Was lord ayyappa described in purana?

[MVSSP AGNI]

Respected scholars of vidvat parishad I request you to please give clarity to me. Being a civil services aspirant iam interested in the social issue of sabarimala verdict. I request you please clarify these doubts of mine. 1. Was Ayappa described in the puranic texts? If yes please provide the details along with chapter numbers and the purana. 2.Ayappa was worshipped in the GURUNATHA PONGALI VRATA by indian women. If it's allowed to worship ayyappa by women in vratas then when sabarimala can't allow worship. 3.There is an entry restricted by saying that the ayyappa being a naisthic brahmachari but I heard that in kaliyug it's not allowed to follow naisthic brahmacharya isn't it? 4. If he is a naisthic he should stay away from 8 forms of maithuna but in the saranu ghosa the devotees are saying PUSKALA sameta swami ye saranam ayyappa is a questionable one ! If the Lord worshipped as pushkala sameta and brahmachari a controversy may arise on his naisthica vrata. 5. The history says that a prince who find the way to sabarimala later disappeared in the forests with an interest to follow yogic path . It means that the naisthic and the Lord are different. If they are different then why this restriction on entry of women? 6. There exists a previous issue on the sabarimala in which MAKARA JYOTI described as the form of ayyappa with self lighting later turned to be a manual work and a fake publicity to attract tourists. In the same manner can't we doubt the present issue . 7.In tantra every one is allowed to worship but why women of gae between 10 and 50 are disallowed - any tantric texts saying such restrictions please provide them . Thank you

[Nagaraj Paturi]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45875863  

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 12:10 AM MVSSP AGNI <mvssp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Respected scholars of vidvat parishad I request you to please give clarity to me. Being a civil services aspirant iam interested in the  social issue of sabarimala verdict. I request you please clarify these doubts of mine. 1. Was Ayappa described in the puranic texts? If yes please provide the details along with chapter numbers and the purana. 2.Ayappa was worshipped in the GURUNATHA PONGALI VRATA by indian women. If it's allowed to worship ayyappa by women in vratas then when sabarimala can't allow worship. 3.There is an entry restricted by saying that the ayyappa being a naisthic brahmachari but I heard that in kaliyug it's not allowed to follow naisthic brahmacharya isn't it? 4. If he is a naisthic he should stay away from 8 forms of maithuna but in the saranu ghosa the devotees are saying PUSKALA sameta swami ye saranam ayyappa is a questionable one ! If the Lord worshipped as pushkala sameta and brahmachari a controversy may arise on his naisthica vrata. 5. The history says that a prince who find the way to sabarimala later disappeared in the forests with an interest to follow yogic path . It means that the naisthic and the Lord are different. If they are different then why this restriction on entry of women? 6. There exists a previous issue on the sabarimala in which MAKARA JYOTI described as the form of ayyappa with self lighting later turned to be a manual work and a fake publicity to attract tourists. In the same manner can't we doubt the present issue . 7.In tantra every one is allowed to worship but why women of gae between 10 and 50 are disallowed - any tantric texts saying such restrictions please provide them .  Thank you

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Director, Indic Academy of Sanskrit and Indological Studies.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. Was Ayappa described in the puranic texts? If yes please provide the details along with chapter numbers and the purana. 

------ There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of kshetras that do not find mention in any puranas. Mention or no mention in the puranas does not affect the devotion of the pilgrims to those places.  

. 2.Ayappa was worshipped in the GURUNATHA PONGALI VRATA by indian women. If it's allowed to worship ayyappa by women in vratas then when sabarimala can't allow worship. 

GURUNATHA PONGALI VRATA  has nothing essentially to do with Ayyappa. My family has the vrata as the family custom. It is always a family custom. Not all families have it. In my family we treat it as Dakshina Murty worship. There could be family customs that are related to Ayyappa worship. I never heard from any GURUNATHA PONGALI VRATA following family any association with Ayyappa. 

