This is referring to his upendra/vAmanAvatAra (as the veda-s do multiple times), yet the focus of the veda-s is praise, not on lIlA-s (which is what the purANam-s are meant for), so it obviously would not be so detailed in that regard. In addition, praise does not always imply worship...
It can be written as AdityahR^idayastotram or as AdityahR^idayam, but not as AdityahR^idayamstotram.
Edit: Also, it's generally accepted that the AdityahR^idayastotram is a latter interpolation into the text, as the rAmAyaNam clearly establishes harisarvottamatva (which is evident when the text...
That is some really strange and evil stuff, worse behavior than vAmAchAra followers...perhaps they can be considered a form of "tAntrika" sikhism 'cause it seems so unorthodox, lol...
That girl in the middle (8th person from the left) is like "oh my god!" Was she happy to see you, or just shocked?
Young? The guy on the right looks like he's over 40, lol. :p By the way, are the vaDakalai shrIvaiShNava-s or rAmAnandI-s? I can't tell since their tilaka-s often look the same...
I agree that if one must slaughter or asphyxiate an animal, it would be more proper for it to be done in a proper, ritualistic manner rather than in a slaughter house where animals are treated as nothing more than food, but a mythological story from the Bible is going to encourage you to...
You stated that makaranda made "perplexing statements regarding the very nature of Brahman and enlightenment." I assumed that was in regards to his claim that "there is no other (conscious) entity but Brahman" which you viewed as an oxymoron. Many forms of vedAnta, including madhva's dvaita and...
I consider myself a vedAntI and I agree with your claim that brahma has a consciousness. Unfortunately, some Hindu-s (like shAnto'ham) seem to view kevalAdvaita, as taught by sha~Nkara, as the only form of vedAnta.
LOL, I can't blame you if you have a problem with H(heart)K, nor can I blame you...
I'mma revive this thread with these verses from the mohachUDottara...:)
kapAlapAshakhaTvA~Nga kheTacharmA~NkushAnvitam|
eka~nchApadharaM tadvatsusAritamathottaram||
bhavyA brahmAhariskando nandI kAlAdayashchaye|
vIkShyamANAH shivaM nR^ityaM bhR^i~NgI kAryogrataH sthitaH||
mAlAkhaDgabhR^ito...
Meh, the avadhUta gItA and aShTAvakra gItA are too advaitic for my taste. I like the uddhava gItA from the bhAgavatapurANam much more, it's so much more devotional, lol.
A pravachana is a statement, so I can see how they translated it as declare rather than speak (still a bit melodramatic) but there is no word there that functions in sampradAnakAraka, so they seemed to viewed the "it" as being implied, even though it is not mentioned in the verse. In addition...
Why do you make the translations even more confusing than the original saMskR^itam? A literal word for word translation of kó addhÁ veda ká ihá právochad is "who surely knows, who hither will speak," yet you write it as "Who knows this of a truth, and who will now declare it?" Me thynketh...
svAgatam,
I think he's referring to 4.3.21-22 (tadvA\_ asyaita\_dAtma\_kAmamApta\_kAmamakAmaM tadya\_thA priya\_yA striyA\_ saMpa\_riShvakto na bA\_hyaM kiM\_ chana\_ veda nA\_ntarameva\_me\_vAyaM pu\_ruShaHshArira\_ AtmA tadvA\_ asyaitada\_tichChando\_ 'pahatapApmAbhayaN ta\_d vai asya eta\_d...
It doesn't; I was trying to make fun of CC's new-age gnostic beliefs and his obsession with Jesus. Can't you tell sarcasm, sheesh... Click on the statements and read the comments by CC on the links.