Sacred Sexuality and Shakti Sadhana

[Guest guest]

Lili Masamura wrote: so it might be a good idea to stop elaborating

on the dynamic of profane sexuality and switch over to that of

sacred sexuality, which is an essential dynamic of Shakti sadhana...

 

 

Contrary to what I am being told, Sacred Sexuality is "not

essential, for those who wants to explore that it is there otherwise

no"

[Guest guest]

True. It is there for those who want to get to the

actual root of the spiritual impulse, which is sexual

in nature. We see this in the power of the Shiva

Lingam, contained eternally in the Yoni of the

Goddess, the Ras-Lila of Krishna with the Gopis, and

in His relationship with Radha, and also in the name

"Lalita", which translates as "She who ever desires to

sport with Her Lord".

[Guest guest]

Lili Masamura wrote: We see this in the power of the Shiva Lingam,

contained eternally in the Yoni of the Goddess, the Ras-Lila of

Krishna with the Gopis, and in His relationship with Radha, and also

in the name "Lalita", which translates as "She who ever desires to

sport with Her Lord".

 

You see Lili, it depends on where you are coming from. Based on your

interpretation of her, to you Lalita is just a consort to Shiva. As

for us we see her more than just a "consort with desires to sport

with her Lord"

 

According to Guruji Amritananda Saraswati : The Yoni

doesn't "contain" the Lingam, the Lingam is Devi's also.

 

Bhasurananda Natha remarked : She is Energy, satchidananda. She can

create another Shiva at Her will. The yoni-lingam, in the Shakta

view, is Devi manifesting another Shiva.

 

Lalita Ambika : Lalita as well as Mother. The Meaning given in the

Padma Pr : "transcending all worlds, she sports [lalate ] hence

she is called Lalita". "Worlds" means her surrounding

lights or deities. "Transcending" being above their abodes in the

bindu- place. "sports" shines brilliantly.

 

The wise say. "The word Lalita has eight meanings, namely

brilliancy, manifestation, sweetness, depth, fixity, energy, grace

and generosity; these are the eight human qualilties."

 

The Kama-sastra says : Lalita means erotic actions and also

tenderness; as she has all the above mentioned qualities, she is

called Lalita. It is said also, "thou art rightly called lalita

for thou hast nine divine attendants [ in the Sricakra] and your bow

is made of sugar-cane, your arrows are flowers, and everything

connected with you is lovely [lalita]" The word lalita according

to the SabdArnava means beautiful.

 

 

Lalita-Sahasranama with Bhaskararaya's commentary. Translated

into English by R. Ananthakrishna Sastry.

[Guest guest]

I believe Nora is correct.

 

"Lalita" means only "She who is playful; she who loves to have fun,

to sport."

 

The "with Her Lord" part is essentially non-Shakta editorial gloss.

*lol* It is part of the more mainstream Hindu understanding of Devi

as consort -- i.e., as, at best, the taxicab who drops you off at

Shiva's feet.

 

The Shakta view is quite different, as can be gathered from

Bhasurananda's remark that Devi is simply Brahman, and "She can

create another Shiva at Her will." The yoni-lingam, in the Shakta

perspective, is indeed Devi manifesting another Shiva.

 

You reference Guruji Amritananda's teaching about the yoni-lingam,

to which I'd add (from an unpublished conversation) that the image

is rooted in "ancient Sakta fertility cults." According to Amritaji,

the yoni-lingam (he was speaking in particular of the image at the

center of Devipuram's Kamakhya temple, but the interpretation

applies equally to all such images) has an even more esoteric

meaning than the one Lili mentions:

 

"On face value it is the image of a lingam in union with a yoni, the

male principle penetrating the female." The deeper esoteric (i.e.,

initiatory) meaning, however, is that "the lingam is actually

emerging from the yoni. In other words, what one is viewing from the

exoteric perspective as the God and Goddess in union, is -- from the

esoteric perspective -- the Goddess's own lingam."

 

This teaching, of course, would mirror the Sri Vidya view that the

ritual of maithuna, esoteric enough in itself, is actually symbolic

of a deeper state of total identification of the Deity within the

self.

 

Incidentally, this would also explain Nora's earlier comment that

maithuna is "not essential. For those who wants to explore that it

is there; otherwise no." (That's also quoting Bhasura, if I'm not

mistaken ;-) ... ). The idea being that, while authentic maithuna is

a perfectly acceptable means to the goal, in reality everything you

need is already within you.

 

Aum MAtangyai NamaH

[Guest guest]

Indeed, as I have said time and again the sexual part in Tantra is far less than

the sexual part in an ordinary NORMAL life. Even that is far different from what

is now being touted in the west as "Saced Sexuality".

 

The sexual part of tantra is also a trap those who go in without knowing how to

get out are trapped like the flys in the venus fly trap and is consumed.

 

Hence the need for great caution in that area.

 

NMadasamy <nmadasamy wrote:

 

Lili Masamura wrote: We see this in the power of the Shiva Lingam,

contained eternally in the Yoni of the Goddess, the Ras-Lila of

Krishna with the Gopis, and in His relationship with Radha, and also

in the name "Lalita", which translates as "She who ever desires to

sport with Her Lord".

 

You see Lili, it depends on where you are coming from. Based on your

interpretation of her, to you Lalita is just a consort to Shiva. As

for us we see her more than just a "consort with desires to sport

with her Lord"

 

According to Guruji Amritananda Saraswati : The Yoni

doesn't "contain" the Lingam, the Lingam is Devi's also.

 

Bhasurananda Natha remarked : She is Energy, satchidananda. She can

create another Shiva at Her will. The yoni-lingam, in the Shakta

view, is Devi manifesting another Shiva.

 

Lalita Ambika : Lalita as well as Mother. The Meaning given in the

Padma Pr : "transcending all worlds, she sports [lalate ] hence

she is called Lalita". "Worlds" means her surrounding

lights or deities. "Transcending" being above their abodes in the

bindu- place. "sports" shines brilliantly.

 

The wise say. "The word Lalita has eight meanings, namely

brilliancy, manifestation, sweetness, depth, fixity, energy, grace

and generosity; these are the eight human qualilties."

 

The Kama-sastra says : Lalita means erotic actions and also

tenderness; as she has all the above mentioned qualities, she is

called Lalita. It is said also, "thou art rightly called lalita

for thou hast nine divine attendants [ in the Sricakra] and your bow

is made of sugar-cane, your arrows are flowers, and everything

connected with you is lovely [lalita]" The word lalita according

to the SabdArnava means beautiful.

