Guest guest Posted September 24, 2006 Report Share Posted September 24, 2006 Dear Narasimhaye Ji had a thought that would help.......if you get the CD from Rudra Centers book and cd section from the MahaGanapati Temple in Mumbai India where the Senior Priests who chant the prayers to Lord Ganesha go through more than a 10 year training program you will have proof that the bij mantra for Lord Ganesha is pronounced as Gum as in chewing gum and is the only bij mantra I have been able to hear on this tape....there is nothing on the cd that resembles the word Gung..........am sure you would agree that if these Priests of Lord Ganesha pronounce this bij mantra in this manner then there is little room to disagree and say this is the wrong way to pronounce hope this helps....should have thought of this before however got to involved in trying to explain this myself........proof is in listening to the CD Wishing you and Family the Best DD , narasimhaye <no_reply wrote: > > > Sri Dharma Dev, thank you for your educational message but may I digress > with a few parts. Please note this is not a debate but rather to assist > friends in gaining a better understanding who come from differrent > backgrounds and traditional religious lineages: > > > , rudracenter > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Again by chanting Sri Anjanaayaya Namaha means that the son of > > Anjanaa is being honored by respecting the Mother.... > > The Mother is the Shakti. When a person honors the Mother as well as the > Son, the potency is stronger. This mantra is further enhanced by Shakti > aspect. Kinda also like paying respects to elders before younger > people. Rank and file in a sense. > > By useing a > > word or words for a Devi that are meant to be part of a larger > > Astotara or Chalisa then one is kind of leaveing out all the other > > aspects of the Deva......... > > Not so becos both are honored at same time, Deva and Devi. > > Is best to refer to Lord Hanuman as Lord > > Hanuman and then you have all powers of Lord Hanuman in one > > chanting.......... > > Agree absolutely for persons who feel attuned to doing this way. > > by addressing Lord Hanuman as Lord Ajaneya one is only appealing to the > son by way of the Mother. > > When Son is appealed to by way of Mother or Shakti, the Shakti supports > and empowers the mantra even more. Shakti is Omnipresent and Pervades > all realms. > > > > The difficulty I have found with anyone only speaking about Lord > > Anjaneya is that it only refers to one aspect of the total Lord > > Hanuman enegy so why not just go to the source and chant Aum Sri > > Hanumate Namaha > > Again agree, but only for those who are inclined or attuned to chanting > this particular mantra. If one wants more potency and only wants to > appeal to the Deva aspect, then the adding of Aum at the end of this > mantra will empower it further too. > > > >Gum Gum Gum Gum and you are includeing > > all the is Lord Ganesha > > Gum and Gam are technically traditionally correct, yet wrong. But then > there is no right or wrong if the chanter recites with sincere devotion. > Gum, Gum, Gum as in pronunciation "chewing gum" means "Grief, Grief, > Grief" when spoken verbally. In verbal pronunciation, correct sound is > GuNg. In silent chanting "Gum or Gam" are fine. Imagine someone who > goes "Om Gum (Grief) Ganapataye Namaha" -- the person therefore is > asking Ganapthi to bring grief, instead of removing obstacles. This is > why some people say they get no results but more strife in their lives > after praying to Lord Ganapathi ) > > > > There is lot of room for debate on this however from what I have > > studied I simply dont see Lord Hanuman as Lord Anjaneya because > > chanting to HIM as Lord Anjaneya is like leaveing out all his other > > aspects > > With all due respect, no debate here, not debating here. Just to share > a few tidbits: Every person has the right to see what he or she wants > to see or believe in. We all respect one another's beliefs and > religious backgrounds. I sincerely respect yours too. But chanting to > Hanuman as Anjaneya does not leave out all His other aspects, it > empowers all those other aspects instead. > > > > hope this makes some sort of sense.........it is most fruitful to > > concentrate on one aspect of any Devas Energy be chanting one of > > their many aspects however why stop there and limit oneself.....why > > not go to the source itself > > Devas would not come into existence without the efforts of Devis. > Mothers (Shakti or Devi) are the ones who gave birth (existence) to > Devas. Hence there is also no Shiva without Shakti. Its kinda like > Shiva is Rudraksh and the electromagnetic properties are Shakti, the > "subtle life force". > > > > this is only ones understanding........there is always room for > > other understanding > > Thanks sincerely for saying there is always room for other > understanding. That's where I'm coming from: "other understanding". > > Ommmmm > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.