Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 There is no such a rule in tradition. In such case literal translation is the only valid one (it deals with technical instructions on specific sadhanas). Thus it is leading to siddhi, while speculations lead nowhere. There was an issue when Sri Bhaskararaya opposed hypocritic brahmans who tryed to make Kamakala-dhyana a mere theoretic speculation. He insisted upon literal application of this practice. Hope U won't suggest he wanted to desperse results of their sadhana >From the writings of Abhinavagupta it is also clear that these things are to be interpreted literally (in practical application; of course this doesn't mean no symbolical meaning is there). Finally, this issue noone stops U from interpreting sexual terms in any manner U like. That is personal views how U interpret which may correlate with Tradition or may not. But one has to translate it properly (then he may give whatever symbolic interpretation he wants). A , "mahahradanatha" <mahahradanatha wrote: > > Avoiding literal interpretations is in accordance with tradition and > causes accumulation of siddhi, while literal translation can > disperse the result of your sadhana. It is an individual decision not > concernend with scholarship. > , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" > <bhagatirtha@> wrote: > > > > Namaskar, Sankara! > > > > Sure, U are right. > > But even in this case there is primary interpretation and specific > (mantric) one. Usually > > main interpretations are rather few, one/two/three - which we can > see from > > Bhaskararaya's commentary of LSN. > > Coming to discussed sahasranama of ShmKali, lumme provide some > examples (as i see my > > "great and wise" opponents are capable only of insults but not of > study): > > > > Firstly let us note that we deal with rather specific case: it > those names translation of > > which is diverted in "Kali Puja" we find same three expressions: > > bhaga-li~Nga > > svayambhUpuShpa/kusuma > > shukra > > Which all refer to sexual items. > > > > Of course we can try to take shukra as "fire" of name of god of > Venus, and take > > svayambhUpuShpa to mean "flower born by itself". First assumption > make sense (but put > > in context, Shukra-Venus doesn't occupy in Tantra SUCH important > place that so many > > names of Devi are devoted to him, while perhaps none to other > grahas). Second > > assumption doesn't make any sense apart from literal - what is > this "flower"? > > Expression bhaga-li~Nga is so obvious that it cannot be diverted. > Still, Swami Satyananda > > does this. > > > > What is bhagali~NgAmR^itAtmikA? > > bhagali~NgArchanaprItA? > > svayambhUpuShpatarpitA? > > shukrasnAtA? > > > > I do not remember what was Swami's translation was (maybe finally > someone will take a > > burden to look and give out), but i remember me and my guru were > really wondering > > about them. And the reason of supposedly deliberate mistranslation > is clear - to avoid any > > note about sex, blood, alcohol etc. But why then to take THIS > sahasranama? > > > > Now, all mahamunis etc, have a chance to come at last to exact > point of discussion. > > > > Pranam, > > A > > > > , sankara menon <kochu1tz@> > wrote: > > > > > > But thereis another problem (or is it greatness??) with > Sanskrit. The verses can mean > > entirely different things depending on how one breaks words. It is > said Shankara or > > someone gave 18 interpretations to bhagawat gIta. Some > contradictory and some even > > ludicrous. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 This issue is concerned with both Tradition and scholarship. As for scholarship, those translations are inaccurate and wrong. As for Kaula-tradition, they are misleading. Every scripture is to be interpreted (from traditional point of view) in accordance with that tradition to which it belongs. Hope this is unquestionable. A , "mahahradanatha" <mahahradanatha wrote: > > Avoiding literal interpretations is in accordance with tradition and > causes accumulation of siddhi, while literal translation can > disperse the result of your sadhana. It is an individual decision not > concernend with scholarship. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 People around here say "Ham Bra" meaning "Yeah, I understand." What's funny is how it sounds like "Aham Bhramhasmi." - bsubramaniam Wednesday, April 05, 2006 11:42 PM Re: Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] Dear Kochu, I thought "Ham" was Akasha Tatva bija. Could you clarify my doubt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 I do not argue with you, because i know it is an futile attempt but please if you must cite me do it correctly: i did not say that there is a rule in tradition. I used the words "it is in accordance with", there is a subtle difference between the words a rule and "in accordance" in accordance means that it can be done, nonetheless there is a subtle hint that there exist ways to deal with tantric concepts that are not in accordance with Tradition but i do not want to go into details. , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" <bhagatirtha wrote: > > There is no such a rule in tradition. In such case literal translation is the only valid one (it > deals with technical instructions on specific sadhanas). Thus it is leading to siddhi, while > speculations lead nowhere. > > There was an issue when Sri Bhaskararaya opposed hypocritic brahmans who tryed to > make Kamakala-dhyana a mere theoretic speculation. He insisted upon literal application > of this practice. Hope U won't suggest he wanted to desperse results of their sadhana > > From the writings of Abhinavagupta it is also clear that these things are to be interpreted > literally (in practical application; of course this doesn't mean no symbolical meaning is > there). > > Finally, this issue noone stops U from interpreting sexual terms in any manner U like. That > is personal views how U interpret which may correlate with Tradition or may not. But one > has to translate it properly (then he may give whatever symbolic interpretation he wants). > > A > > , "mahahradanatha" <mahahradanatha@> > wrote: > > > > Avoiding literal interpretations is in accordance with tradition and > > causes accumulation of siddhi, while literal translation can > > disperse the result of your sadhana. It is an individual decision not > > concernend with scholarship. > > , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" > > <bhagatirtha@> wrote: > > > > > > Namaskar, Sankara! > > > > > > Sure, U are right. > > > But even in this case there is primary interpretation and specific > > (mantric) one. Usually > > > main interpretations are rather few, one/two/three - which we can > > see from > > > Bhaskararaya's commentary of LSN. > > > Coming to discussed sahasranama of ShmKali, lumme provide some > > examples (as i see my > > > "great and wise" opponents are capable only of insults but not of > > study): > > > > > > Firstly let us note that we deal with rather specific case: it > > those names translation of > > > which is diverted in "Kali Puja" we find same three expressions: > > > bhaga-li~Nga > > > svayambhUpuShpa/kusuma > > > shukra > > > Which all refer to sexual items. > > > > > > Of course we can try to take shukra as "fire" of name of god of > > Venus, and take > > > svayambhUpuShpa to mean "flower born by itself". First assumption > > make sense (but put > > > in context, Shukra-Venus doesn't occupy in Tantra SUCH important > > place that so many > > > names of Devi are devoted to him, while perhaps none to other > > grahas). Second > > > assumption doesn't make any sense apart from literal - what is > > this "flower"? > > > Expression bhaga-li~Nga is so obvious that it cannot be diverted. > > Still, Swami Satyananda > > > does this. > > > > > > What is bhagali~NgAmR^itAtmikA? > > > bhagali~NgArchanaprItA? > > > svayambhUpuShpatarpitA? > > > shukrasnAtA? > > > > > > I do not remember what was Swami's translation was (maybe finally > > someone will take a > > > burden to look and give out), but i remember me and my guru were > > really wondering > > > about them. And the reason of supposedly deliberate mistranslation > > is clear - to avoid any > > > note about sex, blood, alcohol etc. But why then to take THIS > > sahasranama? > > > > > > Now, all mahamunis etc, have a chance to come at last to exact > > point of discussion. > > > > > > Pranam, > > > A > > > > > > , sankara menon <kochu1tz@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > But thereis another problem (or is it greatness??) with > > Sanskrit. The verses can mean > > > entirely different things depending on how one breaks words. It is > > said Shankara or > > > someone gave 18 interpretations to bhagawat gIta. Some > > contradictory and some even > > > ludicrous. > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 HAHAHA how about this Proposal i take all the attainment moksha and the siddhi and i am happy you take the your whole Kaula Tradition and Scholarship and you are happy ))) , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" <bhagatirtha wrote: > > This issue is concerned with both Tradition and scholarship. > As for scholarship, those translations are inaccurate and wrong. > As for Kaula-tradition, they are misleading. > Every scripture is to be interpreted (from traditional point of view) in accordance with that > tradition to which it belongs. Hope this is unquestionable. > > A > > , "mahahradanatha" <mahahradanatha@> wrote: > > > > Avoiding literal interpretations is in accordance with tradition and > > causes accumulation of siddhi, while literal translation can > > disperse the result of your sadhana. It is an individual decision not > > concernend with scholarship. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 Really funny how U can "take" Moksha and from "whom". Go on, try A , "mahahradanatha" <mahahradanatha wrote: > > > HAHAHA how about this Proposal i take all the attainment moksha and > the siddhi and i am happy you take the your whole Kaula Tradition > and Scholarship and you are happy ))) > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 It is U who is ascribing me that which i did not say. Have some attention: i nowhere cited U or said that i cite U However my expression wasn't exact. Let me say that "Avoiding literal interpretations is NOT in accordance with tradition". Hope U are happy. Tradition accepts all traditional interpretations which at times are symbolical and at times literal, as well as both in many cases. A , "mahahradanatha" <mahahradanatha wrote: > > > I do not argue with you, because i know it is an futile attempt but > please if you must cite me do it correctly: i did not say that there > is a rule in tradition. I used the words "it is in accordance with", > there is a subtle difference between the words a rule and "in > accordance" in accordance means that it can be done, nonetheless > there is a subtle hint that there exist ways to deal with tantric > concepts that are not in accordance with Tradition but i do not want > to go into details. > > , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" > <bhagatirtha@> wrote: > > > > There is no such a rule in tradition. In such case literal > translation is the only valid one (it > > deals with technical instructions on specific sadhanas). Thus it is > leading to siddhi, while > > speculations lead nowhere. > > > > There was an issue when Sri Bhaskararaya opposed hypocritic > brahmans who tryed to > > make Kamakala-dhyana a mere theoretic speculation. He insisted upon > literal application > > of this practice. Hope U won't suggest he wanted to desperse > results of their sadhana > > > > From the writings of Abhinavagupta it is also clear that these > things are to be interpreted > > literally (in practical application; of course this doesn't mean no > symbolical meaning is > > there). > > > > Finally, this issue noone stops U from interpreting sexual terms in > any manner U like. That > > is personal views how U interpret which may correlate with > Tradition or may not. But one > > has to translate it properly (then he may give whatever symbolic > interpretation he wants). > > > > A Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 Isn´t being always right boring at times? , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" <bhagatirtha wrote: > > It is U who is ascribing me that which i did not say. Have some attention: i nowhere cited U > or said that i cite U > However my expression wasn't exact. Let me say that "Avoiding literal interpretations is > NOT in accordance with tradition". Hope U are happy. > Tradition accepts all traditional interpretations which at times are symbolical and at times > literal, as well as both in many cases. > > A > > , "mahahradanatha" <mahahradanatha@> > wrote: > > > > > > I do not argue with you, because i know it is an futile attempt but > > please if you must cite me do it correctly: i did not say that there > > is a rule in tradition. I used the words "it is in accordance with", > > there is a subtle difference between the words a rule and "in > > accordance" in accordance means that it can be done, nonetheless > > there is a subtle hint that there exist ways to deal with tantric > > concepts that are not in accordance with Tradition but i do not want > > to go into details. > > > > , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" > > <bhagatirtha@> wrote: > > > > > > There is no such a rule in tradition. In such case literal > > translation is the only valid one (it > > > deals with technical instructions on specific sadhanas). Thus it is > > leading to siddhi, while > > > speculations lead nowhere. > > > > > > There was an issue when Sri