Shaktism and Advaita

[Guest guest]

*** in a sense, the group was drifting towards advaita!!!! ***

 

Adi, do you really think that Shaktism is inconsistent with Advaita?

Most Shakta scriptures go out of their way to stress that Shaktism is

an Advaita philosophy. The Devi Gita, which propounds a very pure

form of Shaktism, goes out of its way to reiterate its Advaitic nature

of its philosophy. I tried to stress that connection in my mission

statement as well.

 

For members unfamiliar with the terminology, advaita is a Sanskrit

term meaning, "Non-dual" or "not twofold." At its most basic level,

Advaita teaches the Ultimate Reality consists of a one principle

substance, or God/dess. It is the opposite of dvaita, dualism, which

is generally considered a religion for the spritually less-evolved.

 

In the West, there is a theological concepted called "Monistic Theism"

-- the belief in One God. In Hinduism, that concept is described

as Advaita Ishvaravada; i.e. the doctrine that posits simultaneously

the ultimate oneness of all things, as well as the reality of the

Personal Deity (Ishtadevata).

 

I think that what Adi is talking about here is the Sankara, or Smarta,

school of Advaita Vedanta, which holds that Maya (manifest Creation;

the everyday world we live in) is an obstacle to God realization. In

that narrow sense, I agree, Advaita and Shaktism begin to diverge

(although the Devi Gita still insists that Shaktism and Advaita

Vedanta are consistent).

 

Perhaps closer to what I'm talking about is Advaita Siddhanta, which

teaches that Maya is *not* an obstacle to God realization, but rather

God's own power and presence [i.e. Shakti] guiding the soul's

evolution to perfection.

 

Would any members care to correct or clarify my understanding?

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Namaskara Devi Bhaktha,

This is the view I had until sometime ago when maa's post confused

me and I began to wonder if this is some kind of a purer/narrowed

shakthi saadhana club. Your post clarifies my original thought that

Shakti worship is nothing but advaitha and this fact is recognised as

such.

Thanks again for the clarification.

Regards,

Seshadri.

- devi_bhakta

Tuesday, April 30, 2002 3:33 PM

Shaktism and Advaita

*** in a sense, the group was drifting towards advaita!!!! ***Adi, do

you really think that Shaktism is inconsistent with Advaita? Most

Shakta scriptures go out of their way to stress that Shaktism is an

Advaita philosophy. The Devi Gita, which propounds a very pure form

of Shaktism, goes out of its way to reiterate its Advaitic nature of

its philosophy. I tried to stress that connection in my mission

statement as well.For members unfamiliar with the terminology,

advaita is a Sanskrit term meaning, "Non-dual" or "not twofold." At

its most basic level, Advaita teaches the Ultimate Reality consists

of a one principle substance, or God/dess. It is the opposite of

dvaita, dualism, which is generally considered a religion for the

spritually less-evolved.In the West, there is a theological concepted

called "Monistic Theism" -- the belief in One God. In Hinduism, that

concept is described as Advaita Ishvaravada; i.e. the doctrine that

posits simultaneously the ultimate oneness of all things, as well as

the reality of the Personal Deity (Ishtadevata). I think that what

Adi is talking about here is the Sankara, or Smarta, school of

Advaita Vedanta, which holds that Maya (manifest Creation; the

everyday world we live in) is an obstacle to God realization. In that

narrow sense, I agree, Advaita and Shaktism begin to diverge (although

the Devi Gita still insists that Shaktism and Advaita Vedanta are

consistent).Perhaps closer to what I'm talking about is Advaita

Siddhanta, which teaches that Maya is *not* an obstacle to God

realization, but rather God's own power and presence [i.e. Shakti]

guiding the soul's evolution to perfection. Would any members care to

correct or clarify my understanding?Aum Maatangyai NamaheTo

from this group, send an email

to:shakti_sadhnaaYour use of

Groups is subject to the

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

If Shaktism is Advaita, would not one have to move beyond Maya

in order to truly know the Ultimate Reality. Yes, the Ultimate

Reality will be in Maya and each instance of Maya, but only the

Self-Realized will be able to 'see' that Ultimate Reality instead of

the Maya. The rest of us may agree intellectually that the Ultimate

Reality is in Maya, we may even yearn for Ultimate Reality, but

we will 'see' Maya not Ultimate Reality.

 

Also, you say that Advaita consists of a one principle, substance,

or God/dess. Advaita may consist of one principle or (abstract)

substance but it cannot consist of God/dess. God/dess has

qualities (such as gender or a particular type of prana) and

exists in time and space, Ultimate Reality has no qualities but

has the capacity to project all qualities: It exists beyond time and

space, within time and space and as time and space. God/dess

may be essential to developing an Advaita awareness but it is

not that Advaita awareness.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

, "devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta>

wrote:

> *** in a sense, the group was drifting towards advaita!!!! ***

>

> Adi, do you really think that Shaktism is inconsistent with

Advaita?

> Most Shakta scriptures go out of their way to stress that

Shaktism is

> an Advaita philosophy. The Devi Gita, which propounds a very

pure

> form of Shaktism, goes out of its way to reiterate its Advaitic

nature

> of its philosophy. I tried to stress that connection in my mission

> statement as well.

>

> For members unfamiliar with the terminology, advaita is a

Sanskrit

> term meaning, "Non-dual" or "not twofold." At its most basic

level,

> Advaita teaches the Ultimate Reality consists of a one principle

> substance, or God/dess. It is the opposite of dvaita, dualism,

which

> is generally considered a religion for the spritually

less-evolved.

>

> In the West, there is a theological concepted called "Monistic

Theism"

> -- the belief in One God. In Hinduism, that concept is described

> as Advaita Ishvaravada; i.e. the doctrine that posits

simultaneously

> the ultimate oneness of all things, as well as the reality of the

> Personal Deity (Ishtadevata).

>

> I think that what Adi is talking about here is the Sankara, or

Smarta,

> school of Advaita Vedanta, which holds that Maya (manifest

Creation;

> the everyday world we live in) is an obstacle to God realization.

In

> that narrow sense, I agree, Advaita and Shaktism begin to

diverge

> (although the Devi Gita still insists that Shaktism and Advaita

> Vedanta are consistent).

>

> Perhaps closer to what I'm talking about is Advaita Siddhanta,

which

> teaches that Maya is *not* an obstacle to God realization, but

rather

> God's own power and presence [i.e. Shakti] guiding the soul's

> evolution to perfection.

>

> Would any members care to correct or clarify my

understanding?

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

With regard to your comment of Sri Ramakrishna, " he saw a

wave of light coming toward him and engulfing him.

Nevertheless, he said he still felt that it was Mother." Perhaps,

this does not demonstrate that he "still felt the pull of his Shakta

roots, even upon achieving oneness with Brahman. " Perhaps it

demonstrates that at this point Sri Ramakrishna still had some

way to go to 'see' Ultimate Reality completely unveiled, ' from all

angles' so to speak. Perhaps it suggests that he had not quite

given up completely an identification with his mind and that he

still has a trace of ego left.

Thanks for your time and thoughfulness. This has been a fruitful

discussion.

OM Namah Sivaya/Jaya Maa

Omprem

Hello: All

This word triggered a search in the book "The Gospel of Ramakrishna"

translated by Swami Nikhilananda - I will type the section that has

been a true gem to me in my understanding of Maa and Maya as

non-duality in nature - being the true nature of our nature, essence

and being.

Amrita: "Sir, how do you feel in samadhi?"

Master: "You may have heard that the cockroach, by intently meditating

on the brahmara, is transformed into a brahmara. Do you know how I

feel then? I feel like a fish released from a pot into the water of

the Ganges."

Amrita: "Don't you feel at that time even a trace of ego?"

Master: "Yes, generally a little of it remains. However hard you may

rub a grain of gold against a grindstone, still a bit of it always

remains. Or again, take the case of a big fire; the ego is like one

of its sparks. In samadhi I lose outer consciousness completely; but

God generally keeps a little trace of ego in me for the enjoyment of

divine communion. Enjoyment is possible only when 'I' and 'you'

remain.

"Again sometimes God effaces even that trace of 'I'. Then one

experiences jada samadhi or nirvidkalpa samadhi. That experience

cannot be described. A salt doll went to measure the depth of the

ocean, but before it had gone far into the water it melted away. It

became entirely one with the water of the ocean. Then who was to came

back and tell the ocean's depth?" [from the end of chapter 8]

with palms together

Jai Mahakali!!!

Yeshe

[Guest guest]

shriman ompremji,

 

i would like to make one point here if you would kindly permit me..

 

this is with reference to the role of shakti (the kundalini power) in

tantricism...

 

Shákti or the Divine Mother is by far the most important deity in

Tantricism. She is the core of all tantric practices. She is known as

Kundalinii when residing in a living being. She is the bestower of

the Supreme Bliss for all those followers that worship Her according

to the sacred rituals and meditations contained in the Tántra-s.

Her importance has been emphasized in Niruttaratantra:

 

Bahuunam janmanaamante shaktijñaanam prajaayate /

 

Shaktijñaanam vinaa devi nirvaanam naiva jaayate //

 

After (ante) many (bahuunaam) births (janmanaam), the knowledge

(jñaanam) of Shákti (shákti) is born (in oneself)

(prajaayate). Oh goddess (devi)!, without (vinaa) the knowledge

(jñaanam) of Shákti (shákti), Nirvaana --final Liberation--

(nirvaanam) does not (ná evá) spring up (jaayate).

 

it is also said, that only because of past good samskaras, one even

becomes a shakti worshipper- such is her divinity...

 

yes, the goal of all sadhna is one and the same be it advaita or

tantraic sadhana or shaktism... but the means to attain this goal

vary... while advaita relies on scriptural study along with the

practice of other yogas ( like raja, hatha etc... ) , shaktism is

more geared towards the worship of shakti as the embodiment of

supreme brahman through elaborate rituals and mantra meditation...

 

so the advaita of adi shankara is a movement away from karma- kanda .

right?

 

but in shakti worship, rituals , mantra, tantra and yantra are all

pre-dominant... bhakti takes precedence over jnana ...

 

also, in shaktism the 'body' is used as a vehicle for enlightenment

just like in hatha yoga - i am talking about kundalini yoga here...

 

also, in shaktism (one form of tantricism) maya is not something to

be overcome - rather maya is the means to the ultimate brahman -that

is why shakti is called mahamaya...

 

 

am i missing something here? please enlighten me...

 

my one and three quarter cents...

 

love

[Guest guest]

Dear OmPrem:

 

Thank you for your important response. I believe that you've raised

some important points about my previous post that require

clarification:

 

*** If Shaktism is Advaita, would not one have to move beyond Maya in

order to truly know the Ultimate Reality? ***

 

Of course this is correct, and I think I said as much in my message

attempting to provisionally define Shaktism at Message 1750. But my

point was the idea that Maya is not illusion; rather, it is an

incomplete (or veiled) aspect of the Ultimate Reality that both

encompasses and transcends it.

 

*** Advaita may consist of one principle or (abstract) substance but

it cannot consist of God/dess. God/dess has qualities (such as gender

or a particular type of prana) and exists in time and space, Ultimate

Reality has no qualities but has the capacity to project all

qualities: It exists beyond time and space, within time and space and

as time and space. ***

 

Again, I feel that this is not inconsistent with what I was trying

(and perhaps failing?) to express in my earlier post. Please allow me

to expand slightly upon my meaning, and kindly correct me if I you

believe I am still missing the mark.

 

I obviously agree with you the Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, is

absolute and beyond description in words, as you suggest. My point is

that we, as human beings, cannot grasp Brahman with our minds. We

cannot understand that which is both the Understander and the process

of Understanding. So it is very difficult to meditate upon the

Absolute Brahman -- how can we think about something that is formless

and without qualities?

We can only approach Brahman from our own, limited perspective.

 

And so, in beginning that approach, it is natural for many seekers to

be led to the Ishvara, the Personal Deity, the conception that Swami

Vivekanada described as "the highest reading of the Absolute by the

human intellect" (again, assuming a seeker who is not yet fully

Self-Realized, and is therefore still working to some degree from

within the confines of the human intellect).

 

Going back for a moment to my assertion that Maya is not Illusion, but

rather a limited vision of Reality, I turn to the words of Swami

Swahananda, who observes:

 

"No matter what attitude we take, it is only a question of angle of

vision. That is the important point. But just because something

represents an angle of vision doesn't mean that it is false. It means

that it is only one aspect, not the totality."

 

In regard to the Shaktas, Swahananda adds that "the philosophy of the

Mother worshipers in mainly non-dualistic [Advaitic] -- though

combined with a personal Goddess [who is] the Absolute seen from one

angle of vision. All of the various forms are real. … Take the analogy

of a woman" She may be a mother to one, a wife to one, a friend to

one, and a boss to one. But what is the total woman? She is the

summation of all these aspects, and more. Just as the aspect of

"mother" is real with regard to a woman, so are the different aspects

of God with regard to the total Reality." (Forgive me for this

digression, OmPremji; it is nothing new to you, but may help other

members follow my argument.)

 

Which leads me to your final point: "God/dess may be essential to

developing an Advaita awareness but it is not that Advaita awareness."

 

I agree. The purpose of my post was to mainly to rebut a member's

suggestion that my conception of Shaktism was opposed to Advaita. I do

not think that it is. While acknowledging that the goal is One (be it

conceived as Shiva-Shakti, Shakti-Shiva, Allah, Jehovah, Christ, or

whatever ideal the devotee prefers), I simply wished to underscore

those aspects of the Shakta path that distinguished it from other

religions, including other forms of Hinduism.

 

Ultimately, even when the devotee chooses to approach Brahman through

meditation upon a God/dess with form, gradually she or he will reach

the stage of formlessness. Again drawing on Swahananda: "This may not

happen immediately. We may remain satisfied for a long time, enjoying

the divine bliss of union with the deity. But the experience of the

deity in a particular form will vanish at one stage, and the vision of

the Absolute, or rather the experience of oneness with the absolute,

will take its place."

 

By that time, we have reached our goal, and no longer *need* Shaktism

or Shavism or Islam or Christianity or anything else to guide us.

Until we reach that lofty point, however, we *do* need a path, and it

is important for us to clearly understand what that path is and what

it means -- that was the sole purpose of my post.

 

As a final note, perhaps particularly appropriate to a Shakta forum, I

would add the path one chooses can still strongly flavor even the

ultimate experience of Moksha. For example, Sri Ramakrishna himself,

whose Ishvara was Kali Devi, still felt the pull of his Shakta roots,

even upon achieving oneness with Brahman.