 

 

Lalita-Sahasranama with Bhaskararaya's commentary. Translated

into English by R. Ananthakrishna Sastry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> I believe Nora is correct.

 

Not completely. Any doubt?

That person is correct about the maithuna part.

> The "with Her Lord" part is essentially non-Shakta editorial gloss.

> *lol* It is part of the more mainstream Hindu understanding of Devi

> as consort -- i.e., as, at best, the taxicab who drops you off at

> Shiva's feet.

 

Ha!! Laughter aside, let us see what the Shakta texts and Shakta-s,

Kaula-s say.

> The Shakta view is quite different, as can be gathered from

> Bhasurananda's remark that Devi is simply Brahman, and "She can

> create another Shiva at Her will." The yoni-lingam, in the Shakta

> perspective, is indeed Devi manifesting another Shiva.

 

Above is not necessarily the Shakta view but it is what your

acquaintance thinks is the Shakta view.

 

Half sentences and half readings can be misleading.

 

1)Kamakala vilasa, commentary on verse 2

 

"It may be said that as it is not possible for Shiva to create

without Shakti nor for Para Shakti without Shiva, how can She be

said to be 'the seed.' To meet this it is said that She is the pure

morror in which Shiva experiences Himself."

 

For verse 4 it is said,

 

"ParaShiva is the adored Lord ParamaShiva who is mere Prakasha. The

mass of His rays is the pure Vimarsha mirror. Vimarsha is the Shakti

or movement which is limitless. She is here compared to a mirror

because of Her thereby manifesting Herself."

 

50

"They lead to the conclusion that it is the very merciful

Parameshvara, the 'supreme truth' as massive consciousness and bliss

and as both Prakasha and Vimarsha who divided His own self into the

bindus making Kamakala and became Kama-Kameshvari....."

 

There are lot more from this work. Guess what ? The text endorses

Vamachara and both the author and the commentator are ShriVidya

upasakas of great repute.

 

Let us see another:

Lalita Sahasranama,

 

That whoever is typing the Bhaskararaya(oh! btw he is a ShriVidya

upasaka of great repute too) bhasya for LS, typed the

following for 53 rd name

 

"or

men worship Devi to reach Siva, hencee she is SivA.", among other

meanings.

 

for 408 he says "Beyond Shiva. Because the position of Shiva depends

on Shakti. Or to whom Shiva is the supreme. or She reveals Shiva(to

Her devotees)"

 

There are names where Bhaskararaya gives more importance to Shakti

and names where he gives more importance to Shiva.

One can go on and on(both texts and sayings of shakta-s - actually

scores of references) to show Shiva and Shakti are considered

inseperable and non-different.

 

But didnt Shankaracharya and others say "Shiva is nothing without

Shakti..."? True. No doubt about that. The fact is that Shakti will

never exist seperate from Shiva, just like it is impossible to think

of Sun without Sunlight or of Sunlight without Sun.

 

Actually some initiates well versed in the lore do not even like the

concept of reference to seperate Shaiva and Shakta darshana-s.

[Guest guest]

Satish Raja Arigela wrote: Not completely. Any doubt?

That person is correct about the maithuna part.

 

 

 

"That person" Satish. Hhaahhaaaa. I had a good laugh. I know somehow

this will bring you back. You just cant resist cant you? I am

thinking of emailing you and said : hey! if you have something to

comment why not come in the open and voice it out, instead of

sending personal email to members.

 

Welcome back Satish. Those views are not mind[ I dont invent them at

my whims and fancies], but what is being told to me by my Guru. So

to me they are correct per say. You can quote whatever scriptures

and each will bring different interpretation, but the words of the

Guru is the final. If you cannot accept this, then its too bad.

[Guest guest]

"bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja Govindam Moodhamate; samprapte sannihite

kaale nahi nahi rakshati dukring karane"

 

 

 

A free translation is " do upasana and not hairsplitting debates as the debates

will not help you during the last moments"

 

 

 

So sang a great SHAKTA upasaka - the adi Shankara.

 

 

 

The beauty and the difficulty of sanskrit language is that the same sentence can

be interpreted in myrid ways. Each one takes the meaning according to his/her

level of development and inclinations. For the poor kaulas there is one meaning;

there is another for the highly elevated vaideekas; and there is another meaning

for somebody who is neither a kaula nor a vaideeka. There is one meaning for

each reader thats special to him/her.

 

 

 

In this context the statement of Parasurama "sarwa darshanaanindaa" comes to

mind. One shall not find fault with ANY path. (I hope my recollection is

correct) (I do not have the books here).

 

 

 

The same book of Parashurama has been interpreted from the pure vaideeka point

of view by Rameswara Suri and in it he criticizes Umananda Natha of Nityotsava.

Maybe valid - may not be valid. It is an intellectual excercise. Gives another

point of view.

 

 

 

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. No parampara of Rameswara Suri

survives (as far as I know) but that through Umananda Natha does survive and

thrive. The commentary itself survived because it is ALSO a valid interpretation

from the intellectual point of view.

 

 

 

IMHO All points of view must be looked at and like the proverbial Swan; the

upasaka must take the milk from the mixture of milk and water and accept the

interpretation that is special to THAT upasaka. But, when it comes to "Guru

vaakya", the Shishya normally will not question it. There are many areas where

commentators have used the words "This is well known"; "as one knows"

"must be

known from Guru" and the like. The reason is not because the author does not

have the knowledge, the time or inclination to pen what is referred to, but they

are referring to areas where there are various interpretations and leaves it to

one's own Guru to tailor it to the deciple's needs and circumstances.

 

 

 

Whoever said that Shiva and Shakti are to be separated and worshipped? In this

context as i understood the path of Shakta leads to the EXPERIENCING of "Aham

Brahmasmi"(I am Brahma); "Tat twam asi"(Thou art That); "ayam aathmaa

Brahma"(I

am the soul that is Brahma) and "Prajnaanam Brahma"(consciousnesses Brahma).

When that is experienced where is the Shiva? Where is the Shakti? Where are you

and I? The duality disappears only then. We poor people think Nora is different

from Satish who is different from DB. But when we realize the essential unity

this differentiation goes. How many of us can claim that experience? Until we

get that experience one must wander among the words of the texts like blind men

trying to understand what the elephant is (the story is too well known to need

repetition). I for one believe that everything emanates from the “Spanda” the

pulsation of Shakti and everything gets withdrawn in her.

