They differ only in their sumas (flowers) (‘su’ is replaced by ‘ma’ in their names), but both give the same phalas (fruits, which is moksham)”. One by the name Vaasudeva and the other by the name Vaamadeva.
“There are two mahaa-phala daayaka Vrukshas. This story I specially picked up for the knowledgable! Now when it came to the source of information on Hanuman too was born becos of the payasam.I was citing that version just to give another view to the discussion cos the version I stated was a discourse in Puttaparthi India.īut that does not deny the fact that Hanuman is the incarnation of Shiva cos the Vishnu aspect complete with Shanka,Gada,Chakra,Adi Sesha took birth as Rama and His brothers and the Shiva aspect took birth as Hanuman.īut it seems that you always choose to misinterpret what I write also when I wrote about duality exists in the mind.I used the word Duality exists.this is what I wrote: I also added that becos Rama,Bharata,Lakshman and Shatrugana were born due to payasam so on technical grounds Hanuman too can be considered a brother of Lord Rama cos in Hanuman chalisa there is a line that equates Hanuman with Bharata.this was my own assumption where I said Hanuman is technically a brother of Rama.where I was putting 2 and 2 together. I dont get it why and how you concluded that I said that Hanuman beiing an incarnation of Shiva is wrong. I did not use the word WRONG anywhere.all I said that there is ANOTHER version that says the Hanuman was also born becos of the payasam which fell into the hands of Anjana who was praying to Lord Shiva at that time. I think you did not really understand my post. The above clearly shows when it comes to you - and your god - Lord shiva - you tolerate 'no nonsense' - at that time, all duality in god's name suddenly springs up in your mind, but when a Vaishnava claims his god is being blasphemed, he is ridiculed that 'duality exists in his mind'!!! So what to say? This explains the very purpose of creating this thread. According to Biswa, who never answered my query asking him for reasoning for all my points raised in my earlier report to moderator (but he complained I should not report), quoting Brahmanda Purana showing Lord Shiva's speech on Vaishnava aparadha is 'having an intention to create inter-sect wars'. Janaki, Krishna and Rama are 'flawed' because they did not kill 'dharmically'.Ĥ. According to Renuka, the well-established notion that Hanuman ji is Lord Shiva's manifestation is wrong.ģ. According to Chandru1849, our Vishnu is 'still searching for Shiva's feet' and he has been hurling sarcasms and accusations on Vishnu all along.Ģ. Let me be clear why I started this thread, taking this very thread as an example:ġ.
0 kommentar(er)
