User talk:Raj2004

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. Good edits, please make yourself at home here :D

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 21:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

heya

noticed your high-quality additions to the religion page regarding hinduism ... i had a few questions about hinduism i was hoping you might be able to answer. 1) what is the signifance of "sacred characters," such as "aum?" how do they affect one's spiritual life? 2) what is the relationship between hinduism and buddhism -- i.e. i understand the buddhism is typically considered by some to be a hindu "heresy," and that mahayana is more similar to hinduism than theravaada ... would you consider mahayana to be a synthesis of some sort? 3) is there a "conversion" process for hinduism? -- i.e. must one cease to be a christian to become a full hindu, or must one "convert" in one way or another to come to full truth?

thanks for your time:). Ungtss 16:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reply to heya

Thanks for your compliment. 1) Om represents the primal manifestation or sound of the impersonal absolute brahman. Om is said before every Hindu prayer. It's sort of like amen but is said before each prayer. 2) Buddhism is not Hinduism and is ambivalent about the nature of God. Thervada Buddhism was getting too abstract for some theists and Mahayana Buddhism is not a sythesis but recognized messiah type figures who would help humanity to reach nirvana. Buddhism also rejects the Vedas, which in Hinduism, is the word of God. It would be like rejecting the Bible. I am not an expert on Buddism but there is this concept called shunyata or state of non-being. Hinduism vehemently disagrees and states that the Ultimate Reality is an eternal being-non-being or Brahman which can never be defined. There is no such per se heresy as I said before; each has to realize his own path to God. But Buddhism was considered heterodox as it rejected the Vedas. 3) Hinduism is not a missionary religion and respects each to follow what he believes is his own path to God. Hinduism is a broad concept and is divided into four major traditions, Shaivism, Shaktism, Smartism and Vaishnavism. Traditionally, if you accepted the beliefs and follow the philosphies, you were a hindu. http://www.vaishnava.com/abouthinduism.htm (There are 9 essential beliefs for a Hindu.) also please look at this site, http://www.dharmacentral.com/faq.htm You can contact them and they can answer more in depth as I am not a scholar on Hinduism although I have gained knowledge. However, in recent times, some Western-oriented sections of Hinduism such as ISKCON(for converts to Vaishnavism and http://www.himalayanacademy.com/info/contact.html, (for converts to Shaivism) have such conversion programs but they have a western bias. see for example, on amazon, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0945497822/qid=1100286622/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/104-1238920-4632701?v=glance&s=books http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/hbh/ (older edition available online.) I don't think you necessarily have to reject Christianity to adopt Hindu views. for you, Jesus is your conception of Saguna Brahman. Many Hindus consider him to be an avatarbut would not accept beliefs such as original sin and that He is the only avatar. others would consider him to be a great master.

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/Contents.html (an excellent book on Hinduism, but slanted towards Shaivism.)

Hope this helps. Raj2004

Hello Raj, I'm Subramanian, and I have noticed that we share many interests here. I want to say that I have been appreciating your contribuitions on Hinduism in general and I just came by to say thanks for you correcting the information on Benares as a holy city. Aum Shanti, --Subramanian 00:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nayanar: Vanakkam Raj, it's a pleasure to read your articles, you manage to keep a great quality standard. I apologize I could not gather information enough to write it on my own, but it's nice that I now can contribute to the existing article. I have contacted the Himalayan Academy for help; both their and my end-of-the-year schedule, as well as the tsunamis disaster, took our attentions. They are creating a book that covers many of the saints, called "The Elephant Pass" - I thought you would like to know. Best, --Subramanian 06:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

external links

It is best to encase links to outside sites with one set of brackets. If this is not done, the wiki takes the link as the URL, which is not so nice. This can be done by clicking the button with the world on it if the link text is highlighted. If there is no other text added the brackets then the link takes the form of a footnote. The best is if you leave a space out and then put any descriptive text after this space. Try it out in the sandbox. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 07:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.

thanks!

thank you for all your data on hinduism ... it really cleared a lot of things up for me! Ungtss 14:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Ungtss. Raj2004

sri rudram

hi Raj -- I did not (and don't) want to seem rude, but allow me to say that there is indeed some need to expand the article. I do not want to remove any information that was there, as thankfully you give the sources, and it indeed describes the prevalent, vedantic, interpretation. But, you must be aware that the 'translation' given is not literal at all. Simply take any Sanskrit dictionary and work through the text. It must have occurred to you that 'Vishnu' is not in the text. Again, as an interpretation the English rendition is of course very valid, but it should be labelled as such. I would convert the Sanskrit text to standard transliteration and give a literal translation, but I have more pressing tasks. Until we do get a literal translation, however, intellectual honesty dictates that we say that the English text is a free interpretation. As for the date, 3000 years is reasonable. However, it is reasonable for composition. Written fixation doesn't even enter the picture, as indian culture was and is predominantly oral. There was no writing in India prior to ca. 400-500 BC, and then not for religious texts for some time, so I think we better leave this out. Linguistically, the text cannot possibly be older than some 4000 years, and very probably closer to 3000. Again, please understand the distinction here: I do not contest at all that the intended meaning of "shipi-vishta" is indeed to equate Rudra with Vishnu, because I have no knowledge of that. It is very and npovly clear, on the other hand, that "shipi-vishta" does not mean "in the form of Vishnu". For this reason, "in the form of Vishnu" is a valid (at least in vedantic schools) interpretation, but not a "translation". regards, dab 08:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) PS, for the purpose of 'monotheism' (which was why I looked at the article in the first place), it is a much less compelling example than RV 10.129,130: The interpretation is monotheistic. If we had only the text itself, we wouldn't get such an idea. The vedantic interpretation is probably aged some 2000 years, ie. considerably younger than the text itself (vedanta has completely overhauled vedic religion), and thus (as the text by itself) does not qualify as an early example of monotheistic thought. dab 08:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) I agree with you partly. Rudram has been interpreted by Vedantists to support monistic theism. However, every commentator (Ramakrishna mission, Divine Life society, numerous web sites) that I have read have stated Rudra in the form of Vishnu. User:Raj2004

Sure. This is the common interpretation, and I have no issue with that. Translation is a different animal, and the two should not be confused. You don't have to believe me at all. Just take a Sanskrit dictionary and start looking up the words that interest you. The word that is rendered as "in the form of Vishnu" is shipi-vishta (Dative, shipivishtaya). Here is a dictionary entry: [1]. Besides "pervaded with rays" it could also mean "bald-headed", "leprous" or "having no prepuce", but I think we can disount these here. The point is that the epitheton was applied to both Rudra and Vishnu, and was therefore interpreted to suggest an identification of the two. This is completely legitimate, as long as we don't claim "in the form of Vishnu" is a literal translation. It is more like "o resplendent one [by the way, Vishnu is sometimes also called this]", as in "o you who are pervaded by rays, which incidentially brings to mind Vishnu, who is also pervaded by rays". That's fine, but it's not in the text.

Thank for the link. We would have to convert this text to the transliteration used on Sanskrit#Phonology_and_writing_system, e.g. shipivishhTaaya to śipiviṣṭāya. dab 12:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what am I supposed to do with the pdf file? it's just the text in devanagari. The text we cite should be in standard transliteration. dab 12:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ok, I rendered your text in scientific transliteration now. there were a few errors in the text, and I did it manually, hope I got it correct. dab 13:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. By the way, how do you get your time date stamped as you did? Raj2004

Type the four tildes ~~~~ dab 13:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Templates

Go to Template:Hinduism dab 15:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) Agamas seems short and OK. What about hindu arts architectures and places of pilgrimage etc. I understand that it is difficult to organise topics under hinduism (as against good template on Islam); but there is certainly scope for it. Since i dont have the 'large picture'in my mind, i request members to have a though on it. (I somewhere observed that under festivals - varamahalakshmi vrata is also included. Is it such a big vrata except in Karnataka? The distinction between vrata and utsava also needs to be clearly spelled out).Thanks and regards Ramashray 15:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)Ramashray

Sri Rudram text

it's ok, Raj, I accepted the identification Rudra/Shiva=Vishnu as standard vedantic teaching all along. But I feel we are quoting too much text in the article. I think it will be better to export the actual text to Wikisource. Also, quoting the Amritananda translation in such length may be copyvio. I think we should only keep a short passage (the girivishaya, shipivishtaya part) in the article, and export the rest. dab 16:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I exported the text to Wikisource:Shri_Rudram_Chamakam now. I am still searching for the Chamakam in the Yajurveda though (book, chapter?) dab 17:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

found it, thanks. it's Yajurveda TS, iv. 5. and iv. 7.