 

 

 

In this context if books are looked into there is a tendency that each author

extols his/her ishta Devata as the Supreme. We have books declaring Shiva,

Shakti, Vishnu, Skanda, Subamanya etc. as “Supreme”. Is it that they are all

wrong? Not at all!! It is a style of saying that for that upasaka that

particular deity form is Brahman that is all.

 

 

 

I have also watched Viashnava Aiyangars averting the eye from Shiva temples (I

saw that sight a mere 4 years ago). They consider anything shaiva and ashes as

abomination. Are they wrong? No!! They are right in their perspective. So each

has his/her perspective and there is no need to impose others’ perspectives.

 

 

 

In short IMHO every one is correct.

 

 

 

As there were interpretations, there will be more in future. One may have read X

number of texts but there maybe just one text somewhere where it is interpreted

otherwise. so lets not take rigid views. Let all views be expressed.

 

 

 

 

 

Satish Raja Arigela <satisharigela wrote:

 

 

, "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> I believe Nora is correct.

 

Not completely. Any doubt? That person is correct about the maithuna part.

> The "with Her Lord" part is essentially non-Shakta editorial gloss. *lol* It

is part of the more mainstream Hindu understanding of Devi as consort -- i.e.,

as, at best, the taxicab who drops you off at Shiva's feet.

 

Ha!! Laughter aside, let us see what the Shakta texts and Shakta-s, Kaula-s say.

 

The Shakta view is quite different, as can be gathered from Bhasurananda's

remark that Devi is simply Brahman, and "She can create another Shiva at Her

will." The yoni-lingam, in the Shakta perspective, is indeed Devi manifesting

another Shiva.

 

Above is not necessarily the Shakta view but it is what your

acquaintance thinks is the Shakta view.

 

Half sentences and half readings can be misleading.

 

1)Kamakala vilasa, commentary on verse 2

 

"It may be said that as it is not possible for Shiva to create without Shakti

nor for Para Shakti without Shiva, how can She be said to be 'the seed.' To meet

this it is said that She is the pure morror in which Shiva experiences Himself."

 

For verse 4 it is said,

 

"ParaShiva is the adored Lord ParamaShiva who is mere Prakasha. The mass of His

rays is the pure Vimarsha mirror. Vimarsha is the Shakti or movement which is

limitless. She is here compared to a mirror because of Her thereby manifesting

Herself."

 

50

"They lead to the conclusion that it is the very merciful

Parameshvara, the 'supreme truth' as massive consciousness and bliss and as both

Prakasha and Vimarsha who divided His own self into the bindus making Kamakala

and became Kama-Kameshvari....."

 

There are lot more from this work. Guess what ? The text endorses Vamachara and

both the author and the commentator are ShriVidya upasakas of great repute.

 

Let us see another:

Lalita Sahasranama,

 

That whoever is typing the Bhaskararaya(oh! btw he is a ShriVidya upasaka of

great repute too) bhasya for LS, typed the following for 53 rd name

 

"or men worship Devi to reach Siva, hencee she is SivA.", among other meanings.

 

for 408 he says "Beyond Shiva. Because the position of Shiva depends on Shakti.

Or to whom Shiva is the supreme. or She reveals Shiva(to Her devotees)"

 

There are names where Bhaskararaya gives more importance to Shakti and names

where he gives more importance to Shiva.

One can go on and on(both texts and sayings of shakta-s - actually scores of

references) to show Shiva and Shakti are considered inseperable and

non-different.

 

But didnt Shankaracharya and others say "Shiva is nothing without Shakti..."?

True. No doubt about that. The fact is that Shakti will never exist seperate

from Shiva, just like it is impossible to think of Sun without Sunlight or of

Sunlight without Sun.

 

Actually some initiates well versed in the lore do not even like the concept of

reference to seperate Shaiva and Shakta darshana-s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·

/

 

 

·

 

 

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meet the all-new My – Try it today!

 

 

[Guest guest]

I am reminded, for some reason, of Longfellow's poem, "The Courtship

of Miles Standish," in which the gruff, bearish Standish instructs

one John Alden -- a handsome, eloquent young man under his command --

to communicate sentiments of affection to a young woman he happens

to fancy.

 

The big dramatic moment in the poem comes, of course, when the lady

in question, after listening to Alden mouth Standish's words,

replies simply: "Why don't you speak for yourself, John?"

[Guest guest]

> "That person" Satish. Hhaahhaaaa. I had a good laugh. I know

>somehow

> this will bring you back. You just cant resist cant you? I am

> thinking of emailing you and said : hey! if you have something to

> comment why not come in the open and voice it out, instead of

> sending personal email to members.

 

 

It is not as though I am checking the archives daily and trying hard

not to post. I actually sent only two mails one to kalipadma(about a

month back maybe) and another to Msbauju(a few days back) over the

last few months.

>

> Welcome back Satish. Those views are not mind[ I dont invent them

at

> my whims and fancies], but what is being told to me by my Guru. So

> to me they are correct per say. You can quote whatever scriptures

> and each will bring different interpretation, but the words of the

> Guru is the final. If you cannot accept this, then its too bad.

 

Thank you. I am checking the archives only once in a while and at

times writing in person when I thought it may benefit the poster.

I know too well that this will be exactly your response. Hahahaha!

You are so predictable. Arent you?

[Guest guest]

, sankara menon <kochu1tz>

wrote:

>

> "bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja Govindam Moodhamate;

>samprapte sannihite kaale nahi nahi rakshati dukring karane"

> A free translation is " do upasana and not hairsplitting debates

>as the debates will not help you during the last moments"

 

Need more be told as to how Acharya spent a major portion of his

life. This misunderstanding of Adi Shankara has done much damage

especailly after the advent of the Theosophical society and

Blavatsky.

 

Proper study is required along with upasana. That is made clear not

only by Adi Shankara but also but other acharya-s not in one but in

a number of places.

> The beauty and the difficulty of sanskrit language is that the

>same sentence can be interpreted in myrid ways. Each one takes the

>meaning according to his/her level of development and inclinations.

 

It is true that there are various interpretations possible. And

there is no need to hide behind that fact, on matters made clear by

the elders.

>For the poor kaulas there is one meaning; there is another for the

>highly elevated vaideekas; and there is another meaning for

>somebody who is neither a kaula nor a vaideeka.

 

I dont think I need to remind that these are not the only two paths

that existed and are existing in India.

> In this context the statement of Parasurama "sarwa

>darshanaanindaa" comes to mind. One shall not find fault with ANY

>path. (I hope my recollection is correct) (I do not have the books

>here).

 

True. It is very important. It is best to read and assimilate what

is required from everything.

 

> In this context if books are looked into there is a tendency that

>each author extols his/her ishta Devata as the Supreme. We have

>books declaring Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu, Skanda, Subamanya etc.

>as "Supreme". Is it that they are all wrong? Not at all!! It

is a

>style of saying that for that upasaka that particular deity form is

>Brahman that is all.

 

That is exactly what I am trying to say. Thank you for elaborating.

> I have also watched Viashnava Aiyangars averting the eye from

>Shiva temples (I saw that sight a mere 4 years ago). They consider

>anything shaiva and ashes as abomination. Are they wrong? No!! They

>are right in their perspective. So each has his/her perspective

>and there is no need to impose others' perspectives.

 

Actually their own vaishnava agama-s, i.e Pancharatra texts have

sentences extolling Ganapati, vagishvari, Kshetrapala etc and even

Shiva. It is only those who who did not yet develop well that

display tha attitude. There are actually vaishnavas who turned to

ShriVidya upasakas etc etc.

 

> In short IMHO every one is correct.

 

:-)

[Guest guest]

Dear Nora:

 

Thank you for posting this response, and also to Guruji Amritananda

Saraswati. I have not heard this explained so clearly and

beautifully before. I have often heard the lingam-in-yoni view, and

the lingam-coming-out-of-the-yoni idea, but this explains it more as

an energetic process rather than confining it to acting out

by/between genders. Much appreciated.

 

Mary Ann

 

, "NMadasamy" <nmadasamy@s...>

wrote:

>

> Lili Masamura wrote: We see this in the power of the Shiva Lingam,

> contained eternally in the Yoni of the Goddess, the Ras-Lila of

> Krishna with the Gopis, and in His relationship with Radha, and

also

> in the name "Lalita", which translates as "She who ever desires to

> sport with Her Lord".

>

> You see Lili, it depends on where you are coming from. Based on

your

> interpretation of her, to you Lalita is just a consort to Shiva.

As

> for us we see her more than just a "consort with desires to sport

> with her Lord"

>

> According to Guruji Amritananda Saraswati : The Yoni

> doesn't "contain" the Lingam, the Lingam is Devi's also.

>

> Bhasurananda Natha remarked : She is Energy, satchidananda. She

can

> create another Shiva at Her will. The yoni-lingam, in the Shakta

> view, is Devi manifesting another Shiva.

>

> Lalita Ambika : Lalita as well as Mother. The Meaning given in the

> Padma Pr : "transcending all worlds, she sports [lalate ] hence

> she is called Lalita". "Worlds" means her surrounding

> lights or deities. "Transcending" being above their abodes in the

> bindu- place. "sports" shines brilliantly.

>

> The wise say. "The word Lalita has eight meanings, namely

> brilliancy, manifestation, sweetness, depth, fixity, energy, grace

> and generosity; these are the eight human qualilties."

>

> The Kama-sastra says : Lalita means erotic actions and also

> tenderness; as she has all the above mentioned qualities, she is

> called Lalita. It is said also, "thou art rightly called lalita

> for thou hast nine divine attendants [ in the Sricakra] and your

bow

> is made of sugar-cane, your arrows are flowers, and everything

> connected with you is lovely [lalita]" The word lalita according

> to the SabdArnava means beautiful.

>

>

> Lalita-Sahasranama with Bhaskararaya's commentary. Translated

> into English by R. Ananthakrishna Sastry.

[Guest guest]

> Bhasurananda Natha remarked : She is Energy, satchidananda. She can

> create another Shiva at Her will. The yoni-lingam, in the Shakta

> view, is Devi manifesting another Shiva.

 

It is usually the unchanging reality behind all changing reality which

is given the name ParamaSiva. All beings has this witness

consciousness, for someone to will this has to be there. The

primordial witness conscious does not have any creator.

[Guest guest]

, "Satish Raja Arigela"

<satisharigela> wrote:

 

"The fact is that Shakti will

never exist seperate from Shiva, just like it is impossible to think

of Sun without Sunlight or of Sunlight without Sun."

 

Are you saying that energy does not exist prior to or without

manifesting in material form?

[Guest guest]

I went to ask.com and I asked: Can energy exist without matter? and

this is what I found:

 

Matter & Energy

Anything that we can see, touch or sense is made up of matter. The

computer screen, the keyboard in front of you, the air that you

breathe, the water that you drink are all examples of matter. Matter

is anything that occupies space and has mass.

 

Energy is not the same as matter, although the two are closely

related and associated. Energy has the ability to move matter.

Matter is converted into energy in nuclear reactors and nuclear

bombs. Matter contains energy and energy makes its presence felt

through matter. A glass of hot water contains more energy than a

glass of cold water. Some forms of energy can however exist without

contact with matter; light and radiant heat are two examples. All

forms of energy are generated by changes in matter, and one

definition of energy is that which can produce a change in matter.

 

 

 

, "Mary Ann"

<buttercookie61> wrote:

>

> , "Satish Raja Arigela"

> <satisharigela> wrote:

>

> "The fact is that Shakti will

> never exist seperate from Shiva, just like it is impossible to

think

> of Sun without Sunlight or of Sunlight without Sun."

>

> Are you saying that energy does not exist prior to or without

> manifesting in material form?

[Guest guest]

I personally have found worship of the Shiva Lingam a

necessary part of my work with Shakti. I attained to

Lalita some time ago...I wrote about it her a while

back.I received an initiation into Kurukulla, "Lady of

the Iron Hook", the wrathful aspect of Lalita,

sometimes referred to as "Red Tara". My initiator was

a tulku Lama of the Tibetan Drukpa tradition. Previous

to it I had been reading the Lalitasahasranama and

meditating on it for months, as well as doing regular

Shiva Puja every Monday. How can one worship Shakti

without Shiva? They seem different but there is as

much difference between them as a triangle turned

point down, and then point up. They appear completely

different from each other, but are still the same

triangle in both cases! Insisting on one instead of

the other is to be lost in duality. There is no Mother

without a Father somewhere. One can have a preference,

certainly, but you will eventually be led along that

path that leads to the Other.

Lilith M.

--- Satish Raja Arigela <satisharigela

wrote:

>

> , "Devi Bhakta"

>

> <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> >

> > I believe Nora is correct.

>

> Not completely. Any doubt?

> That person is correct about the maithuna part.

>

> > The "with Her Lord" part is essentially non-Shakta

> editorial gloss.

> > *lol* It is part of the more mainstream Hindu

> understanding of Devi

> > as consort -- i.e., as, at best, the taxicab who

> drops you off at

> > Shiva's feet.

>

> Ha!! Laughter aside, let us see what the Shakta

> texts and Shakta-s,

> Kaula-s say.

>

> > The Shakta view is quite different, as can be

> gathered from

> > Bhasurananda's remark that Devi is simply Brahman,

> and "She can

> > create another Shiva at Her will." The

> yoni-lingam, in the Shakta

> > perspective, is indeed Devi manifesting another

> Shiva.

>

> Above is not necessarily the Shakta view but it is

> what your

> acquaintance thinks is the Shakta view.

>

> Half sentences and half readings can be misleading.

>

> 1)Kamakala vilasa, commentary on verse 2

>

> "It may be said that as it is not possible for Shiva

> to create

> without Shakti nor for Para Shakti without Shiva,

> how can She be

> said to be 'the seed.' To meet this it is said that

> She is the pure

> morror in which Shiva experiences Himself."

>

> For verse 4 it is said,

>

> "ParaShiva is the adored Lord ParamaShiva who is

> mere Prakasha. The

> mass of His rays is the pure Vimarsha mirror.

> Vimarsha is the Shakti

> or movement which is limitless. She is here compared

> to a mirror

> because of Her thereby manifesting Herself."

>

> 50

> "They lead to the conclusion that it is the very

> merciful

> Parameshvara, the 'supreme truth' as massive

> consciousness and bliss

> and as both Prakasha and Vimarsha who divided His

> own self into the

> bindus making Kamakala and became

> Kama-Kameshvari....."

>

> There are lot more from this work. Guess what ? The

> text endorses

> Vamachara and both the author and the commentator

> are ShriVidya

> upasakas of great repute.

>

> Let us see another:

> Lalita Sahasranama,

>

> That whoever is typing the Bhaskararaya(oh! btw he

> is a ShriVidya

> upasaka of great repute too) bhasya for LS, typed

> the

> following for 53 rd name

>

> "or

> men worship Devi to reach Siva, hencee she is

> SivA.", among other

> meanings.

>

> for 408 he says "Beyond Shiva. Because the position

> of Shiva depends

> on Shakti. Or to whom Shiva is the supreme. or She

> reveals Shiva(to

> Her devotees)"

>

> There are names where Bhaskararaya gives more

> importance to Shakti

> and names where he gives more importance to Shiva.

> One can go on and on(both texts and sayings of

> shakta-s - actually

> scores of references) to show Shiva and Shakti are

> considered

> inseperable and non-different.

>

> But didnt Shankaracharya and others say "Shiva is

> nothing without

> Shakti..."? True. No doubt about that. The fact is

> that Shakti will

> never exist seperate from Shiva, just like it is

> impossible to think

> of Sun without Sunlight or of Sunlight without Sun.

>

> Actually some initiates well versed in the lore do

> not even like the

> concept of reference to seperate Shaiva and Shakta

> darshana-s.

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

The all-new My - What will yours do?

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Nora:

Well, this is a forum for all to express different

point of view. If your Guru told you that then you are

right in believing it to the exclusion of all else, or

be guilty of Guru droha. However that does not give

you the right to oppose or ridicule other viewpoints

that may not agree, since "your" Guru is not "everyone

else's" guru. Thank God, I don't need human gurus

anymore. Nor do I need scriptures, though I still

enjoy reading the Lalitasahasranama and the

Bhagavad-Gita. Maybe if you tend to your own studies

with your guru, you can say the same thing too

someday! I thought Satish Raja Arigela made some

excellent and erudite rebuttals here; I do not know

why you would be laughing. The trouble with scriptures

is that anyone can find anything to suit their own

particular position, and the fact is, that the

scriptures have been corrupted in the Kali Yuga. It is

much better to seek direct communion with God through

devotional methods rather than relying on the written

word to get you there.

Lilith M.

--- NMadasamy <nmadasamy

wrote:

>

>

>

> Satish Raja Arigela wrote: Not completely. Any

> doubt?

> That person is correct about the maithuna part.

>

>

>

> "That person" Satish. Hhaahhaaaa. I had a good

> laugh. I know somehow

> this will bring you back. You just cant resist cant

> you? I am

> thinking of emailing you and said : hey! if you have

> something to

> comment why not come in the open and voice it out,

> instead of

> sending personal email to members.

>

> Welcome back Satish. Those views are not mind[ I

> dont invent them at

> my whims and fancies], but what is being told to me

> by my Guru. So

> to me they are correct per say. You can quote

> whatever scriptures

> and each will bring different interpretation, but

> the words of the

> Guru is the final. If you cannot accept this, then

> its too bad.

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

This is very nicely expressed, Lili ...

 

You wrote: "They seem different but there is as much difference

between them as a triangle turned point down, and then point up. They

appear completely different from each other, but are still the same

triangle in both cases! Insisting on one instead of the other is to

be lost in duality. There is no Mother without a Father somewhere.

One can have a preference, certainly, but you will eventually be led

along that path that leads to the Other."

 

I think a lot of people pay lip service to the equality of Shakti and

Shiva. But when you push them into a corner -- as Amritananda did

when he made his assertion about the Lingam belonging to Devi -- you

get ... well, you get exactly what I got in response to my post

citing his teaching: A bunch of scriptural quotations saying that,

Gee, actually Shiva is the *real* Ultimate. Equality goes out the

window. The responder even goes so far as to not-so-subtly downgrade

the teachings of an authentic and recognized Shakta Guru to "what your

acquaintance thinks is the Shakta view." You see? The Guru is now a

mere "acquaintance" and a wrong-thinking acquaintance at that. And

for what? For the "crime" of disagreeing with the responder's shy

informant about Sakti's proper place. Very pretty indeed.

 

But it effectively reveals the fallacy of the lip-service paid to

equality, as I believe Amritananda intended it to.

 

I believe the problem may be at least partially rooted in the

philosophical understand of Devi as Shakti, and Shiva as ShaktimAn;

Devi as Power, and Shiva as the Holder or Possessor of Power. The

possessive case, rendered into English as "of," appears in the

classical metaphors routinely trotted out in this arguments,

comparing Devi to the inseparable Whiteness [attribute] OF [possessed

by] Milk [shiva]; or the warmth [attribute] of [possessed by] Fire

[shiva]; or the brightness [attribute] of [possessed by] the Sun

[shiva].

 

There is no doubt in my mind that Shakti and Shiva are One, or the

they are two sides of the same coin, so to speak, and ultimately

Equal. But Equal means Equal. Thus we may read in the Yoginihridaya

Tantra that She is given Shiva's attributes: "Obeisance to She who is

Pure Being-Consciousness-Bliss, in the form of Power [key words!]; to

She who exists in the form of Time and Space and All that is therein;

to She who is the radiant Illumination in all beings."

 

Woodroffe added, "The communitites of so-called 'TAntrik' worshippers

are fivefold according as the cult is of Surya [the Sun], Ganesha,

Vishnu, Shiva or Shakti. To the Knower, however, the five named are

not distinct Divinities, but different aspects of the One Power or

SHAKTI. An instructed Shakti-worshipper is one of the least sectarian

of people. S/He can worship in all temples ...

 

The Shakta is so called because the chosen Deity of his/her worship

[ishta-devata] is SHAKTI, in whose cult, both in doctrine and

practice, emphasis is laid on THAT ASPECT OF THE ONE in which it is

the Source of Change and, in the form of Time and Space and all

objects therein, Change Itself.

 

The flipping triangle you mentioned expresses the same truth, and

your statement that the distinction is ultimately one of preference

is spot-on. And all without slagging off any Gurus or disparaging the

beliefs of others in the Group -- which places you, in my humble

opinion, far above the utterly sectarian bile that was spouting in

the previously referenced discussion along this thread.

 

For which I thank you

 

Aum MAtangyai NamaH

[Guest guest]

The thing about the triangles, too - I remember thinking this when I

read The Da Vinci Code, regarding the choice of direction of the

point. I think the choice to put the point upward as indicating male

is based on the erect penis, where in fact, usually, the penis

points downward. And the female body has an opening at the bottom of

it (the vagina), so I thought the female should be indicated by the

upward-pointing triangle, indicating an open place rather than a

point at the bottom. That just makes better sense.

 

While this may seem unimportant, for me, it's back to the issue of

socio-political programming and long-ingrained beliefs about power,

which is what Nora's post, and her Guru, addressed well for me.

 

When I saw the topic about Maithuna, I was reluctant to even read

the messages due to the usual way people view this issue. In a way,

I can see why religion began to condemn sex - not because sex is

bad, but because people misapply spirituality in the physical

realm. They over-identify and over-emphasize certain qualities with

one or the other gender, and create imbalance the world over - as

within, so without. It's possible that the anti-sex messages evolved

from something simple like the reason why your grandmother cut the

ends off the meatloaf (or nutloaf for those vegetarian/vegans) -

because the loaf was too big to fit into the pan, and grandmother's

way got passed down through generations who saw what she did and did

it that way, not understanding the reason behind it.

 

Mary Ann

 

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> This is very nicely expressed, Lili ...

>

> You wrote: "They seem different but there is as much difference

> between them as a triangle turned point down, and then point up.

They

> appear completely different from each other, but are still the

same

> triangle in both cases! Insisting on one instead of the other is

to

> be lost in duality. There is no Mother without a Father somewhere.

> One can have a preference, certainly, but you will eventually be

led

> along that path that leads to the Other."

>

> I think a lot of people pay lip service to the equality of Shakti

and

> Shiva. But when you push them into a corner -- as Amritananda did

> when he made his assertion about the Lingam belonging to Devi --

you

> get ... well, you get exactly what I got in response to my post

> citing his teaching: A bunch of scriptural quotations saying that,

> Gee, actually Shiva is the *real* Ultimate. Equality goes out the

> window. The responder even goes so far as to not-so-subtly

downgrade

> the teachings of an authentic and recognized Shakta Guru to "what

your

> acquaintance thinks is the Shakta view." You see? The Guru is now

a

> mere "acquaintance" and a wrong-thinking acquaintance at that. And

> for what? For the "crime" of disagreeing with the responder's shy

> informant about Sakti's proper place. Very pretty indeed.

>

> But it effectively reveals the fallacy of the lip-service paid to

> equality, as I believe Amritananda intended it to.

>

> I believe the problem may be at least partially rooted in the

> philosophical understand of Devi as Shakti, and Shiva as

ShaktimAn;

> Devi as Power, and Shiva as the Holder or Possessor of Power. The

> possessive case, rendered into English as "of," appears in the

> classical metaphors routinely trotted out in this arguments,

> comparing Devi to the inseparable Whiteness [attribute] OF

[possessed

> by] Milk [shiva]; or the warmth [attribute] of [possessed by] Fire

> [shiva]; or the brightness [attribute] of [possessed by] the Sun

> [shiva].

>

> There is no doubt in my mind that Shakti and Shiva are One, or the

> they are two sides of the same coin, so to speak, and ultimately

> Equal. But Equal means Equal. Thus we may read in the

Yoginihridaya

> Tantra that She is given Shiva's attributes: "Obeisance to She who

is

> Pure Being-Consciousness-Bliss, in the form of Power [key words!];

to

> She who exists in the form of Time and Space and All that is

therein;

> to She who is the radiant Illumination in all beings."

>

> Woodroffe added, "The communitites of so-called 'TAntrik'

worshippers

> are fivefold according as the cult is of Surya [the Sun], Ganesha,

> Vishnu, Shiva or Shakti. To the Knower, however, the five named

are

> not distinct Divinities, but different aspects of the One Power or

> SHAKTI. An instructed Shakti-worshipper is one of the least

sectarian

> of people. S/He can worship in all temples ...

>

> The Shakta is so called because the chosen Deity of his/her

worship

> [ishta-devata] is SHAKTI, in whose cult, both in doctrine and

> practice, emphasis is laid on THAT ASPECT OF THE ONE in which it

is

> the Source of Change and, in the form of Time and Space and all

> objects therein, Change Itself.

>

> The flipping triangle you mentioned expresses the same truth, and

> your statement that the distinction is ultimately one of

preference

> is spot-on. And all without slagging off any Gurus or disparaging

the

> beliefs of others in the Group -- which places you, in my humble

> opinion, far above the utterly sectarian bile that was spouting in

> the previously referenced discussion along this thread.

>

> For which I thank you

>

> Aum MAtangyai NamaH

[Guest guest]

And BTW what about my posts about matter and energy? Shakti means

energy. Shakti can manifest as matter, but doesn't always. Energy

and Matter do not HAVE to be personified as male and female unless

it's helpful to people.

 

, "Mary Ann"

<buttercookie61> wrote:

>

> The thing about the triangles, too - I remember thinking this when

I

> read The Da Vinci Code, regarding the choice of direction of the

> point. I think the choice to put the point upward as indicating

male

> is based on the erect penis, where in fact, usually, the penis

> points downward. And the female body has an opening at the bottom

of

> it (the vagina), so I thought the female should be indicated by

the

> upward-pointing triangle, indicating an open place rather than a

> point at the bottom. That just makes better sense.

>

> While this may seem unimportant, for me, it's back to the issue of

> socio-political programming and long-ingrained beliefs about

power,

> which is what Nora's post, and her Guru, addressed well for me.

>

> When I saw the topic about Maithuna, I was reluctant to even read

> the messages due to the usual way people view this issue. In a

way,

> I can see why religion began to condemn sex - not because sex is

> bad, but because people misapply spirituality in the physical

> realm. They over-identify and over-emphasize certain qualities

with

> one or the other gender, and create imbalance the world over - as

> within, so without. It's possible that the anti-sex messages

evolved

> from something simple like the reason why your grandmother cut the

> ends off the meatloaf (or nutloaf for those vegetarian/vegans) -

> because the loaf was too big to fit into the pan, and

grandmother's

> way got passed down through generations who saw what she did and

did

> it that way, not understanding the reason behind it.

>

> Mary Ann

>

>

> , "Devi Bhakta"

> <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> >

> > This is very nicely expressed, Lili ...

> >

> > You wrote: "They seem different but there is as much difference

> > between them as a triangle turned point down, and then point up.

> They

> > appear completely different from each other, but are still the

> same

> > triangle in both cases! Insisting on one instead of the other is

> to

> > be lost in duality. There is no Mother without a Father

somewhere.

> > One can have a preference, certainly, but you will eventually be

> led

> > along that path that leads to the Other."

> >

> > I think a lot of people pay lip service to the equality of

Shakti

> and

> > Shiva. But when you push them into a corner -- as Amritananda

did

> > when he made his assertion about the Lingam belonging to Devi --

> you

> > get ... well, you get exactly what I got in response to my post

> > citing his teaching: A bunch of scriptural quotations saying

that,

> > Gee, actually Shiva is the *real* Ultimate. Equality goes out

the

> > window. The responder even goes so far as to not-so-subtly

> downgrade

> > the teachings of an authentic and recognized Shakta Guru

to "what

> your

> > acquaintance thinks is the Shakta view." You see? The Guru is

now

> a

> > mere "acquaintance" and a wrong-thinking acquaintance at that.

And

> > for what? For the "crime" of disagreeing with the responder's

shy

> > informant about Sakti's proper place. Very pretty indeed.

> >

> > But it effectively reveals the fallacy of the lip-service paid

to

> > equality, as I believe Amritananda intended it to.

> >

> > I believe the problem may be at least partially rooted in the

> > philosophical understand of Devi as Shakti, and Shiva as

> ShaktimAn;

> > Devi as Power, and Shiva as the Holder or Possessor of Power.

The

> > possessive case, rendered into English as "of," appears in the

> > classical metaphors routinely trotted out in this arguments,

> > comparing Devi to the inseparable Whiteness [attribute] OF

> [possessed

> > by] Milk [shiva]; or the warmth [attribute] of [possessed by]

Fire

> > [shiva]; or the brightness [attribute] of [possessed by] the Sun

> > [shiva].

> >

> > There is no doubt in my mind that Shakti and Shiva are One, or

the

> > they are two sides of the same coin, so to speak, and ultimately

> > Equal. But Equal means Equal. Thus we may read in the

> Yoginihridaya

> > Tantra that She is given Shiva's attributes: "Obeisance to She

who

> is

> > Pure Being-Consciousness-Bliss, in the form of Power [key

words!];

> to

> > She who exists in the form of Time and Space and All that is

> therein;

> > to She who is the radiant Illumination in all beings."

> >

> > Woodroffe added, "The communitites of so-called 'TAntrik'

> worshippers

> > are fivefold according as the cult is of Surya [the Sun],

Ganesha,

> > Vishnu, Shiva or Shakti. To the Knower, however, the five named

> are

> > not distinct Divinities, but different aspects of the One Power

or

> > SHAKTI. An instructed Shakti-worshipper is one of the least

> sectarian

> > of people. S/He can worship in all temples ...

> >

> > The Shakta is so called because the chosen Deity of his/her

> worship

> > [ishta-devata] is SHAKTI, in whose cult, both in doctrine and

> > practice, emphasis is laid on THAT ASPECT OF THE ONE in which it

> is

> > the Source of Change and, in the form of Time and Space and all

> > objects therein, Change Itself.

> >

> > The flipping triangle you mentioned expresses the same truth,

and

> > your statement that the distinction is ultimately one of

> preference

> > is spot-on. And all without slagging off any Gurus or

disparaging

> the

> > beliefs of others in the Group -- which places you, in my humble

> > opinion, far above the utterly sectarian bile that was spouting

in

> > the previously referenced discussion along this thread.

> >

> > For which I thank you

> >

> > Aum MAtangyai NamaH

[Guest guest]

Dear Lili:

 

Re Nora's rebuttal to Satish, you wrote:

 

*** that does not give you the right to oppose or ridicule other

viewpoints that may not agree, since "your" Guru is not "everyone

else's" guru. ***

 

Ah, in a perfect world, this might be true. But I have seen precious

little restraint from many of those posting here. For a depressingly

large number of people who post here, "opposing or ridiculing other

viewpoints" seems to be a kind of favorite blood sport.

 

It is, however, a sport in which Nora rarely engages. Perhaps I am

being self-congratualatory, but I've often pointed out that there are

precious few -- let along religious groups -- who so

politely tolerate members and posts that disagree with so many basic

premises of the subject religious system.

