The only meaningful part of this post is the text in quoteblocks.
Tracked down supporting evidence for this statement:
[quote name='Husky' date='10 May 2015 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1431268382' post='117703']
Besides, Murugan (Kumaran) is IIRC one of the many vigrahas of the many Gods worshipped in the huge pooja area of Rishi Agastya's hermitage as per the Sri Valmeeki Ramayanam itself. So the Dwaraka Shankaracharya - contrary to the silly insinuations made against him by Vijaya Rajeeva - would *never* have denied that Murugan is legitimately worshipful in Vedic Religion and hence to the Hindoos. [/quote]
valmikiramayan.net/aranya/sarga12/aranyaitrans12.htm
From Aranya Kaandam as indicated in the link. At this point, Rama, Sita and Lakshmana come to the hermitage of Rishi Agastya. The moorties of the HindOO Gods in the Rishi's pooja room are listed:
Rama saw in Agastya's pooja area the sannidhis of the Gods named above. Wow, jackpot. And there's like "Vasus" in plural in one sannidhi - all 8 presumably :clapping: "complete your collection" - and Gayatri Amman :woo:.
[The line that describes the sannidhi to Bhagavaan Varuna casually mentions mahaatman Varuna as with paasham in his hand. <- This seems to me to be a description of a vigraham of Bhagavaan Varuna in his sannidhi, because of the mention of a specific ayudha in hand. Would then naturally hold for the rest mentioned in the list. The only other alternative would be that the Gods appear to the Rishi Agastya in the sannidhis for each - since how else would anyone know that Varuna has a paasham in his hand? It is from Rishis seeing the Gods that specifications of the appearances of the Gods derive - embedded in the various Gods' dhyana mantras - and from which moorties are fashioned.]
Therefore, as per the Ramayanam too, Rishi Agastya - as all the Vedic Rishis - were what aliens and some recently-invented Indian cultists would call "polytheistic idolators". Then again, the Hindoo itihasas are of and about Vedic=Hindoo heathenism, and for the Hindoos. Onlee.* Not remotely secular or "all-Indian" or general "Dharmic" or "Indic" literature, as is nowadays often peddled, usually by unheathens.
* Just like the Odyssey and Iliad - and the 'lost' ancient Greek epics of Hellenismos, such as the Returns and the one about the death of Odysseus - are very much of Hellenismos and belong to the Hellenes ["polytheistic idolators"] onlee and not to all and sundry of Greece/Rome/Mediterranean/anywhere in the world to poach on. For instance, christianism's illegal encroaching on Odysseus and projecting him as jeebus, backwards in time - e.g. some notorious christian theologians of the modern era infesting the Classics tried this joke on the Odyssey that only christian dweebs will lap up, and which genuine Classicists have to laugh off in embarrassment. Of course non-religious western people also try to pretend that the Odyssey and Iliad is general "western" literature or "mere" literature rather than what it is: epics of Hellenismos with deep views of Hellenismos embedded in them - duh - as ancient Expert Hellenes had repeatedly explained, and an inkling of which any Hindoo heathen would also have got for themselves.
This next is not relevant to this post, but worth pointing out: the translation section for the above shloka at the site valmikiramayanam.net adds its own descriptive about Kartikeya as being "the second son of Shiva". The actual shloka itself mentions Kartikeya in the final line, but only by name - i.e. that a sannidhi is present for him too - and nothing descriptive. While his being the child of Shiva Parvati is not at all in question, there is no mention in the line about him being either the divine couple's 1st or 2nd child as far as I can tell. But that is not the reason for my bringing it up. Rather: I think ValmikiRamayan.net is an Andhra site. And while there are many Tamil Hindoos in Andhra Pradesh too, I think the site's owners are Andhra Hindoos, as in native Telugu speakers. Pointing out the Kartikeya descriptive they provided, to illustrate how Subrahmanya=Kartikeya being the 2nd baby of Uma-Shiva is a common view of much of southern Indian Hindoo heathenism. (Which is why in images of the Divine Family made by southern Hindoos, Murugan's shown as the tinier one.)
The translation notes for the quoted Ramayanam shloka also explain that since Shiva/Rudra is not mentioned explicitly in the Gods listed in Agastya's hermitage, that Shiva is therefore already accounted for by the mention of Agni.**
Plus Kartikeya's presence (Skanda being "shivastvam, shaktistvam") in itself already includes both his mother and father.
And then there is of course Agastya's teaching Rama the Aditya Hrudayam which refers to Shiva several times: IIRC Surya is once named as encompassing the trimoorti (brahma + ishaana + achyuta) as parabrahman, and Shiva is once mentioned in a long list of well-known Gods - brahmaa viShNu shiva skanda prajaapati mahendra etc etc - all of whom Bhagavaan Surya is then identified with. (And 'raudraya vapuShe' and 'Shambhu' are similarly used for Surya in the stotram.)
