Guest guest Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 JAYA JAGANNATHA! Dear J.I. Abbot, Hare Krishna. > > Thanks for your healthy and much needed corrective to some of the extremist, generally angry, and frankly subtly misogynistic views we sometimes see coming from even very accomplished jyotishis on this list. In my (surely heretical because Buddhistic!) view, subordinating Durga to Krishna essentially means not understanding the mothering side of Krishna! Some would also assert that men are intrinsically smarter than women and other such adharmic pap that is about the equivalent of saying we should stone adulterers "because the book of Leviticus... well, it do say so"! > > Chaitanya was himself pretty damn close to a Sahajiya tantrika. Prostate cancer is most prevalent in Roman Catholic priests, who don't always understand how to move with the _rasa_ of sacred experience in the body. One hopes alternatively that the Sanatana Dharma will not be further utilized to shut down the sacredness of the temple of the human body. Who are you to dare criticise Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu? Are you the creator of the universe or what? We are not interested to hear your blasphemy of the Supreme Lord. Dear Narasimha, I suggest that you silence him or ask him to leave the list, because he lacks any respect towards anyhting divine. Yours, Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer gauranga Jyotish Remedies: WWW.BRIHASPATI.NET Phone:+36-309-140-839 > Ultimately the Jyotir Vidya, who is our true Mother, who is not higher or lower than Durga or Krishna but who unites all lovers of Possibility in her outrageous universal embrace, shattering all attempts to relegate her many names to "mere demigod" status -- will have some tricks to play on Jyotishis who practice schismatic deeds (not honoring the sthayibhavas and the rasas of experience, her matrix of aesthetics). Her trickiness, the trickiness of mother Tara, is identical to the tricksterish enlightening moves of baby Krishna. > > Those who pedantically try to refute this fundamental joy (which is ananda itself) neglect their own Mother and mothers (all sentient beings, each of whom has been our mother) and in fact insult the mothering love of Krishna Himself, who resides in the empathy-drenched smile and tears of every human mother, father or feeling person. > > Thank you so much again. > > Sarva mangalam, > > J.I. Abbot > > > "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr wrote: > > >Om Krishnam Vande Jagadgurum > >Dear Sundeep, > > > >> Dear Chandrashekhar, PVR, Gauranga, > >> > >> But in Chapter 7, Verse 23, Lord Krishna also says: > >> "Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are > >> limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the > >> planet of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme > >> planet". > >> Can you please explain the above statement also? I am not really > >> trying to find fault - just searching for the truth - I have no > >> personal experience of it, unfortunately. > > > >The verse you mentioned does not really belittle the worship of "other deities". BTW, the word "anya devataah" literally means "other deities" or "other gods", but some scholars translate it as "demigods". This translation is highly questionable, as the word demigod has a different connotation. > > > >Verses 7-20 to 7-24 of BhagavadGeetha essentially mean the following: "People with various desires propitiate deities following various procedures that are set by nature and by themselves. If a person is devoted to a particular deity, it is because *I* have created that devotion within him. *I* then make him pray to that deity and *I* make him fulfill his good desires. [i do it all.] In the end, men of small intelligence get their good desires because of me [though they may not realize it]. My devotees praying to deities [without specific desires] will get them and will get me too (maam = me, api = *too*). I am inexpressible, supreme and present in everything and everywhere [i.e. in all deities too], but ignorant people do not understand it and consider me to be a specific person." > > > >Krishna is not belittling the worship of Shiva etc ("demigods") above, as commonly interpreted by hard-core Krishna devotees of Kali Yuga. He is instead telling us that he is not a specific person and is present in everything and everywhere (in Vishnu, in Shiva, in Gauri, in Skanda etc). If he is belittling something, it is praying to deities with desires. If you pray to Krishna or any other deity to fulfill a specific desire, the end result is the same - you will get the desire if it is a good desire. If you pray to Krishna or any other deity without any desire, the end result is the same - you reach Him. Even if somebody worships Allah (or some other god) without any desires, that person will ultimately reach Krishna only, for Krishna (or Sadashiva or Viraat Swaroopa or ParaaShakti) is the ultimate divine energy that manifests as everything in the seen and unseen universe. Krishna is not a specific person as the above verse says. He is the divine energy present in all deit > ies (Shaiva call the same supreme divine energy as Sadashiva and Shakteyas call ParaaShakti). > > > >In fact, in verse 9-204, Krishna confirms this explicitly. He says, "Even if one worships another deity with sincerity, he is in fact worshipping me only, albeit not