swami saranam ayyappa

[Guest guest]

what is the significance of lord ayyappa?

 

was he a saint who changed thinking by bringing vaishnav and shaivist thoughts together? or was he the god of somethign?

[Guest guest]

He is my favorite god who helps me clear the way of sins and frauds

[Guest guest]

what did he do>? what is he the god of? was he a real man? whats the historical significance of ayyappa?

[Guest guest]

beleive in HIM and then see how is mind and soul.

if u beleive in HIM ,HE will be there 4 u always

[Guest guest]

I have heard that Ayyappa is the son of Shiva and Vishnu (in His Mohini form). He is called Hari-Hara Puthra, and is supposed to have been raised by Goddess Lakshmi. The first time I heard this legend, I was surprised, but there you are!

[jayan008 0]

Lord Ayyappa (Dharmasastha) is the presiding deity of Sabarimala temple. The son of Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu, also known as Hariharaputhran (hari-vishnu, haran-shiva, puthran-son).

 

The descendant of Pandya dynasty, King Rajashekara ruled the country of Pandalam, eight hundreds years ago. However, the king was very unhappy that he had no children and his subjects were also worried that he had no heir to inherit his kingdom. As per the wish of the queen, both of them prayed Lord Shiva for blessing them with a child.

 

Preceding to this, Mahishasura, Son of Ramban, undertook a severe penance. Lord Brahma tried to distract his concentration, but having failed in his attempts, he appeared before the Asura and blessed him with a boon. Mahishasura asked Lord Brahma to give him a boon by which no man in the earth would be able to kill him, and Lord Brahma conferred the boon on him. Mahishasura, armed with his boon, began to commit atrocities and murders on the earth and terrorised people.

 

The Devas seeing the atrocities committed by Mahishasura came to the conclusion that only a divine power could kill him and approached Chandikadevi (Mahishasuramardhini) pleading to put an end to Mahishasura who was misusing the boon given by Lord Brahma. Chandikadevi set out on her mission and killed Mahishasura in a duel.

 

During the period of King Rajasekhara, Mahishi daughter of Karamba (brother of Ramban) undertook a severe penance in order to take revenge on the Devas, who were responsible for the death of her brother. Lord Brahma appeared and offered to confer on Mahishi any boon except that of immortality. Mahishi asked Lord Brahma to bless her with a boon by which nobody, except the son created out of the union of Vishnu (Hari) and Shiva (Haran), would be able to kill her. Lord Brahma gave the boon and Mahishi went to Devaloka and started harassing the Devas ousting Lord Indra from his throne.

 

The Devas then went to Brahma and Vishnu, but finally Lord Siva came to their rescue, who sent his son Dharmasastha, born out of the union of Shiva & Vishnu (in Mohini, a female form) to earth to kill Mahishi.

 

During the Amrut-Manthan (recovery of the nectar), when the nectar came up, the Asuras snatched it from the Devas. Lord Mahavishnu inthe disguise of Mohini, went to the Asuras and got back the Amrutham and restored it to the Devas. When Lord Shiva, went to see Lord Mahavishnu who was in the guise of a Mohini succumbed to her beauty and out of their union, was born a child, who was name Dharmasastha. Dharmasastha grew at Kailasham.

 

Lord Shiva, then answered King Rajasekara's prayer and ordered Dharmasastha to take the avathar of Ayyappan. On the day King Rajasekara went for hunting in the forest, Dharmasastha (Ayyappan) took the form of a baby and placed himself near the Pamba river. After that hunting was over, King Rajasekara advised his men to take rest and at that time, he heard a child crying from somewhere in the forest. Surprised, he went round and reached the banks of River Pampa. There he saw a beautiful and divine child (i.e. Ayyappa) kicking its legs and crying out, and was in a dilemma whether to take the child to the Palace or leave it there itself.

