#ஆதித்தியஹ்ருதயம் ஸ்தோத்திரம்
இது சூரிய குலத்தில் உதித்த இராமபிரானுக்கு தமிழ் முனிவர் அகத்தியர் உபதேசித்ததாக வால்மீகி இராமாயணத்தில் வருகிறது. ஆதித்ய ஹ்ருதயத்தைத் தினமும் ஓதினால் பெரும் பயன் பெறலாம் என மகான்களும் ஞானிகளும் காலம் காலமாகக் கூறி வருகின்றனர். ராம-ராவண யுத்தத்தை

ஐந்தாவது ஸ்லோகம்:
ஸர்வ மங்கள் மாங்கல்யம் ஸர்வ பாப ப்ரநாசனம்
சிந்தா சோக ப்ரசமனம் ஆயுர் வர்த்தனம் உத்தமம்
பொருள்: இந்த அதித்ய ஹ்ருதயம் என்ற துதி மங்களங்களில் சிறந்தது, பாவங்களையும் கவலைகளையும்

முழு ஸ்லோக லிங்க் பொருளுடன் இங்கே உள்ளது https://t.co/Q3qm1TfPmk
சூரியன் உலக இயக்கத்திற்கு மிக முக்கியமானவர். சூரிய சக்தியால்தான் ஜீவராசிகள், பயிர்கள்


More from அன்பெழில்
More from All
Ivor Cummins has been wrong (or lying) almost entirely throughout this pandemic and got paid handsomly for it.
He has been wrong (or lying) so often that it will be nearly impossible for me to track every grift, lie, deceit, manipulation he has pulled. I will use...
... other sources who have been trying to shine on light on this grifter (as I have tried to do, time and again:
Example #1: "Still not seeing Sweden signal versus Denmark really"... There it was (Images attached).
19 to 80 is an over 300% difference.
Tweet: https://t.co/36FnYnsRT9
Example #2 - "Yes, I'm comparing the Noridcs / No, you cannot compare the Nordics."
I wonder why...
Tweets: https://t.co/XLfoX4rpck / https://t.co/vjE1ctLU5x
Example #3 - "I'm only looking at what makes the data fit in my favour" a.k.a moving the goalposts.
Tweets: https://t.co/vcDpTu3qyj / https://t.co/CA3N6hC2Lq
He has been wrong (or lying) so often that it will be nearly impossible for me to track every grift, lie, deceit, manipulation he has pulled. I will use...

... other sources who have been trying to shine on light on this grifter (as I have tried to do, time and again:
Ivor Cummins BE (Chem) is a former R&D Manager at HP (sourcre: https://t.co/Wbf5scf7gn), turned Content Creator/Podcast Host/YouTube personality. (Call it what you will.)
— Steve (@braidedmanga) November 17, 2020
Example #1: "Still not seeing Sweden signal versus Denmark really"... There it was (Images attached).
19 to 80 is an over 300% difference.
Tweet: https://t.co/36FnYnsRT9

Example #2 - "Yes, I'm comparing the Noridcs / No, you cannot compare the Nordics."
I wonder why...
Tweets: https://t.co/XLfoX4rpck / https://t.co/vjE1ctLU5x

Example #3 - "I'm only looking at what makes the data fit in my favour" a.k.a moving the goalposts.
Tweets: https://t.co/vcDpTu3qyj / https://t.co/CA3N6hC2Lq

You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?