realizing it." This clearly establishes that a sincere devotee of Shiva praying to Shiva without any desires is in fact praying to Krishna unknowingly and will reach Shiva/Krishna in the end! The same thing will hold true to a great Muslim saint who overcomes all desires and prays to Allah sincerely (after all, only a fool would insist that only Hindus get liberated. Great souls are born in all religions). The saint is liberated from rebirth and reaches Allah/Krishna. The real essence of Krishna's timeless teaching is lost in this age of strife, ignorance and intolerance (i.e. Kali Yuga). > > > >Don't think that the translations you read are perfect. Hinduism has a lot of sects. During the dark age of Hinduism, when Vaishnavas and Shaivas killed each other, a lot of prejudices entered the religious discourse. Luckily, an average Hindu's religious ethos is formed of the fabric of open-mindedness and tolerance, even though aberrations can easily be found in religious literature. The common translations of the above verse (such as what you gave) are but an example. If you read all the available Hindu literature, you will see various instances where various deities are mentioned as the supreme deities of the universe (e.g. Shiva, Shakti, Krishna etc) and all other deities are mentioned to have come from them and to be subordinates. Like I said here earlier, divinity as a spiritual concept is akin to infinity as a mathematical concept. When people used to mathematics of finite numbers try to interpolate it to infinite numbers, they make fools of themselves. In the mathem > atics of infinite numbers, a can be equal to b, greater than b and less than b, all at the same time! Also, a plus a can still be a and a minus a can also be a (and not zero). Comparing various forms of infinity mathematically is a meaningless exercise. Trying to rank gods is also a similar exercise. Irrespective of the scriptural quotes given by a person engaging in such an exercise, such an exercise only demonstrates one's ignorance (sorry, but there is no other appropriate word). > > > >> Also, for the benefit of the less knowledgeable ones like myself, > >> could please tell us which deites are considered demigods among the > >> Ishta Devatas? > > > >Some people consider any deity who is not an incarnation of Vishnu to be a demigod and not fit for worship. This includes Shiva, Gauri, Ganesha, Skanda, Durga etc, all mentioned by Parasara in the section on karakamsa. > > > >The bottomline is: If a person has some good desires, feel free to suggest the worship of any deity to fulfill the desire based on the chart. If a person wants to be liberated, suggest the worship of a deity based on the 12th from karakamsa as suggested by Sage Parasara, Sage Jaimini and other great worshippers of Shiva and Vishnu in the tradition of Jyotish. > > > >> Thank you, > >> Sundeep > > > >May Jupiter's light shine on us, > >Narasimha > > > >PS: I don't understand how this discussion on "demigod worship" turned into a discussion on tropical vs sidereal systems! I will not take part in the latter discussion. > > > >PPS: Sri Achyuta Dasa was an associate of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and he is the Parama Guru of our Jyotish parampara. When attacking my guru Pt. Sanjay Rath recently, a fellow astrologer from a Vaishnava parampara belittled Sri Achyuta because the great man was a Shakti worshipper. Later that attack spilled into this list also, when the mail was forwarded here by somebody. Ever since that comment on Sri Achyuta Dasa was made, I have been thinking of commenting on the matter of worshipping deities other thjan Vishnu's incarnations. Finally, I got the opportunity! Please note that great Vaishnavas like Vyasa, Parasara, Chaitanya and Achyuta (let alone Rama and Krishna themselves) were not prejudiced and worshipped Shiva and Shakti freely. Sadly, some traditions have become corrupt and intolerant in this matter today... > > > > > > > > > > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 It is remarkable to me how quickly you leapt into the fray without (apparently) really reading my email. Friend, when I compared Caitanya to a tantrika, I was paying him a *compliment*! Goodness. I don't know whether you're just not permitted in your Gaud.iiya lineage to read about bhakti traditions "outside of the fold." In any event, if the word tantrika is a dirty one for you, I am concerned that there may be no way for us to communicate until we clarify this term and its centrality in Indian religious history. That you could read that particular message and conclude that I "lac[k] any respect towards anything divine" will be something I will marvel at for a long time. If you were to meet, for example, profoundly gifted and devout Shaivite jyotishis such as Hart deFouw and Dr. Robert E. Svoboda -- who themselves practice tantric Jyotisha and other tantric traditions all in the savor of their bhakti -- would you have similar words for them? Perhaps this is just a simple misunderstanding around the word "tantra." I will not pretend that my email did not offer a critique of your perspective on the Mother, made clear, for instance, in your earlier post to Sanjay. The mother will not be related to Krishna or any of his Avataaras simply because there is *no* contradiction between them. Zero. And yes, the Mother (the one I know anyway) gives supreme enlightenment and