Thursday, August 21, 2014

[gita-talk] Naming first Male or Female in case of Couple

 

Dear All,
 
Namaskar.
 
I have a question for which I could not find answer. Can anybody enlighten me?
We call some lords as:
 
1.  Shanker Parvari.
2.  Ram Sita
3.  Brahma Sarasawti 
and like wise
 
And some as:
·       Radha Krishen.
·       Laxshmi Narayan.
and like wise
 
But why we call in first case male first and in second case female first. What is rationale behind this? Please educate me.
 
 
Hari Om
 
 Krishen Kaul


--------------------------------------------------
Sri Sankaracharya taught us "Sankara Parvatibhyam namaha", whereas Sri Kalidasa has taught us "Vande Parvati Parameswarau". And both are accepted and used by Bhaktas/Sadhakas; so there is no such difference. When it comes to Loukika (worldly) expression, different Gurus use different order, depending on context and Chandas/Ganas to explain/expound further about the same ONE reality. This is from my limited understanding and other experts may explain better. Humbly submitted.

rv

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sadaks,
It has become fashion in calling divine names improperly and incompletely. Every sound one creates has energy in it with negative force or positive force. In simple term if I call you fool, it aggravates you. In Christianity – Bible it clearly says, be kind loving etc. So also in Hinduism it is told scientifically that how a sound can cause disease or produce health. These are Vedas and proved by many saints astonishingly.  Sant Tukaram could make blind see. Christ could make dead alive. But in Hinduism by sounds many saints made blind to see, dumb to speak, cure disability etc.
It is said in our scripts, sastras etc like this. Seetha rama, radha Krishna, Lakshmi Narayana, Parvathi Parameswara, Etc. NOT vise versa which is wrong. Krishnah or Krishna has specific sound energy. By cutting short as Krishen, that person may be well off but could face sudden death or face unhappiness inspite of having wealth. If you could get hold of good Microscope do this experiment. Take a clear glass fill with water and say Om or Sri Krishna just at a distance of 3 to 4 inches. You can see crystals in water with help of Microscope. Make some abnormal sound like Hey. You will see difference. Our body constitutes 75 % water. So when we hear pleasing sounds, loving words our body reacts accordingly.
B.S.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

भैया, आपने गौरी-शंकर, सिया-राम नाम भी सुने होंगे।
सविनय,
साधक 

-----------------------------------------------------

Namaskar & Happy Janmashtami to all.
As I understand it, there is no sexism in spirituality as it is in material world.  It's in our narrow thinking mind.
Manmade male aspect is Almighty God and female aspect is the energy.  Together they are ONE.  There is no superior or inferior in that. 
When we pray we are praying to both aspects of ONE, who is called by many other names as in Ekta Mantra: Yam vaidika mantra.... or simply Aum, Ek Onkar!
Ekam sadvipra bahudha vadanti, meaning wise call the ONE by different names (& forms) but the object is ONE.  Vishnu Sahastranam is an example. 
There is no reason to object to Radhe Radhe, Sita or Ram, Ram Sita or Sita Ram etc.  Valmikiji even had Mara mantra for Rama and he was enlightened by that.
Let's correct our narrow material thinking for wider spiritual progress for all.  Practise witjh our focus on the ONE aim, not the trivialities and a lot of discussion only.  Any spiritual practice is superior to discussions only.  You choose....and share....this important message from Gitaji.
Dr BalMukund Bhala.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------

Dear ALL, Pt. Krishen Kaul in particular 
                                                                   Namaskar!
It is customary to write female name before male whether, it be in our social current day to day Life or naming deities! To my mind, Pt. Krishen Ji's notion that some write or recite Male's name first and then Female's name such as  & Mr. & Mrs.,  RamSita, NarayanLaxmi, KrishenRadha, ShankerUma..... and the like is not correct in itself! So no need to find a logic behingd it!

 Rather the fact is that it is customary to write or say the other way round like Mr. & Mrs  SitaRam,  LaxmiNarayan, RadhaKrishen, UmaShanker.....and the like! However, there is definitely a logic in it as well. The logic is that Female is considered as the energy of the Male counter part, so the value of any male is nothing without female, the energy part of it. Therefore, energy part (Female Name) is respected and written, responded  or recited before the male counterpart!

Now, the real question which is genuine once my brother-in-law very rightly asked me some three years ago, as to when in all the cases names of females come first as explained above then why in case of ShivShakti or even for ShankarParvati it is not customary to write female first as in other cases so accordingly why it is not said ShaktiShiv & ParvatiShankar!!

I did answer him the question but, before I would divulge my answer I like to give a chance to solve the riddle to others as well, Pt. Krishen Kaul in particular!

Narayana, Narayana!

I am
KKK
(Kuldeep Kumar Kaul)
-------------------------------------------------------------


ENGLISH WEBSITE: www.swamiramsukhdasji.net
HINDI WEBSITE: www.swamiramsukhdasji.org
HINDI BLOG: www.satcharcha.blogspot.com
To receive daily spiritual message,
Subscribe:sadhaka-subscribe@yahoogroups.com(daily spiritual message)
Subscribe:gita-talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com(for Gita discussion)
Unsubscribe:gita-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com




__._,_.___

Posted by: Sadhak <sadhak_insight@yahoo.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
All past 4925+ messages are accessible and searchable at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gita-talk/

28,000+ sadhakas

A list of all topics discussed in 2009 along with their links are at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gita-talk/message/3189

.

__,_._,___

No comments: