Umapati_Dasa

Fridays are generally good.But if you go by lunar days,it is Ashtami,Navami,Chaturdasi and Purnima and Amavasya are all prescribed for Devi Upasakas

Thank you! This is extremely helpful!

Devi Mandir

Discussion list of Swami Satyananda Saraswati of the Devi Mandir.

Topics focus mostly on worship of the Divine Mother.

www.indiadivine.org/audarya/forum83

 

 

Shakti Sadhana

For discussions on Devi (the divine mother goddess), her worship and sadhanas.

www.indiadivine.org/audarya/forum27

I suppose I could've put my forum in the Shakta sections, but I wanted to get the opinions of all Hindus, since Vaishnavas also worship Mother Lakshmi and would know as much as Shaktas about what day is best to worship her.

What is the difference between Mahalakshmi and Durga (Mahishasuramardini)? Isn't Mahalakshmi the killer of Mahisha in Devi Mahatmyam? And, if they are the same, then why are prayers addressed to Mahalakshmi said in front of images of Mother Lakshmi and not Mother Durga?

I know this question may sound very stupid, and there's most likely a very simple answer to it, but it's always confounded me.

Where did he get this percentage from? How could he possibly know this? Many great devotees were also married. Devaki and Vasudeva; Kunti; Dasaratha and Kausalya; Yashoda and Nanda; Janaka, Sita's father... So, what is the basis for this quotation and percentage?

People holding this viewpoint argue that the state should have a limited role or no role in defining marriage, only in enforcing those contracts people construct themselves and willfully enter. Those following this line of reasoning believe that efforts to "legitimize" same-sex marriage as a state institution are backwards-looking, and will have the effect of expanding state influence into personal affairs where state influence already does not belong.

Makes sense to me.

I think Radha was already married to someone else when she met Krishna.

Thank you very much learned friends!

What is the best day of the week to worship Goddess Lakshmi? I've heard that Fridays are the best day. Is this true?

I do not understand. You say you are attracted towards Maa Durga. Then you do seem to be reluctant to go to a Kali temple. Then you say you find Ramanuja's teachings make more sense.

 

You seem to be confused between Philosophy and religion. Whenever we visit a temple it is the Deity which attracts us and not the philosophy followed by the people who manage the temple. Philosophy has nothing to do with temples.

I think what she's saying is that she can't physically get to the Kali temple you speak of, although she is devoted to Durga. And that, although devoted to Durga Devi, she thinks that the philosophy of Vishitadvaita (Qualified Non-duality) makes more sense than straight out Advaita, so she doesn't want to go to a temple that emphasizes complete non-duality... that's what I got from it, anyways.

Spirit possession is very popular across cultures. When it occurs in India, it is generally a form of Devi that possesses the person. However, this is not the only place it occurs. Spirit possession also occurs in religions such as Pentecostal Christianity, Santeria, Vodou, and Candomble.

I believe it would be "Aham Advaya".

A lotus is a flower, a mushroom is a fungus, which is commercially grown in the dark.

 

Nobody has ever said that mushrooms were bad for the gross physical body. You think things are simply good or bad. It's not that simple. Fluoride, for example, is toxic, hence it is regulated in childrens toothpaste since it can poison them. It is, however, very good for teeth.

I can see we're not going to agree on this. I see no reason why a mushroom would be bad for the soul or mind... you apparently do... let's just agree to disagree.

Ugh... just because they have a slight similarity in names doesn't mean they are the same entity. Why can't Hinduism just be Hinduism? Why does it also now have to be Christianity, Islam, and Judaism? Isn't it good enough by itself? I don't see any Christians, Muslims, or Jews trying to claim that "YHWH is the god of the Hindus", "Jesus is the god of the Hindus", "Allah is the god of the Hindus", or any other outlandish claims.

