness for eternal, since you have been given so many chances yet you are still ignorant.} My dear Shankar, Your opinion that I will dwell in the darkness for eternity is a Christian concept. Even if I am wrong, according to Hindu scriptures and philosophy, I will get another chance. No one will spend eternity in hell or darkness just because that person might make some mistakes, knowingly or unknowingly. Just as the death is a given for the living, another life is a given for the dead, as Srimad Bhagavad-Gita says. Every punishment and every reward due to Karmaphala will last a limited time period. This is why we all seek Moksha. If you want me to explain why Christians believe in eternal hell as proposed by John Calvin, Martin Luther and other Biblical scholars, I will be happy to do so. Your loving friend, BinduMadhav.

Someone called 'Guest' wrote: {We are not in this forum to learn about your bloated ego. We are here to learn about hinduism.} My dear 'Guest', That is correct. This is a forum for Hinduism and not about someone's bloated ego. But Hinduism also includes respectful debates based on scriptures, not abuses. In the thread named "Worship of Siva versus Worship of Lord Vishnu" (http://www.hindu-religion.net/showflat/cat/hinduism/79339/0/collapsed/5/o/all ), Atanuji wrote in one single note: ________ {Others have already recognized you as the hypocrite. Read the thread} {You are lower than anything.} {Rest is all cooking of your putrid mind.} {But shameless egoistic persons will never accept their folly in public but in their inside they bleed.} {Oh yes. Lord Bindu. Lord Krishna says “You are the truth”. You have blinds? } _______End I asked Atanuji to please let me know if this is how Adi Sankara and Mandana Mishra debated in the 8th Century. No correct reply from him. Has he ever formally apologized? No. I don't need him to apologize, but then I don't need it, since he has indicated that he does not mean to abuse me either. On the other hand, in another thread, Atanuji wrote in defense of his friend Rajasekar (http://www.hindu-religion.net/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=hinduism&Number=76906&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=all&vc=1) _______ See what language real Hindus use while addressing others. ***** Dear fool, ******* This was used to address Rajasekar. And guests, who do not themselves use identifying names ask veracity of Rajasekhar's name. Funny ______End Why did Atanuji jumped to Rajasekhar's defense? Because Rajasekhar is a Saivite. This is another reason why I believe that my friend Atanubhai is a little hypocritical. I have never said that I have no respect for Atanubhai as a human being. All beings, human or otherwise, will receive great respect and love from me. But the kind of respect I can offer a true scholar and a Guru is different from the kind of respect I offer an immature person who engages in abusive language and then jumps to the defense of his friends. I know that Srimad Bhagavad-Gita tells us to become SthithapragnyAvantas and treat friends and foes the same. Which is why I have never lost my patience with Atanuji and others who have tried to abuse me. But unfortunately, with the little mind that I have, it will be difficult to not point out errors when such are committed. As far as you are concerned, my dear 'Guest', I suggest that you indicate your identity in some way instead of hiding behind a generic name called 'Guest'. Thanks to all.