Bhaskararaya opposed hypocritic > > brahmans who tryed to > > > make Kamakala-dhyana a mere theoretic speculation. He insisted upon > > literal application > > > of this practice. Hope U won't suggest he wanted to desperse > > results of their sadhana > > > > > > From the writings of Abhinavagupta it is also clear that these > > things are to be interpreted > > > literally (in practical application; of course this doesn't mean no > > symbolical meaning is > > > there). > > > > > > Finally, this issue noone stops U from interpreting sexual terms in > > any manner U like. That > > > is personal views how U interpret which may correlate with > > Tradition or may not. But one > > > has to translate it properly (then he may give whatever symbolic > > interpretation he wants). > > > > > > A > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 Laidis andddd jantlemans I know its funn aind gaimes. But dis is no plaise fo dat. Arjuna sais dere are mistaikes in da buk. let ush discuss da buk oik? no personal diskushion OIK? Arjuna put da naimes in disput OIK? list. Others sai what Satyananda saraswati sayed. Arjuna sai what ish rong. Den oddars esplaine. Den da diskushion go on. No personalities. Eef eni wan go personal me put hex of da pahsht oirder. Using Esu Elegbra da messengar of ispirits in da woo doo. OIK? mahahradanatha <mahahradanatha wrote: Isn´t being always right boring at times? , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" <bhagatirtha wrote: > > It is U who is ascribing me that which i did not say. Have some attention: i nowhere cited U > or said that i cite U > However my expression wasn't exact. Let me say that "Avoiding literal interpretations is > NOT in accordance with tradition". Hope U are happy. > Tradition accepts all traditional interpretations which at times are symbolical and at times > literal, as well as both in many cases. > > A > > , "mahahradanatha" <mahahradanatha@> > wrote: > > > > > > I do not argue with you, because i know it is an futile attempt but > > please if you must cite me do it correctly: i did not say that there > > is a rule in tradition. I used the words "it is in accordance with", > > there is a subtle difference between the words a rule and "in > > accordance" in accordance means that it can be done, nonetheless > > there is a subtle hint that there exist ways to deal with tantric > > concepts that are not in accordance with Tradition but i do not want > > to go into details. > > > > , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" > > <bhagatirtha@> wrote: > > > > > > There is no such a rule in tradition. In such case literal > > translation is the only valid one (it > > > deals with technical instructions on specific sadhanas). Thus it is > > leading to siddhi, while > > > speculations lead nowhere. > > > > > > There was an issue when Sri Bhaskararaya opposed hypocritic > > brahmans who tryed to > > > make Kamakala-dhyana a mere theoretic speculation. He insisted upon > > literal application > > > of this practice. Hope U won't suggest he wanted to desperse > > results of their sadhana > > > > > > From the writings of Abhinavagupta it is also clear that these > > things are to be interpreted > > > literally (in practical application; of course this doesn't mean no > > symbolical meaning is > > > there). > > > > > > Finally, this issue noone stops U from interpreting sexual terms in > > any manner U like. That > > > is personal views how U interpret which may correlate with > > Tradition or may not. But one > > > has to translate it properly (then he may give whatever symbolic > > interpretation he wants). > > > > > > A > Visit your group "" on the web. Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 LOL! Nice translation Kochu :-). -------------- Original message -------------- sankara menon <kochu1tz Laidis andddd jantlemans I know its funn aind gaimes. But dis is no plaise fo dat. Arjuna sais dere are mistaikes in da buk. let ush discuss da buk oik? no personal diskushion OIK? Arjuna put da naimes in disput OIK? list. Others sai what Satyananda saraswati sayed. Arjuna sai what ish rong. Den oddars esplaine. Den da diskushion go on. No personalities. Eef eni wan go personal me put hex of da pahsht oirder. Using Esu Elegbra da messengar of ispirits in da woo doo. OIK? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 )))))) Yu ar gr8 Kochu-san! , sankara menon <kochu1tz wrote: > > Laidis andddd jantlemans > > I know its funn aind gaimes. But dis is no plaise fo dat. > Arjuna sais dere are mistaikes in da buk. let ush discuss da buk oik? no personal diskushion OIK? > > Arjuna put da naimes in disput OIK? list. > > Others sai what Satyananda saraswati sayed. Arjuna sai what ish rong. Den oddars esplaine. Den da diskushion go on. No personalities. > > Eef eni wan go personal me put hex of da pahsht oirder. Using Esu Elegbra da messengar of ispirits in da woo doo. OIK? > > > mahahradanatha <mahahradanatha wrote: > > Isn´t being always right boring at times? > > , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" > <bhagatirtha@> wrote: > > > > It is U who is ascribing me that which i did not say. Have some > attention: i nowhere cited U > > or said that i cite U > > However my expression wasn't exact. Let me say that "Avoiding > literal interpretations is > > NOT in accordance with tradition". Hope U are happy. > > Tradition accepts all traditional interpretations which at times > are symbolical and at times > > literal, as well as both in many cases. > > > > A > > > > , "mahahradanatha" > <mahahradanatha@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I do not argue with you, because i know it is an futile attempt > but > > > please if you must cite me do it correctly: i did not say that > there > > > is a rule in tradition. I used the words "it is in accordance > with", > > > there is a subtle difference between the words a rule and "in > > > accordance" in accordance means that it can be done, nonetheless > > > there is a subtle hint that there exist ways to deal with tantric > > > concepts that are not in accordance with Tradition but i do not > want > > > to go into details. > > > > > > , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" > > > <bhagatirtha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is no such a rule in tradition. In such case literal > > > translation is the only valid one (it > > > > deals with technical instructions on specific sadhanas). Thus > it is > > > leading to siddhi, while > > > > speculations lead nowhere. > > > > > > > > There was an issue when Sri Bhaskararaya opposed hypocritic > > > brahmans who tryed to > > > > make Kamakala-dhyana a mere theoretic speculation. He insisted > upon > > > literal application > > > > of this practice. Hope U won't suggest he wanted to desperse > > > results of their sadhana > > > > > > > > From the writings of Abhinavagupta it is also clear that these > > > things are to be interpreted > > > > literally (in practical application; of course this doesn't > mean no > > > symbolical meaning is > > > > there). > > > > > > > > Finally, this issue noone stops U from interpreting sexual > terms in > > > any manner U like. That > > > > is personal views how U interpret which may correlate with > > > Tradition or may not. But one > > > > has to translate it properly (then he may give whatever > symbolic > > > interpretation he wants). > > > > > > > > A > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 No, such things are to be interpreted according to one's own Guru Parampara as learned from the mouth of one's own Guru. This has always been the tradition, long before anything was ever written down and this still holds true today. - Arjuna Taranandanatha Thursday, April 06, 2006 4:55 AM Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] There is no such a rule in tradition. In such case literal translation is the only valid one (it deals with technical instructions on specific sadhanas). Thus it is leading to siddhi, while speculations lead nowhere. There was an issue when Sri Bhaskararaya opposed hypocritic brahmans who tryed to make Kamakala-dhyana a mere theoretic speculation. He insisted upon literal application of this practice. Hope U won't suggest he wanted to desperse results of their sadhana From the writings of Abhinavagupta it is also clear that these things are to be interpreted literally (in practical application; of course this doesn't mean no symbolical meaning is there). Finally, this issue noone stops U from interpreting sexual terms in any manner U like. That is personal views how U interpret which may correlate with Tradition or may not. But one has to translate it properly (then he may give whatever symbolic interpretation he wants). A , "mahahradanatha" <mahahradanatha wrote: > > Avoiding literal interpretations is in accordance with tradition and > causes accumulation of siddhi, while literal translation can > disperse the result of your sadhana. It is an individual decision not > concernend with scholarship. > , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" > <bhagatirtha@> wrote: > > > > Namaskar, Sankara! > > > > Sure, U are right. > > But even in this