It has already been long pointed out by several historians that Abraham of Jews and Brahma of Hindus are too close by name to miss. Additionally Sarai is too close to Hindu goddess Saraswati, the wife of Brahma, and the connection cannot be missed. As per Hindu legends, Saraswati is the daughter of Brahma because he has created her. And together with her, he fathers the people of this world and creates all living beings. So Brahma’s relationship with Saraswati is an incestual relationship. And the same is the case with Abraham and Sarai of the Abrahamic world. Sarai is the half-sister of Abraham. In that sense, his relation with her is an incest. And as in Hindu legends, Abraham along with Sarai fathers a large number of nations across the world.

 

This relation between Brahma and Abraham, Sarai and Saraswati has already been recognized by several historians. And Mount Moriah itself is pointed out to be Mount meru of the Hindus. We cannot miss the similarities. Despite such close connections being shown, the similarity of two or three names does not seem to break much ice; one problem with these similarities is the causative factor. It can be argued both ways – that Jews have copied from Hindus or that Hindus have copied from Jews. And as long as the argument stays at this deadlock, it does not progress much in capturing public as well as scholarly imagination. So let me show that there is more resemblance than just two names here.

 

Abraham’s son Issac is none other Iswar aka Siva of the Hindus! the similarity of names and the concept cannot be missed. In Hindu legends, Iswar is the son of Brahma, he is even called Brahmaputra meaning son of Brahma. And in Jewish legends, Issac is the son of Abraham.

 

Rebeccah, the wife of Issac is none other than Ambica, the wife of Siva of the Hindus. Ambika/Rebecca – the names are quite similar. Rebeccah of Jews is portrayed as a pleasing and benign woman. And just like in Jewish legend, the ambika of Hindus is actually a benign and pleasing goddess, it is durga who is of the ferocious form.

 

The most revealing connection is that of Hagar, the handmaiden of Sarai. This is nothing but the tributary of river Saraswati, the river by name Ghaggar in India!. Ghaggar/Hagar - the resemblance is overwhelming. And the relations they have with Sarai/Saraswati are quite revealing in themselves. Ghaggar is a tributary to river Saraswati and this relation of being tributary is being described as that of handmaiden. Saraswati is the mighty river and Ghaggar is small tributary to it. Similarly Sarai is the real mistress holding all the powers while Hagar is just handmaiden under her.

 

And what does the son Ishmael of Hagar signify? Ishmael is just a morphed form of Ishalay (Isha + Alay) meaning temple of Ishwar or Siva. Why would a temple of Siva be made the son of Hagar the tributary of Saraswati?

 

This entire covenant of Abraham is nothing but an agreement amongst Yadavas that henceforth, they are not going to worship any god other than Krishna/Yahweh. So having made such an agreement, it was necessary to show that they have discarded other gods of Hinduism. Which all gods did they discard? They listed down the entire Hindu pantheon as the descendants of Abraham! They are just symbolically representing the gods rejected as Abraham and his descendants. These gods named under Abraham are henceforth to be considered as humans and not as divine. And then they have woven all of their experiences in India, after Krishna’s time, into these legends, with Abraham and others as central characters. So the experiences of Abraham and his descendants are nothing but symbolic allegories of all the difficulties faced by Yadavas during their time of stay in India.

 

So the gods who are rejected by Yadavas are listed under the covenant as different characters. Who all have they rejected? They have rejected Brahma (Abraham). They have rejected Saraswati (Sarai), they are no longer going to consider her as a goddess, if anything, she would be shown as a human woman who would be dependent on the grace of Yahweh/Krishna as much as the Yadavas are. They have rejected Siva (Issac). They are no longer going to worship him. They have rejected Amibka, Siva’s wife (Rebecca), she would henceforth be considered as human. Siva is an important god of the Hindu pantheon, his worship was strong in the Gujarat region. So it is likely that some Yadavas were reluctant to completely give up the worship of Siva. It might not be that they wanted to worship Siva alone but they probably wanted to continue worshipping the Hindu religious trinity of Brahma/Vishnu/Siva and the Vedic Gods they probably did not want to completely discard the worship of everyone, especially Siva. Such Yadavas have been left in India on the banks of Hagar river.