 

As the book "Ramakrishna, the Great Master" relates: "When he had his

realization, he was not seeing the face of the Mother in the human, or

anthropomorphic, form of the deity that he had worshiped. Rather, he

saw a wave of light coming toward him and engulfing him. Nevertheless,

he said he still felt that it was Mother."

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Dear Adi:

 

Thanks for an excellent post. I did not have a chance to read it

before posting my response to OmPrem's observations. I think your post

provides the essential broader context of Shaktism, whereas mine

focuses more specifically on the Advaita issues.

 

You note that "in shaktism maya is not something to be overcome -

rather maya is the means to the ultimate brahman - that is why shakti

is called mahamaya." Also that "in shaktism the 'body' is used as a

vehicle for enlightenment, just like in hatha yoga."

 

If you look back at my posts #1750 and #1760, I think you'll see that

I was also attempting to make these points. It is not that Shaktism is

opposed to the concept of Advaita; however, it does appear to clash

with Shankara's particular view of Advaita (although you'll find that

the Devi Gita attempts to resolve even this opposition).

 

Thanks again for your post!

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

my own beloved devi bhakta, my pleasure, any time!!!

 

it is very hard to be a 'woman' in this forum of intelligent men like

you and ompremji, sankara, sesh. uday, collin and many others!

forgive me, if i left out someone!!

 

but since you have mentioned devi gita, let me quote an important

verse from devi gita which may substantiate your viewpoint a little

bit more... espeacially shakti as maya ....

 

The Devi said: "O Giriraja ! This whole universe, moving and unmoving

is created by My maya shakti. This maya is conceived in Me. It is

not, in reality, different or separate from Me. So I am the only

Chit, Intelligence.

 

There is no other Intelligence other than Me. Viewed practically, it

is known variously as Maya, avidya; but viewed from the point of

Brahman, there is no such thing as Maya. only one Brahman exists, I

am that Brahma, of the nature of Intelligence. I create this whole

world on this Unchangeable eternal Brahma and enter first as Prana

within it in the form of chidabhasa.

 

O Mountain ! Unless I enter as Breath, how can this birth and death

and leaving and retaking bodies after bodies be accounted for! As one

akasa is denominated variouslty as Ghatakas, patakas, so too I appear

variously by acknowledging this prana in various places due to avidya

and various antahkaranas.

 

As the sun rays are never defiled when they illumine various objects

on earth, so too, I am not defiled in entering thus into various high

and low antahkaranas. The ignorant people attach buddhi and other

things of activity on Me and say that the Atman is the doer. The

intelligent people do not say that. I remain as the Witness in the

hearts of all men, not as the Doer."

 

courtesy ambaa.org

 

i am waiting with baited breath for ompremji's response...ompremji,

this is just a friendly discussion - infact, in the tantras also,

shiva was the guru and shakti was the disciple and shakti was the

guru and shva was the disciple... of course in a state of brahma-

jnana , there is no guru no sisya- ony oneness!!! so, please forgive

my transgressions.. just thinking loud..

 

gosh, this is really exciting... this forum is pulsating with energy

(kriya shakthi) inspite of being moderated...

 

 

ps i am rushing to work i will catch up with you all later...

 

have a wonderful wednesday...

 

love and only love

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

Thank you for your thoughtful and informed response.

 

We seem to agree on all counts with the possible exception that

you seem to say that we all need a path that has an Ishtadevata

while I think that we all need a path but there are few who do not

one that includes an Ishtadevata. Any other differences of

opinion between us seems to be one of emphasis. You seem to

be emphasizing the Ishatdevata while I tend to emphasize

Brahman, the result of having the Ishtadevata.

 

It seems to me there is no substantial difference between calling

Maya an 'illusion' and 'a veil aspect of Brahman'. The difference

is only one of semantics. The task is still to move past the veils

or see past the illusion to the source. In my classes I use the

analogy of filters on a camera lens that distort the picture.

Remove the filters (of personal conditioning) and one arrives at

the true picture.

 

Also, in my own meditations at the beginning stage, I literally had

the sensation of seeing veils and of moving through and beyond

them, so I appreciate your analogy. (Does this experience mean

that I am really an adherent of Tantric approach?)

 

You made the point, "that we, as human beings, cannot grasp

Brahman with our minds. We cannot understand that which is

both the Understander and the process of Understanding." It is

true we cannot grasp Brahman with our minds as we use the

mind in our daily life and yet most of us initially insist on using

our minds in that very linear fashion when embarking on the

spiritual path, so the concept of Ishtadevata is used to change

the way the mind is used and to turn it toward the Inifinite.

However, there are people who already use their minds in a

more holistic fashion and quite able to entertain abstract

concepts. Witness the Mahavakyas of Jnana Yoga: Prajnanam

Brahma, Aham Brahma Asmi, Tat Twam Asi, Ayam Atma

Brahman. Or the Nirguna Mantras of Raja Yoga. Or the Bija

Mantras of Hatha Yoga. These do not refer to an Ishtadevata.

 

You mentioned, "Swami Swahananda, who observes: 'No

matter what attitude we take, it is only a question of angle of

vision.' Continuing his analogy, I would say that becoming aware

of Ultimate Reality is not to see It from an angle of vision, but to

see It from all angles of vision. The purpose of Sadhana is to

deconstruct our thinking, our mind, our intellect, and our ego and

to purify the Chakras so that we are able to practice 'seeing' from

all angles of vision. This is the way truly to know Maya as

Ultimate Reality and to know Ultimate Reality.

 

You also mentioned Swami Swahananda as saying, "Mother

worshipers in mainly non-dualistic [Advaitic] -- though combined

with a personal Goddess [who is] the Absolute seen from one

angle of vision. All of the various forms [of Maa] are real." My point

here would be that when Maa is seen from all angles of vision

simultaneously by the highly evolved soul, the last veil,Maa

Herself, is lifted and one is identified with Ultimate Reality.

Swami Swahananda seems to agree with that.

 

In the meantime, we can all celebrate "those aspects of the

Shakta path that distinguished it from other religions, including

other forms of Hinduism." just we can celebrate all authentic

spiritual paths.

 

 

With regard to your comment of Sri Ramakrishna, " he saw a

wave of light coming toward him and engulfing him.

Nevertheless, he said he still felt that it was Mother." Perhaps,

this does not demonstrate that he "still felt the pull of his Shakta

roots, even upon achieving oneness with Brahman. " Perhaps it

demonstrates that at this point Sri Ramakrishna still had some

way to go to 'see' Ultimate Reality completely unveiled, ' from all

angles' so to speak. Perhaps it suggests that he had not quite

given up completely an identification with his mind and that he

still has a trace of ego left.

 

Thanks for your time and thoughfulness. This has been a fruitful

discussion.

 

OM Namah Sivaya/Jaya Maa

 

Omprem

 

, "devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta>

wrote:

> Dear OmPrem:

>

> Thank you for your important response. I believe that you've

raised

> some important points about my previous post that require

> clarification:

>

> *** If Shaktism is Advaita, would not one have to move beyond

Maya in

> order to truly know the Ultimate Reality? ***

>

> Of course this is correct, and I think I said as much in my

message

> attempting to provisionally define Shaktism at Message 1750.

But my

> point was the idea that Maya is not illusion; rather, it is an

> incomplete (or veiled) aspect of the Ultimate Reality that both

> encompasses and transcends it.

>

> *** Advaita may consist of one principle or (abstract) substance

but

> it cannot consist of God/dess. God/dess has qualities (such

as gender

> or a particular type of prana) and exists in time and space,

Ultimate

> Reality has no qualities but has the capacity to project all

> qualities: It exists beyond time and space, within time and

space and

> as time and space. ***

>

> Again, I feel that this is not inconsistent with what I was trying

> (and perhaps failing?) to express in my earlier post. Please

allow me

> to expand slightly upon my meaning, and kindly correct me if I

you

> believe I am still missing the mark.

>

> I obviously agree with you the Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, is

> absolute and beyond description in words, as you suggest. My

point is

> that we, as human beings, cannot grasp Brahman with our

minds. We

> cannot understand that which is both the Understander and

the process

> of Understanding. So it is very difficult to meditate upon the

> Absolute Brahman -- how can we think about something that is

formless

> and without qualities?

> We can only approach Brahman from our own, limited

perspective.

>

> And so, in beginning that approach, it is natural for many

seekers to

> be led to the Ishvara, the Personal Deity, the conception that

Swami

> Vivekanada described as "the highest reading of the Absolute

by the

> human intellect" (again, assuming a seeker who is not yet fully

> Self-Realized, and is therefore still working to some degree

from

> within the confines of the human intellect).

>

> Going back for a moment to my assertion that Maya is not

Illusion, but

> rather a limited vision of Reality, I turn to the words of Swami

> Swahananda, who observes:

>

> "No matter what attitude we take, it is only a question of angle

of

> vision. That is the important point. But just because something

> represents an angle of vision doesn't mean that it is false. It

means

> that it is only one aspect, not the totality."

>

> In regard to the Shaktas, Swahananda adds that "the

philosophy of the

> Mother worshipers in mainly non-dualistic [Advaitic] -- though

> combined with a personal Goddess [who is] the Absolute seen

from one

> angle of vision. All of the various forms are real. … Take the

analogy

> of a woman" She may be a mother to one, a wife to one, a

friend to

> one, and a boss to one. But what is the total woman? She is

the

> summation of all these aspects, and more. Just as the aspect

of

> "mother" is real with regard to a woman, so are the different

aspects

> of God with regard to the total Reality." (Forgive me for this

> digression, OmPremji; it is nothing new to you, but may help

other

> members follow my argument.)

>

> Which leads me to your final point: "God/dess may be

essential to

> developing an Advaita awareness but it is not that Advaita

awareness."

>

> I agree. The purpose of my post was to mainly to rebut a

member's

> suggestion that my conception of Shaktism was opposed to

Advaita. I do

> not think that it is. While acknowledging that the goal is One

(be it

> conceived as Shiva-Shakti, Shakti-Shiva, Allah, Jehovah,

Christ, or

> whatever ideal the devotee prefers), I simply wished to

underscore

> those aspects of the Shakta path that distinguished it from

other

> religions, including other forms of Hinduism.

>

> Ultimately, even when the devotee chooses to approach

Brahman through

> meditation upon a God/dess with form, gradually she or he will

reach

> the stage of formlessness. Again drawing on Swahananda:

"This may not

> happen immediately. We may remain satisfied for a long time,

enjoying

> the divine bliss of union with the deity. But the experience of the

> deity in a particular form will vanish at one stage, and the vision

of

> the Absolute, or rather the experience of oneness with the

absolute,

> will take its place."

>

> By that time, we have reached our goal, and no longer *need*

Shaktism

> or Shavism or Islam or Christianity or anything else to guide

us.

> Until we reach that lofty point, however, we *do* need a path,

and it

> is important for us to clearly understand what that path is and

what

> it means -- that was the sole purpose of my post.

>

> As a final note, perhaps particularly appropriate to a Shakta

forum, I

> would add the path one chooses can still strongly flavor even

the

> ultimate experience of Moksha. For example, Sri Ramakrishna

himself,

> whose Ishvara was Kali Devi, still felt the pull of his Shakta

roots,

> even upon achieving oneness with Brahman.

>

> As the book "Ramakrishna, the Great Master" relates: "When

he had his

> realization, he was not seeing the face of the Mother in the

human, or

> anthropomorphic, form of the deity that he had worshiped.

Rather, he

> saw a wave of light coming toward him and engulfing him.

Nevertheless,

> he said he still felt that it was Mother."

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM Adi Shakti

 

Your female shakti is necessary along with the male shakti in

order for all to attain a complete view of and identification with

Maa and then Brahman.

 

You quoted and I agree with the excellent point, "There is no

other Intelligence other than Me. Viewed practically, it is known

variously as Maya, avidya; but viewed from the point of Brahman,

there is no such thing as Maya. only one Brahman exists, I am

that Brahma, of the nature of Intelligence. I create this whole

world on this Unchangeable eternal Brahma and enter first as

Prana within it in the form of chidabhasa."

 

It is one thing to be intellectually aware of the distinction of

viewing Maya from the inside of one's daily self or from the

inside of Brahman. It is another to live as Brahman continuously

and really know the truth of that distinction.

 

Also, there is more to Brahman than intelligence or Prana.

Brahman is Satchitananda.

 

Please indulge my penchant for detail with the following.

 

You said "in shaktism maya is not something to be overcome -

rather maya is the means to the ultimate brahman - that is why

shakti is called mahamaya." I wonder if you would be kind

enough to detail the process by which Maya becomes the

means to Brahman? I certainly know the value of having a Guru

and an Ishtadevata, both aspects of Maya. But beyond that is

there another apect of Maya that leads one to Self-realization?

And how does that process work?

 

Similarly you said "in shaktism the 'body' is used as a vehicle for

enlightenment, just like in hatha yoga." Of course, I can

appreciate how Hatha Yoga uses the Annamaya Kosha as a tool

in search for Self-realization. And I can appreciate how dance,

kirtan, the visual arts, indeed, all the works of Saraswati, can

lead to Self-realization. But does Shaktism use the physical body

differently from these types of activities? If so, could you detail

that process?

 

I honour dancers and singers and all artists as they are

dedicating their lives to activating and purifying (although usually

unconsciously) the Chakras and Nadis of the Pranamaya Kosha

so that Kundalini can rise unimpeded and take them to

Self-realization. They are inspirations for all of us.

 

OM Namah Sivaya/Jaya Maa

 

Omprem

 

, "adi_shakthi16"

<adi_shakthi16> wrote:

> my own beloved devi bhakta, my pleasure, any time!!!

>

> it is very hard to be a 'woman' in this forum of intelligent men

like

> you and ompremji, sankara, sesh. uday, collin and many

others!

> forgive me, if i left out someone!!

>

> but since you have mentioned devi gita, let me quote an

important

> verse from devi gita which may substantiate your viewpoint a

little

> bit more... espeacially shakti as maya ....

>

> The Devi said: "O Giriraja ! This whole universe, moving and

unmoving

> is created by My maya shakti. This maya is conceived in Me. It

is

> not, in reality, different or separate from Me. So I am the only

> Chit, Intelligence.

>

> There is no other Intelligence other than Me. Viewed practically,

it

> is known variously as Maya, avidya; but viewed from the point of

> Brahman, there is no such thing as Maya. only one Brahman

exists, I

> am that Brahma, of the nature of Intelligence. I create this

whole

> world on this Unchangeable eternal Brahma and enter first as

Prana

> within it in the form of chidabhasa.

>

> O Mountain ! Unless I enter as Breath, how can this birth and

death

> and leaving and retaking bodies after bodies be accounted for!

