Kali_Upasaka

The Puranas were written during different periods. They promoted individual Dynasties and also sects. The classification into Maha Puranas, Puranas, and Upa Puranas and again into Saattvic, Rajasaic and Thamasic is purely academic. We could argue about this for ever without reaching any conclusion. Again Puranas are contradictory. The same episode is repeated with change in the central character. Even while studying Puranas academically in colleges, these points are made clear. I can post the academic position and the conflicting theories. But these will not convince any one as these are a matter of belief.

You can enjoy Shyama Sangeet in the first translation of these songs in 1923 here Bengali Religious Lyrics - Sakta http://pge.rastko.net/dirs/pge/pge06/100198/e100198-h.html

You can read some Agamani/Vijaya songs here Bengali Religious Lyrics - Sakta http://pge.rastko.net/dirs/pge/pge06/100198/e100198-h.html

The forum seems to have become a stage where the members test their Dialectic skills.

I joined this forum recently with a desire to participate in a sathsang. But I feel the discussions are far from spiritual. This discussion is about Shyama Sangeeth. But I find that most of the posters are attacking the worship of Kali. What is spiritual in these posts? A man could be very religious without being spiritual. Unfortunately we have a number of religious people who forget that spirituality is different from religious practices. The Abrahamic religions are well known for their intolerance of any other religion. They are monotheistic and always repeat that theirs is the only way. Are we going the same way? In the Udipi temple on Durgashtami day Lord Krishna is dressed up and worshiped as Mahishamardhini. This temple was established by Madhavacharya and the temple rituals were laid down by him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udupi_Krishna_Temple Some of the posters may be of the opinion that this is wrong. Some times I wonder whether the Krishna I and most of the Indians worship is different from the Krishna of some of the posters. I do not mean any post of any particular member. I am posting more out of anguish. Thank you.

Drawing of Sri Yantra http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/george/yantra.html Photographs of Sri Yantra http://www.junemoon.com/gallery/room8.html

Sri Vidya is not a Goddess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Vidya

I would suggest you check up 1. Devi Suktha also called Vak Ambhirini Suktha from Rig Veda. 2. Durga Stavas/stotras in the Mahabharata. Prayers by Arjuna and Yudhistra. Good books 1. History of the Saktha religion by N.N. Bhattacharya. 2. Devi Mahatmya, The crystallization of the Goddess tradition by Thomas Coburn. 3. Auspicious Wisdom, The texts and traditions of Srividya Saktha Tantrism in South India by Douglas Renfrew Brooks.

I have no doubts. I was pointing out the factual inaccuracies in your statements regarding the Saktha temples and scriptures. About Sakthism, Vaishnavism, and other belief systems, Believers believe. Non believers do not. But beliefs do not alter facts.

क्लैर

Excerpts from Devyaadharvashirsham (a Saktha upanishad) from the Atharva Veda kalratrim bramhasthutham Vaishnavim Skandha matharam Saraswathimaditim dakshaduhitam namamah pavanam Sivam Mahalakshmai cha Vidmahe sarvaskthyai cha deemahi Thanno Devi Prachodayat Here Vaishnavi is referred to as the mother of Skanda. The gayatri which follows specifically mentions the name Mahalakshmi. Sakthas are those who worship the Supreme Deity exclusively as a FEMALE PRINCIPLE. The Supreme Deity is the Universal Mother or MAA as she is affectionately called by her Bakthas . You refer to Vaishnavite Sakthas. First time I have heard such a term. The Sakthas are Sakthas. There are no Vaishnavite or Saivite sakthas. Sakthism is considered by everyone to be one of the major sects of India independent of both Vaishnavism and Saivism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakta When you were talking about the temples, You have chosen to ignore the existence of Saktha religion. I had posted in my first reply the links to the article on Devi Mahatmya and Chandi which are articles compiled from acknowledged sources. I know that the male dominated sects like Saivism and Vaishnavism find it difficult even to accept that the Supreme Deity could be exclusively a FEMALE PRINCIPLE. You are looking for Saivism in a literature (Devi Mahatmya) called the Saktha Bible. And you call it Vaishnavite literature. All the temples you have mentioned are Saktha temples and you claim that you find no trace of Saivism in them. It will be surprising if you find any because they are Saktha temples and not Saivite temples. It is similar to saying that you find no trace of Vaishnavism in Saivite temples. Then again a claim is laid that Sri Chakra is Vaishnavite. There is a separate body of adherents called Sri Vidya which deals exclusively with Sri Chakra and its worship. Now it may be claimed that it is entirely Vaishnavite because it contains the term Sri. Shiva is called Jagannatha. This name is also used for Vishnu. The heading of your article says How Saivas invaded India and displaced Vaishnavites. But you seem to be concentrating on proving that Sakthas were Vaishnavites who became Saivites. Some of the Shaiva web sites have also been making a claim of Sakthism being part of Saivism. That claim is preposterous. BTW Rukmani went and prayed in a Devi temple, where she met Krishna and went away with him. The girls of Nanda's Vraja observed a vow and worshipped Goddess Katyayani (Durga). They ate only the purest food. They prayed, "O Katyayani! O ruler of the universe, O great Goddess of wonderful Yogic powers! Let the son of Nanda be our husband. We bow to your feet." They observed the vow for a month.