 

Yadavas were traveling from Gujarat region along the banks of Saraswati river towards Kashmir in search of water. As the famine drew stronger, it was necessary to find water and people just about migrated to any place where they thought that they could find water. Right from the next day of Krishna’s death, they are likely to have had an agreement that they are no longer going to worship anyone other than Krishna. On their way to Kashmir, it looks like they had a disagreement in this regard. Obviously the strongest of faiths can wither at the onslaughts of such dramatic famines of hundreds of years. And some Yadavas are likely to have lost faith in this new religion of theirs. They wanted to go back to the old Vedic religion where they worshipped all Vedic gods including Siva and mother goddesses. A disagreement arose and such Yadavas who wanted to go back to the pre-Krishna religion were discarded. This separation probably took place on the banks of river Ghaggar probably near some Siva temple. So they have recorded it in their scriptures in the form of Hagar and Ishmael. Jews did not take these people along with them to Kashmir and later to Israel.

 

And then after they broke away from this faction, the Yadavas then had a serious discussion amongst themselves about their religion. Once again they took oaths amongst themselves that henceforth they are not going to worship anyone else other than Krishna. In order to prove that they abide by this agreement, it is likely that various measures were taken by the Yadavas. For example any idols of Siva or other gods had to be thrown away, such other idols should not be kept with anyone. From then on, no one would even utter the name of Siva and other gods. This has been symbolically represented in their scriptures when Isaac is taken to mount Moriah and is offered as sacrifice to Yahweh. Mount Moriah is nothing but Mount meru of Vishnu/Krishna. Vishnu/Krishna is believed by vaishnavites to reside there. Abraham takes Isaac there and offers him as sacrifice before he is stopped in the last minute. This is symbolic representation of the fact that, in favor of Vishnu/Krishna, they would henceforth give up Issac/Iswar/Siva worship completely; his worship is given up as a sacrifice unto/in favor of Krishna. The sacrifice of Isaac on mount meru is an allegory that is representative of an agreement between the Yadavas, whereby any small remnant of Siva worship is thenceforth given up by them completely and they would henceforth have nothing more to do with his worship.

 

They have rejected Brahma, Saraswati, Siva and Ambika/Parvati. Who else did they reject? Obviously Siva’s sons Ganesha and Skanda have to be rejected. And they have been rejected. Issac’s sons Jacob and Esau are none other than Siva’s sons Ganesh and Skanda!

 

Ganesh is many a times called Jaiganesh in the north. In fact people are named as Jaiganesh and this particular habit of prefixing jai is a peculiar habit of this deity alone. For other deity names, they also append Sri along with Jai, for example JaiSriram. More over no one is named as Jaisriram. However I have seen people being named as Jaiganesh. Jai means ‘Hail’. They have done a lot of cutting the names right in the middle. For example, we can see that the long name of Saraswati is cut right in the middle and only Sarai portion of it is retained. Similarly in Ishwar, only Ish has been retained and a consonant has been suffixed to get Isaac. Similarly in Jaiganesh, only Jaiga has been retained and a consonant has been added to it as suffix to make it Jagob or Jacob. Similarly Siva’s other son is named as Swamy. Not many are aware of it that Siva’s second son is named as Swamy. I once read an article of a tamil scholar who claimed that the word Swamy originally belonged to Skanda. Later on it started being applied to all other gods. So for example tirupati Balaji is called Venkateswara swami. After pointing out all of this, the scholar claimed that, this is indicative of the fact that Venkateswara Swamy and Skanda are one and the same and likewise all forms of worship are different manifestations of the same god, he argued. Esau is none other than Swami (again cut in half like other names), Siva’s second son. In south India, Ganesha is considered elder to swami. However in north India he is considered to be younger, Swami is considered as elder.