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Hello

I've recently completely rewritten Caste and Brahmin using info from the 1911 encyclopedia. i'd appreciate your interest, if you'd like to have a look. Always glad to hear your opinion, Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 22:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re:

I am concerned we may be misunderstanding each other regarding Brahman, Brahminism, Smartism, Arya Sarmaj and Pantheism. I am curious, do you use any instant messangers? I use several, most of whuch are listed @ User:Sam_Spade/Info. I'd like to be able to speak to you more directly, perhaps it would reduce confusion. My best wishes, Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 03:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hinduism thanks

thanks so much for the readings on hinduism -- sorry it took me so long to get back to you, but i wanted to let you know that they were all GREATLY appreciated and have expanded my world -- i am in your debt:). Ungtss 16:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hinduism's conception of human beings

I am trying to get religious views added to the entry "Human". It currently looks like this:

According to some of the major world religions, human beings are variously considered to be created in the image of god (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), as the incarnation of an eternal, immaterial spirit (Hinduism, Buddhism), as an expression of the ineffable (Taoism), or as lacking any static nature whatsoever (Confucianism).

Would you like to critique the Hinduism part? --Goethean 01:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Very helpful. --Goethean 15:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at my Chalkboard. Tom Haws 17:08, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back - from Spade and Subramanian!

Glad to see you editing again, I've missed you! Cheers, Sam Spade 12:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi my friend Raj! I will use this space by Sam Spade because he is one of the people I will mention here. He recently said to me that he felt Hinduism was becoming an anti-Hindu article. I don´t think these people are ill-meant, but we have to stand strong for Hinduism - with a gentle hand. I wrote a comment at Talk:Lingam explaining to them why it is simplistic and only a instictive man would call the Lingam a phallic symbol. I hope it helps. I also suggest thet you bring our friend Spade to this. Meanwhile, we work. The Devas will help us. :-) Let us also be as kind and flexible as Hinduism is. Best, Satya Subramanian ^talk 08:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I find there is a lot of ignorance. Raj2004"

Yes, a lot. That´s why all we Wikipedians are here for: to fight for the light of information against ignorance. See you, Great Raj! Subramanian ^talk 09:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

scripture

he raj -- I don't want to argue this point too much, since it's really a terminological red herring. The Vedas are what is generally understood by "scripture", but if it was up to me I would avoid the term, because it is incorrect, pedantically speaking. The Vedas could not have been written down before ca. 300 BC, because there was no script. But that is not important, since Indian tradition places importance on memorizing texts, and looks down on written tradition. I am not trying to make the Vedas look less important by saying they were not written down. It's just, they weren't, and it didn't matter. dab (ᛏ) 10:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

there's no 100% dead certain with these questions. It is not known whether Panini's grammar was written down at all, and whether he lived closer to 500BC or to 300BC. The earlier he lived, the less likely he had anything written down. After all, Panini's grammar was intended to be memorized, just like the Vedas. Raj, the pattern of the adoption of a writing system is very similar in many cultures. there are typical, almost universal, steps. The Vedic/Hindu culture is very much in line with such a typical transformation from a nomadic to an agricultural, to an urban, to a literate civilization. You need a lot of background, about this and other cultures, and I cannot elaborate this all on your talk page. afaik, experts widely agree that the Vedic texts were not written down for at least 1000 years after their composition. They were redacted, i.e. put in a fixed form, in late Vedic times, perhaps at the time of Panini. It is difficult for us to imagine it, but this was almost certainly done without writing. The memories of whole clans was used instead of paper. This was about a 1000 years after the earliest hymns had been composed. This fixed text was passed down for many generations before writing started to be used, at first not to make "holy books" to keep in temples or libraries, but just as a tool for memorization, the writing could be discarded after the text was settled in your memory. This is what makes this culture so special, they relied on the living mind to store their texts, not on dead paper. If you are serious about contesting this, fundamentally, I'll dig up a couple of references, and you'll have to counter them with other references (after all, we're not supposed to think for ourselves (aka original research) for the purposes of Wikipedia :)dab (ᛏ) 08:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Vaikunda Raja

Hai Raj,Thanks for your message.And in responding to your question related to Kroni one thing is notable that there are basically many variations between Hinduism and Ayyavazhi on Philosophy.