As one

> akasa is denominated variouslty as Ghatakas, patakas, so too

I appear

> variously by acknowledging this prana in various places due to

avidya

> and various antahkaranas.

>

> As the sun rays are never defiled when they illumine various

objects

> on earth, so too, I am not defiled in entering thus into various

high

> and low antahkaranas. The ignorant people attach buddhi and

other

> things of activity on Me and say that the Atman is the doer. The

> intelligent people do not say that. I remain as the Witness in

the

> hearts of all men, not as the Doer."

>

> courtesy ambaa.org

>

> i am waiting with baited breath for ompremji's

response...ompremji,

> this is just a friendly discussion - infact, in the tantras also,

> shiva was the guru and shakti was the disciple and shakti was

the

> guru and shva was the disciple... of course in a state of

brahma-

> jnana , there is no guru no sisya- ony oneness!!! so, please

forgive

> my transgressions.. just thinking loud..

>

> gosh, this is really exciting... this forum is pulsating with energy

> (kriya shakthi) inspite of being moderated...

>

>

> ps i am rushing to work i will catch up with you all later...

>

> have a wonderful wednesday...

>

> love and only love

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPrem:

 

I think we may agree even more closely than you assume.

 

*** you seem to say that we all need a path that has an Ishtadevata

***

 

No; I acknowledge that an Ishtadevata (Presonal God/dess) is not

necessary for all seekers. In fact, withing SriVidya, arguably the

most fully evolved school of Shaktism, the emphasis is upon Sri

Chakra, which -- although considered a form of Lalita Tripurasundari

-- seems to represent a step beyond the Ishtadevata approach.

 

The reason my posts have so strongly stressed the Ishtadevata approach

is because it seems that members of a Shakta Group would primarily be

those you do conceive Brahman by way of a form; by definition, a

Feminine form. I had received several private letters from members who

expressed discouragement due to some club discussions that seemed to

say that the Shakta conception (God as Feminine) is but an arbitrary

choice of path, that ultimately matters not at all.

 

Certainly, the most evolved souls would say, "Yes, that's basically

true." But the fact is that many, or -- as you seem to agree -- MOST

seekers need a form to push them on their way. Just as certain seekers

are drawn to Shiva or Krishna or Rama or Christ or Allah, others are

drawn to the Goddess. My post was an attempt to assure those people

that, while Brahman *is* ultimately beyond form and description as one

reaches the end of one's stay in the realms of samskara, any *aspect*

of Brahman, any God/dess form, is a real and true entity who will

carry you through all but the very last stage of the journey. S/he is

not a mere imaginary being, a "crutch" for the weak of spirit, but a

totally real being, as real as any person you've ever met -- and more

real, as mere human beings live for but 100 years or so, at best.

One's Ishtadevata, one's God/dess, is more real and tangible than

anything we experience on this Earth -- S/he is still not the Ultimate

Reality, but S/he will take you there, if you need Her/Him to.

 

*** It seems to me there is no substantial difference between

calling Maya an 'illusion' and 'a veil aspect of Brahman'.***

 

I disagree. Perhaps the terminology I've chosen is not strong enough

to express it, but difference between the two ideas can be very big

indeed. It is not a mere matter of semantics.

 

To say Maya is an illusion is to say, "This World is not Real." That

leads to a disdain for the Earth and the visible Universe and the body

-- calling it a mere "bag of waste, excreta and urine," etc., as one

member did recently, provoking me to begin this debate in the first

place. The idea seems to be that the World is some kind of cruel joke,

binding us and fooling us. Our only hope is to escape it altogether

but resolutely refusing to accept it as Real, thus forcing the

illusion to fall away.

 

And if your belief teaches that Maya = Shakti, then the Divine

Feminine is actually the Divine Fraud, the embodiment of that very

cruel joke, the lesser Divinity who keeps us away from the Supreme

Shiva, who is the only Reality.

 

On the other hand, to say that Maya is a veiled aspect of Reality, is

to embrace and dignify it. Is to affirm, "Yes! This World Is Real! It

is Beautiful! Your Body Is Beautiful; It is a Microcosm of the Supreme

Reality! All the beings around you -- from rocks and stones, to lakes

and oceans, to plants and animals, to every human being -- they are

all infused with Chit [supreme Consciousness]; they are all totally

real and wonderful and Divine, if only you will look and see! And

guess what? It gets even better! As beautiful as that baby is, as that

woman is, as that mountain is, as that galaxy is, they're only the

merest fraction of an even bigger and more beautiful Supreme Reality!"

 

Shaktism posits the Goddess as a concept of Brahman that embraces both

Chit and Maya as Real and Divine. To quote from my Post #1750 :

 

"Indeed, this affirmation of the oneness of transcendence and

immanence constituites the very essence of the divine mother [and her]

ultimate triumph. It is not, finally, that she is infinitely superior

to the male gods -- though she is that, according to the [shaktas] --

but rather that she transcends her own feminine nature as Prakriti

without denying it."

 

That is the essence of Shaktism as I see it, and it is embodied in the

distinction between "illusion" and "veiled Reality."

 

*** However, there are people who already use their minds in a more

holistic fashion and quite able to entertain abstract concepts.

Witness the Mahavakyas of Jnana Yoga: Prajnanam Brahma, Aham Brahma

Asmi, Tat Twam Asi, Ayam Atma Brahman. Or the Nirguna Mantras of Raja

Yoga. Or the Bija Mantras of Hatha Yoga. These do not refer to an

Ishtadevata. ***

 

You are absolutely right. As I noted above, I do not believe that an

Ishtadevata is an absolute necessity. My comments were directed more

to the benefit of those who need or want a Personal God (which, again,

appears to be the majority of seekers). To each according to their

needs. If one's constitution is such that one can proceed directly to

Brahman, then that is the appropriate path -- such a person is

certainly blessed, highly evolved, and under absolutely no constraint

to embrace any particular form. But at that level, in my

understanding, we are no longer talking about Shaktism, Shaivism,

Vaishnavism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism or any other path.

 

OmPremji, allow me to return your kind compliment for a thoughtful and

informed reply. I've enjoyed the debate as well.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

I agree with your eloquent statement that "any *aspect* of

Brahman, any God/dess form, is a real and true entity who will

carry you through all but the very last stage of the journey. S/he is

not a mere imaginary being, a "crutch" for the weak of spirit, but a

totally real being, as real as any person you've ever met -- and

more real...One's Ishtadevata, one's God/dess, is more real and

tangible than anything we experience on this Earth -- S/he is still

not the Ultimate Reality, but S/he will take you there, if you need

Her/Him to."

 

I apologize to any members who may have felt that they or their

beliefs were slighted by any of my posts. It is not my intention to

claim that an Ishtadevata, female or male, is a "mere imaginary

being, a "crutch" for the weak of spirit". I agree that the

Ishtadevata is real and has a form that can be summoned

through Japa using the appropriate Mantra.

 

However, it makes no sense to me, and seems to verge on the

sacreligious to claim that one deity is superior to another. Does

not Shakti require Siva. Elitism of this sort only feeds personal

insecurities.

 

If one claims that Shakti is superior, even infinitely superior, to

the male gods because She "transcends her own feminine

nature as Prakriti without denying it.", is not one underestimating

those male gods. They too are capable of transcending their

own masculine natures without denying them. Is it not because

these gods and goddesses each are capable of appearing in

Prakriti while maintaining an identity as Purusha that enables us

to consider them as Gods?

 

My experience tells me that any path that asserts superiority over

all other paths for all people in all circumstances is flawed and

most likely a cult or a political movement. The names of several

of these so-called spiritual paths come to mind but shall remain

unstated.

 

The most that one can say of a particular path is that it is

superior to all others for that person. It is not that the path is

superior but that it is the most suitable for that aspirant. Spiritual

paths are intended for people of specific personalities just as

Saguna Mantras and the many approaches of Hatha Yoga are

intended for people of specific personalities. It is not the paths,

the Mantras or the Hatha Yoga that is different: it is the people

who use them that are different.

 

Each of the four main paths of Yoga wants to overcome the

ego's self-aggrandizement in order to experience God directly:

1. Karma Yoga sheds ego through selfless service and

experiences God as Goodness.

2. Bhakti Yoga transmutes ego through self-surrender and

experiences God as Love.

3. Jnana Yoga sheds ego through self denial, self abnegation,

experiencing God as Truth.

4. Raja Yoga eradicates ego by stilling the mind and

experiences God as Unity.

>From ego come the emotions. Bhakti Yoga views the emotions

as weaknesses to be transmuted into pure love and directed

toward God, for without that pure love one cannot approach the

infinite love that is God. The other three paths of Yoga view the

emotions as serving no useful purpose and, in fact, providing a

barrier requiring much effort to uproot and transcend before one

can hope to come closer to direct experience of their spiritual

nature and the Cosmic Consciousness of which it is a part.

 

But eventually when the aspirant has burned off all karmic

residues and come to a clear understanding of the Unity of

everything and the common Ultimate Reality, so, too, the

aspirant realizes that all spiritual paths lead to the same end

and have a similarity of method dispite the appearance of

surface differences.

 

Saying that Maya is an Illusion is not, as far as I'm concerned,

reason to denigrate anything physical - the earth, the universe,

the body.These are acts of God and should be respected and

revered as such. For anyone to claim that the body is "a mere

"bag of waste, excreta and urine", is violate the very first Yama,

Ahimsa. Not only should we be doing no harm to anyone or

anything else, we should be doing no harm to ourselves either

There are, in reality, no separate objects. Everything is linked,

everything arises from the same Source, everything is that

Source. If we think less of ourselves or any aspect of ourself, we

are impairing our ability to see Brahman.

 

To put oneself down, to abase oneself, in order to build humility

is a mistake. Such actions, thoughts, or words are due to a

strong ego and tend to feed that ego.

 

Jaya Maa/OM Namah Sivaya

 

Paths are many, Truth is One.

 

Omprem

 

 

, "devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta>

wrote:

> Namaskar OmPrem:

>

> I think we may agree even more closely than you assume.

>

> *** you seem to say that we all need a path that has an

Ishtadevata

> ***

>

> No; I acknowledge that an Ishtadevata (Presonal God/dess) is

not

> necessary for all seekers. In fact, withing SriVidya, arguably the

> most fully evolved school of Shaktism, the emphasis is upon

Sri

> Chakra, which -- although considered a form of Lalita

Tripurasundari

> -- seems to represent a step beyond the Ishtadevata approach.

>

> The reason my posts have so strongly stressed the

Ishtadevata approach

> is because it seems that members of a Shakta Group would

primarily be

> those you do conceive Brahman by way of a form; by definition,

a

> Feminine form. I had received several private letters from

members who

> expressed discouragement due to some club discussions that

seemed to

> say that the Shakta conception (God as Feminine) is but an

arbitrary

> choice of path, that ultimately matters not at all.

>

> Certainly, the most evolved souls would say, "Yes, that's

basically

> true." But the fact is that many, or -- as you seem to agree --

MOST

> seekers need a form to push them on their way. Just as certain

seekers

> are drawn to Shiva or Krishna or Rama or Christ or Allah,

others are

> drawn to the Goddess. My post was an attempt to assure

those people

> that, while Brahman *is* ultimately beyond form and

description as one

> reaches the end of one's stay in the realms of samskara, any

*aspect*

> of Brahman, any God/dess form, is a real and true entity who

will

> carry you through all but the very last stage of the journey. S/he

is

> not a mere imaginary being, a "crutch" for the weak of spirit, but

a

> totally real being, as real as any person you've ever met -- and

more

> real, as mere human beings live for but 100 years or so, at

best.

> One's Ishtadevata, one's God/dess, is more real and tangible

than

> anything we experience on this Earth -- S/he is still not the

Ultimate

> Reality, but S/he will take you there, if you need Her/Him to.

>

> *** It seems to me there is no substantial difference between

> calling Maya an 'illusion' and 'a veil aspect of Brahman'.***

>

> I disagree. Perhaps the terminology I've chosen is not strong

enough

> to express it, but difference between the two ideas can be very

big

> indeed. It is not a mere matter of semantics.

>

> To say Maya is an illusion is to say, "This World is not Real."

That

> leads to a disdain for the Earth and the visible Universe and

the body

> -- calling it a mere "bag of waste, excreta and urine," etc., as

one

> member did recently, provoking me to begin this debate in the

first

> place. The idea seems to be that the World is some kind of

cruel joke,

> binding us and fooling us. Our only hope is to escape it

altogether

> but resolutely refusing to accept it as Real, thus forcing the

> illusion to fall away.

>

> And if your belief teaches that Maya = Shakti, then the Divine

> Feminine is actually the Divine Fraud, the embodiment of that

very

> cruel joke, the lesser Divinity who keeps us away from the

Supreme

> Shiva, who is the only Reality.

>

> On the other hand, to say that Maya is a veiled aspect of

Reality, is

> to embrace and dignify it. Is to affirm, "Yes! This World Is Real!

It

> is Beautiful! Your Body Is Beautiful; It is a Microcosm of the

Supreme

> Reality! All the beings around you -- from rocks and stones, to

lakes

> and oceans, to plants and animals, to every human being --

they are

> all infused with Chit [supreme Consciousness]; they are all

totally

> real and wonderful and Divine, if only you will look and see!

And

> guess what? It gets even better! As beautiful as that baby is, as

that

> woman is, as that mountain is, as that galaxy is, they're only

the

> merest fraction of an even bigger and more beautiful Supreme

Reality!"

>

> Shaktism posits the Goddess as a concept of Brahman that

embraces both

> Chit and Maya as Real and Divine. To quote from my Post

#1750 :

>

> "Indeed, this affirmation of the oneness of transcendence and

> immanence constituites the very essence of the divine mother

[and her]

> ultimate triumph. It is not, finally, that she is infinitely superior

> to the male gods -- though she is that, according to the

[shaktas] --

> but rather that she transcends her own feminine nature as

Prakriti

> without denying it."

>

> That is the essence of Shaktism as I see it, and it is embodied

in the

> distinction between "illusion" and "veiled Reality."

>

> *** However, there are people who already use their minds in a

more

> holistic fashion and quite able to entertain abstract concepts.

> Witness the Mahavakyas of Jnana Yoga: Prajnanam Brahma,

Aham Brahma

> Asmi, Tat Twam Asi, Ayam Atma Brahman. Or the Nirguna

Mantras of Raja

> Yoga. Or the Bija Mantras of Hatha Yoga. These do not refer to

an

> Ishtadevata. ***

>

> You are absolutely right. As I noted above, I do not believe that

an

> Ishtadevata is an absolute necessity. My comments were

directed more

> to the benefit of those who need or want a Personal God

(which, again,

> appears to be the majority of seekers). To each according to

their

> needs. If one's constitution is such that one can proceed

directly to

> Brahman, then that is the appropriate path -- such a person is

> certainly blessed, highly evolved, and under absolutely no

constraint

> to embrace any particular form. But at that level, in my

> understanding, we are no longer talking about Shaktism,

Shaivism,

> Vaishnavism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism or any other path.