 

While the King was engrossed in his thoughts, a Sanyasi appeared before him and told the King that he need not be afraid of the child and take him to the Palace and that the child is capable of mitigating all sufferings. The

Sanyasi further stated that since the Child had a gold bell around his neck, his name be called "MANIKANTA" (Mani=Bell, Kant=Neck) and when the child completed twelve years, the King would know his divine history. After uttering these words, the Sanyasi disappeared.

 

The King of Pandalam was very joyous, he took the child to his Palace and briefed the Queen about the incident. The King and the Queen, having prayed to Lord Shiva, for a child, were very happy that they had been blessed with a child. The people also felt happy that a heir to inherit the Kingdom after the King, has been found.

 

However, the Diwan of the Kingdom, who was thinking that he would be the next crown after Rajasekara who was childless till now, was worried.

 

When the child, named Manikanta, began to grow in the Palace, everything began to prosper in kingdom. He was taught all martial arts and sastras and the Guru was surprised at his brilliance and agility and the extraordinary talents. The Guru came to the conclusion that he was not an ordinary child, but a divine power. After completing his education under the Guru, Manikanta approached the Guru to offer his Guru Dakshina. When Manikanta went to his Guru for his blessings, the Guru told him that he already knew that he was a divine power and he was blessed for having been given an opportunity to have Manikanta as a student. The Guru further told Manikanta that he had one request to make and that was that his only son who was dumb should be given speech. Manikanta called the Guru's son and put his hands on his head and immediately Guru's son had his speech. Manikanta requested the Guru not to reveal this to anyone and went to the Palace.

 

In the meanwhile, the Queen finally gave birth to a male child and the child was named RajaRajan. King Rajasekara, impressed with the talents of Manikanta, decided to crown him, treating him as his eldest son. He ordered the Diwan to make arrangements for the same. The Diwan hated this and started devising plans to prevent Manikanta from being crowned to the throne and to annihilate him. He tried various methods but failed. The Diwan then approached the Queen and told her that she had her own son, it was not correct to crown a person who came from the forest. He further told the Queen since Arthasastra itself has justified any misdeed if it was done to extract a good thing, he would suggest that the Queen should pretend as if suffering from severe headache and stomach pain and he would make the physician tell that only a Tigress' milk should be brought to cure the Queen and since Manikanta would only go to the forest to bring the milk, he would be in danger from the wild animals and even if Manikanta returned without bringing the tigress' milk, the King's love for him would not be as before. The Queen, became a prey to the Diwan's plot and agreed to do what he told, so that her son could succeed the King to the throne.

 

The Queen, as told by the Diwan, cried out loudly that she was suffering from severe headache and stomach pain and the King, believing this, called the Diwan to bring in the best physicians to treat her. The Physician, brought by the Diwan examined the Queen and told the King that the Queen had been suffering from a dangerous disease and it could be cured only by applying Tigress' milk .The King sent several of his men to the forest for bringing this milk. The King understood that it was an impossible task and wanted his dear Queen to be cured at any cost. Seeing the King suffer, Manikandan asked him to let him go to the forest promising to bring the milk. However, the King told him that he was awaiting to be crowned to the throne that he was also not of age and hence refused to let him go. Manikandan told the King, in spite of his refusal, he had to go lest he would be cursed for not curing the Queen. Since the King persisted in his refusal Manikanta wanted the King to promise to do something he wanted. The King gave the promise and asked him what he wanted and immediately Manikanta asked the King to permit to go to the Forest. The King felt disappointed that he had been tricked and with no other alternative permitted Manikanta to go to the forest. King Rajasekara made arrangements to send a group of his loyal men along with Manikanta, which however was refused by Manikanta on the ground that the tigress might run away seeing the crowd of soldiers. King Rajasekara sent along with Manikanta necessary foodstuffs and coconuts with three-eyes, in remembrance of Lord Shiva for his protection. The Panchabuthas, sent by Lord Shiva, accompanied Manikanta into Forest. However, on his way Manikantan, came to know the atrocities of Mahishi in the Devaloka, he went there and fought a battle with Mahishi. During the conflict, Manikanta threw Mahishi down to earth from devaloka and she fell on the banks of Azhutha River. Manikanta clashed with her at Azhutha river again.

 

At the end, of the battle between Mahishi and Manikanta at Azhutha River banks, Manikandan climbed up on her chest and danced violently. The impact of his dance was felt on the Earth and Devloka and the Devas were afraid. Mahishi knowing that the divine power dancing on her body was none other than the son of Hari and Haran, prostrated before Manikandan and died.

 

After killing Mahishi, Manikanta went to the forest for the tigress milk, when Lord Shiva appeared before him and told him that though he had done good for the Devas, still there was one main task and that was to give comfort to the King Rajasekara who was very concerned about him. Lord Shiva further told him that he could go to the Palace with Lord Devendran in the form of a tiger. With Manikanta on the tiger, all female devas in the disguise of a tigress and male Devas, as tigers started their journey to the Palace.

 

When Manikanta approached the Palace, the people who ridiculed him, really got panicky seeing the violent bunch of animals and started running helter shelter. Just then, the same Sanyasi who appeared before King Rajasekara when he picked up Manikanta at the forest as a baby, appeared again at the palace and told King Rajasekara the real identity of Manikanta. Hearing this, the King stood in great surprise and silence. Seeing the King, Manikanta descended from the Tiger and told him that since the tigresses were there, he could get the Queen cured with their milk. King Rajasekara, fell at his feet and asked to forgive him for whatever happened without his knowledge.

 

On that day Manikanta reached the age of twelve.

 

King Rajasekara told Manikanta that the Diwan was responsible for all these. However, Manikanta told the king that he need not punish the Diwan and all had happened only through the will of God, and he told further that time had come for him to go to Devaloka since the task for which he took avatar himself is completed and asked the King what boon he wanted from him and he was ready to give it as he was much pleased by his devotion. King Rajasekara told him that they wanted to raise a temple in his memory and suggest a suitable place for the temple. Manikantan aimed an arrow which fell at a place (mountain)called Sabari, where in Sri Rama's era a Sanyasini called Sabari observed Dhavam. Lord Manikantan told the King to build the temple in that place and then he disappeared.

 

As per Saint Agasthya's advise, King Rajasekara laid the foundation stone for the building the Sabarimala Shrine. (Sabarimala = Sabari Mountain). When the King was thinking how to put Dharmasastha's figure in the temple for darshan to devotees, it is said, Dharmasastha sent Parasuraman to Sabarimala who carved the figure of Lord Ayyappa and installed it on the day of Makarasankranthi, the day on which the Makara-Jyoti appears.

 

The River Pampa is considered a holy river as River Ganga, and Sabarimala is a holy place as Kasi.

 

Since Lord Ayyapa, while leaving, was a Brahmachari (non-married person), devotees who visit the temple perform Vritha (Fasting) for fortyone days keeping themselves isolated from family desires and tastes and leading a life like Brahmacharya, they carry the holy irumudi (baggage) on their heads, as the Bhagwan did when he went to the forest to fetch tigress milk, and bathed in River Pampa raising slogans of Swamiye Saranam (O' Lord Refuge) and climb the eighteen stairs.

 

People from any religion, caste or creed can visit the temple, because Lord Ayyappa preached all men being equal. He had a Muslim - Vavar as his Chief and two lower caste men as his companions. There is a temple for Vavar below the Sabarimala, and every pilgrim has to first visit the temple of Vavarswamy and offer his prayers before procedding to Sabarimala.