For example according to hinduism the Asuras lived on earth but according to Akilattirattu Ammanai it is the evil spirit which controled the beings on earth .Iam in a trial to give more details on the contents of Akilattirattu Ammanai and you may understood the difference by going through it.Since they are in Tamil, in poetic form it may took several days for me to translate and I requests you to be patient. For further comments, you are welcommed.Vaikunda Raja

Hello Raj,

Iam again Raja You have slightly sensed the disunity between other Hindu belifs and Ayyavazhi.

You have also compared it to Smartism, which is closely affiliated with the Advaita tradition. Also, Akilattirattu Ammanai says about the ultimate Oneness. But it differs from smartism in the belief of Ishta Devata, it says Ayya Vaikundar as the avatar of Trimurtis the Descendents of Ekam.It also says about Rebirth.As per your opinion I will soon create an article on Differences and similarities between Hinduism and Ayyavazhi. I request you,If you found any mistakes on my work, please inform me since Iam a new user to Wikipedia.Likewise I also request you to share your opinions in relation to this topics with me.Thank you.-Vaikunda Raja

Sorry,

Iam Raja. I feel really sorry for the mistake from my side, in relation to the article on Yukams.It, the particular part was an extract from a reserch book on Ayyavazhi, from University of Madras. And only after your question about that I refered the Main source Akilattirattu Ammanai, and I found that Vibhushanan and Sampoovan along with three brothers of Rama created as Pandavas, and I've made changes to the Article.Thanks for bringing to light my mistake. And I will soon contact you with my suggestions in relation to Ayyavazhi influencing Saint Vivekananda and Relating Vaikundar to Parashurama.Vaikunda Raja

Raj,Palliyarai in tamil means Sanctum sanctorum. And Elunetru in tamil means seat, and it was in that seat, a garland made of rudraksha was placed. And comming to the point, in saivam, Linga is seen as form of god, but here it was considered that God is formless and just the seat was arranged in the Sanctum sanctorum for the God.

Your questions in relation to sampoovan will be answered quickly as possible.As Iam not so experienced deep in the source of Ayyavazhi I found difficult immedietly to answer you.Iam in discussion with elders of Ayyavazhi. And don't feel that your Questions are tiresome for me. In turn it is encouraging me to create more articles and to go deep in to the source. Again you are welcommed with Pleasure.

In answering to your question regarding Vibishana, according to Ayyavazhi, Vibishana sensed the truth about Rama he advised Ravana to which he was irritated and so he adjoined Rama. And Rama accepts him as his brother, and he was informed that ,as he realised god even though he was an Asura, he will be rewarded more , and in connection to that he was given chance to help God in destroying the Evil,in the following aeons and therefore created as one among Pandavas, and in the Kali Yukam as one among the Citars.

And in telling about Vivekananda's influence to Ayyavazhi there is a major thing to discuss and find out .The fact that Vivekananda only after visiting swamithoppe, wear head gear is a major claim among some of Ayyavazhi, particularly among old people.The old people says that their father had seen Vivekananda in Swamithoppe.In that time, during the late 19th century wearing head gear is a matter of pride and low castes were not alowed to wear that.But in Ayyavazhi Only with that one will be allowed in side the worship centers.It was ment by Vaikundar to propose that all people were kings to rule. I think that this fact is closely related to Vivekananda's way, Advaita. On the other hand on my point of view, in this matter of Vivekananda's head gear the reason preasented by Vedantha society is too hard to digest.In one of their book I read that he first worn it,by a suggestion from the king of Khetri, during a desert journey, and from that he found it more comfort and thereby continued.You might have heared about Vivekananda.Though he was a saint undoubtfully he was a man of extra-ordinary thought. And all my suggestion is such a skilled man dosn't do any thing without reason. As you are well-versed in Hinduism the chances for you for knowing about Vivekananda is more than that of me. So please help me, particularly in knowing from which year Vivekananda started wearing head gear and at which year he visited Kanyakumari?