>

> OmPremji, allow me to return your kind compliment for a

thoughtful and

> informed reply. I've enjoyed the debate as well.

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM Yeshe

 

Many people think that they want Samadhi so that they can

experience Brahman directly and identify with Brahman. But how

many really want the ultimate experience of Brahman, the Turiya

stage of Knowledge. This is the equivalent of the salt doll being

sent into the ocean to measure its depth. Most are content to

stop somewhere short of that because they are attached to their

physical life and do not want to enter Mahasamadhi.

 

Patanjali lists Abhinivesha or attachment to life as one of the five

Kleshas that keep us from assuming our true identity.

 

The Yoga Vasishta describes the Seven Bhoomikas (Seven

Stages of Knowledge):

 

1. Subecha

 

Longing for Truth. The aspirant rightly distinguishes between

permanent and impermanent, cultivates a dislike for worldly

pleasures, acquires mastery over over the physical and mental

organs, and feels a deep yearning to be free from Samsara. The

Yogi at this stage is called:Sadhaka or Practitioner.

 

2. Vicharana

 

Right Inquiry. The aspirant has pondered over what he has read

and heard and heas realized it in his life. The Yogi is called

Sadhaka here as well.

 

3. Tanumanasa

 

Attenuation or thinning out of mental activities. The aspirant's

(Sadhaka's) mind has abandoned the many and remains fixed

on the ONE.

 

4. Sattvapatti

 

Attainment of Sattva. The aspirant is now called Brahmavid or

Knower of Brahman. He is still subject to Sanchita, Prarabdha

and Agami Karmas. He has been practicing Samprajnata

Samadhi or contemplation in which consciousness of duality

still exists.

 

It is here that the Siddhis start to manifest. If the aspirant is

unaffected by these, he may enter the next stage.

 

5. Asamsakti

 

Unaffected by anything. The Yogi is now called Brahmavidvara

and he performs necessary duties of his own will.

 

6. Pararthabhavani

 

See Brahman everywhere. External objects do not appear to

exist to the Yogi. He performs functions only as prompted by

another. Sanchita and Agami Karmas are destroyed. Only a

small amount of Prarabdha Karma remains.

 

7. Turiya

 

This is perpetual Samadhi. The Yogi does not perform his duties

either by his will nor at the promptings of others. The body will

drop off approximately three days after entering this stage. The

Yogi is called Brahmavidvaristha.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

, HZ813@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 5/1/2002 10:47:55 AM Central Daylight

Time,

> omprem writes:

>

>

> > With regard to your comment of Sri Ramakrishna, " he saw a

> > wave of light coming toward him and engulfing him.

> > Nevertheless, he said he still felt that it was Mother."

Perhaps,

> > this does not demonstrate that he "still felt the pull of his

Shakta

> > roots, even upon achieving oneness with Brahman. "

Perhaps it

> > demonstrates that at this point Sri Ramakrishna still had

some

> > way to go to 'see' Ultimate Reality completely unveiled, ' from

all

> > angles' so to speak. Perhaps it suggests that he had not

quite

> > given up completely an identification with his mind and that

he

> > still has a trace of ego left.

> >

> > Thanks for your time and thoughfulness. This has been a

fruitful

> > discussion.

> >

> > OM Namah Sivaya/Jaya Maa

> >

> > Omprem

> >

>

> Hello: All

>

> This word triggered a search in the book "The Gospel of

Ramakrishna"

> translated by Swami Nikhilananda - I will type the section that

has been a

> true gem to me in my understanding of Maa and Maya as

non-duality in nature -

> being the true nature of our nature, essence and being.

>

> Amrita: "Sir, how do you feel in samadhi?"

> Master: "You may have heard that the cockroach, by intently

meditating on the

> brahmara, is transformed into a brahmara. Do you know how I

feel then? I feel

> like a fish released from a pot into the water of the Ganges."

> Amrita: "Don't you feel at that time even a trace of ego?"

> Master: "Yes, generally a little of it remains. However hard you

may rub a

> grain of gold against a grindstone, still a bit of it always

remains. Or

> again, take the case of a big fire; the ego is like one of its

sparks. In

> samadhi I lose outer consciousness completely; but God

generally keeps a

> little trace of ego in me for the enjoyment of divine communion.

Enjoyment is

> possible only when 'I' and 'you' remain.

> "Again sometimes God effaces even that trace of 'I'. Then one

experiences

> jada samadhi or nirvidkalpa samadhi. That experience cannot

be described. A

> salt doll went to measure the depth of the ocean, but before it

had gone far

> into the water it melted away. It became entirely one with the

water of the

> ocean. Then who was to came back and tell the ocean's

depth?" [from the end

> of chapter 8]

>

> with palms together

> Jai Mahakali!!!

> Yeshe

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPremji:

 

And thank you for your kind and understanding assessment of my

remarks.

 

I would like to address your point that, "it makes no sense to me, and

seems to verge on the sacreligious to claim that one deity is superior

to another." You later add, properly, I think, that, " The most that

one can say of a particular path is that it is superior to all others

for that person."

 

Yes. That is all that I am saying. You are correct, however, to

perceive a certain defensiveness among Shaktas, more than members of

other Hindu schools. In a way, this makes sense, since the concept of

Devi seems to trouble Hinduism more than any other deity. Who is She?

What is Her role in the Divine Scheme? Among the very wise, She is

said to be Brahman simply because *any* legitimate symbol of the

Supreme Divine can be said to be Brahman. But what does that mean to

the wo/man on the street?

 

Perhaps the root of the problem is that, in India as elsewhere in the

world, the Goddess tradition stretches back to time immemorial. In

prehistoric times and even well into historic times, She was *the*

Divinity, according to archeological evidence. With the rise of

Semitic religions, She began to disappear -- as these religions,

Judaism, Christianity and Islam, tend to obliterate earlier deities

wherever they take root.

 

Hinduism, by contrast and to its everlasting credit, does not

eliminate pre-existing Deities; but rather, it absorbs them. The

Goddess of the Vedas is something of a shadowy character. There are

hints of potential in the Devi Sukta, in the legend of Aditi and so

on; but the religion of the Vedas is predominantly a religion of male

Gods. The pre-Vedic religion of India (I'm thinking here of the

Neolithic Saraswati or Indus Valley Civilization) appears to have

primarily revered the Goddess, as did other civilizations in that

time. Moreover, the indigenous "village" religion of India was (and

for that matter, largely remains) Goddess-oriented.

 

Devi, the Goddess, was gradually "Sanskritized" and brought into the

mainstream of Hinduism with the Markandeya Purana's renowned "Devi

Mahatmyam" or "Chandi," in a process that has been called the

"crystallization of the Goddess tradition in India." She was not

eliminated, as elsewhere, but the manner in which she was worked into

the pre-existing Vedic scheme is highly interesting. As She has come

down to us in the traditional Puranic literature, there are now three

main conceptions of Devi:

 

1. Chief and Ruler of the Universe. That is, whatever we mean by

Brahman, God, Ishvara, etc., that is Devi. She is the highest. Brahma,

Vishnu and Shiva are but Her manifestations; Her assistants. But (as

illustrated in the Devi Mahatmyam's famous invocation of Devi) each

God form possesses only a fraction of Her power. In order to achieve

truly supreme power that must devolve back upward into the Mother, the

total power of each God being but one small weapon in her countless

hands. To again quote Swami Swahananda, "It is only in the Shakta

tradition that the Divine Mother has been given this place of

superiority."

 

2. Wife, or Power (Shakti) of Shiva. According to this conception,

Shiva and Shakti are equals. Shiva, the male principle, is looked upon

as the absolute aspect of reality, and the Divine Mother, the female

principle, as the relative aspect. Shiva represents the static, or

background principle (say, the movie screen), and Shakti the dynamic

principle (the projection; the movie). Both male and female principles

are necessary for creation. But while they are given equal status in

theory, the Shaivite usually considers Shiva "the real thing," and

thus slightly more worthy of reverence than Shakti, the illusion.

 

3. Subordinate Consort of Supreme Male God. Here, Shakti's

subordination to the Male principle is not at all subtle; it is

clearly assumed and pointedly taught. According to some devotees,

Shakti as the wife of Shiva is automatically his subordinate, as was

the case in traditional Hindu society as it eventually evolved. Shiva,

the husband, is the highest concept of the Divine. This subservience

tends to be even more pronounced in the vastly popular Vaishnava

(Krishna, Rama) sects, where all other deities, male or female, are

unequivocally said to be subordinate to the chosen form of Vishnu.

Mother Lakshmi, Vishnu's usual consort, is usually pictured as a

diminutive figure at His feet, or an even tinier image inside his

heart. She is said to be the kind wife whom the devotee can easily

approach for favor when seeking the grace of the stern, superior

husband.

 

Because the vast majority of Hindus are Vaishnava or Shaiva by belief

and/or inclination, we very often see a tendency, however subtle and

slight, to subordinate Shakti to one degree or another. The Shakta who

defends Her might be laughed off as ridiculously "feminist" (thus

reducing their spiritual beliefs to a worldly, socio-economic grudge),

preaching a "women's lib" form of spirituality. But while the Shakta

religion does revere women and the feminine to a greater degree than

any other, it is vastly more than a "feminist religion." As I tried to

set out in Post #1750, it is a highly evolved, scripturally sound,

unusually world-affirming version of Hinduism.

 

Scriptures like the the Devi Mahatmyam, the Devi Gita, and the vast

Devi Bhagavata Purana (of which the Devi Gita is but a tiny part)

vigorously argue for a "pure" Shaktism, such as that described in

category 1 above.

 

You state, "Elitism of this sort only feeds personal insecurities,"

and this is true. But this sort of "elitism" must be understood an

equal and opposite reaction to all of the everyday elitism manifested

at street level by the other forms of Hinduism. It is not so much that

Shaktas are saying, "We are right; you are wrong." As Woodroffe, an

initiated Tantric Shakta has pointed out, the true Shakta is the least

sectarian of people. It is simply that, in light of the enormous

preponderance of religious authority that would subordinate Shakti,

the Shaktas need to make a stronger effort than other Hindus to

assert, as you note, that, "This particular path is superior for me!"

And that this path is every bit as legitimate as any other in

Hinduism. It may seem a simple thing to a person of your obvious

erudition and experience, but popular belief is rife with ideas such

as "Shaivism and Vaishnavism are for Moksha; Shaktism is just for

Siddhis," etc. (for a list of the many popular misconceptions about

Shaktism, see Post #23).

 

The defensiveness one sometimes encounters among Shaktas is not so

much a quasi-Christian/Muslim insistence that the non-believer either

"convert or be damned"; it is more a plea for respect and

understanding. Any true Shakta would join you in saying, "Spiritual

paths are intended for people of specific personalities just as Saguna

Mantras and the many approaches of Hatha Yoga are intended for people

of specific personalities. It is not the paths, the Mantras or the

Hatha Yoga that is different: it is the people who use them that are

different."

 

In a Group such as this one, where our raison d'etre is Shaktism, it

is important that we occasionally toss out a reminder that our path is

as valid and profound as any other. And so I will end this post with

the same words you used to end your own: "Paths are many, Truth is

One."

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

Another excellent and informative post from you. Thanks for

elucidating the history of Shaktism and the pressures felt by its

adherents.

 

I loved your description of Devi being 'Sanskritized'.

 

But I ask all Shaktas to have the courage and grace of their

convictions. Accept your path. Adore your path. Ignore what

others say. Who cares? What difference does it make if

someone else thinks your path is inferior. Such thoughts only

demonstrate their low level of spiritual attainment while having

no effect on the validity of the Tantric path.

 

To feel compelled to engage in "equal and opposite reaction to

all of the everyday elitism manifested at street level by the other

forms of Hinduism" is to give those other viewpoints more power

than they deserve. It is also a sign of a temporary loss of faith on

the part of the Shakta. See those urges as signs of needing to

renew Sadhana. Negativity and competition only breed more

negativity and competition. The spiritual path becomes

obscured.

 

Shaktas do not need to make a stronger effort to assert the

validity of their path. They, as all the faithful on any path, only

need to make stronger efforts at personal Sadhana in order to

understand and live their path more profoundly. As the

Sadhaka/Sadhika becomes Self-realized, the validity of their path

shines as an unimpeachable beacon.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

, "devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta>

wrote:

> Namaskar OmPremji:

>

> And thank you for your kind and understanding assessment of

my

> remarks.

>

> I would like to address your point that, "it makes no sense to

me, and

> seems to verge on the sacreligious to claim that one deity is

superior

> to another." You later add, properly, I think, that, " The most that

> one can say of a particular path is that it is superior to all

others

> for that person."

>

> Yes. That is all that I am saying. You are correct, however, to

> perceive a certain defensiveness among Shaktas, more than

members of

> other Hindu schools. In a way, this makes sense, since the

concept of

> Devi seems to trouble Hinduism more than any other deity.

Who is She?

> What is Her role in the Divine Scheme? Among the very wise,

She is

> said to be Brahman simply because *any* legitimate symbol of

the

> Supreme Divine can be said to be Brahman. But what does

that mean to

> the wo/man on the street?

>

> Perhaps the root of the problem is that, in India as elsewhere

in the

> world, the Goddess tradition stretches back to time

immemorial. In

> prehistoric times and even well into historic times, She was

*the*

> Divinity, according to archeological evidence. With the rise of

> Semitic religions, She began to disappear -- as these

religions,

> Judaism, Christianity and Islam, tend to obliterate earlier

deities

> wherever they take root.

>

> Hinduism, by contrast and to its everlasting credit, does not

> eliminate pre-existing Deities; but rather, it absorbs them. The

> Goddess of the Vedas is something of a shadowy character.

There are

> hints of potential in the Devi Sukta, in the legend of Aditi and so

> on; but the religion of the Vedas is predominantly a religion of

male

> Gods. The pre-Vedic religion of India (I'm thinking here of the

> Neolithic Saraswati or Indus Valley Civilization) appears to

have

> primarily revered the Goddess, as did other civilizations in that

> time. Moreover, the indigenous "village" religion of India was

(and

> for that matter, largely remains) Goddess-oriented.

>

> Devi, the Goddess, was gradually "Sanskritized" and brought

into the

> mainstream of Hinduism with the Markandeya Purana's

renowned "Devi

> Mahatmyam" or "Chandi," in a process that has been called

the

> "crystallization of the Goddess tradition in India." She was not

> eliminated, as elsewhere, but the manner in which she was

worked into

> the pre-existing Vedic scheme is highly interesting. As She has

come

> down to us in the traditional Puranic literature, there are now

three

> main conceptions of Devi:

>

> 1. Chief and Ruler of the Universe. That is, whatever we mean

by

> Brahman, God, Ishvara, etc., that is Devi. She is the highest.

Brahma,

> Vishnu and Shiva are but Her manifestations; Her assistants.

But (as

> illustrated in the Devi Mahatmyam's famous invocation of Devi)

each

> God form possesses only a fraction of Her power. In order to

achieve

> truly supreme power that must devolve back upward into the

Mother, the

> total power of each God being but one small weapon in her

countless

> hands. To again quote Swami Swahananda, "It is only in the

Shakta

> tradition that the Divine Mother has been given this place of

> superiority."

>

> 2. Wife, or Power (Shakti) of Shiva. According to this

conception,

> Shiva and Shakti are equals. Shiva, the male principle, is

looked upon

> as the absolute aspect of reality, and the Divine Mother, the

female

> principle, as the relative aspect. Shiva represents the static, or

> background principle (say, the movie screen), and Shakti the

dynamic

> principle (the projection; the movie). Both male and female

principles

> are necessary for creation. But while they are given equal

status in

> theory, the Shaivite usually considers Shiva "the real thing,"

and

> thus slightly more worthy of reverence than Shakti, the illusion.

>

> 3. Subordinate Consort of Supreme Male God. Here, Shakti's

> subordination to the Male principle is not at all subtle; it is

> clearly assumed and pointedly taught. According to some

devotees,

> Shakti as the wife of Shiva is automatically his subordinate, as

was

> the case in traditional Hindu society as it eventually evolved.

Shiva,

> the husband, is the highest concept of the Divine. This

subservience

> tends to be even more pronounced in the vastly popular

Vaishnava

> (Krishna, Rama) sects, where all other deities, male or female,

are

> unequivocally said to be subordinate to the chosen form of

Vishnu.

> Mother Lakshmi, Vishnu's usual consort, is usually pictured as

a

> diminutive figure at His feet, or an even tinier image inside his

> heart. She is said to be the kind wife whom the devotee can

easily

> approach for favor when seeking the grace of the stern,

superior

> husband.

>

> Because the vast majority of Hindus are Vaishnava or Shaiva

by belief

> and/or inclination, we very often see a tendency, however

subtle and

> slight, to subordinate Shakti to one degree or another. The

Shakta who

> defends Her might be laughed off as ridiculously "feminist"

(thus

> reducing their spiritual beliefs to a worldly, socio-economic

grudge),

> preaching a "women's lib" form of spirituality. But while the

Shakta

> religion does revere women and the feminine to a greater

degree than

> any other, it is vastly more than a "feminist religion." As I tried to

> set out in Post #1750, it is a highly evolved, scripturally sound,

> unusually world-affirming version of Hinduism.

>

> Scriptures like the the Devi Mahatmyam, the Devi Gita, and the

vast

> Devi Bhagavata Purana (of which the Devi Gita is but a tiny

part)

> vigorously argue for a "pure" Shaktism, such as that described

in

> category 1 above.

>

> You state, "Elitism of this sort only feeds personal

insecurities,"

> and this is true. But this sort of "elitism" must be understood

an

> equal and opposite reaction to all of the everyday elitism

manifested

> at street level by the other forms of Hinduism. It is not so much

that

> Shaktas are saying, "We are right; you are wrong." As

Woodroffe, an

> initiated Tantric Shakta has pointed out, the true Shakta is the

least

> sectarian of people. It is simply that, in light of the enormous

> preponderance of religious authority that would subordinate

Shakti,

> the Shaktas need to make a stronger effort than other Hindus

to

> assert, as you note, that, "This particular path is superior for

me!"

> And that this path is every bit as legitimate as any other in

> Hinduism. It may seem a simple thing to a person of your

obvious

> erudition and experience, but popular belief is rife with ideas

such

> as "Shaivism and Vaishnavism are for Moksha; Shaktism is

just for

> Siddhis," etc. (for a list of the many popular misconceptions

about

> Shaktism, see Post #23).

>

> The defensiveness one sometimes encounters among

Shaktas is not so

> much a quasi-Christian/Muslim insistence that the

non-believer either

> "convert or be damned"; it is more a plea for respect and

> understanding. Any true Shakta would join you in saying,

"Spiritual

> paths are intended for people of specific personalities just as

Saguna

> Mantras and the many approaches of Hatha Yoga are intended

for people

> of specific personalities. It is not the paths, the Mantras or the

> Hatha Yoga that is different: it is the people who use them that

are

> different."

>

> In a Group such as this one, where our raison d'etre is

Shaktism, it

> is important that we occasionally toss out a reminder that our

path is

> as valid and profound as any other. And so I will end this post

with

> the same words you used to end your own: "Paths are many,

Truth is

> One."

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM omprem

 

Thank you. devi Bhakta will not be online for today as he is caught

up with work related assignment. I am sure if he have the chance he

will. But you permit me to reply to this on my own capacity. Im not

very eloquent withe words as Devi Bhakta is. So please excuse me.

 

"But I ask all Shaktas to have the courage and grace of their

convictions. Accept your path. Adore your path. Ignore what

others say. Who cares? What difference does it make if someone else

thinks your path is inferior."

 

This is precisely what we are trying to do: Shakti Sadhana being a

Shakta club and standing by our convictions. Believe me both Devi

Bhakta and me have been receiving nasty letters accusing us of

being "out of track". But those did not stop us from doing what we

think is right. I have been telling this to many who criticise us : I

dont care what other think of me, but i care very much what i think

of others, because its a true reflection of myself. I believe as long

as I stick on to the basis of the commandment which is : do not do

evil to others, do not hurt others, etc. What I belief is something

very personal to me. We dont just adore, we are passionate about it.

 

Om ParaShaktiye Namaha

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPrem:

 

Thank you for your reply. I am a bit pressed for time at the moment

but will try to reply properly before the day's end. For now, I would

simply like to make one clarification:

 

You write: *** What difference does it make if someone else thinks

your path is inferior. Such thoughts ... [have] no effect on the

validity of the Tantric path. ***

 

I would only note that not all Shaktas are Tantrics and that not all

Tantrics are Shaktas. Of course, as Adi noted, veneration of the

Goddess is especially associated with Tantric practices. However, it

is not the only approach.

 

To again take the Devi Gita for an example, that scripture accepts

that Tantra is a valid path to Devi, but insists that Bhakti and Jnana

are much more effective approaches.

 

Even within Tantra, many Shaktas prefer the more ritually

oriented Dakshinachara (Right-Hand) path of Tantra, rather than the

more "heroic" Vamachara (Left-Hand) path, which is so often

misunderstood (and profitably marketed to the unknowing) merely as

the notorious home of Tantric Sex, rituals involving corpses, and

other extreme and easy-to-sensationalize rituals.

 

The truth is, many truly Tantric practices have long since become

inextricably mixed with Vedic influences into mainstream of Hindu

practice. For example: Hatha Yoga, Mantra, Bija, Yantra, japa, Dhyana

-- even Guru and Diksha ultimately emerged from Tantra. In a sense it

could be said that Veda supplies the philosophy in modern Hinduism,

whereas Tantra provides the means of realization.

 

Still, my main point here is that Shaktism need not be considered

Tantric. Again, the "proper" approach to Devi (or any other conception

of God) depends solely on the nature, disposition, and needs of the

individual seeker.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Ompremji,

To really add to your post, it doesnt matter what path one follows

so long as the mind is on the divine. If this becomes a state, which

is also called a Japa state of mind, it does not matter anything.

This business of inferior or superior is for the consumption of the

ego. Anyone pampering ego is yet to develop. Alternatively, a

saadhaka having taken a path will find it so sweet that they try to

paise its values , but if the person is inder the influence of the

ego, then they try and compare with this "complex" business.

Its always nice reading your post.

Regards,

Seshadri.

- omprem

Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:42 PM

Re: Shaktism and Advaita

OM Devi BhaktaAnother excellent and informative post from you. Thanks

for elucidating the history of Shaktism and the pressures felt by its

adherents.I loved your description of Devi being 'Sanskritized'.But I

ask all Shaktas to have the courage and grace of their convictions.

Accept your path. Adore your path. Ignore what others say. Who cares?

What difference does it make if someone else thinks your path is

inferior. Such thoughts only demonstrate their low level of spiritual

attainment while having no effect on the validity of the Tantric path.

To feel compelled to engage in "equal and opposite reaction to all of

the everyday elitism manifested at street level by the other forms of

Hinduism" is to give those other viewpoints more power than they

deserve. It is also a sign of a temporary loss of faith on the part

of the Shakta. See those urges as signs of needing to renew Sadhana.

Negativity and competition only breed more negativity and competition.

The spiritual path becomes obscured. Shaktas do not need to make a

stronger effort to assert the validity of their path. They, as all

the faithful on any path, only need to make stronger efforts at

personal Sadhana in order to understand and live their path more

profoundly. As the Sadhaka/Sadhika becomes Self-realized, the

validity of their path shines as an unimpeachable beacon.OM Namah

SivayaOmprem, "devi_bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:> Namaskar OmPremji:> > And thank you for

your kind and understanding assessment of my > remarks.> > I would

like to address your point that, "it makes no sense to me, and >

seems to verge on the sacreligious to claim that one deity is

superior > to another." You later add, properly, I think, that, " The

most that > one can say of a particular path is that it is superior to

all others > for that person."> > Yes. That is all that I am saying.

You are correct, however, to > perceive a certain defensiveness among

Shaktas, more than members of > other Hindu schools. In a way, this

makes sense, since the concept of > Devi seems to trouble Hinduism

more than any other deity. Who is She? > What is Her role in the

Divine Scheme? Among the very wise, She is > said to be Brahman

simply because *any* legitimate symbol of the > Supreme Divine can be

said to be Brahman. But what does that mean to > the wo/man on the

street?> > Perhaps the root of the problem is that, in India as

elsewhere in the > world, the Goddess tradition stretches back to

time immemorial. In > prehistoric times and even well into historic

times, She was *the* > Divinity, according to archeological evidence.

With the rise of > Semitic religions, She began to disappear -- as

these religions, > Judaism, Christianity and Islam, tend to

obliterate earlier deities > wherever they take root.> > Hinduism, by

contrast and to its everlasting credit, does not > eliminate

pre-existing Deities; but rather, it absorbs them. The > Goddess of

the Vedas is something of a shadowy character. There are > hints of

potential in the Devi Sukta, in the legend of Aditi and so > on; but

the religion of the Vedas is predominantly a religion of male > Gods.

The pre-Vedic religion of India (I'm thinking here of the > Neolithic

Saraswati or Indus Valley Civilization) appears to have > primarily

revered the Goddess, as did other civilizations in that > time.

Moreover, the indigenous "village" religion of India was (and > for

that matter, largely remains) Goddess-oriented.> > Devi, the Goddess,

was gradually "Sanskritized" and brought into the > mainstream of

Hinduism with the Markandeya Purana's renowned "Devi > Mahatmyam" or

"Chandi," in a process that has been called the > "crystallization of

the Goddess tradition in India." She was not > eliminated, as

elsewhere, but the manner in which she was worked into > the

pre-existing Vedic scheme is highly interesting. As She has come >

down to us in the traditional Puranic literature, there are now three

> main conceptions of Devi:> > 1. Chief and Ruler of the Universe.

That is, whatever we mean by > Brahman, God, Ishvara, etc., that is

Devi. She is the highest. Brahma, > Vishnu and Shiva are but Her

manifestations; Her assistants. But (as > illustrated in the Devi

Mahatmyam's famous invocation of Devi) each > God form possesses only

a fraction of Her power. In order to achieve > truly supreme power

that must devolve back upward into the Mother, the > total power of

each God being but one small weapon in her countless > hands. To

again quote Swami Swahananda, "It is only in the Shakta > tradition

that the Divine Mother has been given this place of > superiority.">

> 2. Wife, or Power (Shakti) of Shiva. According to this conception,

> Shiva and Shakti are equals. Shiva, the male principle, is looked

upon > as the absolute aspect of reality, and the Divine Mother, the

female > principle, as the relative aspect. Shiva represents the

static, or > background principle (say, the movie screen), and Shakti

the dynamic > principle (the projection; the movie). Both male and

female principles > are necessary for creation. But while they are

given equal status in > theory, the Shaivite usually considers Shiva

"the real thing," and > thus slightly more worthy of reverence than

Shakti, the illusion.> > 3. Subordinate Consort of Supreme Male God.

Here, Shakti's > subordination to the Male principle is not at all

subtle; it is > clearly assumed and pointedly taught. According to

some devotees, > Shakti as the wife of Shiva is automatically his

subordinate, as was > the case in traditional Hindu society as it

eventually evolved. Shiva, > the husband, is the highest concept of

the Divine. This subservience > tends to be even more pronounced in

the vastly popular Vaishnava > (Krishna, Rama) sects, where all other

deities, male or female, are > unequivocally said to be subordinate to

the chosen form of Vishnu. > Mother Lakshmi, Vishnu's usual consort,

is usually pictured as a > diminutive figure at His feet, or an even

tinier image inside his > heart. She is said to be the kind wife whom

the devotee can easily > approach for favor when seeking the grace of

the stern, superior > husband.> > Because the vast majority of Hindus

are Vaishnava or Shaiva by belief > and/or inclination, we very often

see a tendency, however subtle and > slight, to subordinate Shakti to

one degree or another. The Shakta who > defends Her might be laughed

off as ridiculously "feminist" (thus > reducing their spiritual

beliefs to a worldly, socio-economic grudge), > preaching a "women's

lib" form of spirituality. But while the Shakta > religion does

revere women and the feminine to a greater degree than > any other,

it is vastly more than a "feminist religion." As I tried to > set out

in Post #1750, it is a highly evolved, scripturally sound, > unusually

world-affirming version of Hinduism.> > Scriptures like the the Devi

Mahatmyam, the Devi Gita, and the vast > Devi Bhagavata Purana (of

which the Devi Gita is but a tiny part) > vigorously argue for a

"pure" Shaktism, such as that described in > category 1 above. > >

You state, "Elitism of this sort only feeds personal insecurities," >

and this is true. But this sort of "elitism" must be understood an >

equal and opposite reaction to all of the everyday elitism manifested

> at street level by the other forms of Hinduism. It is not so much

that > Shaktas are saying, "We are right; you are wrong." As

Woodroffe, an > initiated Tantric Shakta has pointed out, the true

Shakta is the least > sectarian of people. It is simply that, in

light of the enormous > preponderance of religious authority that

would subordinate Shakti, > the Shaktas need to make a stronger

effort than other Hindus to > assert, as you note, that, "This

particular path is superior for me!" > And that this path is every

bit as legitimate as any other in > Hinduism. It may seem a simple

thing to a person of your obvious > erudition and experience, but

popular belief is rife with ideas such > as "Shaivism and Vaishnavism

are for Moksha; Shaktism is just for > Siddhis," etc. (for a list of

the many popular misconceptions about > Shaktism, see Post #23).> >

The defensiveness one sometimes encounters among Shaktas is not so >

much a quasi-Christian/Muslim insistence that the non-believer either

> "convert or be damned"; it is more a plea for respect and >

understanding. Any true Shakta would join you in saying, "Spiritual >

paths are intended for people of specific personalities just as Saguna

> Mantras and the many approaches of Hatha Yoga are intended for

people > of specific personalities. It is not the paths, the Mantras

or the > Hatha Yoga that is different: it is the people who use them

that are > different."> > In a Group such as this one, where our

raison d'etre is Shaktism, it > is important that we occasionally

toss out a reminder that our path is > as valid and profound as any

other. And so I will end this post with > the same words you used to

end your own: "Paths are many, Truth is > One."> > Aum Maatangyai

NamaheTo from this group, send an email

to:shakti_sadhnaaYour use of

Groups is subject to the

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Seshadri:

 

Your point is well taken; to argue about one path's "superiority"

over another is not only futile, it wastes much spiritual energy and,

as OmPrem pointed out, can border on sacrilege.