salvation. Perfect moksha. You can certainly call the millions of devotees she has blessed imperfect or partial renunciates, or whatever, but you don't then have the weight of the full bhakti tradition behind you. By the full tradition, mind you, I am not speaking only of your lineage, which is, however great, only one of many. I am only the creator of microun\verses. Creativity or Opennness to possibility, which we might also call Shuunyataa or "Intrinsic Resourcefulness," is the Creator writ large. This creator is not separate from human art, genius or sexuality. It is our reflex to flinch at and pull back from from seeing creativity in all things that brings about maayaa and perplexity. The profound dualism of bhakti and the practice of non-dual contemplation differ only in form or mode -- like ice melting into water or water freezing again into ice. Or it is a different flavor. He or she who insists on the supremacy of one over the other is like the one who insists on eating exclusively carrots! I am no Creator of all, but I am someone who will not hesitate to extract a little tumor to "save" someone I care about. You are a very good man whose limited views on the purview of the Godhead sometimes gives me and others a bit of grief. Those limited views are not different from malignant growths, because they may cause someone whose natural ishata devata is in fact one of the "demigods" you hold to be inferior *to feel unworthy and less exalted* than the one who is "getting it right." And that can turn a person away from the sacred and plunge him or her into tremendous depression. I know this because it happened to me a decade ago when my spiritual longings wouldn't fit into the box of received lineage and I had no place to go. So we must be very, very careful in these waters, Gauranga. It is my sense that the Jyotir Vidyaa Herself) will teach us more and more of these types of joyful subtleties when we turn to her for strength and inspiration. By the way, in my critique of your and some others' theological standpoint, I do not intend criticism of you as a Jyotishi or your several remarkable shishyas. I have learned a great amount from your writings, online and in print. And Swee I respect beyond what I can verbalize here. There is rnanubandhana between and among all of us, clearly. But we should celebrate this karmic debt as an opportunity. All my best (I mean it) to you and everyone, JIA PS For anyone on the list interested in the awe-provoking bigger picture of Bengali mysticism and tantra, please see Dr. Shashibhusan Das Gupta's masterwork _Obscure Religious Cults_ (possibly out of print, but previously published by Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay of Calcutta in 1969.) In a message dated 3/15/2003 3:28:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, gauranga (AT) brihaspati (DOT) net writes: Who are you to dare criticise Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu? Are you the creator of the universe or what? We are not interested to hear your blasphemy of the Supreme Lord. Dear Narasimha, I suggest that you silence him or ask him to leave the list, because he lacks any respect towards anyhting divine. Yours, Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 Thank you for this- if anybody is to be ''silenced'' that should be ''religious militant/s/'' - If we could only keep this great Jyotish science away and above from perverted religious zest... where it belongs, more people would benefit from it's 'Light"' A. jiabbot (AT) cs (DOT) com wrote: Dear Gauranga Das,It is remarkable to me how quickly you leapt into the fray without (apparently) really reading my email. Friend, when I compared Caitanya to a tantrika, I was paying him a *compliment*! Goodness. I don't know whether you're just not permitted in your Gaud.iiya lineage to read about bhakti traditions "outside of the fold." In any event, if the word tantrika is a dirty one for you, I am concerned that there may be no way for us to communicate until we clarify this term and its centrality in Indian religious history.That you could read that particular message and conclude that I "lac[k] any respect towards anything divine" will be something I will marvel at for a long time. If you were to meet, for example, profoundly gifted and devout Shaivite jyotishis such as Hart deFouw and Dr. Robert E. Svoboda -- who themselves practice tantric Jyotisha and other tantric traditions all in the savor of their bhakti -- would you have similar words for them? Perhaps this is just a simple misunderstanding around the word "tantra." I will not pretend that my email did not offer a critique of your perspective on the Mother, made clear, for instance, in your earlier post to Sanjay. The mother will not be related to Krishna or any of his Avataaras simply because there is *no* contradiction between them. Zero. And yes, the Mother (the one I know anyway) gives supreme enlightenment and salvation. Perfect moksha. You can certainly call the millions of devotees she has blessed imperfect or partial renunciates, or whatever, but you don't then have the weight of the full bhakti tradition behind you. By the full tradition, mind you, I am not speaking only of your lineage, which is, however great, only one of many.I am only the creator of microun\verses. Creativity or Opennness to possibility, which we might also call Shuunyataa or "Intrinsic Resourcefulness," is the