So within the Ramayanam text itself, Agastya finds Shiva worshipful.
Here, this translation of an aforementioned ref in the stotram is useful:
valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga105/yuddha_105_frame.htm
** Presence of Agni accounting for Rudra/Shiva too makes perfect sense. But the ValmeekiRamayanam translation notes also mention the inevitable presence of the homa kundam in Agastya's pooja space, which would also be Agni and Rudran too. (Vedic fire of a homa/yagnya - also internally within the Hindoo - is said to be Shiva/the Shivalingam as per agama and tantra shlokas describing Shiva/Shivalingam.) Besides, IIRC there's no explicit mention of Shiva/Rudra in the Chamakam of the Yajur Vedam, despite it happy to name a great many Vedic=Hindoo Gods explicitly. But reference to/presence of Rudra-Shiva is of course most self-evidently implicit in the Chamakam, it being the 2nd part of the Rudram and belonging with the Namakam part which does explicitly mention Rudra and which, in fact, mentions him over and over again by his various names. Therefore, since so many Gods are accounted for in Agastya's cottage while Shiva is not mentioned by name, and which becomes conspicuous just as in Chamakam [whereas, for instance, Rudra is not left out in Mahanarayanopanishad - having entire shloka sections to himself - or in the Narayana sooktam where he along with other Gods are included by name in Narayana etc], "therefore the Homa Kundam in Agastya's hermitage is the Shiva sannidhi". Tadaa/QED.
Though I still think there must be a Shivalingam somewhere in the Rishi's pooja room, or that he builds one regularly. (And how can any collection of a Vedic Hindoo="polytheistic idolator" be complete without a Shivalingam among them?)
The only meaningful part of this post is the text in quoteblocks, specifically the 2nd quoteblock. The rest is unadulterated spam as always.
Tracked down supporting evidence for this statement:
[quote name='Husky' date='10 May 2015 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1431268382' post='117703']
Besides, Murugan (Kumaran) is IIRC one of the many vigrahas of the many Gods worshipped in the huge pooja area of Rishi Agastya's hermitage as per the Sri Valmeeki Ramayanam itself. So the Dwaraka Shankaracharya - contrary to the silly insinuations made against him by Vijaya Rajeeva - would *never* have denied that Murugan is legitimately worshipful in Vedic Religion and hence to the Hindoos. [/quote]
valmikiramayan.net/aranya/sarga12/aranyaitrans12.htm
From Aranya Kaandam as indicated in the link. At this point, Rama, Sita and Lakshmana come to the hermitage of Rishi Agastya. The moorties of the HindOO Gods in the Rishi's pooja room are listed:
Quote:pravivesha tato raamaH siitayaa saha lakSmaNaH || 3-12-16
prashaanta hariNa aakiirNam aashramam hi avalokayan |
And then Rama entered the hermitage with Seetha and Lakshmana looking over it which is overspread with docile deer. [ 3-12-16b, 17a]
sa tatra brahmaNaH sthaanam agneH sthaanam tathaiva ca || 3-12-17
viSNoH sthaanam mahendrasya sthaanam caiva vivasvataH |
soma sthaanam bhaga sthaanam sthaanam kauberam eva ca || 3-12-18
dhaatur vidhaatuH sthaanam ca vaayoH sthaanam tathaiva ca |
sthaanam ca paasha hastasya vaaruNasya mahaatmanaH || 3-12-19
sthaanam tathaiva gaayatryaa vasuunaam sthaanam eva ca |
sthaanam ca naagaraajasya garuDa sthaanam eva ca || 3-12-20
kaartikeyasya ca sthaanam dharma sthaanam ca pashyati |
Rama saw in Agastya's pooja area the sannidhis of the Gods named above. Wow, jackpot. And there's like "Vasus" in plural in one sannidhi - all 8 presumably :clapping: "complete your collection" - and Gayatri Amman :woo:.
[The line that describes the sannidhi to Bhagavaan Varuna casually mentions mahaatman Varuna as with paasham in his hand. <- This seems to me to be a description of a vigraham of Bhagavaan Varuna in his sannidhi, because of the mention of a specific ayudha in hand. Would then naturally hold for the rest mentioned in the list. The only other alternative would be that the Gods appear to the Rishi Agastya in the sannidhis for each - since how else would anyone know that Varuna has a paasham in his hand? It is from Rishis seeing the Gods that specifications of the appearances of the Gods derive - embedded in the various Gods' dhyana mantras - and from which moorties are fashioned.]
Therefore, as per the Ramayanam too, Rishi Agastya - as all the Vedic Rishis - were what aliens and some recently-invented Indian cultists would call "polytheistic idolators". Then again, the Hindoo itihasas are of and about Vedic=Hindoo heathenism, and for the Hindoos. Onlee.* Not remotely secular or "all-Indian" or general "Dharmic" or "Indic" literature, as is nowadays often peddled, usually by unheathens.