 

The resemblance between the characters is quite striking. In Hindu legends, Swami is a warrior god, he is fit and agile and served as the commander general of the armies of gods. This fits in with the description of Easu who is said to be an agile and able hunter. Obviously Jewish forefathers could not write that Esau is the chief of armies of gods because they want to consider Easu as human in their legends. The legend needed to be suitably modified to fit in the new realm. Similarly in Hindu legends Ganesha is a rotund personality who is no where near as agile or as able as his brother. However he is said to be high in intellect. This is quite similar to the description of Jacob. Jacob is not so able but is considered to be an intellect.

 

There are several legends that show that Ganesha and Swami/Skanda fought with each other for various things. Ganesha’s original name as Vignesa (lord of obstacles) and not Ganesha (lord of ganas). How did he get this name, the legend runs as follows:

 

Once Siva and Parvati decided to make one of their sons as the chief or lord of the ganas (warriors or attendants who accompany Siva and live along with him on kailas) of Kailas. Considered to be an extremely important post, both the brothers fight for the post. In order to break the deadlock, it is declared that whoever goes around the world and comes back first would be made the lord of the ganas. Skanda immediately starts on his peacock and goes around the world at a fast pace and comes back in seven days. To his surprise however, his brother Ganesha is happily seated munching sweets on mount kailas, and is declared as the winner of the contest and is given the title of Ganapati/ganesha or the lord of the ganas. How did he get the title? Simple. As per scriptures, circulambulating around one’s parents seven times is considered equal to circulambulating the world. So after Skanda went away, Ganesha promptly bowed down to his parents and then ambulated around them seven times. That was it, he won the contest! Skanda feels cheated by this development and he in fact goes away from Kailas to far away place in the south.

 

This legend has other variations. For example, in another variation, they were fighting for the two grand daughters of Brahma. Whoever wins the contest gets both their hands in marriage. In another variation, something else. But all these legends carry the same framework. There is something to be gained for which Skanda leaves home and goes out. In his absence the less able Ganesha wins the booty through guile/wisdom. And needless to say that this is the same framework that was adopted for the fight of Jacob and Esau in the Jewish bible. Abrahamic legacy is the booty to win to attain which, the more able Esau goes out. In his absence, Jacob wins the booty through guile/wisdom. On his comeback, Esau feels extremely cheated. In both cases it is about the title and legacy. Ganesha in Hindu legends becomes the lord of ganas whereas Jacob in Jewish legends gets the title of Israel and is bestowed with abrahamic legacy. The legends of the Jewish bible have been appropriately modified to fit them with human beings. The legends of Hindus are obviously pertaining to godly figures. So they need to be suitably modified so as to fit them and show them as legends about mortals. Some modifications are done here and there to fit the legend of godly figures into the legends of mortals. For example, to justify the attainment of title by Jacob, they have shown Esau as a bad figure, otherwise it would be difficult to justify the guile with which Jacob had acted.

 

They have rejected Brahma, Saraswati,Siva, Ambika, Ganesh, Skanda. Who else? Well the Vedic gods. Even they need to be rejected and discarded. Obviously they would have taken a decision to discard all Vedic gods as well? And the answer to that is yes. They have rejected the Vedic gods as well!

 

At the ripe old age of 137 years, Abraham is said to have married another woman, termed as concubine, named Ketura. And he is said to have fathered six sons through her. And the names of these six sons along with their meanings are as follows :

 

Zimran – Celebrated, Vine Dresser

Zokshan – Hardnes, knocking

Medan – contention, conflict

Midian – Strife, Judgement

Ishbak – Leaving

Shuah – Ditch, Humiliation

 

Let us start with Ketura. Ketura is none other than Hindu goddess Gayatri, considered to be the mother of Vedas. And she is considered to be the second wife of Brahma! And the most important Gayatri mantra of the Hindus belongs to her, it is in her name. In terms of importance as a wife of Brahma, she is only second to Saraswati. And this nicely tallies with Ketura, Abraham’s second wife.