 

[BinduMadhav 0]

{The Devas then went to Brahma and Vishnu, but finally Lord Siva came to their rescue, who sent his son Dharmasastha, born out of the union of Shiva & Vishnu (in Mohini, a female form) to earth to kill Mahishi.}

 

Although I have heard of it, I think this is a myth. There is no mention of Lord Vishnu taking the form of Mohini and marrying Siva. If you say Mohini and Siva did not marry but had a child out of wedlock, that is very offensive. In fact, this whole story is stinky and is written to demean Lord Vishnu, the Supreme God of the universe.

 

I have read Srimad Bhagavatham thoroughly and there is no mention of Mohini having any kind of relation with Siva. It is true that Siva goes to Lord Vishnu and begs Him to show Mohini form; Lord Vishnu shows the form to Siva out of pure compassion for His devotee (Siva). Siva falls for the form and even embraces Mohini but nothing happens.

 

Please stop spreading all these nasty stories.

[Guest guest]

i think Ayyappa represented the opposing forces of Shaivism and Vaishnavism in south India coming together. Ayyappa was probably someone who brought the two different religions together against a common enemy and/or something else that affected both.

 

This would effectively make him the son of both sects, Shiva & Vishnu. The mytholoy of Mohini and Shiva was probably added later, to make the story realistic. Mythology is never or extremely rarely realistic and literally true. Mythology almost ALWAYS represents something else symbolically through the story it tells.

 

Please dont believe the mythology as literal truth and then refuse to be open minded to piossible explanations of it. I think 1300 years of oppression at the hands of foreignors has made Hindus less aware of the realistic para Brahman and more aware of only the mythologies.

[jayan008 0]

What I have mentioned is the general story linked with the legend of Lord Ayyappan.

 

Whether union of Shiva and Mohini is lie or true is something which can be debated and so also whether Lord Ayyappan representing both Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva thus giving the possibility of the story of their union coming up can also be explored.

 

No one is trying to degrade Lord Vishnu. Lord Vishnu coming in a female form and being in union with Shiva is considered demeaning to you because you are only looking into the physical aspects of such union and thus finds it degrading that God has involved in a physical relation. While, you are missing the greatness of Lord Vishnu who can transform himself into any form - from a simple being to the most powerful, regardless of its size, shape and sex, to restore peace and justice. Here, not the form, but the deeds and message given is more important. Lord Shiva is depicted as half male and half female. Is it degrading that he is depicted in such a form? It is infact only a impression drawn, since he has all the great qualities possessed by a Man and Woman equally.

 

Just as said by Mr. Ratheesh, Lord Ayyappan represented the opposing forces of Shaivism and Vaishnavism in south India coming together. Ayyappa was probably someone who brought the two different religions together against a common enemy that affected both. Thus this made him effectively the son of both sects, Shiva & Vishnu.

 

The Shiva-Vishnu union may have been added later too, to make it more believable, because generally common people have the biggest myth in their mind that a great learned and spiritually powerful person cannot be born out of simple physical relationship, there has to be some divine intervention. This belief is further stressed by the religious institution since centuries, that such people are divine and born by a miracle, because people are more interested in divinity and miracles.

 

If you tell the general public that there is this guy who is a great preacher, the first question asked is whether he does any miracles? so that they can approach him to solve their problems and misdeeds, thus opting a quick and easier route, instead of putting in their own efforts to resolve it. The second question would be, what is the background of this new preacher? If he is represented from superior clan he would have the most followers, but if he is from an inferior clan or who has a dark past, would not generate much interest. Hence associating the guy with a divine intervention would lend his teaching and following in a broader way to a bigger population. Hence, if you relate him/her to an established diety he is instantly accepted.

 

People has negative views of a physical relation because of the affects of the 1000 years of rule by the moghuls, whites etc., for whom physical relationship was and is a taboo, as preached under their religion. People don't want to accept that there is a physical union realted to their dieties. Just like in Bible, Jesus is born to Virgin Mary even though she is married. This has lent credence to him being the Son of God, because anyone born out of a non-physical relation is God (Superior), while a person born out of a physical realtion is merely a human being (Inferior).