3.There is an entry restricted by saying that the ayyappa being a naisthic brahmachari but I heard that in kaliyug it's not allowed to follow naisthic brahmacharya isn't it? 

-- I do not know from where you heard. From wherever you heard, did the source tell you deities in Kaliyuga can not have naishThika brahmacharya or conditions in kaliyuga are not generally  conducive  for humans to follow naishThika brahmacharya? 

 4. If he is a naisthic he should stay away from 8 forms of maithuna but in the saranu ghosa the devotees are saying PUSKALA sameta swami ye saranam ayyappa is a questionable one ! If the Lord worshipped as pushkala sameta and brahmachari a controversy may arise on his naisthica vrata.

-- A similar question I heard from a TV channel anchor in a mocking tone about Kartikeya. Similar questions can be raised about Hanuman and other devata forms. This is just an indication of how baffling 'Hinduism' is to those who do not have the deligence and patience of grasping the intricacy of the insider perspectives of a culture suspending their 'rational' learning. Kamakshi and Meenakshi are one and at the same time different. Viswanatha of one temple is different from Jambukeswara of another temple but they are the same Siva. Karthikeya with Valli and Devasena is different from Brahmachari Karthikeya. Balasubrahmania is different from Subrahmania. But they are all one and the same Karthikeya. " wives' /consorts of Devatas are allegorical to use a modern/English parlance. 

5. The history says that a prince who find the way to sabarimala later disappeared in the forests with an interest to follow yogic path . It means that the naisthic and the Lord are different. If they are different then why this restriction on entry of women? 

The expression " history says" sounds like Veda says. Veda says is a 'religious ' expression. Those who say 'history says' consider themselves to be non-religious or even anti-religious and scientific. 'Women entry' issue is not related to 'history' (which 'says' ). It is based on the non-historical sacred narratives in which those who believe in the restriction believe. Two kinds of narratives can not be mixed.   

 6. There exists a previous issue on the sabarimala in which MAKARA JYOTI described as the form of ayyappa with self lighting later turned to be a manual work and a fake publicity to attract tourists 

----- 'Fake' is a false allegation. It has been time and again clarified that Makara jyothi and Makaravilakku are two different concepts. Makaravilakku is the word that refers to the shine of the Sun on the makarasankramaNa day/moment. Makarajyothi is the word that refers to the fire lit by the tribals as part of their celebration of the makarasankramaNa (whatever is their local name/view of that seasonal phenomenon. )Fire being lit during the makarasankramaNa festival is part of the customs of the festival in different parts of India. 

[Siddharth Wakankar]

Prof.Nagarajji,

Excellent and to the point as well convincing exposition.congrats for the clarity with which you explain.

Prof. Siddharth Y Wakankar.

[shankara]

Paturiji,

Well written with expertise.

Thank you very much.

regards
shankara

[G S S Murthy]

I join Prof.Wakankar in thanking Prof. Nagarajji for his lucid educative explanation.

Regards,

Murthy

My web site : http://murthygss.tripod.com/index.htm
and also my Sanskrit blog :

http://simplesanskrit.blogspot.com/

http://gssmurthy.blogspot.com

[Kalyan K]

Nagaraj Paturi
//1. Was Ayappa described in the puranic texts? If yes please provide the details along with chapter numbers and the purana.

------ There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of kshetras that do not find mention in any puranas. Mention or no mention in the puranas does not affect the devotion of the pilgrims to those places. //


Paturiji, the question and the answer are addressing different points. The question was whether Ayyappa was mentioned in any of the puranas. The answer talks about kshetras. Yes, all kshetras are not mentioned, but that is not the question. The question does not concern about kshetras, on the face of it. You could have said - Ayyappa is considered as Sastha who has been mentioned in brahmanda purana...

[Kalyan K]

// 6. There exists a previous issue on the sabarimala in which MAKARA JYOTI described as the form of ayyappa with self lighting later turned to be a manual work and a fake publicity to attract tourists

----- 'Fake' is a false allegation. It has been time and again clarified that Makara jyothi and Makaravilakku are two different concepts. //


I am stating my personal observation here. Before the makara jyothi (or whatever name they had for it) was admitted to be man made, a lot of Ayyappa devotees used to claim that it was a divine light that appears in the hills. A fire lit due to a tribal celebration, was portrayed as a divine event among the general public and by media.

[Ravindranath B S]

Nagarajji this is a very good narration hope the literal people can understand the reality,

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> Paturiji, the question and the answer are addressing different points. The question was whether Ayyappa was mentioned in any of the puranas. The answer talks about kshetras. Yes, all kshetras are not mentioned, but that is not the question. The question does not concern about kshetras, on the face of it. You could have said - Ayyappa is considered as Sastha who has been mentioned in brahmanda purana...

---------   My answer was a methodological one. 

It is a question whether it is reasonable to raise such questions in such cases. 

Bhootanathopaakhyaana of Brahmanda Purana being related to Ayyappa is now being brought into discussions. 

The point is, the question of the autonomy of the local traditions, the validity or lack of validity of such traditions being dependant on their mention in written texts. 

Currently our traditions are turning into victims of textualism. 

Details found in texts even if not found in reality are falsely alleged to be found in reality. 

Lack of documentation of orally transmitted texts/ideas/thoughts is used  to invalidate them. 

Both these are consequences of  the methodological flaw of what I call Textualism. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kalyan K]

//Bhootanathopaakhyaana of Brahmanda Purana being related to Ayyappa is now being brought into discussions.//


For the record, I was unable to find the above in Brahmanda purana, though I could find a reference to Sastha.

[MVSSP AGNI]

NAGARAJ PATURI SIR , I AM VERY THANKFUL TO YOU  BECAUSE OF ANSWERING IN NUMERICAL MODE . THANK YOU SIR.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Since you are a civil services aspirant, let me say this: 

> BECAUSE OF ANSWERING IN NUMERICAL MODE 

You probably wanted to say , 'for answering point-wise.'

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Namaste.

Sometimes a lack of documentation in Sanskrit texts (purana - par excellence) can be due to specific reasons also. Here are some speculative points (not so speculative if one believes in ancient Vaidika roots of South India, as I do)-

1) Ayyappa's legacy (harmony of all knowledge systems). Surely troublesome for later sectarian traditions (that loved neat boundaries).
2) A deity who was called hara by Shaivites, and hari by Vaishnavites, but later thus shunned by the orthodoxy.
"hari-hara" nomenclature proved rather more, not less, obnoxious.
3) If this deity is seen as nearer to a Lord Vishnu phenomenon, then it connects the following dots -

3.1) Explains extraordinary following of bhakta-s. Also explains why the temple is under constant attack - a similarity evidenced vis-a-vis rAma and kriSNa mandir-s.
3.2) Can be scientifically understood as Vishnu's avatarNa in "Laxmi's mode". This results in -
3.2.1) The "avatAra" not seeing the need to marry.
3.2.2) The deity manifesting more as a guru character (sastha, or dakshinamurthy like) than in the more usual rakshasa-slayer one.
3.3) Also fills in the conspicuous gap between rAma and kriSNa avatAra-s in the list of ten pramukha avatAra-s. This gap is otherwise deliberately filled with Buddha or Balarama.
3.4) Why was Sri Parshurama involved with this deity's life (we know it from sketchy accounts available to us)?

The main point, however, I want to make here is that we simply don't understand what is going on, what is at stake here, and what troubles (of ancient roots, really) are brewing in our combined subconscious.

KT

[MVSSP AGNI]

sorry sir. you are right. Its  better if i used numerical sequence / numerical order or point wise instead of that i used numerical mode- i felt some thing wrong while using but i ignored . Now i learned about my mistake of ignorance . Thank you Nagaraj sir.