 

And Gayatri being considered as the mother of Vedas, the Vedic gods have been represented as her sons in the Jewish legends. The six sons of Abraham through Ketura are none other than the Vedic gods of India.

 

Showing the connection between the six sons and the Vedic gods requires some Linguistic analysis; it would not be possible to show the analysis here. Just to capture the results of the analysis, Zimran is Devendra, Zokshan is Daksha, Medan is Marut, Midian is Mithra, Ishbak is Aswins and Shuah is Rudra. One important thing to notice is that they have not listed Pancha Bhutas or the five elements and Sun and Moon in this list of six sons; probably because they considered these to be the manifestations of Krishna on earth.

 

All six sons of Ketura are Vedic gods! Since she is the mother of Vedas, they have been listed as her sons. It is said that Abraham sent them to the east, far away from his son Issac. This symbolically represents the fact that they had left the worship of these Vedic gods in the east, in India. The Jews no longer wanted to have anything to do with these Vedic gods.

 

To put it succinctly, the entire covenant with God of Abrahamic religions including Judaism, Christianity and Islam is nothing but an agreement amongst Yadavas to worship only Krishna/Yahweh and to reject all other Hindu gods in favor of Krishna. So given that Vaishnavite Jews/Yadavas who had forsaken Vedic religion were considered to have been in central Asia by 1800 BC itself after migrating from India, does it make sense to say that some Aryans invaded or migrated into India in 1500 BC and formed Vedas and epics after that date in India? Indian civilization is extremely ancient; and Indian and world civilizations are 19000 years in the making.

 

Source: Prithviraj's forthcoming book on history - 19000 YEARS OF WORLD HISTORY: The Story of Religion

 

One thing to add though if you offer you food to Krishna you should follow your guru's instructions on the matter irregardless of anything else.

 

They can still be taken separately as medicines.

Good point.

Mushrooms are tamasic, not rajasic.

 

That is because they are a fungus grown in the dark. If I grow a fungus in the dark what guna would you suppose it to be in?

Lotuses grow out of the mud, are they also tamasic? And, just because it is classified as a fungus, doesn't mean that it doesn't still have many beneficial properties.

Are there any strictly health related reasons to avoid eating onion or avoid garlic ?

 

because some people do not care much if you mention religious reasons

 

Thanks

No. Garlic and onion are very good anti-inflamatory herbs. The only reason people don't eat onion and garlic is because they are considered to be rajasic foods by Vaishnavas. They also think that mushrooms, which have been considered as anti-virals, are rajasic and avoid them.

So then you do recognize Shiva as a form of God?

Shiva is Shiva-tattva. He has that unique position. He's not a demigod like the other demigods; they are Jiva-tattva. Sada-shiva is also Visnu-tattva and Shiva is an expansion of him, yes? So Shiva is very special, like yoghurt. Milk & Yoghurt are the same yet different. Shiva himself is chanting Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare.

 

The important thing is that everyone becomes God conscious, but not everyone will take the name Krsna. So if they prefer then they can take the name Allah or Jehovah. Better they worship with the name Allah or Jehovah than not to worship at all. After all they refer to God - despite apparent characteristic differences. The name Shiva can also reference God. For Krsna is indubitably Shiva.

 

Yet Shiva is also an extremely special personality. He is there in Krsna Lila as Gopiswar Mahadev and he is there in Gaura-Lila as Advaita Acarya. He also came as Sankaracarya. Jaya Mahadev who can bewilder the minds of men and is fully devoted to the lotus feet of Sankarsana. Om namo Shivaya!

 

I'd be careful of making offences to the followers of Islam and Christianity. True there may be many who are not so exemplary devotees of God, but there are also undoubtedly those who are very sincere in their worship of God whether they call Him Allah, Jehovah or Visnu etc.

Just a question, where does Brahma Samhita call Krishna "Jehovah" or "Allah"? You call Lord Shiva a demigod because there is no evidence that he and Krishna are the same being, but you accept Jehovah and Allah as "alternate names of Krishna" with no evidence. This is utter nonsense.