Yam BrahmA Varundendra Rudra Marutah... Yam SaivAh SamupAsatE Siva Iti... It really does not matter to the Saivites how many pieces are written in Lord Vishnu's praise, with full knowledge that He alone is the Suprme Lord. Shyam and others have pointed out statements from Mahopanishad, Narayanopanishad and other Vedantic sources. But to no avail. Saivites still believe in Siva's supremacy. Why do I think Lord Vishnu is Superior? Let's consider Vedic and Puranic stories. The very first one is Sage Bhrigu's story who visits Brahma, then Siva (who is only interested in amorous plays with Goddess Parvati) and finally Lord Vishnu. Finally he declares that Lord Vishnu is the greatest (Harih Sarvottamah). Which is why the famous statement: "Yagnyo Vai Vishnuh" came about. Siva is generally represented as a Tamoguna PradhAna, while Lord Vishnu is Satva Guna PradhAna and BrahmA is Rajoguna PradhAna. Siva is full of fury and anger, as evidenced in Sri Rudram. In this whole 11 AnuvAkas (TaittarIya Samhita), the constant prayer and wish is to keep Rudra propitiated, but as far away as possible. Consider the verse: SahasrAni Sahasraho RudrAh Adhi BhUmyAm, TEshAgam Sahasra YojanEva DhanvAni Tanmasi...So the idea is to respect Rudra and propitiate him but keep him at bay. Take even the beginning. The devotee in a trembling manner says: Namaste Rudra Manyava Utota IshavE namah...first bowing to Rudra, his Dhanus, his Bahus (arms) and so on. Fear rules the hearts of Rudra's worshippers. There is a reason for Siva's Tamoguna. Siva or Rudra was born from the anger of BrahmA and he immediately started crying. When BrahmA tried to console him, the child demanded a name. Since the child was crying continuously, BrahmA named him Rudra (Rodati iti Rudradevah). It is an appropriate name since he makes people cry during the time of death. On the other hand, Lord Vishnu's worshippers always love Him so much that they want to spend eternity with Him in His abode (Vaikunta). Next, consider Siva's sexual urges. He has no control over them. When Mohini came out to help out to help the Devas against the cruel Rakshasas, Siva was enamoured. In one story, it goes that all the Devas were calling out to Siva that he should not fall for Mohini, but Siva totally ignred their advice and ran behind Mohini. /images/graemlins/grin.gifIn Srimad Bhagavatam, it is said that Siva went to Lord Vishnu and begged the Supreme Lord to show the form of Mohini. The Lord obliged and what did Siva do? Ran to hug her, right in front of Goddess Parvati, who is the epitome of good and right conduct. Mohini somehow slipped from Siva's clutches and ran away, Siva somehow controlled himself, his Retas fell and the rest is history. And, of course, the Saivites have extended the story and have made Mohini a spouse for Siva, a divine son born to them and the story of Ayyappa is firmly in place in the South India. Siva also does not think too much of the consequences of his actions. One story is that he cut off BrahmA's head and had to beg Lord Vishnu's help in getting rid of Brahma-hatyA Dosham (the sin of killing a Brahmin). /images/graemlins/frown.gif The more interesting story is that of BhasmAsura, who does Tapas to Siva and propitiates him. When the Rakshas asks Siva for the boon that when the Rakshas puts his hand on someone's head, that person should burn to ashes immediately, Siva immediately agrees and grants that boon. In an attempt to test Siva's boon, BhasmAsura tries to put his hand on Siva's head to burn him down, at which Siva runs for his life. Unable to find a satisfactory answer, he prays to Lord Vishnu, who comes in the form of Mohini and using brilliant tacticts, makes BhasmAsura burn himself. Now here is the question for you all. If Siva is the supreme lord, wouldn't he know what was going to happen to him if he granted the Asura such a boon? Finally we have the gory details of Lord Ganesha's story. Siva comes home and Ganesha would not let him inside his own home (because Goddess Parvati has ordered Ganesha to stand guard). So what does Siva do? He assumes RaudrAkAra and cuts off Ganesha's head. The Goddess comes out, is shocked and cries, yells and explains the story to Bhole Sankar, who hangs his head in shame and then makes it up to her by placing an elephant's head on the boy's body. Thus Siva became Lord Ganesha's father too. I can go on and on. But the message is obvious. One who does not know the consequences of his own actions cannot be Paramatma. Thus Siva is not Supreme Lord. But, then, Siva is a Parama Vaishnav. He prays sincerely and with supreme Bhakti to Lord Narayana. No one rejoices as much as Siva when Lord Vishnu prevails over the evil. He came in the form of DakshinAmUrti to teach everyone about the greatness of Lord Vishnu. Siva is also a great devotee of Lord Rama, which is why he says: "SahasranAma Tattulyam RAmanAma VarAnane" (By saying only one word called Sri Rama, one achieves the punyam of reciting the whole Vishnu Sahasra NAmam. Siva could not stand separation from Lord Vishnu and came down to the earth in the form of Sri HanumAn to help out Lord Ramachandra. Naturally, Siva is a great admirer and a Bhakta of Lord Vishnu in the form of Lord Krishna Vasudeva. So, let's first pray to Siva: Namah SankarAyacha MayaskarAya cha namah SivAyacha SivatarAya cha Namo Parama Vaishnave Vishnu PriyAya Vishnu PrasAditE Nahah. And then let's bow down to the Supreme Lord of the Universe. Jagad-hitAya KrishnAya GovindAya Namo Namah!

{i thought they were described in the vedas?? } The only musical part of the Vedas is in Sama Veda. Although most verses in Sama Veda can also be found in Rig and Yajur Vedas, the former two have no musical intonations to them. It is not much of music. The Ragas were developed much later.

