X-Sender: ssathia@...
X-Apparently-To: agathiyar@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8 0 3 1); 3 Apr 2002 04:39:22 -0000
Received: (qmail 94567 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2002 04:39:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Apr 2002 04:39:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.149.26) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2002 04:39:22 -0000
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:39:22 -0800
Received: from 202.184.125.119 by lw4fd.law4.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 04:39:21 GMT
To: viswanathan t m@..., IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com, meykandar@yahoogroups.com
Cc: tamil@..., akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com, agathiyar@yahoogroups.com, advaita@yahoogroups.com
Bcc:
Subject: Significance of shiva linga/Rudra/ Grace borrowed from Samskruth!
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 04:39:21 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2002 04:39:22.0381 (UTC) FILETIME=[868DDBD0:01C1DAC9]
From: "S T"
X-Originating-IP: [202.184.125.119]
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92150211
X-Yahoo-Profile: ssathia
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16968
Dear Prof Visu,
Vanakkam.
As I was reading your mail below, a question struck me suddenly as to
whether our Hindu temples are being constructed rightly to reflect the
concept that BEING is one but gods are functional representations of the
same BEING. I have seen explanations that temples are designed after the
human body but how does the temple design portray the idea that GOD is one?
Can any architects or temple designers in these Lists help?
With best regards,
Sathia,
KL, Malaysia.
From: "Tenkasi Viswanathan"
To: IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com, meykandar@yahoogroups.com
CC: tamil@...
Subject: [tamil] Significance of shiva linga/Rudra/ Grace borrowed from
Samskruth!
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 04:04:49
Namasthe Somasushma.
Even though Rudhra and Civa are the same in conception, their functions are
different. The functional nature of the "Hindu pantheon" is very
interesting. Rudhra is specifically used for the destructive function
(tschapayathE), and all destructive emotions like anger. The name and form
Shiva on the other hand are transcendental. Even the name vishnu is
restricted to a context in which the Earth and/or beings have to be present.
At least two beings are needed for Vishnu to do his job! The gods like Indra
are beings. It could be any living being. not necessarily humans. Of course
the gods are all one, but each name is attached to a specific context,
function etc.
The way one handles the oneness is by a transformation. After all, we cannot
simultaneously think of CivA and Vishnu unless we think of both of them say
in a picture or in a setting. We can think of each one separately or
together, but distinct. Civa does not become Vishnu. We need to apply a
transformation like a change of scene to prove the oneness!
For example, in MathsyAvathArA, Vishnu cannot be called NArAyanA without
killing meaning, which is what the English did! (If you kill meaning, you
lose the argument. In a world where lawyers have to win the argument,
meaning is everythng!). And we tend to follow that, even though it is
changing. Among the AvathArs, only RAmA, KrishnA, and BudhdhA can be
addressed as NArAyanAs!.
The text is from SankarA's Soundharya Lahari:
Jagath sUthE dhAthA, Harihi avathi, rudhrahA TschapayathE.
dhAtha creates Jagath. harihi nurtures, and RudhrA destroys.
That is if we speak of creation, nurturing and management, and destruction,
these are the names for the gods attached to the respective functions. We
like to think of them as a package. If there is birth, there is death. And
in between we live!
The use of the word CivA will create confusion, if I want to include Grace
as a function. SnakarA uses the word SadhA CivA in the same song!
SadhA PUrvahA anugruhnAthi
One who has sadhA as a prefix (!) bestows Grace.
The Webster dictionary says that the English word Grace is derived from the
Samskruth "GruhnAthi"! Here is the explicit use of the word by SankaRa! So
the Christian concept of Grace did not come into existence until the East
India Company established itself in India!
We further need a name for the concept of the Trinity as one. That is
dhAthA, Hari, and RudhrA as one! The word is IshAnaha. SankaRa refers to the
concept in the same song without giving the word. The commentators usually
give the word.
The oneness is a wonder, a magic: MAyA. There is a very beautiful song of
NammAzvAr referring to the dilemma I just described.
KannA, how do I call you, if God is One? Do I call you the colorful God, or
the delicately locked God having the moon in the locks (civA), or the God
with the four heads (brahmA)? All I know is that all beings created worship
you in joy like a droning beetle. Indeed you are a wonder!
Note: kannA is "darling", used to refer to KrishnA. Dear like the pupils of
the eye! The word is reserved for KrishnA! An intelligent and crooked
foreign conqueror would try to change that meaning and call Lord SubramanyA
as kannA!
>From: "somasushma"
>Reply-To: IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com
>To: IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [IndianCivilization] Re: Significance of shiva linga/Rudra/ Dr.
>Garg
>Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 01:48:26 -0000
>
> > I am glad that you used the word "RudrA" and not civA. The words
>"dhAthA,
> > hari, and "rudrA" go together. MadhusUdhanA is an equivalent of
>Hari. Each
>
>Shri vishvanAthan why do you say hari and rudra go together? rudra is
>the more specific name with shiva being used for certain occasions and
>incantations. I do agree instinctively that hari fits as a better name
>in the dhAtA, rudra-hari triad. Of course civa is a dravidization of
>shiva (rudra)
>
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
