Guest guest Report post Posted August 21, 2009 jai gurudev dear priyaji, i am a shakta and my family have been shakti for generations, and we have never indulged in killing animals-sacrifice,nor any voilence,nor eat meat,or drink alcohol,etc...why ???? as informed,there r atleast 4 ways to worship the divine. rajasic,tamasic,sattvic,samya path. forllower of samya and sattvic path do not indulge in animal sacrifice. it is upto the devotee what to do,we follow path of non voilence wherr the the mantra,yantra,god and devotee are 1 [ adwaith path as preached by ved and also by sri adi shankaracharyaji and also great yogis like guru gorakshnathji ]. so truth is,there is no need to kill animals,for worship of mother. fyi,i am devotee of 10 mahavidya and also doing mother dakshin kaali mantra,kavach,etc,but never once i have sacrificed any animal,not mother asked for killing any animals. i can vouch for myself,for others i dont know. om shakti gopal Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 21, 2009 jai gurudev lol,yes,but in some vaam margi sadhana there is provision of offering to mataji as sacrifice men,elephants,buffallo, and in some very odd sadhanas which i even fear to mention, tiger blood is used to draw yantra,do tarpan etc. i have heard of this tiger blood thing from some hard core vaam margi sadhakas,like kapalik. forgive me maa !!! om shakti gopal On 8/21/09, Sriram Dongre <sriramadongre wrote: > > > > on a lighter note ;-) > > Not a horse, not an elephent and never a Tiger, > Given in sacrifice is goat, Oh ! God is killer of weak !! > > " Ashvam Naiva Gajam Naiva Vyaaghram Naiva Cha Naiva Cha > Ajaa putram balim dadyaat Devo durbala-ghaatakah " > > --- On Fri, 8/21/09, ganpra <ganpra<ganpra%40rocketmail.com>> > wrote: > > ganpra <ganpra <ganpra%40rocketmail.com>> > Re: Am I a Jain or a Shakta? > <%40> > Friday, August 21, 2009, 4:03 AM > > Aptly said. > > Who perform animal sacrifices say, " Those jeevan(s) directly attain > salvation. " The counter argument is, " If so, then sacrifice your parents and > family, so they can go directly to heaven. " > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 21, 2009 Dear DB, Thank you for recommending " The Hindus " . I did read one page in Amazon and is very interesting, have placed an order already. regarding my questions, I am kinda both, truly seek answers and also speak FOR animals. I started to speak for animals after my two parrots came into our home. You have to live with one to understand them. In short, they are in no way different or inferior to humans. As Sriram has said, why always sacrifice a dove or a goat? why not a lion or a tiger? Fear of being eaten? SriRam Ji, God is not a killer of weak. All these are man made for their own greed and convenience. God does not ask for sacrifice of blood, God only asks to sacrifice our own ego in the sacrificial fire. This is my humble opinion. Priya ________________________________ Devi bhakta <devi_bhakta To say animal sacrifice is part and parcel of Shaktism would be incorrect. To say that it is not would also be incorrect. The reasons for the practice reach back to the Vedas and far beyond into the mists of prehistory. Wendy Doniger's " The Hindus " (Penguin, 2009) accurately traces both animal sacrifice *and* opposition to animal sacrifice back through thousands of years. If you truly seek an answer to your question, that's an excellent place to find it; better than a sound-bite ion . If you're simply posting to say, " I think sacrificing innocent animals is wrong and I'm against it, " please know that you are in good company throughout history. Some do it, some don't. aim mAtangyai namaH Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 21, 2009 Pranam. Just a note... Horses were sacrificed in the Ashwamedha Yagna. 