 

This is not faith, but blind faith. Because no matter how, when and where you are born it is your karma which determines your position of being superior or inferior.

 

[BinduMadhav 0]

jayan008 wrote:

 

{...No one is trying to degrade Lord Vishnu. Lord Vishnu coming in a female form and being in union with Shiva is considered demeaning to you because you are only looking into the physical aspects of such union and thus finds it degrading that God has involved in a physical relation. While, you are missing the greatness of Lord Vishnu who can transform himself into any form - from a simple being to the most powerful, regardless of its size, shape and sex, to restore peace... }

 

I appreciate both you and Ratheesh responding in such a civil manner to my note. It speaks volumes for your upbringing. I thank you both for that.

 

Here is a dilemma for us Hindus. We have the habit of digesting every new thing thrown at us and make it divine. We have to stop somewhere. I can understand someone believing Srimad Bhagavatham, but this is something totally new and made up. People will keep making up new stories and we are expected to keep swallowing them.

 

Among all the scriptures I have read, I only recognize Srimad Bhagavatham, Srimad Bhagavad-gita and Ramayan of Valmiki and Tulasidasji as the supreme. As a Hindu, you too, doubtless, agree with this thinking. Srimad Bhagavatham mentions Siva falling for Mohini form of Vishnu and even embracing Her (I won't explain the details here), but there is no mention of Siva having a sexual union with Her and giving birth to Ayyappa. So, I am sorry, but I cannot recognize Ayyappa as a genuine deity.

 

I truly think it is demeaning to Lord Vishnu(Krishna) for anyone to think that the Supreme Lord took a female form and had a union with Siva to have a child. And, we have to pay attention to the physical forms here. Otherwise, there is no Ayyappa at all.

 

[jayan008 0]

It seems a lie and demeaning to you, because you are a Vaishnavite. Nobody likes his/her diety or guru to be involved in a physical relation, and that too in a female form. This is because you perceive such relation as inferior to Gods.

 

However, if it had been Shiva taking the form of a female, you would not have objected, but a Shivaite would definitely oppose it. You would have then given all the explanations to justify it. I know you will definitely dismiss this, because you are not presently faced with such a position. Until unless we are in any such situation and experience it we cannot say how will we react.

 

To me personally, there is only one law and that is the law of the nature, one can only be born out of a combined force of male and female. It may not be required to have a physical intimacy, just like as may be in future with scientific development such intimacy for regeneration may be a thing of past, but the combined forces of the two has to be applied.

 

Whether Shiva-Mohini union is true or not, in this case, can be debated.

 

All things happened in past and waiting to happen in future is governed by the nature and has a logical explanation. Your views are as the way depicted in scriptures. It is like the attachment of a mother towards his child, who doesn't like to hear anything ill and defends the child's action, even if it is negative. But when she tries to look at things in more clear and practical way, she gradually uncover the real truth.

 

Even though i may not be much qualified to advise, but we should try and reason everything with a logical mind, and not keep parroting what is written. God has blessed every one with a thinking mind and intellect. Not everything written is true. Historical records and ancient scriptures has undergone changes and addition/deletion has occured during various period of rule and school of thought prevailing during such periods, interpretations and counter-interpretations have occured.

 

[BinduMadhav 0]

Although Lord Krishna is my God, many times I worship Devi or Mahalakshmi (Andal). So it is not that I don't like my God to be female. God can be Father and God can be Mother.

 

What offends me is the fact that this story is totally out of line from Srimad Bhagavatham and sounds so gross. Under what circumstances did Lord Vishnu agree to take Mohini's form and become Siva's spouse? Why did Siva want Mohini in the first place, when he had Mother Parvati by his side (or half his body)? I find all this reprehensible.

[Guest guest]

no offsense meant to you bindu, but you are looking at it all wrong. you are looking at it from the perspective of vishnu a personsonified being of god having some relations with shiva, another personified being of god. Your looking at is as if we are talking about two people who coupled up and had a relationship. These are not ordinary humans in an ordinary relationships

 

god only has a personified form to those that desire a personified form. To those that dont need a personified form, he is a formless wonder taht never ceases to amaze. There is saguna brahman and nirguna brahman. Doesnt mean taht either one is more right or more wrong. Both are right and should be allowed.

 

I persoanlly believe Ayyappa was the deification of a real swami or prince or someone good in the community. He is deified because Indians like to deify those that do overwhelmingly great things. Since we believe that we are all gods differing only in the amount of god consiousness, then those with higer consiousness do better things and are therefore closer to being the true perfection of god. This might explain why good people throughout our history have been deified and worshipped.

 

As for Mohini, it coule just be that she was a real woman that lived in India, who was Vaishnavite or a real heavy Vishnu worshipper or one who did something great int he name of Vishnu. This would explain why the great sages that passed on the story refer to her as a form of Vishnu. Her union with Shiva is also more symoblic that existantial. Perhaps she did something with a Shavite.

 

I dont exactly remember the story, so i cant say. But of crose, these are just theories. But this is the way we have to approach these stories. Not as if we are listening to neighborhood gossip about who did what with whom. There are deeper meanings in all the myths.

 

As for the Bhagavatham, one cannot expect every single detail of human existance to be in one book.

[BinduMadhav 0]

{no offsense meant to you bindu, but you are looking at it all wrong. you are looking at it from the perspective of vishnu a personsonified being of god having some relations with shiva, another personified being of god. Your looking at is as if we are talking about two people who coupled up and had a relationship. These are not ordinary humans in an ordinary relationships

 

god only has a personified form to those that desire }

 

My dear Ratheesh: I understand that when we are talking about Siva and Vishnu, we are not talking about ordinary mortals like us and our wives. But, in any case, a union between divine personalities is just as bad. The story does not offer any explanation on why the union was required, why Lord Hari had to take the form of Mohini (instead of Siva taking the form of a woman), what good came out of it, etc.

 

There are a couple of errors in your thinking, if you don't mind my pointing out. Firstly, Saguna Brahman + Nirguna Brahman theory is nonsense. There is no such thing as Nirguna Brahman. The moment we attempt to define Nirguna Brahman, the Nirguna Brahman no longer exists and a Saguna Brahman takes its place. Secondly, if you are arguing that Siva and Lord Vishnu never existed and never exist, then the whole premise of Hinduism falls apart. Let's face it: With all the love for Vedanta that we exhibit, we Hindus greatly depend upon the mythological stories for our support. So we cannot simply dismiss the story of Mohini and Ayyappan as just fiction. I don't mind expressing anguish or even disgust at such a story, but I am not going to dismiss it.

 

We have to believe in something solid in religion and therefore I take Srimad Bhagavatham and Bhagavad-Gita as two authentic works. Srimad Bhagavatham stops short of any kind of union between Mohini and Siva. Siva regains his control over his senses when Mohini slips out of his embrace and runs away. Perhaps Goddess Parvati looking on helped him regain his senses quickly too.

 

For all these reasons, the story annoys me. I just simply do not like it.

[jayan008 0]

"With all the love for Vedanta that we exhibit, we Hindus greatly depend upon the mythological stories for our support. So we cannot simply dismiss the story of Mohini and Ayyappan as just fiction. I don't mind expressing anguish or even disgust at such a story, but I am not going to dismiss it."

 

Support your belief with logical thinking. Not supporting and not dismissing is a clever political way of staying in the middle....so that if one is established, you can always say that i never dismissed it. Great! - Try to take a firm stand.

 

"Siva regains his control over his senses when Mohini slips out of his embrace and runs away. Perhaps Goddess Parvati looking on helped him regain his senses quickly too."

 

All such "perhaps" is wild imaginations / interpretations, which has smudged the real truth, to justify one's stand.