case there is primary interpretation and specific > (mantric) one. Usually > > main interpretations are rather few, one/two/three - which we can > see from > > Bhaskararaya's commentary of LSN. > > Coming to discussed sahasranama of ShmKali, lumme provide some > examples (as i see my > > "great and wise" opponents are capable only of insults but not of > study): > > > > Firstly let us note that we deal with rather specific case: it > those names translation of > > which is diverted in "Kali Puja" we find same three expressions: > > bhaga-li~Nga > > svayambhUpuShpa/kusuma > > shukra > > Which all refer to sexual items. > > > > Of course we can try to take shukra as "fire" of name of god of > Venus, and take > > svayambhUpuShpa to mean "flower born by itself". First assumption > make sense (but put > > in context, Shukra-Venus doesn't occupy in Tantra SUCH important > place that so many > > names of Devi are devoted to him, while perhaps none to other > grahas). Second > > assumption doesn't make any sense apart from literal - what is > this "flower"? > > Expression bhaga-li~Nga is so obvious that it cannot be diverted. > Still, Swami Satyananda > > does this. > > > > What is bhagali~NgAmR^itAtmikA? > > bhagali~NgArchanaprItA? > > svayambhUpuShpatarpitA? > > shukrasnAtA? > > > > I do not remember what was Swami's translation was (maybe finally > someone will take a > > burden to look and give out), but i remember me and my guru were > really wondering > > about them. And the reason of supposedly deliberate mistranslation > is clear - to avoid any > > note about sex, blood, alcohol etc. But why then to take THIS > sahasranama? > > > > Now, all mahamunis etc, have a chance to come at last to exact > point of discussion. > > > > Pranam, > > A > > > > , sankara menon <kochu1tz@> > wrote: > > > > > > But thereis another problem (or is it greatness??) with > Sanskrit. The verses can mean > > entirely different things depending on how one breaks words. It is > said Shankara or > > someone gave 18 interpretations to bhagawat gIta. Some > contradictory and some even > > ludicrous. > > > a.. Visit your group "" on the web. b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 6, 2006 There is no one Kaula tradition. There is no one Tantric tradition. There is no one tradition, period. There are many lineages within each "tradition". Each has a different flavor, so to speak. Each disciple may have been instructed a little (or a lot) differently from others by his/her Guru, and then the same with each generation. There is no one version of any sahasranam. There is no one way to pronounce Sanskrit, there is no one way to interpret Sanskrit and there is no one way to define/translate Sanskrit. No one lineage/school/tradition, can lay claim over any expression of Divinity. Jai Maa! Surya PS I certainly am not a Mahamuni, but rather a Mahamuni Das and Bhakta. - Arjuna Taranandanatha Thursday, April 06, 2006 5:24 AM Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] This issue is concerned with both Tradition and scholarship. As for scholarship, those translations are inaccurate and wrong. As for Kaula-tradition, they are misleading. Every scripture is to be interpreted (from traditional point of view) in accordance with that tradition to which it belongs. Hope this is unquestionable. A , "mahahradanatha" <mahahradanatha wrote: > > Avoiding literal interpretations is in accordance with tradition and > causes accumulation of siddhi, while literal translation can > disperse the result of your sadhana. It is an individual decision not > concernend with scholarship. a.. Visit your group "" on the web. b.. c.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 7, 2006 I never wanted to say this, in case the cat was let out of the bag, but Kochu is developing a SanskritHinglish combo. Good work Kochu ;-) bsubramaniam wrote: LOL! Nice translation Kochu :-). -------------- Original message -------------- sankara menon <kochu1tz Laidis andddd jantlemans I know its funn aind gaimes. But dis is no plaise fo dat. Arjuna sais dere are mistaikes in da buk. let ush discuss da buk oik? no personal diskushion OIK? Arjuna put da naimes in disput OIK? list. Others sai what Satyananda saraswati sayed. Arjuna sai what ish rong. Den oddars esplaine. Den da diskushion go on. No personalities. Eef eni wan go personal me put hex of da pahsht oirder. Using Esu Elegbra da messengar of ispirits in da woo doo. OIK? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 7, 2006 Dear Vir, Now that this debate on Kali pooja has gone Nuts! and other folks have lost it on curses. I have my two bits, I ask all wearied, harassed, angered individuals of this debate to bear with me. Vir, I have a small idea maybe it will work for you, it worked rather well for me. When you worship Ma: put your forehead on the ground/floor.....imagine that it touches her feet. Feel your forehead on her feet. Feel. Give yourself completely in that moment. Then carry these feet around in your mind for a while as you do whatever. Remember dont ask her for anything, just feel. Then you'll hear her. This is an ancient method.......simple........of worship. It works! PS: Folks dont get bugged, bothered, hurt please...........Am just sharing this, thats all. Tarini Tarini Vir Rawlley <redderred wrote: I never wanted to say this, in case the cat was let out of the bag, but Kochu is developing a SanskritHinglish combo. Good work Kochu ;-) bsubramaniam wrote: LOL! Nice translation Kochu :-). -------------- Original message -------------- sankara menon <kochu1tz Laidis andddd jantlemans I know its funn aind gaimes. But dis is no plaise fo dat. Arjuna sais dere are mistaikes in da buk. let ush discuss da buk oik? no personal diskushion OIK? Arjuna put da naimes in disput OIK? list. Others sai what Satyananda saraswati sayed. Arjuna sai what ish rong. Den oddars esplaine. Den da diskushion go on. No personalities. Eef eni wan go personal me put hex of da pahsht oirder. Using Esu Elegbra da messengar of ispirits in da woo doo. OIK? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 7, 2006 dis main is my style of creole or pidgin Vir Rawlley <redderred wrote: I never wanted to say this, in case the cat was let out of the bag, but Kochu is developing a SanskritHinglish combo. Good work Kochu ;-) bsubramaniam wrote: LOL! Nice translation Kochu :-). -------------- Original message -------------- sankara menon <kochu1tz Laidis andddd jantlemans I know its funn aind gaimes. But dis is no plaise fo dat. Arjuna sais dere are mistaikes in da buk. let ush discuss da buk oik? no personal diskushion OIK? Arjuna put da naimes in disput OIK? list. Others sai what Satyananda saraswati sayed. Arjuna sai what ish rong. Den oddars esplaine. Den da diskushion go on. No personalities. Eef eni wan go personal me put hex of da pahsht oirder. Using Esu Elegbra da messengar of ispirits in da woo doo. OIK? Traditions Divine Visit your group "" on the web. How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 7, 2006 It's good. I like it. Thanks for this. - charu jagat Friday, April 07, 2006 7:24 AM Re: Re: Kali specific [Kali-puja book] Dear Vir, Now that this debate on Kali pooja has gone Nuts! and other folks have lost it on curses. I have my two bits, I ask all wearied, harassed, angered individuals of this debate to bear with me. Vir, I have a small idea maybe it will work for you, it worked rather well for me. When you worship Ma: put your forehead on the ground/floor.....imagine that it touches her feet. Feel your forehead on her feet. Feel. Give yourself completely in that moment. Then carry these feet around in your mind for a while as you do whatever. Remember dont ask her for anything, just feel. Then you'll hear her. This is an ancient method.......simple........of worship. It works! PS: Folks dont get bugged, bothered, hurt please...........Am just sharing this, thats all. Tarini Tarini Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 8, 2006 Devi Tarini Thank you, I will do this. Here are two pictures of Kali I downloaded from the web, which I love, as of course other images of sweetest Kaali. Much love, Vir charu jagat <charu_jagat wrote: Dear Vir, Now that this debate on Kali pooja has gone Nuts! and other folks have lost it on curses. I have my two bits, I ask all wearied, harassed, angered individuals of this debate to bear with me. Vir, I have a small idea maybe it will work for you, it worked rather well for me. When you worship Ma: put your forehead on the ground/floor.....imagine that it touches her feet. Feel your forehead on her feet. Feel. Give yourself completely in that moment. Then carry these feet around in your mind for a while as you do whatever. Remember dont ask her for anything, just feel. Then you'll hear her. This is an ancient method.......simple........of worship. It works! PS: Folks dont get bugged, bothered, hurt please...........Am just sharing this, thats all. Tarini Tarini Vir Rawlley <redderred wrote: I never wanted to say this, in case the cat was let out of the bag, but Kochu is developing a SanskritHinglish combo. Good work Kochu ;-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