 

Whenever Nora (or I, or Kochu) have the nerve and take a stand on

what we, personally, happen to believe, we're invarioably accused of

showboating, grandstanding, dominating, censoring, judging or

whatever damning verb happens to come to mind. :-)) ... So humor us,

already! ;-)

 

*** I don't need human gurus anymore. Nor do I need scriptures. ...

Maybe you can say the same thing too someday! ***

 

See? Further proof of Shakti and Shiva's equality: Women can lingam-

polish with the best of 'em! *lol*

 

Thanks as always Lili

 

DB

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/20/2005 9:00:18 PM Mountain Standard Time,

devi_bhakta writes:

> Whenever Nora (or I, or Kochu) have the nerve and take a stand on

> what we, personally, happen to believe, we're invariably accused of

> showboating, grandstanding, dominating, censoring, judging or

> whatever damning verb happens to come to mind. :-)) ... So humor us,

> already! ;-)

 

Dear DB,

 

But it is not really up to us to decide -- if you can't feel at home and be

yourself on your Own discussion group? then where? time to take a stand.

time to declare and set the stage.

 

I heard in a sermon once, the thing to keep in perspective about the

bible and the apocalypse at the end, is that it's All Happening in the

Throneroom of God and ultimately God is in control. And so it is with a

discussion list, as i have come to feel, that we value freedom, of speech, and

still and all, this is (IS) a special interest group and you all are the once

who absolutely may and must remain at the helm of this little ship.

 

Questioning or debating you as we may and as you allow, is one thing, but when

push comes to shove, as i have come to feel in running my own groups, somebody's

gotta be in charge and why let yourself be driven off your own group?

 

Think about it spiritually -- it is unsound to be so wobbly. Sure it's nice to

be flexible but you gotta go with how you feel and how it sits with you from

where you are cuz it's Your Group and we gotta abide by it or get out and Enjoy

It and obviously we Do or there wouldn't be so many of us In Here...

 

peace, love and poetic licence,

peace, love and religious freedom,

cathie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/21/2005 7:05:54 AM Mountain Standard Time, SophiasHeaven

writes:

> Enjoy It and obviously we Do

 

i mean, this is a nice group --

it's like being in a university ! ;-)

 

lots of beautiful wisdom

 

blessings of the goddess,

cathie

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Cathie:

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I appreciated your passionate

defense of the moderator's right to get as crabby as everyone

else! :-)

 

Warmest regards

 

DB

, SophiasHeaven@a... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 1/20/2005 9:00:18 PM Mountain Standard Time,

> devi_bhakta writes:

>

> > Whenever Nora (or I, or Kochu) have the nerve and take a stand

on

> > what we, personally, happen to believe, we're invariably accused

of

> > showboating, grandstanding, dominating, censoring, judging or

> > whatever damning verb happens to come to mind. :-)) ... So humor

us,

> > already! ;-)

>

> Dear DB,

>

> But it is not really up to us to decide -- if you can't feel at

home and be

> yourself on your Own discussion group? then where? time to take

a stand.

> time to declare and set the stage.

>

> I heard in a sermon once, the thing to keep in perspective about

the

> bible and the apocalypse at the end, is that it's All Happening in

the

> Throneroom of God and ultimately God is in control. And so it is

with a discussion list, as i have come to feel, that we value

freedom, of speech, and still and all, this is (IS) a special

interest group and you all are the once who absolutely may and must

remain at the helm of this little ship.

>

> Questioning or debating you as we may and as you allow, is one

thing, but when push comes to shove, as i have come to feel in

running my own groups, somebody's gotta be in charge and why let

yourself be driven off your own group?

>

> Think about it spiritually -- it is unsound to be so wobbly. Sure

it's nice to be flexible but you gotta go with how you feel and how

it sits with you from where you are cuz it's Your Group and we gotta

abide by it or get out and Enjoy It and obviously we Do or there

wouldn't be so many of us In Here...

>

> peace, love and poetic licence,

> peace, love and religious freedom,

> cathie

[Guest guest]

Lili Masamura wrote: However that does not give you the right to

oppose or ridicule other viewpoints that may not agree, since "your"

Guru is not "everyone else's" guru.

 

Firstly Lili if you read again, I never ridicule anyone. Infact, I

state my point, as this is what I am told, if anyone disagree, that

is too bad. I had never impose my belief on another, nor do I go

around braging to others that I have raised Kundalini or that I am a

realised person. I am just an ordinary sadhak in the beginning of my

journey.

 

I have known satish for sometime and what transmit between us is

between us. I laught because of another and not related to what

satish have said. YOu should read my statement again, please.

 

 

"The trouble with scriptures is that anyone can find anything to

suit their own particular position, and the fact is, that the

scriptures have been corrupted in the Kali Yuga."

 

That is what i have said, you can bring in all the scriptures and

all the different interpretation, eventually its the word of the

guru is the final. Good for you,that you think you do not need a

human guru, but for me an ignorant fool, he is DEVI send. As long as

DEVI says, I need guidance from HIM. I shall be as that.

 

My guru never recites any scriptures to me. I am told to practice my

sadhana first, dont look for result. Do first, and see what happen.

If your experience is real, it should correspond with what is

written in the scriptures. The problem is that when someone have

read the scriptures or books too much, it may give them false

impressions and what ever experience they may have during their

sadhana may be not real. For it is the nature of the mind to play

tricks on us. For many who think they have raised Kundalini may

actually not be the real case. The mind wants them to think that

their kundalini have risen, but in actual fact it is an illusion.

 

 

"It is much better to seek direct communion with God through

devotional methods rather than relying on the written word to get

you there"

 

I seek communion with DEVI first in a devotional methods [ which

means, I pray to the image of Parashakti ] and ask for guidance, and

SHE send me one. If you look back at our messages, since you are not

aware, our group have been functioning for more than 2 yrs now. Look

at the compilation of our message on Guru. Devi Bhakta and Me before

we meet our guru and now. Please do take the time, to read and

understand first before you make any conclusion about me. At least,

I do not take in what ever written in the Aghora book or those

written by H. Johari. And Look who is saying about relying on

written words. Hhaaa good show lili, good show!

 

 

Now this is my last respond to you as a respect to my moderators

especially devi_bhakta, for I believe sometimes its not worth having

discussion with someone who have already have a fix mind about

others that they are wrong! Good day lili.

 

"Wine is strong, the king is stronger, women is stronger still, but

the truth shall persist" Am I not correct Lili.

 

 

Please remember you are a guest in this group.