Question regarding diety

[Guest guest]

Sri Raja Raja Ishwari means the Glorious Queen of Queens of Goddesses, which

is an epithet and not a name per se. She is Mahalakshmi. She is known as

Lalita, or the Goddess who sports. And her name is Mahabhatarike. Which

means Greatly respected by All. Tripura Sundari is another epithet.

 

What is lesser known is that Sri Lalita Mahabhattarike was originally a

Buddhist tantric deity appropriated hundreds of years ago by jealous Hindu

tantrics.

 

-

" ckannannair " <ckannannair

 

Sunday, November 11, 2007 9:32 AM

Question regarding diety

 

 

> I had a question regarding Srividya. Is Raja Rajeshwari the main

> diety in Srividya a manifestation of Parvathi or Lakshmi? It is often

> called as Lalita cult with Lalita trishati,lalitha sahasranamam and is

> not lalita a tantric form of lakshmi , but then in Srividya it is

> often described Kameshwari is in union with kameshwara and does that

> not refer to Parvathi and Shiva. Also in Das Mahavidya (10

> manifestation of parvathi) out of which tripurasundari or Shodashi is

> one and the mantra for her is the Panchadashakshari

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hello Kirk,

 

I'm new to this group.

 

In your comments you have mentioned that Sri. Lalitha Mahabhatarike is derived

from Buddhist tantrik concept. Here I would like to give a reference of

" Bramhand Purana " or " Lalitha Sahastranama " as it is usually called, it is

mentioned that the concept of Sri. Lalitha Mahabhatarike was existing even at

the time of " Hiranyagarbha " . In the above said " Bramhand Purana " Hayagriva &

Aghatya's ( " Hayagriva-Aghatya Samvadam " ) discussion one can find the traces of

this. During their discussion many a times referances were made to the above

said diety.

 

The " Bramhand Purana " may be more than some lacs of years old and while the

Buddism is only 2,500 yrs old. Then how come Sri. Mahabhattarike's concept may

be derived from Buddhism ?

 

Please, clarify.

 

Thanks & Regards,

 

Rupesh.

 

Kirk <kirk_bernhardt wrote:

Sri Raja Raja Ishwari means the Glorious Queen of Queens of Goddesses,

which

is an epithet and not a name per se. She is Mahalakshmi. She is known as

Lalita, or the Goddess who sports. And her name is Mahabhatarike. Which

means Greatly respected by All. Tripura Sundari is another epithet.

 

What is lesser known is that Sri Lalita Mahabhattarike was originally a

Buddhist tantric deity appropriated hundreds of years ago by jealous Hindu

tantrics.

 

----

[Guest guest]

Very interesting...

Hi! I am new and have never posted before, I have been hanging out

just appreciating and viewing for a while, however this inspires me

to post! I find that the key here is the MAHA of Mahalakshmi. To me,

the Deity of Sri Vidya is the Great Goddess in Her Samasti (universal

or cosmic) Form. From a non-dualistic perspective, the same Mahadevi

appears as both Lakshmi and Parvati. The name Mahalakshmi is given in

the Pradhanika Rahasya as the name of the Supreme (Samasti) Form of

the Goddess. Yet the Pradhanika Rahasya seems to have a Vaishnava

influence. It seems to me that the Mahadevi's name is given according

to regional differences and both Shaiva and Vaishnava influences. I

find the flavor of both Shaivism and Vaishnavism in Lalita

Sahasranamam and in Saundarya Lahari. It is like the container of ice

cream that has both vanilla and chocolate, yet it is one package of

ice cream that all comes from milk.

Most of the Tantric texts are in the form of dialogues between Shiva

and Parvati. However,the Puranic Devimahatmyam has the Mother with

Vishnu in the 1st episode and in the 3rd episode She starts out as

Parvati. In the middle episode when She appears as the slayer of

Mahisha, I find that, for example, in my local Hindu temple here in

the U.S., many South Indians associate Her with Lakshmi, while the

Bengalis associate Her with Parvati. This is confusing as long as I

am looking at chocolate or vanilla but it is no problem when I look

at it as ice cream, all originating as milk in the same Cosmic Udder.

So, in looking at these different approaches to the Divine Mother

through the Devimahatmyam, I am wondering also about different

approaches regarding Shri Vidya as practiced by various people with

different Gurus and regional influences. Would anyone like to

comment?

Also, it would be interesting to find out the origin of the Buddhist

Tantrics' Sri Lalita Mahabhattarike, as many of the other Tantric

Buddhist images were derived from the Hindu Deities...

I would like to close by offering my deep gratitude to all at Shakti

Sadhana for this fine forum that I find to be useful, informative,

illuminating and uplifting! Thank -you!

Leela.

 

 

, " Kirk " <kirk_bernhardt

wrote:

>

> Sri Raja Raja Ishwari means the Glorious Queen of Queens of

Goddesses, which

> is an epithet and not a name per se. She is Mahalakshmi. She is

known as

> Lalita, or the Goddess who sports. And her name is Mahabhatarike.

Which

> means Greatly respected by All. Tripura Sundari is another epithet.

>

> What is lesser known is that Sri Lalita Mahabhattarike was

originally a

> Buddhist tantric deity appropriated hundreds of years ago by

jealous Hindu

> tantrics.

>

> -

> " ckannannair " <ckannannair

>

> Sunday, November 11, 2007 9:32 AM

> Question regarding diety

>

>

> > I had a question regarding Srividya. Is Raja Rajeshwari the main

> > diety in Srividya a manifestation of Parvathi or Lakshmi? It is

often

> > called as Lalita cult with Lalita trishati,lalitha sahasranamam

and is

> > not lalita a tantric form of lakshmi , but then in Srividya it is

> > often described Kameshwari is in union with kameshwara and does

that

> > not refer to Parvathi and Shiva. Also in Das Mahavidya (10

> > manifestation of parvathi) out of which tripurasundari or

Shodashi is

> > one and the mantra for her is the Panchadashakshari

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Well, tantras are either in use or not, and depending upon who uses them

first the traditions are wrought. In Lalita schools one finds references to

Oddiyana, Mahanirvana, and Ekajati. Which derive from a small and little

known cult called the Dakiniyana, from around 100 CE. None of this is

proof.

 

It's good to read Davidson for the historic content.

 

You are right, actually the Lalita cult, the Red Tara cult and so on go back

very very long time. But who codified the teachings into their usable form?

 

No scholar of the tantras doubts that various Hindu tantric cults and

Buddhist tantric cults influenced each other. Please remember that prior to

recent naming of Sanatana Dharma

to Hinduism by the British there was not so much separation between these

various factions.

 

We look at things now with different (and often polluted) eyes.

 

I only threw that in to expand some people's thinking. I would do the

opposite at a Buddhist board, and often do.

 

Personally I think tantra preceeds Sanatana Dharma, and Buddhism. Before

there were nails there were rocks for pounding them in.

 

 

 

 

-

" Rupesh Kumar " <ruk_raw_forever

 

Monday, November 12, 2007 12:30 AM

Re: Question regarding diety

 

 

> Hello Kirk,

>

> I'm new to this group.

>

> In your comments you have mentioned that Sri. Lalitha Mahabhatarike is

> derived from Buddhist tantrik concept. Here I would like to give a

> reference of " Bramhand Purana " or " Lalitha Sahastranama " as it is usually

> called, it is mentioned that the concept of Sri. Lalitha Mahabhatarike

> was existing even at the time of " Hiranyagarbha " . In the above said

> " Bramhand Purana " Hayagriva & Aghatya's ( " Hayagriva-Aghatya Samvadam " )

> discussion one can find the traces of this. During their discussion many a

> times referances were made to the above said diety.

>

> The " Bramhand Purana " may be more than some lacs of years old and while

> the Buddism is only 2,500 yrs old. Then how come Sri. Mahabhattarike's

> concept may be derived from Buddhism ?

>

> Please, clarify.

>

> Thanks & Regards,

>

> Rupesh.

>

> Kirk <kirk_bernhardt wrote:

> Sri Raja Raja Ishwari means the Glorious Queen of Queens of

> Goddesses, which

> is an epithet and not a name per se. She is Mahalakshmi. She is known as

> Lalita, or the Goddess who sports. And her name is Mahabhatarike. Which

> means Greatly respected by All. Tripura Sundari is another epithet.

>

> What is lesser known is that Sri Lalita Mahabhattarike was originally a

> Buddhist tantric deity appropriated hundreds of years ago by jealous Hindu

> tantrics.

>

[Guest guest]

Also, it would be interesting to find out the origin of the Buddhist

> Tantrics' Sri Lalita Mahabhattarike, as many of the other Tantric

> Buddhist images were derived from the Hindu Deities...

> I would like to close by offering my deep gratitude to all at Shakti

> Sadhana for this fine forum that I find to be useful, informative,

> illuminating and uplifting! Thank -you!

> Leela.

 

Leela, pretty name.

 

Tara is the Buddhist name for Lalita. Red Tara. Sometimes Kurukulle. She is

the feminine for of Buddha Amitabha - Buddha of Infinite Light. Buddha of

Lotus family. Red Buddha Goddess. Keeper of Tarika mantra.

[Guest guest]

May this " up to now " lurker inject a comment?

 

Kirk is correct on the one hand, that what we are calling Lalita Cult may have

been appropriated from Buddhist Tantrists, but on the other, he is also correct

in pointing out that the " border " between sect and " religions " were highly

porous before either the British or the German Orientalists set up hard

boundaries.

 

Finally, what we simply call Sanatana Dharma seems, in so many cases, to

reflect the supersessionist views of the Brahmanists, who came and uprooted what

was even older, i.e., Tantra and even Jainism.

 

We cannot say at what point Tantra came within the overarching and seeingly

all-inclusive term Sanatana Dharma.

 

Philip

 

Kirk <kirk_bernhardt wrote:

 

Well, tantras are either in use or not, and depending upon who uses them

first the traditions are wrought. In Lalita schools one finds references to

Oddiyana, Mahanirvana, and Ekajati. Which derive from a small and little

known cult called the Dakiniyana, from around 100 CE. None of this is

proof.

 

It's good to read Davidson for the historic content.

 

You are right, actually the Lalita cult, the Red Tara cult and so on go back

very very long time. But who codified the teachings into their usable form?

 

No scholar of the tantras doubts that various Hindu tantric cults and

Buddhist tantric cults influenced each other. Please remember that prior to

recent naming of Sanatana Dharma

to Hinduism by the British there was not so much separation between these

various factions.

 

We look at things now with different (and often polluted) eyes.

 

I only threw that in to expand some people's thinking. I would do the

opposite at a Buddhist board, and often do.

 

Personally I think tantra preceeds Sanatana Dharma, and Buddhism. Before

there were nails there were rocks for pounding them in.

 

-

" Rupesh Kumar " <ruk_raw_forever

 

Monday, November 12, 2007 12:30 AM

Re: Question regarding diety

 

> Hello Kirk,

>

> I'm new to this group.

>

> In your comments you have mentioned that Sri. Lalitha Mahabhatarike is

> derived from Buddhist tantrik concept. Here I would like to give a

> reference of " Bramhand Purana " or " Lalitha Sahastranama " as it is usually

> called, it is mentioned that the concept of Sri. Lalitha Mahabhatarike

> was existing even at the time of " Hiranyagarbha " . In the above said

> " Bramhand Purana " Hayagriva & Aghatya's ( " Hayagriva-Aghatya Samvadam " )

> discussion one can find the traces of this. During their discussion many a

> times referances were made to the above said diety.

>

> The " Bramhand Purana " may be more than some lacs of years old and while

> the Buddism is only 2,500 yrs old. Then how come Sri. Mahabhattarike's

> concept may be derived from Buddhism ?

>

> Please, clarify.

>

> Thanks & Regards,

>

> Rupesh.

>

> Kirk <kirk_bernhardt wrote:

> Sri Raja Raja Ishwari means the Glorious Queen of Queens of

> Goddesses, which

> is an epithet and not a name per se. She is Mahalakshmi. She is known as

> Lalita, or the Goddess who sports. And her name is Mahabhatarike. Which

> means Greatly respected by All. Tripura Sundari is another epithet.

>

> What is lesser known is that Sri Lalita Mahabhattarike was originally a

> Buddhist tantric deity appropriated hundreds of years ago by jealous Hindu

> tantrics.

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hmm...

I am not sure if Tara and Lalita are one and the same as argued by Kirk. On

what grounds is this argument being based?

What we now " know " as tara is a " hybrid " goddess with Hindu and Buddhist

influences: this is a FACT. Buddhist tantric influences were helped the tara

cult to thrive in northern India where we find quite a few temples dedicated

to Tara. Most notable of these being in Bengal and one in Maheshi in Bihar.

 

BUT: Is Lalita/sodashi/TripurSundari too a Buddhist Goddess " appropriated "

by Hindu Tantrics? NO.

If I am not mistaken, Buddhist tantric philosophy is not more than 2100

years old, whereas Hindu tantra predates it by nearly 1000 years !!! In case

of Tara , different identies merged into one;calling different goddesses as

manifestation of a single diety called Tara. Some of the manifestations

being Ugra-Tara(Buddhist), Ekjata/Neel Saraswati (Hindu).

 

 

Regards

Aditya

 

 

 

 

On 11/13/07, Philip Miller <pem218 wrote:

>

> May this " up to now " lurker inject a comment?

>

> Kirk is correct on the one hand, that what we are calling Lalita Cult may

> have been appropriated from Buddhist Tantrists, but on the other, he is also

> correct in pointing out that the " border " between sect and " religions " were

> highly porous before either the British or the German Orientalists set up

> hard boundaries.

>

> Finally, what we simply call Sanatana Dharma seems, in so many cases, to

> reflect the supersessionist views of the Brahmanists, who came and uprooted

> what was even older, i.e., Tantra and even Jainism.

>

> We cannot say at what point Tantra came within the overarching and

> seeingly all-inclusive term Sanatana Dharma.

>

> Philip

>

> Kirk <kirk_bernhardt <kirk_bernhardt%40cox.net>> wrote:

>

> Well, tantras are either in use or not, and depending upon who uses them

> first the traditions are wrought. In Lalita schools one finds references

> to

> Oddiyana, Mahanirvana, and Ekajati. Which derive from a small and little

> known cult called the Dakiniyana, from around 100 CE. None of this is

> proof.

>

> It's good to read Davidson for the historic content.

>

> You are right, actually the Lalita cult, the Red Tara cult and so on go

> back

> very very long time. But who codified the teachings into their usable

> form?

>

> No scholar of the tantras doubts that various Hindu tantric cults and

> Buddhist tantric cults influenced each other. Please remember that prior

> to recent naming of Sanatana Dharma

> to Hinduism by the British there was not so much separation between these

> various factions.

>

> We look at things now with different (and often polluted) eyes.

>

> I only threw that in to expand some people's thinking. I would do the

> opposite at a Buddhist board, and often do.

>

> Personally I think tantra preceeds Sanatana Dharma, and Buddhism. Before

> there were nails there were rocks for pounding them in.

>

> -

> " Rupesh Kumar " <ruk_raw_forever<ruk_raw_forever%40>

> >

> < <%40>>

> Monday, November 12, 2007 12:30 AM

> Re: Question regarding diety

>

> > Hello Kirk,

> >

> > I'm new to this group.

> >

> > In your comments you have mentioned that Sri. Lalitha Mahabhatarike is

> > derived from Buddhist tantrik concept. Here I would like to give a

> > reference of " Bramhand Purana " or " Lalitha Sahastranama " as it is

> usually

> > called, it is mentioned that the concept of Sri. Lalitha Mahabhatarike

> > was existing even at the time of " Hiranyagarbha " . In the above said

> > " Bramhand Purana " Hayagriva & Aghatya's ( " Hayagriva-Aghatya Samvadam " )

> > discussion one can find the traces of this. During their discussion many

> a

> > times referances were made to the above said diety.

> >

> > The " Bramhand Purana " may be more than some lacs of years old and while

> > the Buddism is only 2,500 yrs old. Then how come Sri. Mahabhattarike's

> > concept may be derived from Buddhism ?

> >

> > Please, clarify.

> >

> > Thanks & Regards,

> >

> > Rupesh.

> >

> > Kirk <kirk_bernhardt <kirk_bernhardt%40cox.net>> wrote:

> > Sri Raja Raja Ishwari means the Glorious Queen of Queens of

> > Goddesses, which

> > is an epithet and not a name per se. She is Mahalakshmi. She is known as

> > Lalita, or the Goddess who sports. And her name is Mahabhatarike. Which

> > means Greatly respected by All. Tripura Sundari is another epithet.

> >

> > What is lesser known is that Sri Lalita Mahabhattarike was originally a

> > Buddhist tantric deity appropriated hundreds of years ago by jealous

> Hindu

> > tantrics.

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Another comment, if I may...

 

There is evidence that one of the early Mongol khans had a Nestorian Christian

mother and that to honor her he invited Franciscan Fathers into his realm - this

antedates the Jesuits by several hundreds of years. These Franciscans introduced

the image of the Virgin Mary, which was immediately appropriated as Tara,

 

The cult of Tara spread far and wide rather rapidly, such that earlier

manifestation seems to have been swept away except for oldeer art forms.

 

Tara is also defined as one of two dozen or so female deities born of the

tears of Avalokeshvara. Indeed, the Tara, Goddess of Compassion, is often called

Avalokeshvara, but Avalokeshvara is male.

 

When the Jesuits arrived in East Asia and found multitudes worshipping Tara,

they thought the lands were ripe for conversion. But they had no idea that the

Franciscans had been there first.

 

Philip

 

Aditya Kumar Jha <aditya.kr.jha wrote:

Hmm...

I am not sure if Tara and Lalita are one and the same as argued by Kirk. On

what grounds is this argument being based?

What we now " know " as tara is a " hybrid " goddess with Hindu and Buddhist

influences: this is a FACT. Buddhist tantric influences were helped the tara

cult to thrive in northern India where we find quite a few temples dedicated

to Tara. Most notable of these being in Bengal and one in Maheshi in Bihar.

 

BUT: Is Lalita/sodashi/TripurSundari too a Buddhist Goddess " appropriated "

by Hindu Tantrics? NO.

If I am not mistaken, Buddhist tantric philosophy is not more than 2100

years old, whereas Hindu tantra predates it by nearly 1000 years !!! In case

of Tara , different identies merged into one;calling different goddesses as

manifestation of a single diety called Tara. Some of the manifestations

being Ugra-Tara(Buddhist), Ekjata/Neel Saraswati (Hindu).

 

Regards

Aditya

 

On 11/13/07, Philip Miller <pem218 wrote:

>

> May this " up to now " lurker inject a comment?

>

> Kirk is correct on the one hand, that what we are calling Lalita Cult may

> have been appropriated from Buddhist Tantrists, but on the other, he is also

> correct in pointing out that the " border " between sect and " religions " were

> highly porous before either the British or the German Orientalists set up

> hard boundaries.

>

> Finally, what we simply call Sanatana Dharma seems, in so many cases, to

> reflect the supersessionist views of the Brahmanists, who came and uprooted

> what was even older, i.e., Tantra and even Jainism.

>

> We cannot say at what point Tantra came within the overarching and

> seeingly all-inclusive term Sanatana Dharma.

>

> Philip

>

> Kirk <kirk_bernhardt <kirk_bernhardt%40cox.net>> wrote:

>

> Well, tantras are either in use or not, and depending upon who uses them

> first the traditions are wrought. In Lalita schools one finds references

> to

> Oddiyana, Mahanirvana, and Ekajati. Which derive from a small and little

> known cult called the Dakiniyana, from around 100 CE. None of this is

> proof.

>

> It's good to read Davidson for the historic content.

>

> You are right, actually the Lalita cult, the Red Tara cult and so on go

> back

> very very long time. But who codified the teachings into their usable

> form?

>

> No scholar of the tantras doubts that various Hindu tantric cults and

> Buddhist tantric cults influenced each other. Please remember that prior

> to recent naming of Sanatana Dharma

> to Hinduism by the British there was not so much separation between these

> various factions.

>

> We look at things now with different (and often polluted) eyes.

>

> I only threw that in to expand some people's thinking. I would do the

> opposite at a Buddhist board, and often do.

>

> Personally I think tantra preceeds Sanatana Dharma, and Buddhism. Before

> there were nails there were rocks for pounding them in.

>

> -

> " Rupesh Kumar " <ruk_raw_forever<ruk_raw_forever%40>

> >

> < <%40>>

> Monday, November 12, 2007 12:30 AM

> Re: Question regarding diety

>

> > Hello Kirk,

> >

> > I'm new to this group.

> >

> > In your comments you have mentioned that Sri. Lalitha Mahabhatarike is

> > derived from Buddhist tantrik concept. Here I would like to give a

> > reference of " Bramhand Purana " or " Lalitha Sahastranama " as it is

> usually

> > called, it is mentioned that the concept of Sri. Lalitha Mahabhatarike

> > was existing even at the time of " Hiranyagarbha " . In the above said

> > " Bramhand Purana " Hayagriva & Aghatya's ( " Hayagriva-Aghatya Samvadam " )

> > discussion one can find the traces of this. During their discussion many

> a

> > times referances were made to the above said diety.

> >

> > The " Bramhand Purana " may be more than some lacs of years old and while

> > the Buddism is only 2,500 yrs old. Then how come Sri. Mahabhattarike's

> > concept may be derived from Buddhism ?

> >

> > Please, clarify.

> >

> > Thanks & Regards,

> >

> > Rupesh.

> >

> > Kirk <kirk_bernhardt <kirk_bernhardt%40cox.net>> wrote:

> > Sri Raja Raja Ishwari means the Glorious Queen of Queens of

> > Goddesses, which

> > is an epithet and not a name per se. She is Mahalakshmi. She is known as

> > Lalita, or the Goddess who sports. And her name is Mahabhatarike. Which

> > means Greatly respected by All. Tripura Sundari is another epithet.

> >

> > What is lesser known is that Sri Lalita Mahabhattarike was originally a

> > Buddhist tantric deity appropriated hundreds of years ago by jealous

> Hindu

> > tantrics.

> >

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Mobile. Try it now.

 

 

[Guest guest]

That is a really interesting piece of information. Thanks Philip

 

regards

Aditya

 

 

On 11/13/07, Philip Miller <pem218 wrote:

>

> Another comment, if I may...

>

> There is evidence that one of the early Mongol khans had a Nestorian

> Christian mother and that to honor her he invited Franciscan Fathers into

> his realm - this antedates the Jesuits by several hundreds of years. These

> Franciscans introduced the image of the Virgin Mary, which was immediately

> appropriated as Tara,

>

> The cult of Tara spread far and wide rather rapidly, such that earlier

> manifestation seems to have been swept away except for oldeer art forms.

[Guest guest]

You're certainly welcome, Aditya.

 

I apologize, for I seem to have a problem spelling Avaloketiksvara and usually

mispell it - as I did earlier (At least I was consistent!)

 

To return to the initial question, it is not beyond the realm of possibility

that aspects [important word] of the Lalita cult as we know it today were taken

from Tantric Buddhism - as it has itself developed from the earlier " Vedic "

forms.

 

Worship of the Feminine aspect of Deity, be it as Earth Mother, Mother Nature,

of a Goddess, is as old as Humankind itself and certainly antedates the

Brahmanic forms of Sanatana Dharma that have come to become indentified with

" Hinduism. "

 

Worship of the Feminine is primordial and primeval. What we call Tantra

corresponds to Humankind's desire to control the Material World.

 

(In this regard I cite Rohit Mehta, who in his wonderful commentary on the

Bhagavad-Gita, wrote that Magicians seek to control the Cosmos; Mystics seek to

become One with it. He goes on to say that a Magician can rarely become a Mystic

(probably because they are blinded by their material powers), whereas a Mystic

is only " completed " when s/he takes the next step and becomes a Magician.)

 

I see worship of Deva Maa in any and all of Her aspects as fulfilling the most

ancient and basic spiritual need.

 

Philip

 

Aditya Kumar Jha <aditya.kr.jha wrote:

That is a really interesting piece of information. Thanks Philip

 

regards

Aditya

 

On 11/13/07, Philip Miller <pem218 wrote:

>

> Another comment, if I may...

>

> There is evidence that one of the early Mongol khans had a Nestorian

> Christian mother and that to honor her he invited Franciscan Fathers into

> his realm - this antedates the Jesuits by several hundreds of years. These

> Franciscans introduced the image of the Virgin Mary, which was immediately

> appropriated as Tara,

>

> The cult of Tara spread far and wide rather rapidly, such that earlier

> manifestation seems to have been swept away except for oldeer art forms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I would caution against the need to define anything of the tantras into any

neat little intellectual box, and caution one against all those who have

done so. They then are mere intellectuals and neither mystics nor magicians.

 

In order to be a magician, per se, one needs a specific will that they must

follow.

 

Tantrics are not so much about following a will, but rather, becoming one

with what is, and then getting in tune with what is, so that they are no

longer separated from what is, either mentally, or emotionally, or even

physically.

 

Why? Because one wishes to no longer suffer, and no longer create suffering.

Because creating suffering makes one suffer.

 

The supreme methods of transcendence and generation of bliss from within,

which does not rely on any manifest thing, is for the gaining of supremacy

over suffering. Tantras therefore are the highest sciences. And sure, within

that is manipulation of what is for less than supreme ends, because people

suffer in all ways. But tantras and tantrics are about becoming one with

what is, and becoming not one with what isn't.

 

And what isn't is what most people identify with. What isn't is most

everything that one senses as it starts and finishes, while that awareness

within the senses never starts and never finishes.

 

There are also many cults which have no remaining records, or never recorded

their teachings due to vows of secrecy. More this than the other.

 

Tantrics are shamanic doctors of the past, the past, when people still

relied on direct cognition and spiritual inner life as a key rather than

outer forms of materialistic prognosis. Tantrics are persons who see the

whole of causation at once with a knowing eye to karma, and who do not seek

to cure one form at the expense of another but work rather in totality, so

as not to promote bad karma.

 

Therefore the tantric is a doctor, more than a mystic or magician. A

tantric is always preaching that wholeness of life has an additional benefit

of stable gnosis which is itself pure joy, and that this stable gnosis of

pure joy cannot be bought, sold, or cultured by any means not inherent to

oneself. Moreover the tantric breaks boundaries about that cognitory level

amongst others to allow them the greater freedom of acceptance of that joy,

so that people don't make the mistake of thinking it can be contained, by

conduct, politics, or religion.

 

Self knowledge is divine knowledge. Uncontainable.

 

Now as to the form of divinity. That's not as important as the mere

recognition of divinity itself.

 

Life was not meant to be lived in separation from that which maintains it.

Life is wholeness. It becomes less so as one splits off into fragmentary

desires. But if one reaffirms their inner wholeness with divinity then

outer wholeness comes replete as well.

 

This is tantra - wholeness. Not owned, not to be bought or sold. Not in a

deity, not not in a deity. Not in a religion, not not in a religion.

 

 

 

-

" Philip Miller " <pem218

 

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:17 AM

Re: Question regarding diety

 

 

> You're certainly welcome, Aditya.

>

> I apologize, for I seem to have a problem spelling Avaloketiksvara and

> usually mispell it - as I did earlier (At least I was consistent!)

>

> To return to the initial question, it is not beyond the realm of

> possibility that aspects [important word] of the Lalita cult as we know it

> today were taken from Tantric Buddhism - as it has itself developed from

> the earlier " Vedic " forms.

>

> Worship of the Feminine aspect of Deity, be it as Earth Mother, Mother

> Nature, of a Goddess, is as old as Humankind itself and certainly

> antedates the Brahmanic forms of Sanatana Dharma that have come to become

> indentified with " Hinduism. "

>

> Worship of the Feminine is primordial and primeval. What we call Tantra

> corresponds to Humankind's desire to control the Material World.

>

> (In this regard I cite Rohit Mehta, who in his wonderful commentary on

> the Bhagavad-Gita, wrote that Magicians seek to control the Cosmos;

> Mystics seek to become One with it. He goes on to say that a Magician can

> rarely become a Mystic (probably because they are blinded by their

> material powers), whereas a Mystic is only " completed " when s/he takes the

> next step and becomes a Magician.)

>

> I see worship of Deva Maa in any and all of Her aspects as fulfilling the

> most ancient and basic spiritual need.

>

> Philip

>

> Aditya Kumar Jha <aditya.kr.jha wrote:

> That is a really interesting piece of information. Thanks Philip

>

> regards

> Aditya

>

> On 11/13/07, Philip Miller <pem218 wrote:

>>

>> Another comment, if I may...

>>

>> There is evidence that one of the early Mongol khans had a Nestorian

>> Christian mother and that to honor her he invited Franciscan Fathers into

>> his realm - this antedates the Jesuits by several hundreds of years.

>> These

>> Franciscans introduced the image of the Virgin Mary, which was

>> immediately

>> appropriated as Tara,

>>

>> The cult of Tara spread far and wide rather rapidly, such that earlier

>> manifestation seems to have been swept away except for oldeer art forms.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Kirk -

 

You state the case well. Perhaps I did oversimplify.

 

Philip

 

Kirk <kirk_bernhardt wrote:

I would caution against the need to define anything of the tantras

into any

neat little intellectual box, and caution one against all those who have

done so. They then are mere intellectuals and neither mystics nor magicians.

 

In order to be a magician, per se, one needs a specific will that they must

follow.

 

Tantrics are not so much about following a will, but rather, becoming one

with what is, and then getting in tune with what is, so that they are no

longer separated from what is, either mentally, or emotionally, or even

physically.

 

Why? Because one wishes to no longer suffer, and no longer create suffering.

Because creating suffering makes one suffer.

 

The supreme methods of transcendence and generation of bliss from within,

which does not rely on any manifest thing, is for the gaining of supremacy

over suffering. Tantras therefore are the highest sciences. And sure, within

that is manipulation of what is for less than supreme ends, because people

suffer in all ways. But tantras and tantrics are about becoming one with

what is, and becoming not one with what isn't.

 

And what isn't is what most people identify with. What isn't is most

everything that one senses as it starts and finishes, while that awareness

within the senses never starts and never finishes.

 

There are also many cults which have no remaining records, or never recorded

their teachings due to vows of secrecy. More this than the other.

 

Tantrics are shamanic doctors of the past, the past, when people still

relied on direct cognition and spiritual inner life as a key rather than

outer forms of materialistic prognosis. Tantrics are persons who see the

whole of causation at once with a knowing eye to karma, and who do not seek

to cure one form at the expense of another but work rather in totality, so

as not to promote bad karma.

 

Therefore the tantric is a doctor, more than a mystic or magician. A

tantric is always preaching that wholeness of life has an additional benefit

of stable gnosis which is itself pure joy, and that this stable gnosis of

pure joy cannot be bought, sold, or cultured by any means not inherent to

oneself. Moreover the tantric breaks boundaries about that cognitory level

amongst others to allow them the greater freedom of acceptance of that joy,

so that people don't make the mistake of thinking it can be contained, by

conduct, politics, or religion.

 

Self knowledge is divine knowledge. Uncontainable.

 

Now as to the form of divinity. That's not as important as the mere

recognition of divinity itself.

 

Life was not meant to be lived in separation from that which maintains it.

Life is wholeness. It becomes less so as one splits off into fragmentary

desires. But if one reaffirms their inner wholeness with divinity then

outer wholeness comes replete as well.

 

This is tantra - wholeness. Not owned, not to be bought or sold. Not in a

deity, not not in a deity. Not in a religion, not not in a religion.

 

-

" Philip Miller " <pem218

 

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:17 AM

Re: Question regarding diety

 

> You're certainly welcome, Aditya.

>

> I apologize, for I seem to have a problem spelling Avaloketiksvara and

> usually mispell it - as I did earlier (At least I was consistent!)

>

> To return to the initial question, it is not beyond the realm of

> possibility that aspects [important word] of the Lalita cult as we know it

> today were taken from Tantric Buddhism - as it has itself developed from

> the earlier " Vedic " forms.

>

> Worship of the Feminine aspect of Deity, be it as Earth Mother, Mother

> Nature, of a Goddess, is as old as Humankind itself and certainly

> antedates the Brahmanic forms of Sanatana Dharma that have come to become

> indentified with " Hinduism. "

>

> Worship of the Feminine is primordial and primeval. What we call Tantra

> corresponds to Humankind's desire to control the Material World.

>

> (In this regard I cite Rohit Mehta, who in his wonderful commentary on

> the Bhagavad-Gita, wrote that Magicians seek to control the Cosmos;

> Mystics seek to become One with it. He goes on to say that a Magician can

> rarely become a Mystic (probably because they are blinded by their

> material powers), whereas a Mystic is only " completed " when s/he takes the

> next step and becomes a Magician.)

>

> I see worship of Deva Maa in any and all of Her aspects as fulfilling the

> most ancient and basic spiritual need.

>

> Philip

>

[Guest guest]

" It's good to read Davidson for the historic content. "

 

Great idea, please forgive my ignorance, but can you be more specific?

 

 

, " Kirk " <kirk_bernhardt

wrote:

>

>

> Well, tantras are either in use or not, and depending upon who uses

them

> first the traditions are wrought. In Lalita schools one finds

references to

> Oddiyana, Mahanirvana, and Ekajati. Which derive from a small and

little

> known cult called the Dakiniyana, from around 100 CE. None of this

is

> proof.

>

>

[Guest guest]

These two books, if found, are perhaps the most fascinating speculative

works on Tantra of any:

 

a.. Davidson, Ronald M. (2003). Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History

of the Tantric Movement. Columbia University Press. ISBN 81-208-1991-8.

a.. Davidson, Ronald M. (2005). Tibetan Renaissance : Tantric Buddhism in

the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture. Columbia University Press. ISBN

0-231-13471-1.

 

-

" deviloka " <deviloka

 

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:41 AM

Re: Question regarding diety

 

 

> " It's good to read Davidson for the historic content. "

>

> Great idea, please forgive my ignorance, but can you be more specific?

>

>

> , " Kirk " <kirk_bernhardt

> wrote:

>>

>>

>> Well, tantras are either in use or not, and depending upon who uses

> them

>> first the traditions are wrought. In Lalita schools one finds

> references to

>> Oddiyana, Mahanirvana, and Ekajati. Which derive from a small and

> little

>> known cult called the Dakiniyana, from around 100 CE. None of this

> is

>> proof.

>>

[Guest guest]

I would also recommend Arthur Avalon's tantra book series.Also Tantric

Visions of divine feminine is also a good basic book to start with. The

author is David kinsley. You can read quite a few pages of this book in

google books.

If one is in India most of the books are available from Moti-lal

BanarasiDass-Delhi.

 

Regards

Aditya

 

 

On 11/13/07, Kirk <kirk_bernhardt wrote:

>

> These two books, if found, are perhaps the most fascinating speculative

> works on Tantra of any:

>

> a.. Davidson, Ronald M. (2003). Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History

>

> of the Tantric Movement. Columbia University Press. ISBN 81-208-1991-8.

> a.. Davidson, Ronald M. (2005). Tibetan Renaissance : Tantric Buddhism in

> the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture. Columbia University Press. ISBN

> 0-231-13471-1.

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for all your answers and i checked the question with one of

my mentors and the following was his answer.It made sense for me

 

The presiding deity of Srividhya as also of the whole world is

Rajarajeshwari. Shri Lalitaambika or Kameshwari or

Mahatripurasundhari are her other names. Parvati is the consort of

Shiva, a level of consciousness. The highest form of consciousness

is Paramashiva, and his consort is Lalitaambika. Lakshmi is the

consort of a much groser form of consciousness called Vishnu. Pl

remember that consciousness is determined by the level of the

kundalini. This again is Lalitaambika. Does this make sense?

 

, " Kirk " <kirk_bernhardt

wrote:

>

> These two books, if found, are perhaps the most fascinating

speculative

> works on Tantra of any:

>

> a.. Davidson, Ronald M. (2003). Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social

History

> of the Tantric Movement. Columbia University Press. ISBN 81-208-

1991-8.

> a.. Davidson, Ronald M. (2005). Tibetan Renaissance : Tantric

Buddhism in

> the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture. Columbia University Press. ISBN

> 0-231-13471-1.

>

> -

> " deviloka " <deviloka

>

> Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:41 AM

> Re: Question regarding diety

>

>

> > " It's good to read Davidson for the historic content. "

> >

> > Great idea, please forgive my ignorance, but can you be more

specific?

> >

> >

> > , " Kirk " <kirk_bernhardt@>

> > wrote:

> >>

> >>

> >> Well, tantras are either in use or not, and depending upon who

uses

> > them

> >> first the traditions are wrought. In Lalita schools one finds

> > references to

> >> Oddiyana, Mahanirvana, and Ekajati. Which derive from a small

and

> > little

> >> known cult called the Dakiniyana, from around 100 CE. None of

this

> > is

> >> proof.

> >>

>

[Guest guest]

Thank-you Kirk! And thanks for your post on " Tantric Doctors " ! When I

read that I got a thrill! I will be on the lookout for the Davidson

books.

Thank-you Aditya, for your recommendations as well, I have a book by

David Kinsley called " Hindu Goddesses " , and also some of Arthur

Avalon's work. I also enjoy Thomas B. Coburn's (Encountering The

Goddess) and Devadatta Kali's(In Praise of The Goddess) work on the

Devimahatmya. I will enjoy " googling " " Visions " , thanks!

Jai Ma!

Leela

 

, " Aditya Kumar Jha "

<aditya.kr.jha wrote:

>

> I would also recommend Arthur Avalon's tantra book series.Also

Tantric

> Visions of divine feminine is also a good basic book to start with.

The

> author is David kinsley. You can read quite a few pages of this

book in

> google books.

> If one is in India most of the books are available from Moti-lal

> BanarasiDass-Delhi.

>

> Regards

> Aditya

>

>

> On 11/13/07, Kirk <kirk_bernhardt wrote:

> >

> > These two books, if found, are perhaps the most fascinating

speculative

> > works on Tantra of any:

> >

> > a.. Davidson, Ronald M. (2003). Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A

Social History

> >

> > of the Tantric Movement. Columbia University Press. ISBN 81-208-

1991-8.

> > a.. Davidson, Ronald M. (2005). Tibetan Renaissance : Tantric

Buddhism in

> > the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture. Columbia University Press. ISBN

> > 0-231-13471-1.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> Thank-you Kirk! And thanks for your post on " Tantric Doctors " ! When I

> read that I got a thrill! I will be on the lookout for the Davidson

> books.

 

You're welcome. More true than doctors would be that tantrics are more like

societies mitochondria which live and function and clear the collective

consciousness of self-damning ignorance (vritti - samskara) so that it can

remain positive and hopeful.

 

About the Frawley books, one should consider them for the ir fictional and

speculative truths, like one would Castaneda and his Yaqui Indian Sorcerers,

and so on. There is no proof either way for any of their claims. Which

doesn't mean that one does not find people like these tantrics, mystics and

sorcerers. Just that such people are not intending to be tattled upon in

treatises, but rather they show through example to their chosen accolytes.

 

There's also no point arguing whether some masters drink scotch or bourbon

while discussing their homams, as maybe some do? But nobody will ever know

such persons as they would be very well out of sight of all but the most few

individuals. Those, who could mentally keep composure under greatly

conflicting circumstances. And in today's world, just the slightest few

could do so. I couldn't. And I'm an old Hollywood punk rocker.

 

There's something to be said for yogic purity, and not much to be said for

total and complete purity under all circumstances. The latter is reality,

but who can know that?

[Guest guest]

Pranam. Just a query.. The Virgin Mary is always portrayed with the christ child

but Tara Devi is not. So, how did Mary become Tara?

 

With LOve

 

Shankaree

 

Let my every word be a prayer to Thee,

Every movement of my hands a ritual gesture to Thee,

Every step I take a circumambulation of Thy image,

Every morsel I eat a rite of sacrifice to Thee,

Every time I lay down a prostration at Thy feet;

Every act of personal pleasure and all else that I do,

Let it all be a form of worshiping Thee. "

 

From Verse 27 of Shri Aadi Shankara's Saundaryalahari

 

 

 

 

Philip Miller <pem218

 

Tuesday, 13 November, 2007 1:19:51 PM

Re: Question regarding diety

 

Another comment, if I may...

 

There is evidence that one of the early Mongol khans had a Nestorian Christian

mother and that to honor her he invited Franciscan Fathers into his realm - this

antedates the Jesuits by several hundreds of years. These Franciscans introduced

the image of the Virgin Mary, which was immediately appropriated as Tara,

 

The cult of Tara spread far and wide rather rapidly, such that earlier

manifestation seems to have been swept away except for oldeer art forms.

 

Tara is also defined as one of two dozen or so female deities born of the tears

of Avalokeshvara. Indeed, the Tara, Goddess of Compassion, is often called

Avalokeshvara, but Avalokeshvara is male.

 

When the Jesuits arrived in East Asia and found multitudes worshipping Tara,

they thought the lands were ripe for conversion. But they had no idea that the

Franciscans had been there first.

 

Philip

 

Aditya Kumar Jha <aditya.kr.jha@ gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm...

I am not sure if Tara and Lalita are one and the same as argued by Kirk. On

what grounds is this argument being based?

What we now " know " as tara is a " hybrid " goddess with Hindu and Buddhist

influences: this is a FACT. Buddhist tantric influences were helped the tara

cult to thrive in northern India where we find quite a few temples dedicated

to Tara. Most notable of these being in Bengal and one in Maheshi in Bihar.

 

BUT: Is Lalita/sodashi/ TripurSundari too a Buddhist Goddess " appropriated "

by Hindu Tantrics? NO.

If I am not mistaken, Buddhist tantric philosophy is not more than 2100

years old, whereas Hindu tantra predates it by nearly 1000 years !!! In case

of Tara , different identies merged into one;calling different goddesses as

manifestation of a single diety called Tara. Some of the manifestations

being Ugra-Tara(Buddhist) , Ekjata/Neel Saraswati (Hindu).

 

Regards

Aditya

 

On 11/13/07, Philip Miller <pem218 > wrote:

>

> May this " up to now " lurker inject a comment?

>

> Kirk is correct on the one hand, that what we are calling Lalita Cult may

> have been appropriated from Buddhist Tantrists, but on the other, he is also

> correct in pointing out that the " border " between sect and " religions " were

> highly porous before either the British or the German Orientalists set up

> hard boundaries.

>

> Finally, what we simply call Sanatana Dharma seems, in so many cases, to

> reflect the supersessionist views of the Brahmanists, who came and uprooted

> what was even older, i.e., Tantra and even Jainism.

>

> We cannot say at what point Tantra came within the overarching and

> seeingly all-inclusive term Sanatana Dharma.

>

> Philip

>

> Kirk <kirk_bernhardt@ cox.net <kirk_bernhardt% 40cox.net> > wrote:

>

> Well, tantras are either in use or not, and depending upon who uses them

> first the traditions are wrought. In Lalita schools one finds references

> to

> Oddiyana, Mahanirvana, and Ekajati. Which derive from a small and little

> known cult called the Dakiniyana, from around 100 CE. None of this is

> proof.

>

> It's good to read Davidson for the historic content.

>

> You are right, actually the Lalita cult, the Red Tara cult and so on go

> back

> very very long time. But who codified the teachings into their usable

> form?

>

> No scholar of the tantras doubts that various Hindu tantric cults and

> Buddhist tantric cults influenced each other. Please remember that prior

> to recent naming of Sanatana Dharma

> to Hinduism by the British there was not so much separation between these

> various factions.

>

> We look at things now with different (and often polluted) eyes.

>

> I only threw that in to expand some people's thinking. I would do the

> opposite at a Buddhist board, and often do.

>

> Personally I think tantra preceeds Sanatana Dharma, and Buddhism. Before

> there were nails there were rocks for pounding them in.

>

> -

> " Rupesh Kumar " <ruk_raw_forever@ <ruk_raw_forever% 40>

> >

> < <% 40. com>>

> Monday, November 12, 2007 12:30 AM

> Re: Question regarding diety

>

> > Hello Kirk,

> >

> > I'm new to this group.

> >

> > In your comments you have mentioned that Sri. Lalitha Mahabhatarike is

> > derived from Buddhist tantrik concept. Here I would like to give a

> > reference of " Bramhand Purana " or " Lalitha Sahastranama " as it is

> usually

> > called, it is mentioned that the concept of Sri. Lalitha Mahabhatarike

> > was existing even at the time of " Hiranyagarbha " . In the above said

> > " Bramhand Purana " Hayagriva & Aghatya's ( " Hayagriva- Aghatya Samvadam " )

> > discussion one can find the traces of this. During their discussion many

> a

> > times referances were made to the above said diety.

> >

> > The " Bramhand Purana " may be more than some lacs of years old and while

> > the Buddism is only 2,500 yrs old. Then how come Sri. Mahabhattarike' s

> > concept may be derived from Buddhism ?

> >

> > Please, clarify.

> >

> > Thanks & Regards,

> >

> > Rupesh.

> >

> > Kirk <kirk_bernhardt@ cox.net <kirk_bernhardt% 40cox.net> > wrote:

> > Sri Raja Raja Ishwari means the Glorious Queen of Queens of

> > Goddesses, which

> > is an epithet and not a name per se. She is Mahalakshmi. She is known as

> > Lalita, or the Goddess who sports. And her name is Mahabhatarike. Which

> > means Greatly respected by All. Tripura Sundari is another epithet.

> >

> > What is lesser known is that Sri Lalita Mahabhattarike was originally a

> > Buddhist tantric deity appropriated hundreds of years ago by jealous

> Hindu

> > tantrics.

> >

>

> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __

 

------------ --------- --------- ---

Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Mobile. Try it now.

 

 

[Guest guest]

" We should always strive to reach to a state where their is -

No Veda,

No Kuran,

No Bible,...

 

But this is possible only and only through Veda, Kuran, Bible. "

-Swami Vivekananda

 

Yes Kirk ! your r right. Tantra is about wholeness. Not owned by a diety or a

religion.

 

However, to be successful in Tantra one has to go through the religion and the

same diety.

 

Again the question arises which diety ? which religion ?

 

In Mahabharata the Yudhisthira asks his great grand father Bhisma when he was

on the bed of arrows after the great war of kurukskhetra:

 

" ko-dharmah-Sarva-dharmanam Bhawatah-parmo-matah;

 

kim-japam-vimuchatey-jantur Janma-sansar Bandhanaat "

 

" which religion to be followed, that is superior,

and which name to be chanted to get Moksha from life & death cycle "

 

Bhisma who was in a fag end of his life and was believed to be a grandfather

of the whole mankind was highly intellectual. He says the Narayana is the only

religion and the only name which can help you out.

 

Point to be noted here is Yudhisthira asks about reaching to a state where

their is absolute freedom from life & death cycle. And Bhisma shows him the

means to reach that stage. After when the state is reached we don't require that

means.

 

To put it simple. Suppose I wants to travel from New Delhi to New York. I'll

have to take an Aircraft and when I reached NK I don't require it anymore. In

the same way in the case of practising Tantra one has to take the means like

religion/diety etc. And ofcourse selection is very important in this. Selection

of religion, selection of diety, selection of right theory i.e. selection of

correct path. Otherwise one can land in Africa instead of NK which will be an

unecessary wastage and money.

 

Kirk <kirk_bernhardt wrote:

I would caution against the need to define anything of the tantras into

any

neat little intellectual box, and caution one against all those who have

done so. They then are mere intellectuals and neither mystics nor magicians.

 

In order to be a magician, per se, one needs a specific will that they must

follow.

 

Tantrics are not so much about following a will, but rather, becoming one

with what is, and then getting in tune with what is, so that they are no

longer separated from what is, either mentally, or emotionally, or even

physically.

 

Why? Because one wishes to no longer suffer, and no longer create suffering.

Because creating suffering makes one suffer.

 

The supreme methods of transcendence and generation of bliss from within,

which does not rely on any manifest thing, is for the gaining of supremacy

over suffering. Tantras therefore are the highest sciences. And sure, within

that is manipulation of what is for less than supreme ends, because people

suffer in all ways. But tantras and tantrics are about becoming one with

what is, and becoming not one with what isn't.

 

And what isn't is what most people identify with. What isn't is most

everything that one senses as it starts and finishes, while that awareness

within the senses never starts and never finishes.

 

There are also many cults which have no remaining records, or never recorded

their teachings due to vows of secrecy. More this than the other.

 

Tantrics are shamanic doctors of the past, the past, when people still

relied on direct cognition and spiritual inner life as a key rather than

outer forms of materialistic prognosis. Tantrics are persons who see the

whole of causation at once with a knowing eye to karma, and who do not seek

to cure one form at the expense of another but work rather in totality, so

as not to promote bad karma.

 

Therefore the tantric is a doctor, more than a mystic or magician. A

tantric is always preaching that wholeness of life has an additional benefit

of stable gnosis which is itself pure joy, and that this stable gnosis of

pure joy cannot be bought, sold, or cultured by any means not inherent to

oneself. Moreover the tantric breaks boundaries about that cognitory level

amongst others to allow them the greater freedom of acceptance of that joy,

so that people don't make the mistake of thinking it can be contained, by

conduct, politics, or religion.

 

Self knowledge is divine knowledge. Uncontainable.

 

Now as to the form of divinity. That's not as important as the mere

recognition of divinity itself.

 

Life was not meant to be lived in separation from that which maintains it.

Life is wholeness. It becomes less so as one splits off into fragmentary

desires. But if one reaffirms their inner wholeness with divinity then

outer wholeness comes replete as well.

 

This is tantra - wholeness. Not owned, not to be bought or sold. Not in a

deity, not not in a deity. Not in a religion, not not in a religion.

 

-

" Philip Miller " <pem218

 

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:17 AM

Re: Question regarding diety

 

> You're certainly welcome, Aditya.

>

> I apologize, for I seem to have a problem spelling Avaloketiksvara and

> usually mispell it - as I did earlier (At least I was consistent!)

>

> To return to the initial question, it is not beyond the realm of

> possibility that aspects [important word] of the Lalita cult as we know it

> today were taken from Tantric Buddhism - as it has itself developed from

> the earlier " Vedic " forms.

>

> Worship of the Feminine aspect of Deity, be it as Earth Mother, Mother

> Nature, of a Goddess, is as old as Humankind itself and certainly

> antedates the Brahmanic forms of Sanatana Dharma that have come to become

> indentified with " Hinduism. "

>

> Worship of the Feminine is primordial and primeval. What we call Tantra

> corresponds to Humankind's desire to control the Material World.

>

> (In this regard I cite Rohit Mehta, who in his wonderful commentary on

> the Bhagavad-Gita, wrote that Magicians seek to control the Cosmos;

> Mystics seek to become One with it. He goes on to say that a Magician can

> rarely become a Mystic (probably because they are blinded by their

> material powers), whereas a Mystic is only " completed " when s/he takes the

> next step and becomes a Magician.)

>

> I see worship of Deva Maa in any and all of Her aspects as fulfilling the

> most ancient and basic spiritual need.

>

> Philip

>

> Aditya Kumar Jha <aditya.kr.jha wrote:

> That is a really interesting piece of information. Thanks Philip

>

> regards

> Aditya

>

> On 11/13/07, Philip Miller <pem218 wrote:

>>

>> Another comment, if I may...

>>

>> There is evidence that one of the early Mongol khans had a Nestorian

>> Christian mother and that to honor her he invited Franciscan Fathers into

>> his realm - this antedates the Jesuits by several hundreds of years.

>> These

>> Franciscans introduced the image of the Virgin Mary, which was

>> immediately

>> appropriated as Tara,

>>

>> The cult of Tara spread far and wide rather rapidly, such that earlier

>> manifestation seems to have been swept away except for oldeer art forms.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

No, the Virgin Mary is not always depicted with the Christ Child, Statues of

her often do not show her with Jesus, and while many paintings do, some do not.

 

Another " similarity. " A standard depiction of Mary in a statue is her foot on

the head of a serpent, representing the serpent of the Gardewn of Eden who

purposely misled Eve. Kali is represented with Her foot on the body of a

prostrate Lord Siva.

 

I am NOT equatinmg or comparing the serpent with Lord Siva, however!

 

Symbols travel and transfer, often with new meanings ascribed to them.

 

Philip

 

Shankaree Ramatas <shankaree wrote:

Pranam. Just a query.. The Virgin Mary is always portrayed with the

christ child but Tara Devi is not. So, how did Mary become Tara?

 

With LOve

 

Shankaree

 

Let my every word be a prayer to Thee,

Every movement of my hands a ritual gesture to Thee,

Every step I take a circumambulation of Thy image,

Every morsel I eat a rite of sacrifice to Thee,

Every time I lay down a prostration at Thy feet;

Every act of personal pleasure and all else that I do,

Let it all be a form of worshiping Thee. "

 

From Verse 27 of Shri Aadi Shankara's Saundaryalahari

 

-

[Guest guest]

There was nothing in the message of Jesus which had not already been

explored by the Buddha and his contemporary Mahavira.

 

There were tantras before Jesus.

 

There also still is no proof of Jesus.

 

There is no proof or words to the effect of a second coming of Jesus, now or

ever, in any Catholic scripture. So that's double negative.

 

The semblance of establishment of a Jesus is based more on the continuance

on Empire (since Constantine - the True Church Father) and the Republic,

than upon any truth, faith or hope.

 

My point is that imagination doesn't get one past 'Go.' And a 'real' or a

fictitious Jesus are neither established, nor unestablished.

 

As with all such historic figures, and deities, they all are neither

established, nor unestablished.

 

If they were established then our relationships to them could not change, if

they were unestablished then they would never have been referenced.

 

The real truth is neither established from any perspective, nor is it

unestablished, as per the view of Yoga of Patanjali, and Karma Mimansa that

both silence and motion are the basic solid state of existance, but neither

separately (Purva Mimansa).

 

It is not something for the intellect to coddle. Chaos and order are the

twins Yama and Yami. Forever in love, forever forbidden to engage.

 

-

" Philip Miller " <pem218

 

Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:17 AM

Re: Question regarding diety

 

 

> Namaste

>

> No, the Virgin Mary is not always depicted with the Christ Child, Statues

> of her often do not show her with Jesus, and while many paintings do, some

> do not.

>

> Another " similarity. " A standard depiction of Mary in a statue is her

> foot on the head of a serpent, representing the serpent of the Gardewn of

> Eden who purposely misled Eve. Kali is represented with Her foot on the

> body of a prostrate Lord Siva.

>

> I am NOT equatinmg or comparing the serpent with Lord Siva, however!

>

> Symbols travel and transfer, often with new meanings ascribed to them.

>

> Philip

>

> Shankaree Ramatas <shankaree wrote:

> Pranam. Just a query.. The Virgin Mary is always portrayed with

> the christ child but Tara Devi is not. So, how did Mary become Tara?

>

> With LOve

>

> Shankaree

>

> Let my every word be a prayer to Thee,

> Every movement of my hands a ritual gesture to Thee,

> Every step I take a circumambulation of Thy image,

> Every morsel I eat a rite of sacrifice to Thee,

> Every time I lay down a prostration at Thy feet;

> Every act of personal pleasure and all else that I do,

> Let it all be a form of worshiping Thee. "

>

> From Verse 27 of Shri Aadi Shankara's Saundaryalahari

>

> -

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Leela says, Kirk, you are a fun playmate! Mitochondria is an

interesting analogy, especially when I think that mitochondrial DNA

is passed on from the Mother (in both the physical and universal

sense)in an unbroken lineage back to the First Mothers. The most

Ancient Lineage, Adi Shakti, the Primordial Powerhouse, infinity at a

cellular level...Ah, high energy electrons, adenosine TRIphosphate,

Infinite Bliss-Permeated Mother in every direction- even under the

microscope. These are the times I find that I am wearing Ma-colored

glasses, tinted with Mahashakti. Why do I ever think I must see

something else and remove my glasses? What else is there to see?

 

" About the Frawley books, one should consider them for the ir

fictional and

> speculative truths, "

??????????????? I am not sure what you are referring to here. I am

also not sure I need to know, tee hee.

 

, " Kirk " <kirk_bernhardt

wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

> > Thank-you Kirk! And thanks for your post on " Tantric Doctors " !

When I

> > read that I got a thrill! I will be on the lookout for the

Davidson

> > books.

>

> You're welcome. More true than doctors would be that tantrics are

more like

> societies mitochondria which live and function and clear the

collective

> consciousness of self-damning ignorance (vritti - samskara) so that

it can

> remain positive and hopeful.

>

> About the Frawley books, one should consider them for the ir

fictional and

> speculative truths, like one would Castaneda and his Yaqui Indian

Sorcerers,

> and so on. There is no proof either way for any of their claims.

Which

> doesn't mean that one does not find people like these tantrics,

mystics and

> sorcerers. Just that such people are not intending to be tattled

upon in

> treatises, but rather they show through example to their chosen

accolytes.

>

> There's also no point arguing whether some masters drink scotch or

bourbon

> while discussing their homams, as maybe some do? But nobody will

ever know

> such persons as they would be very well out of sight of all but the

most few

> individuals. Those, who could mentally keep composure under greatly

> conflicting circumstances. And in today's world, just the

slightest few

> could do so. I couldn't. And I'm an old Hollywood punk rocker.

>

> There's something to be said for yogic purity, and not much to be

said for

> total and complete purity under all circumstances. The latter is

reality,

> but who can know that?

>

[Guest guest]

>There is evidence that one of the early Mongol khans had a Nestorian

>Christian mother and that to honor her he invited Franciscan Fathers

>into his realm - this antedates the Jesuits by several hundreds of

>years. These Franciscans introduced the image of the Virgin Mary,

>which was immediately appropriated as Tara,

 

I don't believe a word of it. Another example of looking everywhere

but India for cultural origins.

 

Max

 

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

http://www.suppressedhistories.net

Real Women, Global Vision

[Guest guest]

I wouldnot be inclined to believe it either. Virgin Mary inspiring tantric

visions and transmutating into Tara: seems pretty far fetched.Tara doesnt

just have one aspect, what about ugratara ? Is that Mary too?

I had refuted tibetan influence on Lalita cult but this one is plain

ridiculous.

 

No offense intended!!!

 

 

 

Regards

Aditya

 

 

On 11/18/07, Max Dashu <maxdashu wrote:

>

> >There is evidence that one of the early Mongol khans had a Nestorian

> >Christian mother and that to honor her he invited Franciscan Fathers

> >into his realm - this antedates the Jesuits by several hundreds of

> >years. These Franciscans introduced the image of the Virgin Mary,

> >which was immediately appropriated as Tara,

>

> I don't believe a word of it. Another example of looking everywhere

> but India for cultural origins.

>

> Max

>

> --

> Max Dashu

> Suppressed Histories Archives

> http://www.suppressedhistories.net

> Real Women, Global Vision

>

>