 

However, you are also right to point out that "a saadhaka, having

taken a path, will find it so sweet that they try to praise its

values." This is all right I think, and even a valuable form of

devotion -- prasing and discussing the fine points of one's chosen

path.

 

Think about the phrase, "Chosen Path": Path means a certain way;

Chosen denotes that is is distinguishable from other paths. Not that

it is *superior* to those other paths, or that it is *in conflict* or

*opposed* to them -- simply that it is distinguishable.

 

And what is the use of choosing a path if we are not allowed to

explore these distinctions? You note that, "if the person is under

the influence of the ego, then they try and compare."

 

Well, I am assuming that there are very few "salt dolls" among us --

very few sadhaks who have completely left all traces of their ego

behind and toally merged into the One. There seem to be people who

are very advanced, as well as those who are only beginning the

journey -- and very many who are somewhere in the middle.

 

For the Shakti Sadhak, the Divine Mother is their chosen guide for

this most important of journeys. So let us celebrate Her a little! We

need not denigrate other Gods or other Religions; but why not enjoy

the act of extolling one's Ishtadevata? Devi is as legitimate as any

other, and -- for the travelers who has chosen (or been chosen by)

Her -- She is the most wonderful thing of all. In fact, She *is* all.

 

Without ever forgetting the Brahamn is beyond all forms and

attributes, we can still enjoy and immerse ourselves in the exquisite

teachings of Shaktism and discuss our various experiences of Shakti

Sadhana!

 

Would you agree with me?

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Namaskara Devi Bhaktha...

My comments -

<<

as OmPrem pointed out, can border on sacrilege.>>

Sometimes the argument can be completely innocent and out of love for

their path and lord. Its ignorance that makes them think that others

are not up mto their mark and a guenine concern for the others

prompts the persons to advocate their path rather aggrssively. Its

not sacriledge unless the comparision and attempts to seed the

inferiority complex is delibrate.

 

I guess best idea is to observe, take what is best and what helps us and leave the rest.

<<

And what is the use of choosing a path if we are not allowed to

explore these distinctions? You note that, "if the person is under

the influence of the ego, then they try and compare.">>

Under the influence of ego, the mind tends to compare from a

superiority and "I" and/or "mine" point of view. If not under the

influence of ego, ignorance or more aptly lack of information makes

them look at the difference. My opinion is that one should be careful

here. Otherwise, no matter what the path is, one always see the lord.

This is comparable to Sri Ramakrishna, he always saw the same god no

matter what religion he practiced or what being he look upon at. When

lord(devi) is the goal, details hardly matters, unless its a necessity

in some cases. Blissfull state of japa in the mother/father/lord is

all one needs and that itself is ananda very satisfying. But looking

at details can be a little mischevious and child like way on the

path. In this way yes sometimes comparision helps.

 

<<

Well, I am assuming that there are very few "salt dolls" among us --

very few sadhaks who have completely left all traces of their ego

behind and toally merged into the One. There seem to be people who

are very advanced, as well as those who are only beginning the

journey -- and very many who are somewhere in the middle.>>

:-).

<<

For the Shakti Sadhak, the Divine Mother is their chosen guide for

this most important of journeys. So let us celebrate Her a little! We

need not denigrate other Gods or other Religions; but why not enjoy

the act of extolling one's Ishtadevata? Devi is as legitimate as any

other, and -- for the travelers who has chosen (or been chosen by)

Her -- She is the most wonderful thing of all. In fact, She *is*

all.>>

True. She is the Brahman herself. Brahman itself is a name.

Shankaracharya says that names of the lord are "created ones" and so

one day must go.

Devi herself is the sat chit ananda swaroopini.

<<

Without ever forgetting the Brahamn is beyond all forms and

attributes, we can still enjoy and immerse ourselves in the exquisite

teachings of Shaktism and discuss our various experiences of Shakti

Sadhana!>>

The way I see it is, if brahman is one without a second, then what is

maya? It must also be brahman? Right? Then what is this difference

between maya and brahman. IF vidya is brahman then adaidya is also

brahman, the same mother. Having known this much, we see that

everything is our beloved mother who tends to guide us twords herself

in the path best suited to us. She is all around and everywhere, the

things we use, the thoughts we think, the dreams we dream, friends we

relish, family we adore. What adds value is a constant reminder of the

lord everysecond by additional stimulus like satsangha. I have even

d to some christian lists because they keep sending prayers

praising the lord and they are so sweet....

I would love to be part of satsanghas if it can always remind of the

mother and contribute in keeping the mind in the japa state always.

That way this group has been immensely useful. Thanks Devi Bhaktha for the opportunity.

I agree with you.

 

Apologies for mistakes if any.

 

Regards,

Seshadri.

[Guest guest]

Shriman ompremji, namaskar!

 

i apologize for not replying to this post earlier. pl forgive me for

the delay. my daughter had monoplolized the use of the computer FOR

THE PAST FEW DAYS!!

 

ompremji, you state...

 

Your female shakti is necessary along with the male shakti in

order for all to attain a complete view of and identification with

Maa and then Brahman.

 

yes, in shaktism, there are many nuances to the word "shakti "-

 

Shakti represents...

 

1) cosmic creative energy

 

2) MOTHER who gives birth to everything

 

3) MAYA in the form of a seductive woman, the enchantress

 

4) terrible power like KALI who destroys all limitations like ego,

greed, lust, desires, anger. arrogance, pride, fear etc...

 

5) A dayini or a bestower of gifts LIKE COMPASSION, KINDNESS, MERCY,

AND ABOVE ALL LIBERATION. ALSO A BESTOWER OF MATERIAL AND SPIRITUAL

WEALTH.

 

6) an endearing feminine force representing the sublime qualities

of "motherhood " (as our collin and bodhi avasa like to emphasize)

that resides in both men and women

 

7) finally, the Kundalini energy (shakti)

 

Shakti is beyond description - in order to 'know' HER you hacve to

be 'shakti' - one cannot become 'shakti' one is shakti! this includes

both men and women...

 

Shakti has innumerable ways of manifesting herself.... so, you are

absolutely right when you say that 'shakti' lives in all fine arts-

in dance, music. painting etc.... in fact, she is the knower of 64

kalas or art forms!!

 

in a way, shakti is not a mere symbol in the spiritual path ; she is

the path itself... she is not confined to any form, formula, yantra,

tantra, mantra or ritual; she is all this and much more...

 

"Subtle as the earth, imperceptible as the water, bright as the fire,

free as the air, infinite as the space she traverses all elements

belonging to this world, without ascertaining the identity of any. "

 

in fact enlightenment is synonymous with shakti.

 

that is why sree lalita sahasaranama describes our divine mother sree

laiita as

 

***om cid-eka-rasa-rupinyai- namaha***

 

salutations to her who is of the nature of pure consciousness.

 

ompremji, at this juncture, i wouls recommend to you to kindly read

Devi mahatmiyam ( yoou might have already read it for all i know) -

this describes beautifully how our mother goddess was created .

 

"The legend says that a monstruous demon, Mahisa, was threatening the

foundation of the universe itself, and the existence of all gods.

Brahma and the whole pantheon called Shiva and Vishnu for help.

enraged, the gods emitted their energies as a fire coming out from

their mouth.

 

These different divine flames unified into a one as a burning cloud,

and finally took the shape of a goddess with eighteen arms. this

goddess, Shakti was the one who succeeded in defying the demon and at

the same time saving the universe. "

 

that is why shakti is called primodial force or adi shakti as the

gods invested her with all their energies.

 

STantra says: "everything perceivable through the eyes is definable

in terms of frames of mind, but not Her who is the Mother", and "she

is ineffable and beyond perception/conception; having a form, she is

nonetheless formless."

 

YEs, Shakti is Maya, (illusion) who appears as the phenomenal world

and hides the Absolute Consciousness from the ignorant. but she is

also Parashakti, the supreme energy ... .

 

She is Mahamaya, the Great Goddess, the power who creates and

destroys, often represented as the mysterious uterus from which

everything emerged and in which everything dissolves.

 

"when there exists nothing, Sun, Moon, planets, nothing else but the

void, then only my Divine Formless Mother exists."

 

She is 'prakriti' - -nature- she is also an attitude of mind . as

devi bhakta says again and again a man's attitude towards a woman

reflects directly his own attitude towards LIFE. Those who worship

the divine mother generally are more reverential towrads their

mothers, daughters, wives, girl friends etc... at least, they are

supposed to be !!! (OF COURSE THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS AS ALWAYS.)

 

when a man sees a woman as a 'shakti' she also responds by acting

liking a 'goddess' in more ways than one... she respons with

compassion, kindness, and with love and faith and devotion.

**********************************************************************

ompremji, you also write...

 

Similarly you said "in shaktism the 'body' is used as a vehicle for

enlightenment, just like in hatha yoga." Of course, I can

appreciate how Hatha Yoga uses the Annamaya Kosha as a tool

in search for Sisual arts, indeed, all the works of Saraswati, can

lead to Self-realization. But does Shaktism use the physical body

differently from these types of activities? If so, could you detail

that process?

 

here , ompremji, i take refuge in a famous quote from todala

tantra...

 

"Listen, O Devi, I will speak concisely of the essence of yoga. The

body resembles a tree, with the root above and the branches below. In

the macrocosm there are tirthas (bathing places) which also exist in

the body. The macrocosm is like the microcosm. - "

 

my gurudeva used to say the human body resembles the kalpavriksha

tree. the celestial tree that grants any boon.

 

In the Human body, it is the Kundalini Shakti in the spinal cord. The

roots of the Celestial tree are in the Mooladhara Chakra in the base

of the spine and its branches and leaves with fruits in the Sahasrara

Chakra in the brain.

 

in fact, The Kalpavriksha mantra is

 

OM HREEM SHREEM KREEM DURGATI-NASHINYAI MAHAMAYAYAI SVAHA "

 

this is a very powerful mantra and if chanted with devotion is

equivalent to performing yoga asanas and pranayama. ( i am told)

 

also, the The 51 letters of the sanskrit alphabet are the sacred

pithas within the body, each associated with one of the parts of the

Devi which fell to earth when sliced by the discus of Vishnu.

 

Frankly speaking, in tantra the body is regarded as a sacred temple

just like in hatha yoga....

 

tan means body - tra means to expand -

 

in reality, you use the 'body' to expand your consciousness - this is

a very vast subject and will be disccuseed in a future post...

 

so, in a way you are a 'tanric' too!!! anyone wh has 'expanded'

consciousness is a tantrik... a tantrik dioes not mean onw who does

tantrik rituals - such a tantrik is not a tantrik if he has no

expanded vision - he is just a 'ritualistic' expert....

 

MEN.WOMEN OF EXPANDED VISION ARE ALL TANTRIKS....

 

to conclude, let me slute sree lalita devi on this beautiful friday,

a day dedicate to her worship,

 

OM BHAVAD BHAVA VIVARIJITAYAII NAMAHA

SALUTATIONS TO HER WHO IS BEYOND BEING AND NON-BEING!!!

 

 

OM SAT-CHIT-ANANDA-RUPINYAII NAMAHA

SALUTATIONS TO HER WHOSE FORM IS EXISTENCE -KNOLEDGE-BLISS ABSOLUTE!!!

 

 

OM!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

OM Sheshadri

 

Could I comment on your statement, "The way I see it is, if

brahman is one without a second, then what is maya? It must

also be brahman? Right? Then what is this difference between

maya and brahman. IF vidya is brahman then adaidya is also

brahman, the same mother."?

 

The difference between Maya and Brahman lies how the two are

known to us. Maya is known directly through the senses being

directed outwardly. The mind is engaged with the effects of the

senses and mistakenly believes that there is a world of separate

of entities each of which has a finite existence and who are in

competition with one another. Brahman is known when the

senses are drawn inside and the mind is stilled. That stillness

of mind allows our consciousness to assume its true nature,

that of Brahman. As such, we cease to have a separate, finite

identity. We do not even have an identity because 'identity'

implies a knower and a known. We simply are. We are beyond

space and time, we are all space and time.

 

We can see Maya but we cannot 'see' Brahman. We can only be

Brahman. That is all we need.

 

Related to this is the question of whether Brahman has a sense

of the Brahmanic cycles and lilas. If those actions are Maya and

part of Brahman, then Brahman must be self-aware. But if

Brahman is self-aware, then there must be something else

against which to judge those qualities. This, of course, cannot

be. So, it would seem Brahman is not self-aware. But, what then

of Satchitananda - Absolute Existence, Perfect Knowledge, and

Bliss - all of which exist without reference to particular

phenomena. Brahman is Pure Being, Pure Consciousness and

Pure Bliss without reference to specifics, even though all of

those specifics are actions of Brahman. Pure Consciousness is

a state of being. Pure Bliss is a state of being. Brahman can Be

but to have self-awareness Brahman must act. Self-awareness,

then, is not awareness of Self but rather awareness of the

actions of the Self.