Creator writ large. This creator is not separate from human art, genius or sexuality. It is our reflex to flinch at and pull back from from seeing creativity in all things that brings about maayaa and perplexity. The profound dualism of bhakti and the practice of non-dual contemplation differ only in form or mode -- like ice melting into water or water freezing again into ice. Or it is a different flavor. He or she who insists on the supremacy of one over the other is like the one who insists on eating exclusively carrots! I am no Creator of all, but I am someone who will not hesitate to extract a little tumor to "save" someone I care about. You are a very good man whose limited views on the purview of the Godhead sometimes gives me and others a bit of grief. Those limited views are not different from malignant growths, because they may cause someone whose natural ishata devata is in fact one of the "demigods" you hold to be inferior *to feel unworthy and less exalted* than the one who is "getting it right." And that can turn a person away from the sacred and plunge him or her into tremendous depression. I know this because it happened to me a decade ago when my spiritual longings wouldn't fit into the box of received lineage and I had no place to go. So we must be very, very careful in these waters, Gauranga.It is my sense that the Jyotir Vidyaa Herself) will teach us more and more of these types of joyful subtleties when we turn to her for strength and inspiration.By the way, in my critique of your and some others' theological standpoint, I do not intend criticism of you as a Jyotishi or your several remarkable shishyas. I have learned a great amount from your writings, online and in print. And Swee I respect beyond what I can verbalize here. There is rnanubandhana between and among all of us, clearly. But we should celebrate this karmic debt as an opportunity.All my best (I mean it) to you and everyone,JIAPS For anyone on the list interested in the awe-provoking bigger picture of Bengali mysticism and tantra, please see Dr. Shashibhusan Das Gupta's masterwork _Obscure Religious Cults_ (possibly out of print, but previously published by Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay of Calcutta in 1969.)In a message dated 3/15/2003 3:28:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, gauranga (AT) brihaspati (DOT) net writes: Who are you to dare criticise Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu? Are you the creatorof the universe or what? We are not interested to hear your blasphemy of theSupreme Lord. Dear Narasimha, I suggest that you silence him or ask him toleave the list, because he lacks any respect towards anyhting divine.Yours,Gauranga Das Vedic AstrologerArchives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... Do you ? Web Hosting - establish your business online Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 Dear Mr Abbot/ Mr Gaurang, Please forgive my intruding into your conversation . I found it intriguing and thought proviking, and couldnt as much control myself from knocking off a few thoughts of mine, though very ordinary (.... pl forgive me for this ) :-) jiabbot (AT) cs (DOT) com wrote: Dear Gauranga Das, It is remarkable to me how quickly you leapt into the fray without (apparently) really reading my email. Friend, when I compared Caitanya to a tantrika, I was paying him a *compliment*! Goodness. I don't know whether you're just not permitted in your Gaud.iiya lineage to read about bhakti traditions "outside of the fold." In any event, if the word tantrika is a dirty one for you, I am concerned that there may be no way for us to communicate until we clarify this term and its centrality in Indian religious history. Comparing a pure Devotee of the Lord to a Tantrik and saying that it is a compliment, smacks of something amiss.To put it in mundane terms, it is like calling a a Founder and Chairman of a company , a Manager in the company, though both are dignified in their own way, are still a way apart in their standings. Tantra , derives its strength from Atharvana Veda, and for attaining Moksha that is the last Veda to be followed. Tantra always fuels egoism , what with the power one derives through its practice. No wonder you find the Tantriks , even the highest ones, very short tempered. If you mention Dr Robert Svoboda here, then I will be compelled to refer to his wonderful work " Aghora" in which he writes a biography of Vimalanada , who was a Tantrik of the highest quality, yet throwing tantrums of temper ( Krodha ) By the bye, Lord Krishna warns people not to fall for the Flowery Language of the Veda ( the Atharvana) :-) A Siddha is a master of Tantra and the value chain has a Siddha becoming a Natha then a Muni and then attaining of Moksha ( that is if they are on the right track ......will come later down here ). But a pure devotee of the Lord Vishnu is instantly on the Moksha path and traverses through the short cut of Pure unalloyed devotion in him, conquering Kama, Krodha, Madha, Moha, Lobha and Matsara ( Arishadvargas..) No shastra tells of a person who possessed one of the Arishadvargas to have ever meditated upon Lord Vishnu. They invariably did a penance to appease either the Shakti, Shiva or Brahma. That is because you can still reach these Demi Gods possessing one of the above six, but you CANT reach THE GOD with these. Tantriks work for power, no matter their