MEENAKSHI AMBAAL, some other devis as well

[Guest guest]

the tantras I mention are:

 

Brihadnila, tara rahasyam, mahakala samhita, kali tantra, kali rahasyam, rg veda

and yogini tantra.

 

They all state that the devi's are one and the same, just like our physical

mother has different functions to feed us, clean us, clothe us and protect us as

well as teach us so the devi too has these functions.

 

How can one say that one duty is superior to the other? rajamatangini has an

esoteric meaning which I am not going to get into, but it does not proclaim that

she is superior to the other matanginis for they are all one.

 

Every tantra will state their diety as being superior since, if you follow a

tantra you are looking at that diety as your ista devata and in saying so you

accept her/him as being the form you want to see the supreme divinity in.

 

But look at the yogini tantra, and the kularnava tantra they praise the devi but

also say all her forms are one. If you look at any shahasranama, hridayam or

tantra of a particular deity it simply means you choose that diety as being your

ista devi or devata.

 

The three devis show the gunas, yes but the three also have been called nirguna

themselves, adya kalika for instance is the composition of all the dieities and

so is devi durga.

 

It is sheer foolishness to see the goddess as being higher then the other,

mother lalita is no different to mother tara or mother swaha. Lalita devi aka

tripura sundari devi is also known as shodasi one of the ten mahavidyas, how can

you say one vidya is superior to the other?

 

Mahadevi, she who is said to be the manifest of all devis, she comprises of the

three divine mothers. You can look at devi in anyform they are all the same,

cant you see that just like we take brith and rebirth our atma remains the same

but our body changes. That does not mean one of our births is superior to the

other. This is the same with the Devi.

 

Besides, if one had access to the true meaning of a particular tantra one would

have reached perfection as yet. Remember in the devi gita devi states that some

tantras are misleading in their literal level and again in the kularnava tantra

she says that fools look at the literal level of tantras. There is a higher

meaning to it all.

 

Lord Dakshinamurti is also said to be the teacher of adi nath aka Lord Shiva in

aghora, that does not mean that there is a hierachy between the two. Lord Vishnu

worshipped lord shiva to attain the chakra that does not mean shiva is superior!

 

There is an esoteric meaning behind all this, just as lord shiva destroyed

tripura sura that has nothing to do with the literal world, but has everything

to do with the esoteic world. It shows the fight in the kundalini, how even then

shiva (atma personified) needs the kundalini shakti to fight the imperfect

world.

 

In such dakini and shakini are all harnessed and beofore the sadhaka reaches

shiva conciousness he/she needs to master the dakini and shakini powers, the

very essence of duality is needed to destroy it.

 

In essence there is no form of devi, she has no form the rishis manifested form

so that man can percieve the supreme more articulately. You can call this

supreme divinity what you like, the output is the same.

 

So how can you place judgement on one road, when all reach the same place these

forms of the devi can be percieved as these very roads, some are short but hard

while others are long and easy. It depends on preferance and personality.

 

There are so many texts that state it be foolish to make comparison, why do you

think hridayamurti swami was established because stupid fools argued shiva being

superior to vishnu and vise versa.

 

They just represent the two nadis that are the two major paths of kundalini, the

bhakti and the jnyana. They cannot function properly without each other.

 

Uma is the very form of lord Vishnu but percieved as a female and Lakshmi the

form of Shiva. They are so to allow understanding that without the one another

they cannot function.

 

You cannot have enlightenment without shiva and shakti so there isnt a heirachy,

shakti takes sub forms as to match the sub forms of shiva. There isnt any

difference whatsoever. You can follow as many tantras as you want but just like

you cannot situate yourself on two boats so you will understand, that these

tantras together will become hazardous.

 

Devi is beyond logic and plane conciousness, hence she decapitated herself to

show this, cut off your mind and ahamkara to reach her. Stop comparing!

 

 

 

 

Careers- 1,000's of jobs waiting online for you!

 

 

[Guest guest]

With Sri Vidya I am not going to say much, I am not a practitioner nor have I

realised devi through this method. Meenakshi devi also comes into akarshana

tantra which is hardcore vamachara; in which she is associated with devi kali as

being the more passive side.