 

[Guest guest]

Like Bindumadhav above, you also bring down spiritual concepts to material level very easily.

 

It is futile to talk with kinds of bindu since they are blockheads. They imagine the gods to have mentality as of their own. Read his line: Siva begs of Visnu to see his Mohini form. It always has to be servant-master relationship for them.

 

They have no idea that a servant is the master.

 

 

But to you I possibly can say a thing or two.

 

Saivism and Vaisnavism are creations of human mind, which longs for servant -master relationships. Highest Vaisnavas and highest Saivas know this and respect each other.

 

 

The Universe is marriage of Siva and Visnu. It has nothing to do with material male-female sexuality. Both Vishnu and Siva are eternal and ONE, representing two sides of one reality.

 

 

[Guest guest]

<<The story does not offer any explanation on why the union was required, why Lord Hari had to take the form of Mohini (instead of Siva taking the form of a woman), what good came out of it, etc.>>

 

does your religion offer explanations to every single thing that has happened? i know there is an explanation, but does it offer one? just because it is not sufficiently explained to ur liking, doesnt mean that it should be dismissed as fodder or soemthing bad. Try to understand. Even if it takes you all your life, TRY to understand. There is a reason behind everything, even if it is not apparent. As for Vishnu coming in the form of Mohini rather than Shiva, does it need an explanation? Who cares? you say it as if there is something wrong with being a woman. You should praise Vishnu for coming as one of the most beutiful creatures on God's earth. Women are priceless and should be valued above all but God itself.

 

 

<<Firstly, Saguna Brahman + Nirguna Brahman theory is nonsense>>

 

saguna brahman adn nirguna brahman is two sides of the same coin. Whether one looks at the heads or the tails, it is still the same coin. Nirguna brahman is the side where one sees past the maya and sees only the existance of a formless god. that is all there is. the material things we see are parts of our persepective. not that they are wrong, but like it said, it depends on how you look at the coin. By looking at the heads side, one doesnt see the tail side and vice versa. Doesnt mean both dont exist as part of the same thing. There is a spiritual life beyond the mythology. The myths are there to help those who need it. Doesnt mean it should be demeaned as less than good. I also didnt say just dimiss it as ficiton. All myths have some level of truth to it.

 

<<Support your belief with logical thinking.>>

 

definately, Logic is the key!!

 

<<Like Bindumadhav above, you also bring down spiritual concepts to material level very easily.>>

 

Please explain how i do this. It is not my intention to give this sort of explanation. God is beyond material forms, although he does have them.

 

<<Saivism and Vaisnavism are creations of human mind, which longs for servant -master relationships. Highest Vaisnavas and highest Saivas know this and respect each other.>>

 

To me, the two are different religious beliefs in India. Although there are many people from both sects who look beyond either religion and say all religion is the same and sectarianism is foolish. But there are others who require the sectarianism to help foster a belief that hopefully will come to the same conclusion as the learned men who go against sectarianism. One shouldnt look down on those that need what they need to find god. They do better than those who need no religion but blindly believe they do right because they dont believe in sectarianism.

 

[BinduMadhav 0]

Atanu wrote:

 

{It is futile to talk with kinds of bindu since they are blockheads.}

 

What is this? I am a blockhead? Oh no! This cuts me to the quick. I am badly hurt. Never knew that I was so sensitive myself until Atanu abused me like this (grin).

 

I am deeply dejected and depressed right now:-) I will have to find a copy of Bhagavad-Gita and delve into it to get over it. Good bye, cruel world!

[Guest guest]

AYYAPA IS MY FAVOURITE GOD

[bhadramoorthi 0]

<p align=center> </p>

I applaud you Jayan.

You have done it.Nice reply to these fanatics who dont know the essence of Hinduism.

Hope you are a Malayali. We should not allow the poison of Saiva-Vaishnava trends and mutual jealousies spread into our Kerala also, where till now, there is no disruption to the Hindu harmony.