denial, the power equation still exists, and one needs only to look at their practice like that of Aghoris ( Panchamakaara ) . A pure devotee works the opposite, surrenders all powers and seeks only Him and nothing else( read about Prahlada, Dhruva ) . "Gyana, Bhakti and Vairagya" are the only desires ( if you may call it so) of the Pure Devotee. That you could read that particular message and conclude that I "lac[k] any respect towards anything divine" will be something I will marvel at for a long time. If you were to meet, for example, profoundly gifted and devout Shaivite jyotishis such as Hart deFouw and Dr. Robert E. Svoboda -- who themselves practice tantric Jyotisha and other tantric traditions all in the savor of their bhakti -- would you have similar words for them? Perhaps this is just a simple misunderstanding around the word "tantra." I will not pretend that my email did not offer a critique of your perspective on the Mother, made clear, for instance, in your earlier post to Sanjay. The mother will not be related to Krishna or any of his Avataaras simply because there is *no* contradiction between them. Zero. And yes, the Mother (the one I know anyway) gives supreme enlightenment and salvation. Perfect moksha. You can certainly call the millions of devotees ! she has blessed imperfect or partial renunciates, or whatever, but you don't then have the weight of the full bhakti tradition behind you. By the full tradition, mind you, I am not speaking only of your lineage, which is, however great, only one of many. Perfect Moksha??? One can speak of Moksha when one understands it. The Veda says " Eko Narayanastvasit Pralaye Ramaya Saha" . Only Lord Narayana is present along with Rama ( Lakshmi ..the consort of Lord Vishnu ) during Pralaya, the end of all lives through massive destruction and devastation. Then who else other than Lord Narayana can grant Moksha.When the existence of the Demi Gods themselves is in question after a point, it would be massive misunderstanding that others can give Moksha. One needs also to know that the Lord and his consort are the pure Chetana and all others are jeevas. What you are calling as Shiva, Shakti and Brahma are padavis ( positions they hold ) which they relinquish when they get Moksha. No contradiction between them??? I am concerned when I say that the people who stand in support of this theories are Rakshasas like Hiranyakashipu, Ravana, Hiranyaksha and other demons who said there is no difference between Godhead and us and that all are the same or I am the God ( Aham Brahmasmi.. ). Every one knows the fate of these entities. I am only the creator of microun\verses. Creativity or Opennness to possibility, which we might also call Shuunyataa or "Intrinsic Resourcefulness," is the Creator writ large. This creator is not separate from human art, genius or sexuality. It is our reflex to flinch at and pull back from from seeing creativity in all things that brings about maayaa and perplexity. The profound dualism of bhakti and the practice of non-dual contemplation differ only in form or mode -- like ice melting into water or water freezing again into ice. Or it is a different flavor. He or she who insists on the supremacy of one over the other is like the one who insists on eating exclusively carrots! There cant be several kings ruling one kingdom.They have to be the Kings Lieutenants , to rule along side him, totally follow him. Similarly there is one Creator and all others are created. Satwik shastras, the Great Vishnusahasranama as given by the wise Bhisma, proclaim Lord Vishnu as the Creator and the all supreme.The other shastras viz the Rajasic, Tamasic shastras claim Shakti and Shiva as the supreme. But the creator of these shastras, Sage Vyasa clearly states that these remaining shastras are only for the consumption of Asuras " Asura Mohanartham ". Even Shiva says in Rudra Geeta that he Proclaims his supremacy in Pashupatha shastras ( tamasic Purana ) only to follow the directive of Lord Hari and that Lord Hari is the supreme deity and the only deity to be worshipped. Shiva also says in Ramaraksha " Na anyam Jaane , naive Jaane Na Jaane". I know of no other Lord other than Lord Hari and I wouldnt want to know also... Kali Santaranopanishad says " Harir Naama Harir Naama, Harir Naama eva Kevalam, Kalau Naasti Kalau Naasti Gatiranyata". There is no way out for a being in Kaliyuga other than chanting the names of Lord Hari. Eating this carrot will rid one of all sins and having tasted this Carrot, one would remain famished but never covet for any other thing for consumption :-)). The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Please try and you will never ever look back on your earlier beliefs...:-) I am no Creator of all, but I am someone who will not hesitate to extract a little tumor to "save" someone I care about. You are a very good man whose limited views on the purview of the Godhead sometimes gives me and others a bit of grief. Those limited views are not different from malignant growths, because they may cause someone whose natural ishata devata is in fact one of the "demigods" you hold to be inferior *to feel unworthy and less exalted* than the one who is "getting it right." And that can turn a person away from the sacred and plunge him or her into tremendous depression. I know this because it happened to me a decade ago when my spiritual longings wouldn't fit into the box of received lineage and I had no place to go. So we must be very, very careful in these waters, Gauranga. One needs to understand things Logically. If everything were to be one and there is no contradition between two entities, then it is akin to Spiritual Suicide. Imagine me losing my identitiy when I merge with the One...and not being there at all. Ones theory needs to be supported by Logic, science, Mathematics etc. Ah it reminds me when I said mathematics..Even mathematics proves the " No contradiction " theory wrong. Take numbers 1, 2, 3 and so on . One will find Number 1 in all as in 1, 1+1,1+2 etc but 1 is never equal to 2 or 2 equal to 3 etc. Divide the number 1, which denotes The supreme, by any number and it will never become " zero" and if you multiply it by infinity also it is still mathematically right 1+ infinity ( Ano raneeya, Mahato Maheeya ) Only the real Doctor can say who has the "Tumor " and "who" needs to be saved. It is my sense that the Jyotir Vidyaa Herself) will teach us more and more of these types of joyful subtleties when we turn to her for strength and inspiration. By the way, in my critique of your and some others' theological standpoint, I do not intend criticism of you as a Jyotishi or your several remarkable shishyas. I have learned a great amount from your writings, online and in print. And Swee I respect beyond what I can verbalize here. There is rnanubandhana between and among all of us, clearly. But we should celebrate this karmic debt as an opportunity. Yes we need to celebrate and celebrate by Chanting the glorious names of the Lord because he is the reservoir of All pleasures known and unknown to us mere mortals :-) All my best (I mean it) to you and everyone, JIA PS For anyone on the list interested in the awe-provoking bigger picture of Bengali mysticism and tantra, please see Dr. Shashibhusan Das Gupta's masterwork _Obscure Religious Cults_ (possibly out of print, but previously published by Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay of Calcutta in 1969.) In a message dated 3/15/2003 3:28:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, gauranga (AT) brihaspati (DOT) net writes: I dont intend to hurt anybody by my words here. I am sure some of these thoughts coming from the list members are owing to the fact that they havent ever met Knowledgable persons, who can clear their doubts in the right earnest. Think of the top Saints in India (.. aparoksha Gyanis) and you will know what they advocated is in the similar lines as is put above. I would have liked to be more logical and precise, but with the forum and the space constraint and being sure that not many will go through my post :-) stopping it here. Been wanting to barge in, for some of the earlier posts also...I promise to be a good boy and not to intrude again....... My the Lord grant Gyana, Bhakti and Vairagya to one and all... sriram nayak Who are you to dare criticise Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu? Are you the creator of the universe or what? We are not interested to hear your blasphemy of the Supreme Lord. Dear Narasimha, I suggest that you silence him or ask him to leave the list, because he lacks any respect towards anyhting divine. Yours, Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer ........ May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... || Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu || Your use of is subject to the Attachment: (image/gif) C:\DOCUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\nsmailKQ.gif [not stored] Attachment: (image/gif) C:\DOCUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\nsmail8E.gif [not stored] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2003 Report Share Posted March 15, 2003 This is real intelligence...... Sriram Nayak prabhu I offer my humble obeisances to you All glories to Srila Prabhupada and all the great devotees of the Lord Jaya!! Kasim >Sriram Nayak >vedic astrology >vedic astrology >Re: [vedic astrology] More on demigod worship - to Admin >Sun, 16 Mar 2003 01:48:56 +0530 > >Dear Mr Abbot/ Mr Gaurang, > >Please forgive my intruding into your conversation . I found it >intriguing and thought proviking, and couldnt as much control myself >from knocking off a few thoughts of mine, though very ordinary (.... pl >forgive me for this ) :-) > >jiabbot (AT) cs (DOT) com wrote: > > > Dear Gauranga Das, > > > > It is remarkable to me how quickly you leapt into the fray without > > (apparently) really reading my email. Friend, when I compared > > Caitanya to a tantrika, I was paying him a *compliment*! Goodness. I > > don't know whether you're just not permitted in your Gaud.iiya lineage > > to read about bhakti traditions "outside of the fold." In any event, > > if the word tantrika is a dirty one for you, I am concerned that there > > may be no way for us to communicate until we clarify this term and its > > centrality in Indian religious history. > > > >Comparing a pure Devotee of the Lord to a Tantrik and saying that it is >a compliment, smacks of something amiss.To put it in mundane terms, it >is like calling a a Founder and Chairman of a company , a Manager in the >company, though both are dignified in their own way, are still a way >apart in their standings. Tantra , derives its strength from Atharvana >Veda, and for attaining Moksha that is the last Veda to be followed. >Tantra always fuels egoism , what with the power one derives through its >practice. No wonder you find the Tantriks , even the highest ones, very >short tempered. If you mention Dr Robert Svoboda here, then I will be >compelled to refer to his wonderful work " Aghora" in which he writes a >biography of Vimalanada , who was a Tantrik of the highest quality, yet >throwing tantrums of temper ( Krodha ) By the bye, Lord Krishna warns >people not to fall for the Flowery Language of the Veda ( the >Atharvana) :-) > >A Siddha is a master of Tantra and the value chain has a Siddha becoming >a Natha then a Muni and then attaining of Moksha ( that is if they are >on the right track ......will come later down here ). But a pure devotee >of the Lord Vishnu is instantly on the Moksha path and traverses through >the short cut of Pure unalloyed devotion in him, conquering Kama, >Krodha, Madha, Moha, Lobha and Matsara ( Arishadvargas..) > >No shastra tells of a person who possessed one of the Arishadvargas to >have ever meditated upon Lord Vishnu. They invariably did a penance to >appease either the Shakti, Shiva or Brahma. That is because you can >still reach these Demi Gods possessing one of the above six, but you >CANT reach THE GOD with these. > >Tantriks work for power, no matter their denial, the power equation >still exists, and one needs only to look at their practice like that of >Aghoris ( Panchamakaara ) . A pure devotee works the opposite, >surrenders all powers and seeks only Him and nothing else( read about >Prahlada, Dhruva ) . "Gyana, Bhakti and Vairagya" are the only desires >( if you may call it so) of the Pure Devotee. > > > That you could read that particular message and conclude that I > > "lac[k] any respect towards anything divine" will be something I will > > marvel at for a long time. If you were to meet, for example, > > profoundly gifted and devout Shaivite jyotishis such as Hart deFouw > > and Dr. Robert E. Svoboda -- who themselves practice tantric Jyotisha > > and other tantric traditions all in the savor of their bhakti -- would > > you have similar words for them? Perhaps this is just a simple > > misunderstanding around the word "tantra." I will not pretend that my > > email did not offer a critique of your perspective on the Mother, made > > clear, for instance, in your earlier post to Sanjay. The mother will > > not be related to Krishna or any of his Avataaras simply because there > > is *no* contradiction between them. Zero. And yes, the Mother (the > > one I know anyway) gives supreme enlightenment and salvation. Perfect > > moksha. You can certainly call the millions of devotees ! she has > > blessed imperfect or partial renunciates, or whatever, but you don't > > then have the weight of the full bhakti tradition behind you. By the > > full tradition, mind you, I am not speaking only of your lineage, > > which is, however great, only one of many. > > > >Perfect Moksha??? One can speak of Moksha when one understands it. The >Veda says " Eko Narayanastvasit Pralaye Ramaya Saha" . Only Lord >Narayana is present along with Rama ( Lakshmi ..the consort of Lord >Vishnu ) during Pralaya, the end of all lives through massive >destruction and devastation. Then who else other than Lord Narayana can >grant Moksha.When the existence of the Demi Gods themselves is in >question after a point, it would be massive misunderstanding that others >can give Moksha. One needs also to know that the Lord and his consort >are the pure Chetana and all others are jeevas. What you are calling as >Shiva, Shakti and Brahma are padavis ( positions they hold ) which they >relinquish when they get Moksha. > >No contradiction between them??? I am concerned when I say that the >people who stand in support of this theories are Rakshasas like >Hiranyakashipu, Ravana, Hiranyaksha and other demons who said there is >no difference between Godhead and us and that all are the same or I am >the God ( Aham Brahmasmi.. ). Every one knows the fate of these >entities. > > > I am only the creator of microun\verses. Creativity or Opennness to > > possibility, which we might also call Shuunyataa or "Intrinsic > > Resourcefulness," is the Creator writ large. This creator is not > > separate from human art, genius or sexuality. It is our reflex to > > flinch at and pull back from from seeing creativity in all things that > > brings about maayaa and perplexity. The profound dualism of bhakti > > and the practice of non-dual contemplation differ only in form or > > mode -- like ice melting into water or water freezing again into ice. > > Or it is a different flavor. He or she who insists on the supremacy > > of one over the other is like the one who insists on eating > > exclusively carrots! > > > >There cant be several kings ruling one kingdom.They have to be the Kings >Lieutenants , to rule along side him, totally follow him. Similarly >there is one Creator and all others are created. Satwik shastras, the >Great Vishnusahasranama as given by the wise Bhisma, proclaim Lord >Vishnu as the Creator and the all supreme.The other shastras viz the >Rajasic, Tamasic shastras claim Shakti and Shiva as the supreme. But the >creator of these shastras, Sage Vyasa clearly states that these >remaining shastras are only for the consumption of Asuras " Asura >Mohanartham ". Even Shiva says in Rudra Geeta that he Proclaims his >supremacy in Pashupatha shastras ( tamasic Purana ) only to follow the >directive of Lord Hari and that Lord Hari is the supreme deity and the >only deity to be worshipped. Shiva also says in Ramaraksha " Na anyam >Jaane , naive Jaane Na Jaane". I know of no other Lord other than Lord >Hari and I wouldnt want to know also... > >Kali Santaranopanishad says " Harir Naama Harir Naama, Harir Naama eva >Kevalam, Kalau Naasti Kalau Naasti Gatiranyata". There is no way out for >a being in Kaliyuga other than chanting the names of Lord Hari. Eating >this carrot will rid one of all sins and having tasted this Carrot, one >would remain famished but never covet for any other thing for >consumption :-)). The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Please try >and you will never ever look back on your earlier beliefs...:-) > > > > > I am no Creator of all, but I am someone who will not hesitate to > > extract a little tumor to "save" someone I care about. You are a very > > good man whose limited views on the purview of the Godhead sometimes > > gives me and others a bit of grief. Those limited views are not > > different from malignant growths, because they may cause someone whose > > natural ishata devata is in fact one of the "demigods" you hold to be > > inferior *to feel unworthy and less exalted* than the one who is > > "getting it right." And that can turn a person away from the sacred > > and plunge him or her into tremendous depression. I know this because > > it happened to me a decade ago when my spiritual longings wouldn't fit > > into the box of received lineage and I had no place to go. So we must > > be very, very careful in these waters, Gauranga. > > > >One needs to understand things Logically. If everything were to be one >and there is no contradition between two entities, then it is akin to >Spiritual Suicide. Imagine me losing my identitiy when I merge with the >One...and not being there at all. Ones theory needs to be supported by >Logic, science, Mathematics etc. Ah it reminds me when I said >mathematics..Even mathematics proves the " No contradiction " theory >wrong. Take numbers 1, 2, 3 and so on . One will find Number 1 in all as >in 1, 1+1,1+2 etc but 1 is never equal to 2 or 2 equal to 3 etc. Divide >the number 1, which denotes The supreme, by any number and it will never >become " zero" and if you multiply it by infinity also it is still >mathematically right 1+ infinity ( Ano raneeya, Mahato Maheeya ) > >Only the real Doctor can say who has the "Tumor " and "who" needs to be >saved. > > > > > It is my sense that the Jyotir Vidyaa Herself) will teach us more and > > more of these types of joyful subtleties when we turn to her for > > strength and inspiration. > > > > By the way, in my critique of your and some others' theological > > standpoint, I do not intend criticism of you as a Jyotishi or your > > several remarkable shishyas. I have learned a great amount from your > > writings, online and in print. And Swee I respect beyond what I can > > verbalize here. There is rnanubandhana between and among all of us, > > clearly. But we should celebrate this karmic debt as an opportunity. > > > >Yes we need to celebrate and celebrate by Chanting the glorious names of >the Lord because he is the reservoir of All pleasures known and unknown >to us mere mortals :-) > > > > > All my best (I mean it) to you and everyone, > > > > JIA > > > > PS For anyone on the list interested in the awe-provoking bigger > > picture of Bengali mysticism and tantra, please see Dr. Shashibhusan > > Das Gupta's masterwork _Obscure Religious Cults_ (possibly out of > > print, but previously published by Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay of > > Calcutta in 1969.) > > > > In a message dated 3/15/2003 3:28:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > gauranga (AT) brihaspati (DOT) net writes: > >I dont intend to hurt anybody by my words here. I am sure some of these >thoughts coming from the list members are owing to the fact that they >havent ever met Knowledgable persons, who can clear their doubts in the >right earnest. Think of the top Saints in India (.. aparoksha Gyanis) >and you will know what they advocated is in the similar lines as is put >above. > >I would have liked to be more logical and precise, but with the forum >and the space constraint and being sure that not many will go through my >post :-) stopping it here. >Been wanting to barge in, for some of the earlier posts also...I promise >to be a good boy and not to intrude again....... > >My the Lord grant Gyana, Bhakti and Vairagya to one and all... > > >sriram nayak > > > > > > > >> Who are you to dare criticise Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu? Are you the > >> creator > >> of the universe or what? We are not interested to hear your > >> blasphemy of the > >> Supreme Lord. Dear Narasimha, I suggest that you silence him or ask > >> him to > >> leave the list, because he lacks any respect towards anyhting > >> divine. > >> > >> Yours, > >> > >> Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer > > > > Sponsor > > > > > > > Archives: vedic astrology > > > > Group info: vedic astrology/info.html > > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology- > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > || Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu || > > > > Your use of is subject to the Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 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.