{Do you imagine Rajagopalacharya not to know that Sankara did not set Bhaja Govindam to music (which is heard by the ears)? If you imagine so, then ask your parents about Rajagopalacharya. OK?} All right, my dear child. Relax, don't get too upset. By the way, it is Rajagopalachari, not Rajagopalacharya. Have you read his works? {The union of Jnana and Bhakti that Bhaja Govindam is, is the loftiest melodious music..} Bhaja Govindam, my dear child, is poetry. Poetry does not come with music set to it (unless they are Vedic verses, in which case, the music is written into it according to the emphasis to be provided to various words: UdAtta, AnudAtta). Do you know what it is? I will be happy to explain it to you. When Adi Sankara wrote Bhaja Govindam, truly a masterpiece, the music was not that much advanced. Most advances in music occurred in the last couple of centuries, with the advent of, most importantly, Saint Tyagaraja and his lovely Kirtanas on Lord Rama set to various Talas and Ragas. Sankara, my good child Atanu, lived in the 8th C AD.

Atanu wrote: {Nothing is as low as your thoughts of Shiva -- demi god, pitch fork holding, water oozing etc. etc.} Siva IS a demigod. A demigod is not necessarily a bad term. Why don't you understand the meanings of words before you jump to conclusions? Pitch fork, all right, is Trishul and the water is Ganges. I thought I was quite clever in describing Siva as pitch fork holding and water oozing, but apparently it hit a nerve again, eh? {Nothing is as low as 'demented fool' that you used. } OK, and then I apologized to Mr.Rajasekar. How many apologies have YOU offered for YOUR insults? {If you are now ticked, know that this is very mild compared to the plight of Dakshas -- who knowingly insult Shiva.} I am not at all ticked, my good man. It takes someone a lot superior to you to tick me off. Let me explain it a bit. For someone to be able to tick me, that person first has to command respect from me. So far, I have not developed much respect for your opinions, although I have to agree that you seem to have access to some cool websites (assuming that all you are writing is accurate). So you do not have the power to tick me off. Show some true knowledge, maturity and honesty; perhaps I will develop respect for you, although I will continue to say that Lord Vishnu/Krishna is the Supreme Reality. {You have been provided with scriptures but you pay no heed and you continue to abuse Shiva. Note below who are advanced in spiritual consciousness.}} Hmmm. Are you saying that you are more advanced? {Bindu, I did not abuse you.} Really? Didn't I provide quotes from you that gives that indication? But I am wasting my breath here. I never knew that Siva-Premi's were so hypocritical.

Shyam wrote: {i might not be able to argue with these people as i have some essential work to do in the coming weeks. but u refer to the topic 'Narayana is Supreme' in this website and note the speciality of Naraya'na' name quoted by Saranathan. and also the satva vedanta pratyaya nyaya. it will help u a lot in further arguments with these non-vedic veda translators(because they will not go by the various nyayas nor will they try to understand the logic and grammar behind interpretations.) let Narayana bless u in ur efforts and the blessings of my Acharya and ur Acharya give u the strength to argue with them. } Shyam, thank you for the note. I will read all the information under "Narayana is Supreme". I won't stop arguing with these Saivites/Advaitins. My Acharya told me to stand firmly when I see the wrong things being said about Lord Krishna. May Lord Krishna bless you in all your efforts so that you can complete your essential work successfully and rejoin us.

Thiruvengadam wrote: "i have learnt that its of no use trying to wake a person who is pretending to sleep.....this will be my last post to u...." Oh, OK. All the best to you. You have a tremendous amount to learn, as I understand it. You should perhaps stay away from the discussion group and use your time wisely. I learnt about your lack of knowledge when you wrote that you are 'disappointed' with Rajasekar's explanation of the word 'Krishna'. Did you ever check a good Samskrit dictionary (like Vaman Apte's) to find out the true meaning of the word Krishna? It is true that Lord Krishna is the Supreme Lord of the universe; but the meaning of the word Krishna IS dark skinned male. KrishnA is a dark skinned female. And then you misquote verses by saying 'Sarvam Shivamayam Jagat'. The correct and original one is 'Sarvam Vishnumayam Jagat'. {how funny it is to learn from u that when Vishnu is in yoga nidra, He is aiding the world but when shiva is in yoga u call Him to be meditating on Hari...very funny....go on ur way and one Day hope God opens ur eyes...} That is MY interpretation. You have NO RIGHT to question it. You are welcome to disagree with it, and you are certainly welcome to debate it; but now that you are no longer on speaking terms (GRIN), I guess it does not matter. {{suragurusuravarapUjitalingam suravanapushpasadArchitalingam| parAtparam paramAtmakalingam tat praNamAmi sadAShivalingam|| I bow before that Sadashivalinga, which is worshipped by devas and their gurus with flowers from the divine garden; which is the Transedent Being and the Supreme Self (paramAtma)}} Yes, I know Lingashtakam. I also have studied Bilvashtakam, Shivananda Lahari, Soundarya Lahari, Lalita Sahasranamam, Shiva Sahasranamam, and of course, many verses related to Lord Vishnu. Plus I have studied many parts of the Vedas and Upanishads. Thank you all the same. Just because one poet wrote a poem in praise of one god, does not make that god supreme. {if u still decide to call Shiva as a Demi God then its ur fate...i cant help (the above quote clearly calls Shiva as Transcendent and ParamAthama (supreme self)} A demigod is not necessarily a bad term. But then, how can I explain it to a guy who thinks 'rebel' is a bad word? Basava was a rebel, as also was Sri Ramanuja, the Sikh gurus, the great Gautama Buddha himself and many others. They all rebelled in some way, major or minor, against the tradition and helped advance the Hindu philosophy. Did you know that? {all the best.....u shall no more hear from me....} All the best to you too. I, however, cannot promise not to reply to your notes. If I feel like replying, I will. You may not be on speaking terms with me, child, but I won't stop talking to you. Don't worry, with time, maturity will come; with maturity, added knowledge and the ability to carry on a debate on a civil level. {(in tamil there is a proverb Dhustanan kanda doora velagu- if u see a bad person go as far as possible from him.... } Yes, yes. The same proverb exists in Kannada: Dushtara Kandare Doora Iru. If you think I am a Dushta just because I have my own mind and my own opinions, then only Lord Siva has to help you. Here, let me teach you a verse on Lord Siva from MahAnArAyana Upanishad: IshAnah SarvavidyAnAm Ishvarah SarvabhUtAnAm BrahmAdhipatih Brahmanodhipatih BrahmA Shivo mE Astu SadAshivOm Shiva is supposed to be the Lord of all Vidyas. Did you know that? Your lesson for the day.

********* Sri Sankara has packed into the Bhaja Govindam song the substance of all Vedanta and set the oneness of jnana and bhakti to melodious music.} Only one correction to Sri Rajagopalachari's commentary. Sankara did not set Bhaja Govindam to music. The great M.S.Subbulakshmi did. In Raga-malika, at that. ********** {This guy does not understand poetic allusions but acts all knowing. } How is Sri Rajagopalachari's wrongly stating that Sankara set Bhaja Govindam a poetic allusion? Other poets, sages and scholars have written innumerable works (like Venkateshwara Suprabhatam, for an example). Has any one of them set it to music? I was only giving credit where credit is due: MS Subbulakshmi deserves the credit for the musical part of Bhaja Govindam. Not Adi Sankara. And how does my trying to correct an error or giving credit where it is due make me a 'Pedestrian fellow'? You are a curious and interesting person.

My dear Atanu, Look at some of the things you have written here. {Others have already recognized you as the hypocrite. Read the thread} {You are lower than anything.} {Rest is all cooking of your putrid mind.} {But shameless egoistic persons will never accept their folly in public but in their inside they bleed.} {Oh yes. Lord Bindu. Lord Krishna says “You are the truth”. You have blinds? } I am beginning to see a pattern after reading your (and some others') posts. Is a Saivite an expert at using foul language? Is this what Adi Sankara taught you? Have you read the first conversation between Mandana Mishra and Sankara, and later, their debate? There is a saying that a person using an argument resorts to abusive language and actions. You are another person that I am sorry for.

{everyday, but bad things keep happening to me, and negative thoughts never leave me. I just don't see any effect when chanting.} Among all the advice given by various members, I see that only Jayan008 has given the best advice: Go to a Doctor. To add to his comments, I would recommend that you consult a psychiatrist. Constant negative thoughts may mean a physical condition and can be treated with medication. In the last 25 years, Psychology and Psychiatry have advanced by leaps and bounds. I don't know whether depression is a factor here, but a good psychiatrist should be able to help you. With luck, you may be cured, instead of having to depend upon medication for all your life. Or, it could be some other simple cause. There is no shame in going to a psychiatrist. Like chronic migraines, it has been proven these days that depression and other ailments of the brain are physical ailments, nothing to do with any spiritual factor. Like Jayan says, Purusha Prayatna is VERY important. Chanting Hanuman Chalisa will definitely help, since some of your burden will be transferred to an Infinite God and you will sense a lessening of the burden. But you have to work to improve your life yourself. Most importantly, stopping to worry too much would help. You need to develop confidence in your own abilities more than anything else, if you want to get out of the hole.