This article will give some idea about Shyama Sangeet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shyama_Sangeet The article is not complete. Ramprasad Sen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramprasad_Sen Again the article is not complete.

Thanks. Some times I do wonder whether I am doing any good by posting in the forums. My wife who used to post in the quit in 2002 when the first argument started. Do you think we are performing a service by posting here and in other religious forums? Or are we leading the unwary astray?

Talking about Vegetarian diet, in India (in Bengal) the vegetarian diet is known as Vaishnava food. But traveling to Tamil Nadu you are surprised to see vegetarian food referred to as Saiva food. The vast majority of the Tamil Nadu Saivites are vegetarians.

There is no mention of Shiva in the Vedas. In the Vedas, Shiva is an aspect of the god Rudra, not a separate god. I see a lot of talk about Saivism in this forum. Saivism exists today in India only in South India. Saiva Siddhanta in Tamil Nadu and Veera Saivas in Karnataka. Though the worship of Shiva continues to be very popular, the Saivite sect is dying out. Hinduism in India consists of a vast majority worshipping all Gods/Goddesses. The only sect which survives are the Vaishnavites.

Let us talk history. Archeology. Fossils. Excavations. Accepted research work. It is your belief that Vaishnavism originated around 11500 B.P. Any acceptable evidence? Do not quote Puranas which were written in the middle ages. Any concrete evidence? Can you quote some research article from any reputed scholar. Not religious ones. Your basic assumption is that Mahabharata is recorded history. This is acceptable only in religious circles. Your entire theory is one of belief. Bengal was nowhere in the picture in the early history of Hinduism. There has to be collaborative evidence. You come out with theories which are totally divergent from all the accepted histories of Hinduism. And you expect people to fall for it. I saw your blog. Such book/articles are expected to have detailed references section. The books referred to with page number. Citations are the main stay of any research work. I did not see any. The basic book of Sakthism becomes a Vaishnavite literature! In Devi Mahatmaya Siva's only role is to act as a messenger for Devi. That is why she is called Shivadhuti. And you call that Saivite literature. Thank you. Best of Luck with your book. This exchange is closed since I think it is a waste of time.

Rahu Kall calculations have also become part of Spiritual Discussions. http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/452251-rahu-kall-calulations.html At least this relates to worship of Maa Kaali. Should have been posted in the email list of Shakti Sadhana.

I do not know whether you have heard of Sakthism which is independent of both Vaishnavism and Saivism. All the temples that you mentioned were Saktha temples originally. The Saktha Bible is Devi Mahatmyam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devi_Mahatmyam The presiding deity of Devi Mahatmyam is Chandi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandi You will find most of the temples you mentioned listed there. But pure Sakthism exists only in a few pockets in India today. Sakthism came to be considered as part of Saivism later on. But many Vaishnavas are also worshippers of Devi in her Adhya Sakthi form. Mahalakashmi is one of the principal forms of Chandi. So there is some confusion between Ashta Dasa Bhuja Mahalakshmi and Vishnu patni Mahalakshmi. In pure Sakthism as envisaged in Devi Mahatmya, none of the three principal deities viz. Maha Kaali, Maha Lakshmi, Maha Saraswathi and Chandi have a consort. She is Brahman. In Devi Mahatmya she is also referred as Vaishnavi and Narayani. The most famous verse in Devi Mahatmya is the Narayani studhi in the 11th chapter. The reason is because of her origin. The origin of the Goddess is given in the second chapter of Devi Mahatmya. "The great Goddess was born from the energies of the male divinities when the gods became impotent in the long-drawn-out battle with the asuras. All the energies of the Gods became united and became supernova, throwing out flames in all directions. Then that unique light, pervading the Three Worlds with its lustre, combined into one, and became a female form."