 

Just as your Self and even your lower self are different from your

thoughts, emotions, and koshas, so too Brahman is different

from the actions of Brahman or Maya. Yes, giving proper

attention to Maya can lead one back to an understanding of and

an identification of Brahman. The danger of attempting to focus

on Maya and celebrating Maya as an aspect of Brahman is that

one can be tricked all too easily (as each of us non salt dolls is

repeatedly) into emphasizing the effects of Maya on the senses

which keeps the mind too busy to 'see' Brahman rather than

emphasizing the effects of Maya as actions of Brahman which

quiets the mind and leads us back to Brahman. It is difficult to

keep one's spiritual perspective when experiencing Maya. That is

why many other paths try to circumvent the distractions of Maya

by turning inward. Of course, they then have to face the

distractions of Maya manifesting as internal phenomena.

 

No matter what the path, the obstacles are same, the

methodology for overcoming the obstacles is the same, and the

goal is the same.

 

Jaya Guru

 

Omprem

 

 

, "Seshadri" <dksesh@h...> wrote:

> Namaskara Devi Bhaktha...

> My comments -

> <<

> as OmPrem pointed out, can border on sacrilege.

> >>

> Sometimes the argument can be completely innocent and out

of love for their path and lord. Its ignorance that makes them

think that others are not up mto their mark and a guenine

concern for the others prompts the persons to advocate their

path rather aggrssively. Its not sacriledge unless the

comparision and attempts to seed the inferiority complex is

delibrate.

>

> I guess best idea is to observe, take what is best and what

helps us and leave the rest.

> <<

> And what is the use of choosing a path if we are not allowed to

> explore these distinctions? You note that, "if the person is

under

> the influence of the ego, then they try and compare."

> >>

> Under the influence of ego, the mind tends to compare from a

superiority and "I" and/or "mine" point of view. If not under the

influence of ego, ignorance or more aptly lack of information

makes them look at the difference. My opinion is that one should

be careful here. Otherwise, no matter what the path is, one

always see the lord. This is comparable to Sri Ramakrishna, he

always saw the same god no matter what religion he practiced

or what being he look upon at. When lord(devi) is the goal,

details hardly matters, unless its a necessity in some cases.

Blissfull state of japa in the mother/father/lord is all one needs

and that itself is ananda very satisfying. But looking at details can

be a little mischevious and child like way on the path. In this way

yes sometimes comparision helps.

>

> <<

> Well, I am assuming that there are very few "salt dolls" among

us --

> very few sadhaks who have completely left all traces of their

ego

> behind and toally merged into the One. There seem to be

people who

> are very advanced, as well as those who are only beginning

the

> journey -- and very many who are somewhere in the middle.

> >>

> :-).

> <<

> For the Shakti Sadhak, the Divine Mother is their chosen guide

for

> this most important of journeys. So let us celebrate Her a little!

We

> need not denigrate other Gods or other Religions; but why not

enjoy

> the act of extolling one's Ishtadevata? Devi is as legitimate as

any

> other, and -- for the travelers who has chosen (or been chosen

by)

> Her -- She is the most wonderful thing of all. In fact, She *is*

all.

> >>

> True. She is the Brahman herself. Brahman itself is a name.

Shankaracharya says that names of the lord are "created ones"

and so one day must go.

> Devi herself is the sat chit ananda swaroopini.

> <<

>

> Without ever forgetting the Brahamn is beyond all forms and

> attributes, we can still enjoy and immerse ourselves in the

exquisite

> teachings of Shaktism and discuss our various experiences of

Shakti

> Sadhana!

> >>

> The way I see it is, if brahman is one without a second, then

what is maya? It must also be brahman? Right? Then what is

this difference between maya and brahman. IF vidya is brahman

then adaidya is also brahman, the same mother. Having known

this much, we see that everything is our beloved mother who

tends to guide us twords herself in the path best suited to us.

She is all around and everywhere, the things we use, the

thoughts we think, the dreams we dream, friends we relish,

family we adore. What adds value is a constant reminder of the

lord everysecond by additional stimulus like satsangha. I have

even d to some christian lists because they keep

sending prayers praising the lord and they are so sweet....

> I would love to be part of satsanghas if it can always remind of

the mother and contribute in keeping the mind in the japa state

always.

> That way this group has been immensely useful. Thanks Devi

Bhaktha for the opportunity.

> I agree with you.

>

> Apologies for mistakes if any.

>

> Regards,

> Seshadri.

[Guest guest]

OM Adi Shakthi

 

Thanks for your informative post.

 

You could be right. Perhaps I am a Tantric Shakta. But then

again, perhaps you are a Raja Yogini or a Hatha Yogini.

 

If we could not see ourselves in the other paths, either our

perceptions are clouded or, less likely, the paths themselves

are clouded.

 

Om Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

, "adi_shakthi16"

<adi_shakthi16> wrote:

> Shriman ompremji, namaskar!

>

> i apologize for not replying to this post earlier. pl forgive me for

> the delay. my daughter had monoplolized the use of the

computer FOR

> THE PAST FEW DAYS!!

>

> ompremji, you state...

>

> Your female shakti is necessary along with the male shakti in

> order for all to attain a complete view of and identification with

> Maa and then Brahman.

>

> yes, in shaktism, there are many nuances to the word "shakti

"-

>

> Shakti represents...

>

> 1) cosmic creative energy

>

> 2) MOTHER who gives birth to everything

>

> 3) MAYA in the form of a seductive woman, the enchantress

>

> 4) terrible power like KALI who destroys all limitations like ego,

> greed, lust, desires, anger. arrogance, pride, fear etc...

>

> 5) A dayini or a bestower of gifts LIKE COMPASSION,

KINDNESS, MERCY,

> AND ABOVE ALL LIBERATION. ALSO A BESTOWER OF

MATERIAL AND SPIRITUAL

> WEALTH.

>

> 6) an endearing feminine force representing the sublime

qualities

> of "motherhood " (as our collin and bodhi avasa like to

emphasize)

> that resides in both men and women

>

> 7) finally, the Kundalini energy (shakti)

>

> Shakti is beyond description - in order to 'know' HER you hacve

to

> be 'shakti' - one cannot become 'shakti' one is shakti! this

includes

> both men and women...

>

> Shakti has innumerable ways of manifesting herself.... so, you

are

> absolutely right when you say that 'shakti' lives in all fine arts-

> in dance, music. painting etc.... in fact, she is the knower of 64

> kalas or art forms!!

>

> in a way, shakti is not a mere symbol in the spiritual path ; she

is

> the path itself... she is not confined to any form, formula, yantra,

> tantra, mantra or ritual; she is all this and much more...

>

> "Subtle as the earth, imperceptible as the water, bright as the

fire,

> free as the air, infinite as the space she traverses all elements

> belonging to this world, without ascertaining the identity of any.

"

>

> in fact enlightenment is synonymous with shakti.

>

> that is why sree lalita sahasaranama describes our divine

mother sree

> laiita as

>

> ***om cid-eka-rasa-rupinyai- namaha***

>

> salutations to her who is of the nature of pure consciousness.

>

> ompremji, at this juncture, i wouls recommend to you to kindly

read

> Devi mahatmiyam ( yoou might have already read it for all i

know) -

> this describes beautifully how our mother goddess was

created .

>

> "The legend says that a monstruous demon, Mahisa, was

threatening the

> foundation of the universe itself, and the existence of all gods.

> Brahma and the whole pantheon called Shiva and Vishnu for

help.

> enraged, the gods emitted their energies as a fire coming out

from

> their mouth.

>

> These different divine flames unified into a one as a burning

cloud,

> and finally took the shape of a goddess with eighteen arms.

this

> goddess, Shakti was the one who succeeded in defying the

demon and at

> the same time saving the universe. "

>

> that is why shakti is called primodial force or adi shakti as the

> gods invested her with all their energies.

>

> STantra says: "everything perceivable through the eyes is

definable

> in terms of frames of mind, but not Her who is the Mother", and

"she

> is ineffable and beyond perception/conception; having a form,

she is

> nonetheless formless."

>

> YEs, Shakti is Maya, (illusion) who appears as the

phenomenal world

> and hides the Absolute Consciousness from the ignorant. but

she is

> also Parashakti, the supreme energy ... .

>

> She is Mahamaya, the Great Goddess, the power who creates

and

> destroys, often represented as the mysterious uterus from

which

> everything emerged and in which everything dissolves.

>

> "when there exists nothing, Sun, Moon, planets, nothing else

but the

> void, then only my Divine Formless Mother exists."

>

> She is 'prakriti' - -nature- she is also an attitude of mind . as

> devi bhakta says again and again a man's attitude towards a

woman

> reflects directly his own attitude towards LIFE. Those who

worship

> the divine mother generally are more reverential towrads their

> mothers, daughters, wives, girl friends etc... at least, they are

> supposed to be !!! (OF COURSE THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS

AS ALWAYS.)

>

> when a man sees a woman as a 'shakti' she also responds by

acting

> liking a 'goddess' in more ways than one... she respons with

> compassion, kindness, and with love and faith and devotion.

>

**********************************************************************

> ompremji, you also write...

>

> Similarly you said "in shaktism the 'body' is used as a vehicle

for

> enlightenment, just like in hatha yoga." Of course, I can

> appreciate how Hatha Yoga uses the Annamaya Kosha as a

tool

> in search for Sisual arts, indeed, all the works of Saraswati,

can

> lead to Self-realization. But does Shaktism use the physical

body

> differently from these types of activities? If so, could you detail

> that process?

>

> here , ompremji, i take refuge in a famous quote from todala

> tantra...

>

> "Listen, O Devi, I will speak concisely of the essence of yoga.

The

> body resembles a tree, with the root above and the branches

below. In

> the macrocosm there are tirthas (bathing places) which also

exist in

> the body. The macrocosm is like the microcosm. - "

>

> my gurudeva used to say the human body resembles the

kalpavriksha

> tree. the celestial tree that grants any boon.

>

> In the Human body, it is the Kundalini Shakti in the spinal cord.

The

> roots of the Celestial tree are in the Mooladhara Chakra in the

base

> of the spine and its branches and leaves with fruits in the

Sahasrara

> Chakra in the brain.

>

> in fact, The Kalpavriksha mantra is

>

> OM HREEM SHREEM KREEM DURGATI-NASHINYAI

MAHAMAYAYAI SVAHA "

>

> this is a very powerful mantra and if chanted with devotion is

> equivalent to performing yoga asanas and pranayama. ( i am

told)

>

> also, the The 51 letters of the sanskrit alphabet are the

sacred

> pithas within the body, each associated with one of the parts of

the

> Devi which fell to earth when sliced by the discus of Vishnu.

>

> Frankly speaking, in tantra the body is regarded as a sacred

temple

> just like in hatha yoga....

>

> tan means body - tra means to expand -

>

> in reality, you use the 'body' to expand your consciousness -

this is

> a very vast subject and will be disccuseed in a future post...

>

> so, in a way you are a 'tanric' too!!! anyone wh has 'expanded'

> consciousness is a tantrik... a tantrik dioes not mean onw who

does

> tantrik rituals - such a tantrik is not a tantrik if he has no

> expanded vision - he is just a 'ritualistic' expert....

>

> MEN.WOMEN OF EXPANDED VISION ARE ALL TANTRIKS....

>

> to conclude, let me slute sree lalita devi on this beautiful friday,

> a day dedicate to her worship,

>

> OM BHAVAD BHAVA VIVARIJITAYAII NAMAHA

> SALUTATIONS TO HER WHO IS BEYOND BEING AND

NON-BEING!!!

>

>

> OM SAT-CHIT-ANANDA-RUPINYAII NAMAHA

> SALUTATIONS TO HER WHOSE FORM IS EXISTENCE

-KNOLEDGE-BLISS ABSOLUTE!!!

>

>

> OM!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

Namaskara Ompremji,

I agree with you completely. I forgot to add one piece of

information in my previous post. We can treat Maya as a piece of

Brahman only after having our minds fixed on Brahman. If everything

reminds us of the lord, then, by the same application, even Maya

reminds us of the lords.

Most of the "obstacles" are the result of karmas and experiments.

Ideally, Maya takes us through an experience to show that what is

brahman and how to reach it. This is the same for a thief and a monk,

only that the plane they operate is on different levels because of

karma.

Initially, I used to think others. That Maya is something to be

oversome and conquered to reach Brahman. There is even a statement

from Ramakrishna on Vivekananda saying that Maya will not come within

4 feel of Vivekananda. She stays away.

But then, the more I contemplate, the more it becomes obvious that

Maya and Brahman have no intrinsic difference. If the lord is

omnipresent, then the lord is maya too. If nothing moves without the

permission of the lord, then the activity of the maya must have the

permission too, which means that to really understand Maya, one has

to fix onself in Brahman and Maya does help the person by guiding

actively. Which is why Lalitha is also called Maya and Yoga Maaya. A

more better comparison is the gunas, the lord is the three gunas, yet

she is always satwik. In the same way, the lord, although is

everything, is always above the illusion. This illusion helps

somehow.

To me this sounds like a leela, a non-illusion part of the brahman

and the illusion part of the brahman. The question is why is all this

necessary. I read somewhere that there is no conclusive answer and

some suggested that leela is a habit of the lord which looks like a

limitation being imposed on the lord. I guess on the consciousness is

also merged in the brahman, things will be clear or much even before

that. But somehow, I think so long we are good and score above

average marks in Karma Yoga and Bhakthi Yoga, we qualify for

education in Gnana and other sathwik yogic forms of progress. :-)

I have learnt to grow a healthy respect for Maya itself. To me,

its positively guiding the essence of brahman and itself twords its

blissful conscious self state. :-)

Regards,

Sesahdri.

- omprem

Friday, May 03, 2002 3:18 PM

Re: Shaktism and Advaita

OM SheshadriCould I comment on your statement, "The way I see it is,

if brahman is one without a second, then what is maya? It must also

be brahman? Right? Then what is this difference between maya and

brahman. IF vidya is brahman then adaidya is also brahman, the same

mother."?The difference between Maya and Brahman lies how the two are

known to us. Maya is known directly through the senses being directed

outwardly. The mind is engaged with the effects of the senses and

mistakenly believes that there is a world of separate of entities

each of which has a finite existence and who are in competition with

one another. Brahman is known when the senses are drawn inside and the

mind is stilled. That stillness of mind allows our consciousness to

assume its true nature, that of Brahman. As such, we cease to have a

separate, finite identity. We do not even have an identity because

'identity' implies a knower and a known. We simply are. We are beyond

space and time, we are all space and time. We can see Maya but we

cannot 'see' Brahman. We can only be Brahman. That is all we

need.Related to this is the question of whether Brahman has a sense

of the Brahmanic cycles and lilas. If those actions are Maya and part

of Brahman, then Brahman must be self-aware. But if Brahman is

self-aware, then there must be something else against which to judge

those qualities. This, of course, cannot be. So, it would seem

Brahman is not self-aware. But, what then of Satchitananda - Absolute

Existence, Perfect Knowledge, and Bliss - all of which exist without

reference to particular phenomena. Brahman is Pure Being, Pure

Consciousness and Pure Bliss without reference to specifics, even

though all of those specifics are actions of Brahman. Pure

Consciousness is a state of being. Pure Bliss is a state of being.

