shrI lalitA trishatI

[Ravi Mayavaram]

6. AUM kalAvtyai namaH
7. AUM kamalAkShyai namaH

In the pervious posts, I did not write the names in nAmAvali format.

--
Ravi

dEvI mInanEtri daya chEya brOva rAvamma

>From  Tue Apr  7 21:30:14 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.7.APR.1998.213014.0700.>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 21:30:14 -0700
Reply-To: chandran at tidalwave.net
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ram Chandran <chandran at TIDALWAVE.NET>
Organization: HOME
Subject: kaDavuL : correction
Comments: To: Advaita <advaita-l at tamu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ravi Mayavaram <msr at REDDY20.TAMU.EDU> writes:

> Since He is in everthing  and He also transcends everything he is
> known as kaDavuL.

Greetings:

In Tamil, there is a famous saying - "AvaninRu Oor AnuVum Asiathu" which
means He is the Source of all Actions.  There is also a subtle message
which implies that the Grace of Ishwar is the primary source of our
existence!

An additional reference on "Kadavul" can be found in the chapter on
Hinduism in the The Gazetteer of India, Volume 1: Country and people.
Delhi,  Publications Division, Government of India, 1965 (Author, C.P.
Ramaswamy Iyer and others)

" The peculiarity of the Saiva Siddhanta doctrine which calls itself
Suddhadvaita is its difference from
 the Vedanta Monism. God pervades and energizes all souls and,
nevertheless, stands apart.
This concept of the absolute is clear  from the Tamil word for God,
Kadavul, meaning that which transcends (kada) all things and is yet the
heart (ul) of all things.  When the absolute becomes manifest, it is as
Force (Sakti) of which the universe is the product."

The Tamil word Kadavul is equivalent to "Brahman" and the individual
souls are the Jeevas.  The manifestation is the "Maya" or Myth.

-
Ram Chandran
9374 Peter Roy Ct.
Burke, VA 22015
Ph.703-912-5790

>From  Tue Apr  7 22:43:17 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.7.APR.1998.224317.0700.>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 22:43:17 -0700
Reply-To: chandran at tidalwave.net
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ram Chandran <chandran at TIDALWAVE.NET>
Organization: HOME
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Apologies
Comments: To: Advaita <advaita-l at tamu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Anand Hudli <anandhudli at HOTMAIL.COM> writes:

> I would like to respond to one point that has been raised here.
> Certainly, advaita is not restricted nowadays to followers of
> Shankara. Many other traditions that have recently started
> such as the ones by Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, Chinmayananda,
> Ramana Maharshi, etc. can be classified as new advaita schools or
> neo-advaita schools.
........................................(omitted)

Greetings:

I haven't heard the term "neo-advaita" in the books published by
Ramakrishna Mission or Chinmaya Mission or Ramana Ashram.  Swami
Vivekananda and Swami Chinmayananda had a  clearer understanding of
Sankara's Advaita than you or me anyone in this list.  Swami
Chinmayananda's lectures on Gita was mostly based on Sankara Bhashya and
the same is true with Swami Vivekananda.  Neither me or Shri Sadananda
have never brought Buddhism as a subject of our discussion.   When
someone raises a question on Buddhism, and if I believe that I have an
answer, I feel obligated to reply.  I believe that Sankara the great
teacher is always open to questions from his disciples.   In
Vivekachoodamani, Shri Sankara describes the teacher student
relationship beautifully.

I teach several graduate level econometrics courses and I follow a
prescribed text book and a course outline.  But students do ask
questions related and unrelated  to the topics of the course and I am
obligated to answer them or direct them to find the answers.  This list
is place for teaching and learning and we all take turns to be teachers
and students.  All artificial restrictions will  limit the scope of
discussions and the doubts will remain unanswered.

In conclusion I  have expressed my honest opinion regarding the dangers
of  introducing restrictictions in discussions and topics.   However, I
enjoy being in this list and that is why I rejoined the list.

--
Ram Chandran
9374 Peter Roy Ct.
Burke, VA 22015
Ph.703-912-5790
>From  Wed Apr  8 12:29:50 1998
Message-Id: <WED.8.APR.1998.122950.0400.>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 12:29:50 -0400
Reply-To: chandran at tidalwave.net
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ram Chandran <chandran at TIDALWAVE.NET>
Organization: Personal
Subject: ShriirAma establishes a Jyotirlinga - Rameswaram
Comments: To: Advaita List <advaita-l at tamu.edu>
Comments: cc: Anand Hudli <anandhudli at HOTMAIL.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Anand Hudli <anandhudli at HOTMAIL.COM>  Writes:

> PS: Ravi and others who are from Madurai may have something to say
> about Rameswaram. Their comments are welcome.

Greetings:

I am from Madurai and I wanted to say something but I can't because my
hands are tied!  The topic of discussion does not fall within the scope
of Advaita-List, as specified by Ravi in his postings on
ADMIN:Apologies.  This is a useful article for me and for many other
readers in this list but with the new regulations such postings violate
the guidelines of this list. I couldn't find any word close to Sankara
or Advaita in your article.  This posting raises lots of questions on
the scope of topics for this list.  If we accept this article and reject
an article on Buddha, we become morally corrupt. Someone can point out
that we are a group of narrow-minded folks discriminating over some
group of people in the list.  Of course, we are not some narrow-minded
people. Then we better understand the implications of narrowing down the
scope of topics for the listing.   I am glad to see your posting, like
your posting, want to add some additional points but I can't! My hands
are tied!

This a time to contemplate, discuss and debate the scope of topics for
this list before jumping into hasty conclusions and guidelines.  Let us
not CREATE a Monster and ask for help to destroy our creation. We can be
better off by not creating the monster!

Regards,

Ram Chandran





--
Ram V. Chandran