There are not many who accept the theory that the original inhabitants of India were Dravidians or they were Saivites. The Indus Valley civilization is the oldest in India. Now that more information is available it is correctly called the Saraswati civilization. During the British period, a theory arose that the inhabitants were Dravidians who were driven out by the invading Aryans. The politicians in India especially South India took up this theory for the Dravidian vs Aryan conflict. Since some of the seals of Indus valley bore the Linga symbol it was assumed that the inhabitants were Saivites. Both these theories have been totally discredited. The Saraswati river dried up over a period of time due to the teutonic shift. There was no connection between the so called Aryan invasion and Indus valley. The Aryan invasion theory itself is being given a decent burial. It would have been buried long time back but for the politicians. Again there is absolutely no proof that the inhabitants were Dravidian. Some theories have put forward about their language being proto-Dravidian. But since the script has not been deciphered so far it is only a theory. The Saiva Agamas are very old. But so are the Vaishnava Agamas like Pancharatra and Vaikasana Agamas. prithvi, I am a devotee of Krishna. But I am also an academic who has spent decades in studying Hinduism. First my post now is not in reply to the first posts. There is a misconception or wrong understanding that Hinduism is a collection of sects. The majority of the Hindus in India today belong to the eclectic non-sectarian Hinduism. For example Kerala has a number of Krishna temples. But it also has a larger number of Siva and Devi temples. There are very few Vaishnavites or Saivites in Kerala. Most of them worship Krishna, Siva and Devi. Swami Chinmayananda spent his entire life time speaking and writing about Bhagavd Gita. But if you visit his ashram at Mumbai, Himachal Pradesh and other places the central shrine will be a Shiva temple. Sri Ramakrishna's family deity was Raghubeer (Krishna). His tantrik Guru was Bhairavi Brahmani who was a Vaishnavite Tantrik. He worshipped Krishna also. Does it make him a Vaishnavite? The temple at Bhadrinath as well as Puri have non-Vaishnavite priests. So do most of the Krishna temples in Kerala and other places. I worship Krishna. But I am not a Vaishnavite. I would like to post in detail about the temples you mentioned, because I have studied them and know them intimately. But I am put off by the heading of this thread. Since you have already printed the book, is there any point in commenting on it?

I have the Adyar library book. But this book is available on amazon.com

Take a picture of the Tatoo and post it here.

As Sri Ramakrishna repeatedly said "KALI is Brahman" Now again KALI is KRISHNA or KRISHNA is KALI. Google and you will find a number of articles on the subject. There a KrishnaKali deity installed in the cremation ground at Kalighat. There is a famous Krishna temple at Udipi, Karnataka. The Murti there was discovered and installed by Madhavacharya. If you visit the temple during the sharada Navaratri period, you will find the idol of Krishna being dressed up as different forms of Devi. On the Ashtami day, Krishna is dressed up as Mahishamardhini. Krishna called me there on Durgashtami day to show that HE is no different from Mahishamardhini. Then how about Siva? He is the Purusha and Kali is the mula Prakriti. (Sankya)

B.R. Chopra's Mahabharata is far from authentic in spite of his claims of research. Had to answer a number of questions from my children who found that it differed from the Mahabharata that we learnt. Yet another version of the great epic.

My most fav. character in Mahabharata Ghatotkacha - One who never wanted anything from the Pandavas and who was always at their service. He sacrificed his life so that Arjuna could live. Self Sacrificing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghatotkacha Again he was the first born of the sons of the Pandavas.

The correct usage is ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