{every thing has a meaning ok.... but Shivam=?} Shivam Bhadram Kalyanam Mangalam Shubham. It is Amarakosha I am quoting you. They are synonyms and they mean something auspicious, something that results in the general good. So what if Parameshvara is used to address Siva many times? The meaning of Parameshvara is Supreme Lord. {Bindhu no one can entertain me other than u....} I am so glad to be of service!!! And I thought you did not have a sense of humor (Grin). {expecting ur reply for Vishnu's yoga nidra and ur reply for Lingasktakam} Lord Vishnu is the Supreme Lord of the Universe. He is the Infinite Life-Provider. He does not sleep. He provides the support for the Universe. Yoga Nidra is His mode of existence when passively providing support for the Universe. Siva, on the other hand, is constantly in meditation of Lord Vishnu. Like BrahmA, Siva depends upon Sriman Narayana. Now what about Lingashtakam? Are you referring to the first sentence: 'Brahma Murari Surarchita Lingam?'? Sure, Murari, or Lord Krishna, worshipped Siva. I have explained many times why: To set an example. Lord Krishna could have done anything. But He went through all stages of life, went to a Gurukulam, etc etc; because He wanted to be a role model for others. How would it have been perceived by others if Lord Krishna had rejected Siva? Then Saivism would have fallen by the way-side just like worship of Indra is now non-existent.

{how dare u address me...} (rest deleted) My dear Thiruvengadam, You need to grow up a little. And understand the true meaning of the word 'Rebel'. In case you don't have access to a dictionary, here are the two meanings of a rebel: (a) To refuse allegiance to and oppose by force an established government or ruling authority. (b) To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention. Since we are talking religion on this forum, (b) is more appropriate. Note that a rebel is not a bad person. A rebel is, simply, a rebel. Do you understand what friendly banter is? Apparently you don't. It is possible that you lack a sense of humor. I am truly sorry for you.

{with all regards to all those who have participated in this forum for answering my query,i place the following note w.r.t the statement by bindumadhav: "My opinion is that this man should continue to be a good man and not bother to become a Brahmin." well,in the case that i've stated ,there maybe a need for me to know whether he can be called (or accepted) a brahmin,bcoz he is the person whom, i guess, would be my future husband,,i donno.in the beginning,i asked him indirectly if he was a brahmin,he said the past 2 generations had been following very strict brahminism.his father conducts GAYATRI mahayagnas and is a head there.he undertook upanayanam in his 9th year.after hearing this,i being a brahmin,was worry-free abt his caste.but,recently in one of his application forms that he got by post,he and i were shocked to see that his father had mentioned his caste as BC,,here,i was very badly confused as i read in the BHAGVATAM that a man shd marry a girl of lower/same caste(as quoted by one of our guests also).now ,iam in a fix,,so is he,we love each other,both of us are SHRI KRISHNA devotees.we have known each other for the past 2-3 yrs almost,so,please ENLIGHTEN US! BINDUMADHAV,PLEASE ANSWER CAREFULLY NOW AS U R THE ONLY PERSON DIFFERING IN VIEWS,AND I RESPECT ALL YOUR SUGGESTIONS.} My dear lady, My opinion is that you should not worry too much about the caste system. It is entirely true that Hindu scriptures have made it perfectly clear that one who is not born a Brahmin cannot become a Brahmin. Following Svadharma (One's Own Dharma) is supremely important for everyone. That being said, I don't see why you are fretting over whether your fiance is a Brahmin or not. What is most important, if you are going to marry him, is whether he is a good, intelligent and hard working man, if he will love you throughout your life (and not abandon you like some of the Adhamas, Brahmins among them have done) and he will support all your endeavours to grow spiritually and materially in this life. The second most important factor is to ensure that you have the support of both families in this union. This is important because your marriage's success will (to some degree) depend upon the young couple's cordial relations with the two families. It is not absolutely necessary if you and him have the moral strength to stand up against everyone. That is something you need to decide for yourself: Will your love for him (and his love for you) overcome the obstacles in the form of pressures from your parents, siblings, etc? Before you make a final decision to marry this young man, you may want to find out why this family is calling themselves 'BC' (or whatever; what is BC anyway?) for financial gain, while they go around doing what Shrotriya Brahmins usually do, like Gayatri Mahayagnya. I don't like this: If they are truly BC, why do they want to show-off as Brahmins? On the other hand, if they are Brahmins, why are they trying to cheat the government by saying that they are BC? I would be very sympathetic towards them if they are truly BC and want to elevate themselves (in the eyes of society) to that of Brahmins. There are some examples of high caste girls marrying a non-Brahmin come to my mind. Devayani marrying Yayati is the most famous one. But the circumstances there were peculiar. Devayani had been spurned in her first love (for Kacha) and Shukracharya, her dad, absolutely adored her and he would have done anything for her. Again, Yayati continued to be a Kshatriya after marrying Devayani; there was no question of any change of caste. Since this is truly touching your personal life, I will make my opinion very clear to you. I personally do not believe in the caste system. My opinion is that the so called caste system is an evil that must be eradicated. At this time, however, the caste system is part and parcel of the Hindu society. But the caste system has been supported in the Upanishads as well as Bhagavad-Gita by Lord Krishna Himself. Even if Lord Krishna shares my opinion, since He is infinitely more intelligent than I am, He must have had reasons to support the system at His time on earth. But I can assure you that Lord Krishna would bless an intercaste marriage under proper conditions. My recommendation is for you to marry this young man (if it works out well) and live a long and happy life blessed by Lord Krishna Vasudeva. One last word: I have seen many, many inter-caste marriages (I can recall dozens at least) and practically every one of them has been a great success. In almost all the cases, the couple did not attempt to change anyone's caste. They just, simply, ignored the caste factor in the whole equation. If you also do that, then you will live happily in your married life. May Lord Krishna bless you!