Brahman can Be but to have self-awareness Brahman must act.

Self-awareness, then, is not awareness of Self but rather awareness

of the actions of the Self.Just as your Self and even your lower self

are different from your thoughts, emotions, and koshas, so too

Brahman is different from the actions of Brahman or Maya. Yes, giving

proper attention to Maya can lead one back to an understanding of and

an identification of Brahman. The danger of attempting to focus on

Maya and celebrating Maya as an aspect of Brahman is that one can be

tricked all too easily (as each of us non salt dolls is repeatedly)

into emphasizing the effects of Maya on the senses which keeps the

mind too busy to 'see' Brahman rather than emphasizing the effects of

Maya as actions of Brahman which quiets the mind and leads us back to

Brahman. It is difficult to keep one's spiritual perspective when

experiencing Maya. That is why many other paths try to circumvent the

distractions of Maya by turning inward. Of course, they then have to

face the distractions of Maya manifesting as internal phenomena.No

matter what the path, the obstacles are same, the methodology for

overcoming the obstacles is the same, and the goal is the same.Jaya

GuruOmprem, "Seshadri" <dksesh@h...>

wrote:> Namaskara Devi Bhaktha...> My comments -> <<> as OmPrem

pointed out, can border on sacrilege.> >>> Sometimes the argument can

be completely innocent and out of love for their path and lord. Its

ignorance that makes them think that others are not up mto their mark

and a guenine concern for the others prompts the persons to advocate

their path rather aggrssively. Its not sacriledge unless the

comparision and attempts to seed the inferiority complex is

delibrate.> > I guess best idea is to observe, take what is best and

what helps us and leave the rest. > <<> And what is the use of

choosing a path if we are not allowed to > explore these

distinctions? You note that, "if the person is under > the influence

of the ego, then they try and compare."> >>> Under the influence of

ego, the mind tends to compare from a superiority and "I" and/or

"mine" point of view. If not under the influence of ego, ignorance or

more aptly lack of information makes them look at the difference. My

opinion is that one should be careful here. Otherwise, no matter what

the path is, one always see the lord. This is comparable to Sri

Ramakrishna, he always saw the same god no matter what religion he

practiced or what being he look upon at. When lord(devi) is the goal,

details hardly matters, unless its a necessity in some cases.

Blissfull state of japa in the mother/father/lord is all one needs

and that itself is ananda very satisfying. But looking at details can

be a little mischevious and child like way on the path. In this way

yes sometimes comparision helps.> > <<> Well, I am assuming that

there are very few "salt dolls" among us -- > very few sadhaks who

have completely left all traces of their ego > behind and toally

merged into the One. There seem to be people who > are very advanced,

as well as those who are only beginning the > journey -- and very many

who are somewhere in the middle.> >>> :-).> <<> For the Shakti Sadhak,

the Divine Mother is their chosen guide for > this most important of

journeys. So let us celebrate Her a little! We > need not denigrate

other Gods or other Religions; but why not enjoy > the act of

extolling one's Ishtadevata? Devi is as legitimate as any > other,

and -- for the travelers who has chosen (or been chosen by) > Her --

She is the most wonderful thing of all. In fact, She *is* all.> >>>

True. She is the Brahman herself. Brahman itself is a name.

Shankaracharya says that names of the lord are "created ones" and so

one day must go. > Devi herself is the sat chit ananda swaroopini. >

<<> > Without ever forgetting the Brahamn is beyond all forms and >

attributes, we can still enjoy and immerse ourselves in the exquisite

> teachings of Shaktism and discuss our various experiences of Shakti

> Sadhana!> >>> The way I see it is, if brahman is one without a

second, then what is maya? It must also be brahman? Right? Then what

is this difference between maya and brahman. IF vidya is brahman then

adaidya is also brahman, the same mother. Having known this much, we

see that everything is our beloved mother who tends to guide us

twords herself in the path best suited to us. She is all around and

everywhere, the things we use, the thoughts we think, the dreams we

dream, friends we relish, family we adore. What adds value is a

constant reminder of the lord everysecond by additional stimulus like

satsangha. I have even d to some christian lists because they

keep sending prayers praising the lord and they are so sweet....> I

would love to be part of satsanghas if it can always remind of the

mother and contribute in keeping the mind in the japa state always.>

That way this group has been immensely useful. Thanks Devi Bhaktha

for the opportunity.> I agree with you.> > Apologies for mistakes if

any.> > Regards,> Seshadri.To from this group, send an

email to:shakti_sadhnaaYour use of

Groups is subject to the

[Guest guest]

OM Seshadri

 

"We can treat Maya as a piece of Brahman only after having our

minds fixed on Brahman."

 

A key piece of information to omit. Having one's mind fixed on

Brahman changes the way one perceives their surroundings.

When the surroundings are no longer perceived (literally, not just

intellectually) as unconnected but are seen as waves in the

ocean, one can truly say that Maya and Brahman are the same.

 

Eventually, one must transcend even the Sattvic Guna in order to

assume their true identity as Brahman.

 

" I have learnt to grow a healthy respect for Maya itself. To me, its

positively guiding the essence of brahman and itself towards its

blissful conscious self state. :-)"

 

You have my congratulations and highest regard. It is a rare

person who realizes that the works of Maya are all designed to

guide the Sadhaka toward Satchidananda. Whenever

contemplating anything in time and space it is best to ask how it

guides us to Brahman. In this way, we discover the various

Koshas, Prana, the Gunas, and the Atman. We discover

connection and interdependence rather than disconnection,

estrangement and war. We discover the currents of Prana

instead of the obstacles to the flow of Prana. We see that each

'thing' is a microcosm of the universe and that the universe is a

microsm of Brahman.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

 

, "Seshadri" <dksesh@h...> wrote:

> Namaskara Ompremji,

> I agree with you completely. I forgot to add one piece of

information in my previous post. We can treat Maya as a piece of

Brahman only after having our minds fixed on Brahman. If

everything reminds us of the lord, then, by the same application,

even Maya reminds us of the lords.

> Most of the "obstacles" are the result of karmas and

experiments. Ideally, Maya takes us through an experience to

show that what is brahman and how to reach it. This is the same

for a thief and a monk, only that the plane they operate is on

different levels because of karma.

> Initially, I used to think others. That Maya is something to be

oversome and conquered to reach Brahman. There is even a

statement from Ramakrishna on Vivekananda saying that Maya

will not come within 4 feel of Vivekananda. She stays away.

> But then, the more I contemplate, the more it becomes obvious

that Maya and Brahman have no intrinsic difference. If the lord is

omnipresent, then the lord is maya too. If nothing moves without

the permission of the lord, then the activity of the maya must

have the permission too, which means that to really understand

Maya, one has to fix onself in Brahman and Maya does help the

person by guiding actively. Which is why Lalitha is also called

Maya and Yoga Maaya. A more better comparison is the gunas,

the lord is the three gunas, yet she is always satwik. In the same

way, the lord, although is everything, is always above the illusion.

This illusion helps somehow.

> To me this sounds like a leela, a non-illusion part of the

brahman and the illusion part of the brahman. The question is

why is all this necessary. I read somewhere that there is no

conclusive answer and some suggested that leela is a habit of

the lord which looks like a limitation being imposed on the lord. I

guess on the consciousness is also merged in the brahman,

things will be clear or much even before that. But somehow, I

think so long we are good and score above average marks in

Karma Yoga and Bhakthi Yoga, we qualify for education in

Gnana and other sathwik yogic forms of progress. :-)

> I have learnt to grow a healthy respect for Maya itself. To me,

its positively guiding the essence of brahman and itself twords

its blissful conscious self state. :-)

>

> Regards,

> Sesahdri.

-

> omprem

>

> Friday, May 03, 2002 3:18 PM

> Re: Shaktism and Advaita

>

>

> OM Sheshadri

>

> Could I comment on your statement, "The way I see it is, if

> brahman is one without a second, then what is maya? It must

> also be brahman? Right? Then what is this difference between

> maya and brahman. IF vidya is brahman then adaidya is also

> brahman, the same mother."?

>

> The difference between Maya and Brahman lies how the two

are

> known to us. Maya is known directly through the senses being

> directed outwardly. The mind is engaged with the effects of the

> senses and mistakenly believes that there is a world of

separate

> of entities each of which has a finite existence and who are in

> competition with one another. Brahman is known when the

> senses are drawn inside and the mind is stilled. That stillness

> of mind allows our consciousness to assume its true nature,

> that of Brahman. As such, we cease to have a separate, finite

> identity. We do not even have an identity because 'identity'

> implies a knower and a known. We simply are. We are beyond

> space and time, we are all space and time.

>

> We can see Maya but we cannot 'see' Brahman. We can only

be

> Brahman. That is all we need.

>

> Related to this is the question of whether Brahman has a

sense

> of the Brahmanic cycles and lilas. If those actions are Maya

and

> part of Brahman, then Brahman must be self-aware. But if

> Brahman is self-aware, then there must be something else

> against which to judge those qualities. This, of course, cannot

> be. So, it would seem Brahman is not self-aware. But, what

then

> of Satchitananda - Absolute Existence, Perfect Knowledge, and

> Bliss - all of which exist without reference to particular

> phenomena. Brahman is Pure Being, Pure Consciousness

and

> Pure Bliss without reference to specifics, even though all of

> those specifics are actions of Brahman. Pure Consciousness

is

> a state of being. Pure Bliss is a state of being. Brahman can

Be

> but to have self-awareness Brahman must act.

Self-awareness,

> then, is not awareness of Self but rather awareness of the

> actions of the Self.

>

> Just as your Self and even your lower self are different from

your

> thoughts, emotions, and koshas, so too Brahman is different

> from the actions of Brahman or Maya. Yes, giving proper

> attention to Maya can lead one back to an understanding of

and

> an identification of Brahman. The danger of attempting to focus

> on Maya and celebrating Maya as an aspect of Brahman is that

> one can be tricked all too easily (as each of us non salt dolls

is

> repeatedly) into emphasizing the effects of Maya on the senses

> which keeps the mind too busy to 'see' Brahman rather than

> emphasizing the effects of Maya as actions of Brahman which

> quiets the mind and leads us back to Brahman. It is difficult to

> keep one's spiritual perspective when experiencing Maya. That

is

> why many other paths try to circumvent the distractions of Maya

> by turning inward. Of course, they then have to face the

> distractions of Maya manifesting as internal phenomena.

>

> No matter what the path, the obstacles are same, the

> methodology for overcoming the obstacles is the same, and

the

> goal is the same.

>

> Jaya Guru

>

> Omprem

>

>

> , "Seshadri" <dksesh@h...> wrote:

> > Namaskara Devi Bhaktha...

> > My comments -

> > <<

> > as OmPrem pointed out, can border on sacrilege.

> > >>

> > Sometimes the argument can be completely innocent and

out

> of love for their path and lord. Its ignorance that makes them

> think that others are not up mto their mark and a guenine

> concern for the others prompts the persons to advocate their

> path rather aggrssively. Its not sacriledge unless the

> comparision and attempts to seed the inferiority complex is

> delibrate.

> >

> > I guess best idea is to observe, take what is best and what

> helps us and leave the rest.

> > <<

> > And what is the use of choosing a path if we are not allowed

to

> > explore these distinctions? You note that, "if the person is

> under

> > the influence of the ego, then they try and compare."

> > >>

> > Under the influence of ego, the mind tends to compare from

a

> superiority and "I" and/or "mine" point of view. If not under the

> influence of ego, ignorance or more aptly lack of information

> makes them look at the difference. My opinion is that one

should

> be careful here. Otherwise, no matter what the path is, one

> always see the lord. This is comparable to Sri Ramakrishna,

he

> always saw the same god no matter what religion he practiced

> or what being he look upon at. When lord(devi) is the goal,

> details hardly matters, unless its a necessity in some cases.

> Blissfull state of japa in the mother/father/lord is all one needs

> and that itself is ananda very satisfying. But looking at details

can

> be a little mischevious and child like way on the path. In this

way

> yes sometimes comparision helps.

> >

> > <<

> > Well, I am assuming that there are very few "salt dolls"

among

> us --

> > very few sadhaks who have completely left all traces of their

> ego

> > behind and toally merged into the One. There seem to be

> people who

> > are very advanced, as well as those who are only beginning

> the

> > journey -- and very many who are somewhere in the middle.

> > >>

> > :-).

> > <<

> > For the Shakti Sadhak, the Divine Mother is their chosen

guide

> for

> > this most important of journeys. So let us celebrate Her a

little!

> We

> > need not denigrate other Gods or other Religions; but why

not

> enjoy

> > the act of extolling one's Ishtadevata? Devi is as legitimate

as

> any

> > other, and -- for the travelers who has chosen (or been

chosen

> by)

> > Her -- She is the most wonderful thing of all. In fact, She *is*

> all.

> > >>

> > True. She is the Brahman herself. Brahman itself is a name.

> Shankaracharya says that names of the lord are "created

ones"

> and so one day must go.

> > Devi herself is the sat chit ananda swaroopini.

> > <<

> >

> > Without ever forgetting the Brahamn is beyond all forms and

> > attributes, we can still enjoy and immerse ourselves in the

> exquisite

> > teachings of Shaktism and discuss our various experiences

of

> Shakti

> > Sadhana!

> > >>

> > The way I see it is, if brahman is one without a second, then

> what is maya? It must also be brahman? Right? Then what is

> this difference between maya and brahman. IF vidya is

brahman

> then adaidya is also brahman, the same mother. Having

known

> this much, we see that everything is our beloved mother who

> tends to guide us twords herself in the path best suited to us.

> She is all around and everywhere, the things we use, the

> thoughts we think, the dreams we dream, friends we relish,

> family we adore. What adds value is a constant reminder of the

> lord everysecond by additional stimulus like satsangha. I have

> even d to some christian lists because they keep

> sending prayers praising the lord and they are so sweet....

> > I would love to be part of satsanghas if it can always remind

of

> the mother and contribute in keeping the mind in the japa state

> always.

> > That way this group has been immensely useful. Thanks

Devi

> Bhaktha for the opportunity.

> > I agree with you.

> >

> > Apologies for mistakes if any.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Seshadri.

>

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

> shakti_sadhnaa-

>

>

>

> Terms of

Service.