* Just like the Odyssey and Iliad - and the 'lost' ancient Greek epics of Hellenismos, such as the Returns and the one about the death of Odysseus - are very much of Hellenismos and belong to the Hellenes ["polytheistic idolators"] onlee and not to all and sundry of Greece/Rome/Mediterranean/anywhere in the world to poach on. For instance, christianism's illegal encroaching on Odysseus and projecting him as jeebus, backwards in time - e.g. some notorious christian theologians of the modern era infesting the Classics tried this joke on the Odyssey that only christian dweebs will lap up, and which genuine Classicists have to laugh off in embarrassment. Of course non-religious western people also try to pretend that the Odyssey and Iliad is general "western" literature or "mere" literature rather than what it is: epics of Hellenismos with deep views of Hellenismos embedded in them - duh - as ancient Expert Hellenes had repeatedly explained, and an inkling of which any Hindoo heathen would also have got for themselves.
This next is not relevant to this post, but worth pointing out: the translation section for the above shloka at the site valmikiramayanam.net adds its own descriptive about Kartikeya as being "the second son of Shiva". The actual shloka itself mentions Kartikeya in the final line, but only by name - i.e. that a sannidhi is present for him too - and nothing descriptive. While his being the child of Shiva Parvati is not at all in question, there is no mention in the line about him being either the divine couple's 1st or 2nd child as far as I can tell. But that is not the reason for my bringing it up. Rather: I think ValmikiRamayan.net is an Andhra site. And while there are many Tamil Hindoos in Andhra Pradesh too, I think the site's owners are Andhra Hindoos, as in native Telugu speakers. Pointing out the Kartikeya descriptive they provided, to illustrate how Subrahmanya=Kartikeya being the 2nd baby of Uma-Shiva is a common view of much of southern Indian Hindoo heathenism. (Which is why in images of the Divine Family made by southern Hindoos, Murugan's shown as the tinier one.)
The translation notes for the quoted Ramayanam shloka also explain that since Shiva/Rudra is not mentioned explicitly in the Gods listed in Agastya's hermitage, that Shiva is therefore already accounted for by the mention of Agni.**
Plus Kartikeya's presence (Skanda being "shivastvam, shaktistvam") in itself already includes both his mother and father.
And then there is of course Agastya's teaching Rama the Aditya Hrudayam which refers to Shiva several times: IIRC Surya is once named as encompassing the trimoorti (brahma + ishaana + achyuta) as parabrahman, and Shiva is once mentioned in a long list of well-known Gods - brahmaa viShNu shiva skanda prajaapati mahendra etc etc - all of whom Bhagavaan Surya is then identified with. (And 'raudraya vapuShe' and 'Shambhu' are similarly used for Surya in the stotram.)
So within the Ramayanam text itself, Agastya finds Shiva worshipful.
Here, this translation of an aforementioned ref in the stotram is useful:
valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga105/yuddha_105_frame.htm
Quote:raudraaya vapuShe= appearing in the form of Rudra.(C.f.: In YV, Rudra is IIRC said to appear in the form of the Sun, all forms of the Sun (having all colours of it). Essentially the Sun. And Vedic Sun = the Hindoos' Parabrahman as per upanishads. Which is Bhagavaan Suryan, the paramaatman, sarvaatman.)
** Presence of Agni accounting for Rudra/Shiva too makes perfect sense. But the ValmeekiRamayanam translation notes also mention the inevitable presence of the homa kundam in Agastya's pooja space, which would also be Agni and Rudran too. (Vedic fire of a homa/yagnya - also internally within the Hindoo - is said to be Shiva/the Shivalingam as per agama and tantra shlokas describing Shiva/Shivalingam.) Besides, IIRC there's no explicit mention of Shiva/Rudra in the Chamakam of the Yajur Vedam, despite it happy to name a great many Vedic=Hindoo Gods explicitly. But reference to/presence of Rudra-Shiva is of course most self-evidently implicit in the Chamakam, it being the 2nd part of the Rudram and belonging with the Namakam part which does explicitly mention Rudra and which, in fact, mentions him over and over again by his various names. Therefore, since so many Gods are accounted for in Agastya's cottage while Shiva is not mentioned by name, and which becomes conspicuous just as in Chamakam [whereas, for instance, Rudra is not left out in Mahanarayanopanishad - having entire shloka sections to himself - or in the Narayana sooktam where he along with other Gods are included by name in Narayana etc], "therefore the Homa Kundam in Agastya's hermitage is the Shiva sannidhi". Tadaa/QED.
Though I still think there must be a Shivalingam somewhere in the Rishi's pooja room, or that he builds one regularly. (And how can any collection of a Vedic Hindoo="polytheistic idolator" be complete without a Shivalingam among them?)
The only meaningful part of this post is the text in quoteblocks, specifically the 2nd quoteblock. The rest is unadulterated spam as always.