The siddhanta is very clear, what is the difficulty to understand. Read Brahma Samhita, that explains the position of Siva, Durga, Ganesh, Brahma, et al; in relation to Govinda. Srimad Bhagavatam also corroborates the same objective reality.

 

When Srila Prabhupada says that Allah, Jehovah & Krsna are all God, then what is the difficulty in accepting this statement while still maintaining the proper understanding of tattva. Nama tattva - Brahman, Paramatma & Bhagavan are all God, no? Yet still there is difference. This is dvaita-advaita; the doctrines of monism and of dualism are incomplete on their own merit, they must be married to each other in inconceivable union - acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva.

 

Nama tattva is a most important subject. There are Primary (mukya) names and there are Secondary (gauna) names. Primary names are fully transcendental, identical with the svarup of the Lord and remain eternally in the spiritual world. Secondary names however have been introduced from the creation of the material universe. While i don't know the etymology of names from other cultures such as Allah, Jehovah etc. i see no difficulty in transcending sect since they all refer practically to God. This is the thing, Krsna Consciousness is not a sectarian religion! This must be understood, Bhakti is a science, the topmost yoga system. There is no question of this God or that God, God is one! But he has ananta-rupam. Still an understanding of visnu-tattva, jiva-tattva and shiva-tattva can be there. It's a case of simple for the simple and complicated for the complicated. Like the cobbler who when told that Narayana was threading elephants through the eye of a needle, he was overjoyed thinking how wonderful. Not that 'Oh, how ridiculous'

 

The reason you cannot understand is because you are still conditioned by matter. You cannot understand anything with the material mind! It must be spiritualised then EVERYTHING can be understood. Krsna says in Bhagavad Gita, veda-vid - that He is the knower of the Vedas. So understand as-it-is!

 

Srila Prabhupada writes in his commentary on Sri Bhagavad Gita

 

"Bhagavad-gita—accepted as it is—is a great boon to humanity; but if it is accepted as a treatise of philosophical speculations, it is simply a waste of time." 4.2pp

 

There is a third category of nama, that is madhurya nama; which Bhaktivinoda Thakura describes in the following passage.

 

"The maha-mantra contains the topmost sweet names of the Lord. Provocation for all the rasas mixed with intimate attachment is found in the Hare Krsna maha-mantra. There is no mention of the Lord's prowess (aisvarya) or giving liberation (mukti). This mantra reveals only that a soul has an individual attraction for the Supersoul by the thread of love. These names (Hare, Krsna, Rama) are the mantra for those on the path of madhurya-rasa. Constantly chanting and meditating on these names is the best form of worshipping the Supreme Lord." (Krsna-samhita)

 

Hare Krsna

How is Vaishnavism not a form of Hinduism? Hinduism is the religion whose beliefs involve the gods Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, and Devi. Vaishnavism's beliefs include these figures. What you're saying is like a Sunni Muslim saying that Sunni Islam isn't a form of Islam. Or a Roman Catholic saying that Roman Catholicism isn't a form of Christianity. It makes no sense.

Yes you are right. I read it wrong. Your mistake is thinking Vaisnavism has a source in hinduism. Actually Vaisnavism is the eternal funtion of the soul a point I have made before.

 

Krishna said not to be distracted by the flowery words of the vedas. Just concentrate on Him.

 

Bye

Wrong sir. Hinduism is not Krishna consciousness. Just ask any Advaitin.

I said Vaishnavism, a sect of Hinduism, is Krishna consciousness. Meaning that one form of Hinduism is devoted to Krishna consciousness.

Advaita Vedanta, a different sect of Hinduism, is Nirguna Brahman consciousness.

is it Om Aim Hrim Klim Chamundayai Vicce or Aim Hrim Klim Chamundayai Vicce

 

a pandit at banaras he's a mahapurohit at kalbhairav temple claims tht its

Aim Hrim Klim Chamundayai Vicce which is the panchakshari durga mantra....is it true?