And in telling about Nadars, we can say that no other castes in India suffered as much as Nadars. The same Vivekananda called this part, the then part of Travancore as "tent of mads", due to the caste tyranny.If you go through the history of Travacore you will understood.Vaikunda Raja

Raj, The white mark on the fore head of Vishnu in the image, Vishnu is the symbol, Thiru Namam ,the religious sign of Ayyavazhi. Every followers of Ayyavazhi wore it on their forehead.This is entirely different from the Namam worn by Hindus( in 'U' shape). - Vaikunda Raja

Now I came to Know that, according to Akilattirattu, Vibhushana was created from the Sweat of Lord Narayana.- Vaikunda Raja

Comparison with Parashurama

Few days back you questioned that like Parashurama was Ayya Vaikundar an avesha avatar.According to the source we can't compare Vaikundar even to Parashurama. Firstly, Parashurama was not even mentioned in Akilattirattu. Next, Parashurama was an incarnation of Vishnu. But here Vaikundar is the incarnation of a comparitive Superpower of Sivan, Brahma and Vishnu and accordingly these three are considered secondary to Vaikundar.The source gives a detailed discription about that.Finally, in the case of Prashurama Vishnu entered his soul but in the case of Vaikundar not the soul of any one entered him, but instead a whole Transformation is that which took place in two phases.First from an ordinary human being to Sampooranathevan and next from Sampooranathevan to Vaikundar and this is because of the tyranny of the boons asked by Kaliyan.I think Ayya was a unique avatar and cannot be compared to any one else.And if you think that Vaikundar is comparable to any, please suggest. - Vaikunda Raja

About Vaikundar

Siva Brahma and Vishnu are not same and each have their own individuality and in all the previous yugas Vishnu incarnated, but in the kali Yuga Ayya incarnated as a united being of this three and as a Universal super power.He is not Comparative. Also there are several quotes in Akilam saying about a Moolamoorthy superior to this mummorthis and it is that moolalurthy incarnated as Vaikundar and so Vaikundar is superior to to sivan Brahma and also Vishnu.

And about Kroni you are right. He is similar to devil or satan-Vaikunda Raja

In vinchai after the transformation there is a qoute in Akilattirattu in which Narayana say to Vaikundar "you are Sivan,You are Nathan and you are Thirumal and fear not anybody" in which all the three were seen as Vaikundar and that's why they suggested like that.(See Vinchai to Vaikundar) -Vaikunda Raja

Again we can't compare Vaikundar to Dattatreya because he was the Avatar of the Moolamurthi superior to trimurthis. He incarnated in such a way because kaliyan asked the birth of Gods, Bramins,etc as boon. So trimurthis or any godheads cannot take birth seperately in this world to destroy him.

Also you asked did he demonstrate powers like Krishna as vision of the Universal form? Yes He did.Very soon I will be again with a set -Vaikunda Raja

On saying in brief about the boons that kaliyan claims, all the scientific developements of mankind opposing the nature are all bought by him as boons. For example Air plane was invented around 1900 A.D.But before in Akilattirattu it was mentioned as Parakkum Kuligai which means the technique of Flying, was given to him as a boon by Thirumal. Birds fly in nature and man cannot but he made it possible by his brain, or skill of Thinking. In other words we can say that he skill of thinking which is the foremost power of mind was the boon he claims. Mind you, mind is an illusion according to hindu and Ayyavazhi Philosophy. And it was a bit longer part and it took more time for me to translate and so in few days I will give more details of the boon in the article.You are welcommed for further suggetions,Thank You.-Vaikunda Raja

Also Akilattirattu Ammanai says about Pushpa Vimana.It was in that Ayya attained Vaikundam. But as you says it was not Verifiable. In this case with Kaliyan there are two chances (ie)either this facility of flying should be first with gods and by seeing it kaliyan should have claimed that (or) it must be a newly asked unique power of flying and in such case the word vimana mentioned earlier should mean any other objects either vicible or invicible. It may also be a personification of something. Anyway, one thing is clear that it the skill of flight in Kali Yukam is unique to Kaliyan or Human Beings.

Kroni and Kaliyan are not same. Kaliyan himself was the sixth Fragment of Kroni.Also, Kroni though said to be a personification he was commanded elobrately in Akilam with millions of hands legs and eyes. His eyes were facing his back, etc. But in thwe case of Kali he was simply said as Mayai(illusion) which tends the mind of the people to earn material things and all.On the other hand he was personified in the shape of a human being.So kaliyan should not be compared with Kroni.-Vaikunda Raja

"He", etc.

Ah, I didn't have to ask; the manual of style syas:

"Deities begin with a capital letter: God, Allah, Freya, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah. The same is true when referring to Muhammad as the Prophet. Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense also begin with a capital letter: Good and Truth. Pronouns referring to deities, or nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, do not begin with a capital letter."

