Guest guest Report post Posted September 8, 2005 and how big? Was he like Bhimasena because they say he was an aspect of Vayu and hence big and strong. Was he 7 feet tall? I know chaitabya was a 7-footer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 9, 2005 who is this? doesnt this mean bhima's army? is this a real person? or a reference to a person and his army? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 9, 2005 Bhima is also called Bhimasena. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 9, 2005 doesnt bhimasena refer to bhima's army while bhima refers to the man? much like gopalakrishna refers to krishna but to krishna as a gopi? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadhav 0 Report post Posted September 10, 2005 please take some lessions in an indian language, like Hindi. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 10, 2005 Does anyone know the answer? Madhav, you seem to be knowledgeable, is it true? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krishnadasa 0 Report post Posted September 10, 2005 It waa mentioned mostly about his activities than his bodily structure. Nevertheless one can see ,he was /is well bulit from his photos available . He was also a voracious eater like Bima and have performed many herculean tasks during his tenure . There is a hill called Kunjaru Giri (hill) in the place where he was appeared , and he use to jump from the top of that hill to the bottom at a stretch whenver his mother used to call him, and also when he was a litttle older in age he wrestled with his young followers and defeated them and showed them how he was still strong at that age. Infact there are so many such activities recorded of this spiritual master. for more info visit http://www.splendourindia.org/splen_july2002/cover_story_Madhva.htm hari hari bol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 11, 2005 Jaat naa pucho Sadhuki, Paat na pucho sadhuki, Roop naa dekho sadhuki, umar na dekho sadhuki. ................. Lelo Sadhu se Gyan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadhav 0 Report post Posted September 11, 2005 thik kahaa. kuchh log ye nahi jaante haien. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 12, 2005 1. what photos are available of madhavacharya? 2. for those that think i should take language lessons - thank you for your suggestion. you should be happy to learn that i am taking a semester of punjabi, which started last week. i wanted to take either hindi or sanskrit, but punjabi was the only one offered at my school. also, since you DO speak the language, why dont you just clear it up for me. as i understood it, bhimasena refered to bhima WITH his army or just the army of bhima itslelf. Is this not correct? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 12, 2005 Ratheesh Bhima because of his immense power was equated to a whole army, hence called Bhimasena. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadhav 0 Report post Posted September 13, 2005 << Bhima because of his immense power was equated to a whole army, hence called Bhimasena. >> the part 'sena' in teh name bhimsena is just an appendix to a name. it isn not senaa, only senaa measn army. sena is pronounced as sen. sen is oneof may appendix hindus use after a name. shen the bhimsen is written as bhimsena, then only the non-indians pronounce it as bhimsenaa. then this poor fellow thought teh name is bhima-senaa and translated it as the arny of bhima. unfortunately many non-indians will pronounce bhima as bhimaa. the correct pronouncement is bhim, like raam, but in english it is written as rama. hope this clarifies everything about the original question. let me given onemore example. the name raman is actually prononced as ramaNa, not as raamaan. some in india pronounce it as raaman, but it is not original. Westerners do not know how to pronounce Na. They always pronounce any n as in No. Thus writing sanskrit words in imperfect latin alphabet (a-b-c-d) opens door for incorrect pronounciations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 13, 2005 thank you for clearing that up. you are right about the pitfalls of the roman alphabet. i didnt know to stress the last A in senaa (army) and not in the name. hence, my mistake. i wish i spoke sanskrit. indians, especially older indians, should take a very active stance in the re-learning of sanskrit by all hindus. young and old. it is a fact that one never learns a language as well as they could if they dont learn it by the time they are 5 years old. we have to teach our children sanskrit, in order to pass down the knowledge of thousands of years of continuoiuys civilization before that knowledge is lost to the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krishnadasa 0 Report post Posted September 13, 2005 . [for those that think i should take language lessons - thank you for your suggestion. you should be happy to learn that i am taking a semester of punjabi, which started last week. i wanted to take either hindi or sanskrit, but punjabi was the only one offered at my school. also, since you DO speak the language, why dont you just clear it up for me. as i understood it, bhimasena refered to bhima WITH his army or just the army of bhima itslelf.] i guess thats not for me hari hari bol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 13, 2005 but the photo parts are, what photos ar there of madhwacharya? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites