[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: aham brahmasmi - Revised and Enlarged!
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: aham brahmasmi - Revised and Enlarged!
-
From: nparker@crl.com (Nathan Parker)
-
Date: 17 Feb 1995 16:06:03 -0800
-
Distribution: world
-
From nparker@crl.com Fri Feb 17 18: 55:56 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
-
References: <3i2m6v$q4s@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Mani Varadarajan (mani@srirangam.esd.sgi.com) wrote:
: In article <3hro22$39i@ucunix.san.uc.edu> manish@cadence.com (Manish Tandon) writes:
: > |> PS. the above is of course not my own thinking. Mainly borrowed form
: > |> Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi.
: > |>
: > and btw, Bhagavan means God and Ramana Maharshi is/was NOT God either.
: > You seem to be following crooks.
: >
: Manish,
: "bhagavaan" is *very often* used to refer to great people, or great
: devotees. It is not solely reserved for referring to God.
But what is the qualification of a great person? According to Bhagavatam
it is that one be a devotee of Krishna, that is the only qualification of
greatness. And since someone is serving Krishna (Bhagavan) therefore he
may also be refered to as Bhagavan because he is the representative of
Bhagavan, therefore he is carrying all the bhaga of the Supreme Lord.
There is _Never_ any idea other than that when any great personality is
called Bhagavan such as Sripada Ramanujacarya or Narad Muni, etc. The
point of calling them Bhagavan is to recognize them as saktyavesa, that is
you are acknowledging Krishna as Bhagavan, because Krishna is janmad yasya
yatah, all bhaga is comming from one source. You are not acknowledging the
acarya himself as having some seperate bhaga. There is only one person
possessing bhaga and that is Krishna, because the acaryas represent Him,
therefore they are also having bhaga. Who's bhaga? It is Krishna's bhaga
only.
: For example, "bhagavaan raamaanuja" is common when referring
: to Sri Ramanujaacharya. Similarly, "bhagavaan raamakrishna paramahamsa".
Oh brother. No jeer would ever mention those two names in the same line,
and if your acaryas won't I can't see how you would. Bhagavan
ramakrishna? He is only paramamurgi.
: Must we resort to condemning others out of our own ignorance?
: Mani
He was not condemning anyone out of ignorance. Ramana Maharsi is not
Bhagavan in any way. Neither he is the source nor is he the
representative.