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 4 July 2005 11:24 (UTC)

Smartism / Smartha

I have merged Smartha into Smartism, you might like to have a look. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 7 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

Article on Vaikundar

I have created a new article on Ayya Vaikundar, Vaikunda Avatharam.And the page, Differences between Ayyavazhi and Hinduism is under construction and after the completion I will inform you.-Vaikunda Raja

Ayyavazhi

According to Ayyavazhi Narayana represents only Vishnu. But in kali yukam all the powers of Sivan and Brahma were handled over(surrendered) to Narayana to destroy the Kali, because Sivan and Brahma created Kaliyan with out in discussion with Narayana with the compeltion of Devas. So in Kaliyukam Sivan's and Brahma's were puppet regime.

The people of Ayyavazhi does not cremate their body but burry it,unlike others they bury the body in the sitting position(in the position of padmasana)facing the north direction,in the belief of the person performing austerity for the unfolding of Dharma Yukam. - Vaikunda Raja

Raj I can't understood the term "I think you should put such details about the other members of the trimurti giving power to Vishnu" from your message. - Vaikunda Raja

Ayya Vaikundar

I think all about Vaikundar in your mind is confusing you. Dosn't matter. Let me try to clear it. First of all keep in mind the three facts, the Spirit, the Soul and the Body. Vaikunda Avatar is a combination of the spirit of Narayana, Soul of the Ultimate God, and body of an ordinary human being. You says that a website on Ayyavazhi says that he was an Avatar of Narayana. It was told so because the spirit of Vaikundar's is Narayana's. Then you asked, is Vaikundar an avatar of Trimurthi.

In Akilam, Thiruvasakam - 2 says about the formation of Universe. It says that "In the biggining when Ekam changed as param, a voice 'immm' formed, from which a Satthu formed. Then formed the Sivam followed by Sakthi and from that Sakthi a Natham formed and then Vishnu then Brahma and then Sivan and so on.."

On saying about that Ayyavazhi says about an Ultimate formless God, (Ultimate Oneness).And then this ultimate being divide in to two, a Mass and an Energy. On the other hand also mean that a positive creative force and a negative creative force, called Sivam and Sakthi.Then both combine to form the murthi stage, as Siva, Brahma and Vishnu. So according to Akilam beyond the trimurthi there is an ultimate being.

Now comming to the point the Soul of this Ultimate being is that which incarnates as Vaikundar with the Spirit of Vishnu, one Among Murthis.Also, Trimurthi remains seperate after the Incarnation Of Vaikundar. There are also quotes in Akilam stating that Power of Vaikundar is Beyond that of Trimurthis. On the other hand Sivan and Brahma rests by surrendering their power to Vishnu. Vishnu as spirit was in side Vaikundar but the soul of Vaikundar is of the Ultimate Being. The spirit of Narayana was installed to Vaikundar because Narayana had the resposibility to destroy all the fragments of Kroni.

See also the article Ayya Vaikundar which was cleaned up by User:Steven McCrary and I also make some corrections.If you found further any difficulties ask me and Iam glad to answer. The article, Boons of Kaliyan is too hard to me to translate since it was in hard poetic Tamil. But I was trying to do it and within few days it will be done. - Vaikunda Raja

Sampoovan

Few days back you asked that who was Sampoovan. He was a character in Ramayana, and I don't know more about him. I will try to find more about him and inform. - Vaikunda Raja

Sakthi

Yes, it seems similar. But Ayyavazhi does not give different forms to her. On other words it does not views her as a diety, but simply says her as formless. - Vaikunda Raja

Vaikundar

Yes you are absolutely in the right way. The moorthy stage is all the forms of Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman remains undistingushable and formless and only in this belief, in Ayyavazhi worship centers they provide seat for God. You also compared Elunetru with Linga and Saligram. Here by Iam telling that while Saligram and Linga which indirectly represents the form of God, Elunetru remains by telling the formless aspect of God or Nirguna Brahman. Likewise while Hinduism (Advaita)says that all were to rule the earth Ayyavazhi practicalized that by symbolising it through the wearing of Headgear. This is a major difference between the rest of the Hinduism and Ayyavazhi. As per Vivekananda's policy that "Advaita should be brought practically in the life" Ayyavazhi workout it practically while the rest of Hinduism preserved Theoritically.Do you agree? - Vaikunda Raja