 

In kaula siddhanta the nithyas act as representatives of kundalini chakras as

well as other things, through their worship does one excel until the ultimate

status of atharvana kaula is reached aka oneness with Devi.

 

How would come about kaula tantra to make a judgement that sri vidya is more

organised in terms of metaphysics? I mean no hostility nor offense but i would

presume that you do not practice kaulic tantra.

 

As far as heirachy of any such goes there are none in kaula tantra in terms of

the goddesses, I dont know about sri vidya nor do I intend to comment on that.

 

I understand what you mean by the nityas and kundalini, but according to dasha

mahavidya tantra the goddess Matangi is not a nitya but a vidya devi. Ofcourse

she will have multiple forms but the dash maha vidya tantra goes to comment that

one should never see duality between one's self and the goddess and the multiple

dieties they take form of.

 

Mind you Dasha Mahavidya tantra incorperates sri vidya and I have the texts to

prove so, the worship of bala or mother lalita is important in calling the dasha

maha vidyas since she is one herself. They are all regarded to be forms of the

very goddess Parvati but take her personality to multiple extreme dimensions.

 

The mantra mahodadhi continues to state that one should relish all these forms

of the devi and have intercourse with all their sadhanas, so that one realises

the multiple attributes that the devi posses.

 

This maya thing you mention, there is different theosophy of the tantras I

practice, form comes not because of maya. Maya is the adhesive of form yes for

she is the energy that combines form but not form itself.

 

There are multiple meanings of maya, and I fear if we delve into it, it will

only cause an argument. Maya is just another form of devi and so she should be

loved and embraced.

 

 

 

 

Careers- 1,000's of jobs waiting online for you!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namasthe

I am really happy to carefully read ur postings. I

fully agree with u. practise and immense and sincere

worship would

clear all doubts.u r really great and real upaska. i

could visualise that. in the process of learning and

practise these would definitely clear all doubtds and

vanish. Mother Kali will really clarify that in due

course and when time comes to the upasaka.Many pranams

to u. May Mother give u long and prosperous life.with

regards

urs

kaushik

--- harshanand_16 <harshanand_16 wrote: >

Well it does boil up to the same point! What i am

> trying to point out

> is the same what u r trying to say. But since the

> topic of Minakshi

> came, i pointed out that She is Shyamala, who is the

> queen of the

> Matanginis. Brahmanda purana clearly states this. It

> is true that

> they are all Vibhutis of Sridevi...but there is no

> doubt she is the

> queen of the other matangi ganas, and also the name

> 'Rajamatangi'

> indicates just this. And no where in my post is

> their an impression

> that the duty of one mother superior to another.

> Until there are

> duties and forms, where can there be perfection and

> completion? Since

> Rajamatangini is the head of all vidyas, and effects

> Vishuddhi

> chakra, she is said to be more powerful than the

> other Matanginis. In

> any of the tantras you have mentioned, there is no

> mention of

> Srikula. Since Rajashyamala is basically a devata of

> srikula,

> analysis of Srikula Tantra becomes necessary and not

> of others. I

> never mean to say srividya is superior to any other

> tantra. But the

> metaphysics associated with srividya is highly

> developed and much

> more organized that any other kula. This statement

> should not

> certainly create a controversy. When one understands

> that forms are

> but due to Maya, then why does one fail to accept a

> hierarchial tree

> among the gods?

> It is like the thought school of the

> pseudo-secularists we have in

> india. Well the comparison is not among the

> goddesses or their

> energies, but their forms. And Please refer to

> Srikula Tantras so

> that this point becomes clearer to you. I cannot and

> should not

> explain the significance and differences of the

> different matanginis

> and why rajashyamala is the heaD, because you are

> not a srividya

> upasaka. And i am an ordinary human being who is

> still learning and

> correcting my mistakes. I can never make the mistake

> of offering

> advice or trying to play a Guru to someone by trying

> to initiate

> someone. I hAVE simply expressed my view points. If

> i have offended

> some one, i seek apology. The main point i was

> trying to clarify was

> that Sri Minakshi is not associated with Kali, but

> instead with

> Matangi.

>

> Jaya Jaya Shankara !

>

>

 

______________________

Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, TV.

visit http://in.tv.