That's a very good mantra to Durga in the form of Chamundi. I, however, pray to Mother Durga using the mantra Aum Doom Durgayei Namaha.

I don't understand ISKCON either. They say that Shiva and Devi are less than Krishna, but then go on to say that gods from other religions are Krishna. It's certainly very strange.

Can someone please explain this to me?

 

1) "Ganesh, Indra, Varuna, Brahma (et al) are all just demigods."

2) "Siva is a demigod, but the greatest Vaishnava."

3) "But Allah and Jehovah are 'just names for Krishna', the 'Svayam Bhagavan'. They are all God, just different names".

 

How is this?

 

Jehovah was just a minor desert deity, elevated to supremacy by Moses. Jehovah, in the 'Old Testament', admits to being a "jealous god", wrathful, and ready to mete out capital punishment (death penalty) at a whim (those who worship or even respect images and/or idols, collecting firewood on the Sabbath, a child disrespecting their parents, and at least 24 other offenses).

 

Allah was just a minor lunar deity, elevated to supremacy by Mohammed. Allah, in the 'Koran', admits to being violent and wrathful, and ready to mete out capital punishment (death penalty) on a whim (those who worship or even respect images and/or idols, apostasy, collecting firewood on the Sabbath, a child disrespecting their parents, and at least 29 other offenses)

 

So, why are Allah and Jehovah elevated so? Is it just for political correctness?

 

Why has Allah and Jehovah been elevated to the same level of Krishna?

 

According to Moses and Mohammed, Jehovah and Allah, respectively, both claim to be God. Why have their words being taken literally?

 

So why not accept the words of others who have claimed to be God? For example, Haile Selassie, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Sathya Sai Baba, Sun Myung Moon, Charles Manson, and so on?

 

Through history, we have seen the results of the words of Moses and Mohammed: wars and violence galore. India has seen the atrocities of these religions.

 

I just hope no one replies with the "all is one" stuff (i.e., Mayavada philosophy).

 

Rite, i have an aunt who is really upset and distressed. Her divorce case with her husband has been going on for 5 years, he is trying to get all of her possessions and leave her with nothing. The children used to live with her and where happy, all of a sudden last week her husband came and took the children and all the photos. After takeing her husband to court the kids were claiming the mother was beating them, and not feeding them, which is completly untrue. No-one knows what has happened to the kids all of a sudden and why they are behaving like this. She really needs help, i mentioned Maa Baglamukhi Sadhana to help her win her kids back and finaly get that divorce of her husband who is a major enemy to her.

 

Can anyone give me guidance on what to do. Time is little and i fear my aunt will never see her kids again.

 

Thank you

Jai MataJi

Baglamukhi Devi is extremely powerful. Everything I've prayed to her for has come true. All that I do is place her yantra on an altar and pray to her using the mantra Aum Hareeng Bagalamukhi Namaha after offering flowers to her yantra.

Pray to ShantaDurga Devi. She stopped the feuding between Vishnu and Shiva and she is prayed to for peace (her name means "Peaceful Durga"). You can pray to her by reciting the mantra from the Chandi that goes "Yaa Devi sarva bhuteshu Shanti roopena samsthita namastasyai namastasyai namastasyai namoh namah". It means "I take refuge in Devi, who lives within everyone in the form of peace".

So if one wants to pretend to be a hindu there may or may not be such a rule. But my point is that is not spiritual.

Hinduism is one way that spirituality can be expressed. It is merely the designation that sets the spirituality of those who worship Krishna, Devi, Shiva, etc... apart from that of people who worship Allah or Jehovah or Olorun. It's not that Hinduism is non-spiritual, it's just that it is a medium through which spirituality is expressed.

Hinduism (whatever that is) is not synonomous with Krishna consciousness.

Vaishnavism is synonomous with "Krishna consciousness", which means that form of Hinduism is synonymous with "Krishna consciousness"... unless you think that consciousness of Krishna is different from worship and love for Krishna?