{The blessed Vishnu said: "I salute Mahadeva. Salutations to Thee. O Thou that art eternal origin of all things. The Rishis say that Thou art the Lord of the Vedas. The righteous say that Thou art Penance, Thou art Sattwa, Thou art Rajas, Thou art Tamas, and Thou art truth…….} I have read this whole episode in Mahabharatha. What is curious is that this appears in Anushasana Parva, towards the very end of Mahabharatha story. There is a theory I read somewhere that this story was added after Krishnadvaipayana Vyasa's demise by Saivite scholars, although I did not see proof that it happened so. But one of the interesting points the writer of the article said is that, Upamanyu, who by some other counts, was of much earlier era, suddenly appeared in Lord Krishna's youth when He went to the Himalayas to do Tapas towards Siva for a son. Again, I am offering this bit of info to you for enrichment of your knowledge, not to insult you or your Siva. I love Siva myself and I follow his example every day.

{So, the Shri Rudram part of Yajur Veda was olso written by Appaya, possibly? Eh Bindu.} Dear Atanu: You have to read my comments a little more carefully and with a little more open mind. I did not say that Appayya Dikshitar wrote Shivananda Lahari etc only because he is a staunch saivite. I said that the theory that he wrote them is very plausible because he is a staunch saivite. There is a big difference there. You really must read his 'Sivadhikya' (Siva-Adhikya, or the Superiority of Siva [over Vishnu]). It is truly very interesting and amusing, although for a Vaishnavite like myself, it can be infuriating. Appayya Dikshitar was a brilliant scholar and a great man. Like I said, he was a staunch Saivite who called himself a Siva-Advaiti although later he joined Adi Sankara's school and became a pure Advaitin. But it is well known in the south that Appayya Dikshitar hated Vishnu and the Vaishnavites, at least before he joined Sankara's school. Unfortunately, intolerance towards Vaishnavites and Jains was a hallmark of some of the Tamilians at around his time. He lived around 200 years ago in Tamil Nadu. He could not have written Sri Rudram.

{Bindu, why do you have to find fault every where? How did you know I meant grace in Christian context. And what is grace in Christian context? Thiru has rightly put things in perspective. Self less pure Karma only leads to grace. And Self less karma is also grace controlled by Daivam Niyati.} Don't take things so seriously. I was only trying to share my knowledge of the word with you, with the intent of making you aware. Not with the intention of trying to act superior. Ofcourse, the alternative is for me to stop ignoring your posts. I would not like to do that because you seem to be as a very knowledgeable and intelligent person. Thiruvengadam's perspective (Self less pure Karma only leads to grace) makes no sense at all. Agreed that the word 'Grace' has several meanings in different contexts; but since we are discussing religion here, the word Grace means what the Lord may bestow upon us, not because we have a right to demand it, but because He, in His infinite love, offers it freely to us.

