Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 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" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 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". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 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. / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 , "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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 "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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 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?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 > "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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 , 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. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 , "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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.