{You seem to accept Vishvamitra's stand, but not this person's. May be because you are too scared of the consequences you might face if you question Vishvamitra, since it is mentioned in the ancient scriptures and books, and you never dare to go against it, while you can blame a person in the present age, who to you is a mere mortal being.} I am reluctant to continue discussion of this forever, so with your permission I will write last couple of comments. Further discussion will depend upon whether new points are raised and need to be addressed. Vishvamitra went through hell to be named a Brahmarshi ever since he declared "Dhikbalam Kshatriya Balam Brahamatejo Balam Balam". It was a very long process. He was not satisfied when Brahma came and declared him a Brahmarshi. Sage Vasishtha himself, Vishvamitra's arch enemy, had to come and declare him a Brahmarshi. If he did not receive this title, he would have been a Rajarshi. {The above clearly state that it is not by birth that one is united with the Lord and become a brahman, but by his karmas.} My point exactly. It really does not matter whether one is a Brahmin, or a Shudra. We are all the same in the eyes of the Lord. But Hindu scriptures explain that when we die, we will be born as Brahmin or etc depending upon our Sanchita Karma. I don't have my reference with me, but I can look into my books, if you want. You say: "..the Lord more important or the Upanishads?" There is no question that the Lord is supremely important. But we can only infer what the Lord says through what is contained in the Upanishads. Gautama Buddha was not the only great Kshatriya who went in search of knowledge. There were several Kshatriyas who were superior to Brahmins at the Upanishadic times, although Yagnyavalkya is the super-hero Brahmin. Janaka is a great example. Again, this is a moot point. We are talking about a Shudra becoming a Brahmin. You say also: {It is just like Pakistan saying we accept India and its democracy, but we cannot accept Kashmir as its integral part. - Very Cunning.}. You are losing your calm here. I advise you against that. Emotions lead to unneeded problems. There is no Cunning. All I am saying is what is contained in our scriptures. Sri Ramanuja was one of the few Brahmins who actually took in a lot of non-Brahmins into the fold of Brahminhood. I have very great respect for Sri Ramanuja. He did what Adi Sankara or Madhvacharya never would dream of doing. If more great Brahmins will come forward to do that, you and your friend will achieve your objective. Why won't I accept his person as a Brahmin? I personally have no problem accepting him as a Brahmin. In fact, he is probably a better person than many Brahmins that I know. These days, there are not too many Brahmins. I am not a true Brahmin myself; in order to be called that, I should be sitting in my home in India chanting Vedas in the morning, doing Agni Karyas, teaching students while my wife works as a Gurupatni. My opinion is that this man should continue to be a good man and not bother to become a Brahmin. It does not mean a thing. If you want to change my opinion, first the scriptures need to be changed. The same goes for Gayatri Japa. Scriptures say clearly that Shudras should not recite the Gayatri Japa. The tradition demands that I accept the scriptures, right? Otherwise, I will be a rebel like Tiruvengadam (God, I love his name; quite a mouthful, isn't it?)!!!

{Sri Sankara has packed into the Bhaja Govindam song the substance of all Vedanta and set the oneness of jnana and bhakti to melodious music.} Only one correction to Sri Rajagopalachari's commentary. Sankara did not set Bhaja Govindam to music. The great M.S.Subbulakshmi did. In Raga-malika, at that.

{"if in spiritual world there is no war and fights then why do the saivites and vaishnavites figth?and above all i have no words for the ISCONites" They fight because they misunderstand the true meaning of hinduism. Just because people corrupt hinduism doesn't mean hinduism is bad. Secondly saivites and vaishnavites do not live in the spiritual world, they live in the material world and are plagued by the same material problems that most people are. Saivites and vaishnavites are in NO way indicative of what the spiritual world is like. } I agree. To add to this, what we are engaged in is friendly debate. This should not be misconstrued as a fight between Saivites and Sri Vaishnavites. With all things said and done, no one except some truly lucky people like Arjun have truly seen God in flesh and experienced His greatness while being alive. That is why we are all like blind men trying to describe an elephant variously.

My dear Tiruvengadam, I love your name, by the way. So sweetly Tamil. Reminds me of Lord Venkateshvara. {as far as i know Mahesvara and Parameshvara are the adjectives for Shiva} Just a quick lesson in Hinduism for you. All these are adjectives for God. That includes the name Siva. They all refer to Lord Krishna Paramatma. {so do i warn u...seeing Shiva inferior to Vishnu is a great sin...Shiva's heart is Vishnu and Vishnu's heart is Shiva.....let u not say that none stopped u from ur folly...} Dear Tiruvengadam, you should stop frothing with anger like this. Yes, yes, Saivites have claimed that Siva is Vishnu and Vishnu is Siva. If that is so, why do our Puranas speak of Siva (with a pitchfork, water oozing out of his Jata, a half-moon on his head, etc) and Lord Vishnu (Shanka-Chakra-Gada-Padma Dhari, benign and sweet)? I have never ever insulted Siva. He is my prime example for Guru. I accept him as the Parama Vaishnav, the Dakshinamurthy that shows all the true way to Lord Krishna. {dont make a fool of urself by seeing Shiva and Vishnu seperately.....} Another Advaitin from the school of Appayya Dikshitar talking. I like you a lot, my good friend Tiruvengadam. May Lord Krishna bless you!

{It is amusing to see you blaming me for claiming "My father is greatest". See who created the post claiming supremacy of his own father?} Your father? My father? There is only one Father. It is Lord Krishna Vasudeva. Atanu, you don't believe in seeing problems with yourself, do you? Atanu Hypocritus shall be your future name. {Well you have not commented about the mantra itself, which is liberation mantra addressed to Tryambaka. Whereas earlier you said: “Moksha is granted by Lord Krishna alone”. This is called dodging and I give you full marks for that.} Who is dodging the issue here? Yes, there is this passage somewhere in the scriptures, although it is added as an afterthought after the 11th Anuvaka of Rudram. But since Triyambaka is actually the creation of Brahma, who is Lord Vishnu's creature, it follows that even if Triyambaka might be given the opportunity by Lord Vishnu to allow people a way out, the only true way out is through Lord Krishna. {Note: All Narasmsa, ------, Maruts, Visnu ---- claim and merit praise on account of Him alone -- the self effulgent Rudra.} We have gone over this before. Advaitins have come up with this method. Just like Adi Sankara's method of Panchayatana worship. When you worship Siva, he takes the prime spot. When you worship Lord Vishnu, He will be in the prime spot. The Advaitins totally neglected the Vedic tradition to hold only ONE God, the Parama Purusha, Paramatma, Parameshvara, who is Lord Narayana Vasudeva Himself. {Bhagawan Shiva is Paramesvara, who comes down as Vishnu (a generic name) in different forms at different times.} Atanu Hypocritus, if you consider Vishnu an attribute of the Lord, then Siva is also an attribute of the Lord. Learn a little Samskrit, my good fellow! Vishnu = The All Pervading. In fact, even Rudram has this piece in the 12th Anuvaka, which is taken from different parts of scriptures like Mahanarayanopanishad: Namo Rudraya Vishnave.... Siva = One who is auspicious And for the sake of your friends like Tiruvenkatam and others, all names have meanings. Parameshvara = Parama+Ishvara = Supreme Lord etc. {Vishnu, Rishi Kanva, Agastya, Vashishita. They are Asuric?} Lord Vishnu? Pure fiction by Saivites, who have twisted the true stories written by great Vaishnavites. Lord Vishnu never worshipped Lord Shiva. Same with Vasishta. He was primarily a worshipper of Lord Vishnu, just as Parashara, Vyasa, Shuka, Narada, Markandeya, and the whole retinue of Rishis and Devarshis and Brahmarshis. If you want to quote a Saivite Rishi, Gautama is one. Vishvamitra about half and half. Gautama is called Rudrapriya. {The blessed Vishnu said: "I salute Mahadeva. Salutations to Thee. O Thou that art eternal origin of all things. The Rishis say that Thou art the Lord of the Vedas. The righteous say that Thou art Penance, Thou art Sattwa, Thou art Rajas, Thou art Tamas, and Thou art truth…….} It shows the greatness of Lord Krishna Vasudeva, the Paramatman. He does not have to worship anyone but He becomes an example to others by worshipping His own Bhakta. {Poof! I also go to Yoga Nidra. I just woke up from one.} You did? How long did that last? That is the question. Assuming that you are capable of Yoga Nidra (which is the state of Sushupti from sleep or Turiya when achieved directly from wakeful state), one does not last too long in that state. Unlike Lord Narayana, who stays for long periods of time. How long did you last in the state of Turiya, my good friend?

{well if iam a rebel to u then dont forget ur a reble to me} The word rebel is not to be used so loosely. Conflicting opinions do not make rebels of two people. A rebel is one that rises against popular and established tradition, process or system. By the way, why do you use 'u', 'iam' and such other short forms? Are you a college kid? Just curious.