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 ________________________________ gopal narayan <gopalnarayan123 Friday, 21 August, 2009 10:58:41 Re: Re: Am I a Jain or a Shakta? jai gurudev lol,yes,but in some vaam margi sadhana there is provision of offering to mataji as sacrifice men,elephants, buffallo, and in some very odd sadhanas which i even fear to mention, tiger blood is used to draw yantra,do tarpan etc. i have heard of this tiger blood thing from some hard core vaam margi sadhakas,like kapalik. forgive me maa !!! om shakti gopal On 8/21/09, Sriram Dongre <sriramadongre@ > wrote: > > > > on a lighter note ;-) > > Not a horse, not an elephent and never a Tiger, > Given in sacrifice is goat, Oh ! God is killer of weak !! > > " Ashvam Naiva Gajam Naiva Vyaaghram Naiva Cha Naiva Cha > Ajaa putram balim dadyaat Devo durbala-ghaatakah " > > --- On Fri, 8/21/09, ganpra <ganpra (AT) rocketmail (DOT) com<ganpra%40rocketmai l.com>> > wrote: > > ganpra <ganpra (AT) rocketmail (DOT) com <ganpra%40rocketmai l.com>> > Re: Am I a Jain or a Shakta? > <% 40. com> > Friday, August 21, 2009, 4:03 AM > > Aptly said. > > Who perform animal sacrifices say, " Those jeevan(s) directly attain > salvation. " The counter argument is, " If so, then sacrifice your parents and > family, so they can go directly to heaven. " > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 21, 2009 Namaste S. Santo Sengupta & Kulasundari: Thank you both. I do indeed offer prayers to the Tirtankara (Jain Saints) and to Ma Durga. There is really no conflict whatsoever. Truly to come into this world and just live we kill other beings, but that is not the point. The point is as our ego expands so does our appetite for killing. We need a bigger house, so we slaughter more forest. We need more resources for our country, so we kill more and more people to get it. We can't satisfy our desire for meat, so we eat it continuously. This is especially apparent in the West, but I've seen this in Thailand too. A man wants a refrigerator, so he sells his daughter into slavery. As our ego contracts, so too does our desire to destroy other living beings. We learn to cooperate with the forest, and walk softly on the earth. Sure sometimes we dig up dandelions or step on wasps thoughtlessly, but we learn to stop being responsible for the devastation of forests, the slaughter of countless beasts, etc. Shanti Om, Shankari http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1235552912 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 22, 2009 :-) Reminds me again of an old Tamil movie song written by KannadAsan. Why did God become a stone? Because of Man with a heart of stone. The song is philosophically cynical (Bad, bad World), goes like this: Why did God become a stone? Because of Man with a heart of stone. ...... Who saw an evil deed lost his vision Who opposed it lost his voice Who was sympathetic lost his gold Who was benevolent lost himself. ...... Heart needs a conscience - it is the realm of the God of Just Who is the witness of all truth. ....... Who conspired is the clever Who tolerated it is the accused Who speaks the truth is the conspirator This is the authority of God. , Sriram Dongre <sriramadongre wrote: > > on a lighter note ;-) > > Not a horse, not an elephent and never a Tiger, > Given in sacrifice is goat, Oh ! God is killer of weak !! > > " Ashvam Naiva Gajam Naiva Vyaaghram Naiva Cha Naiva Cha > Ajaa putram balim dadyaat Devo durbala-ghaatakah " > > --- On Fri, 8/21/09, ganpra <ganpra wrote: > > > ganpra <ganpra > Re: Am I a Jain or a Shakta? > > Friday, August 21, 2009, 4:03 AM > > Aptly said. > > Who perform animal sacrifices say, " Those jeevan(s) directly attain salvation. " The counter argument is, " If so, then sacrifice your parents and family, so they can go directly to heaven. " > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 23, 2009 Dear forumites, I see a very good response in this particular thread, and see that mnay have participated in this thread and many people had many things to say. I see that a query is directly aimed at me, and I am glad that it is so. But I also see that some others have come up with comments/opinions to which I think I can have something to reply, or comment on or make an observation. Since I cannot participate very frequently in the forum, and cannot take out time to separately answer all posts in any thread that I would like to, I am selecting some posts, of some participants in the thread, and in one single post, trying to answer to them to the best of my ability. Sri Priya Babu wrote: <<<Could you please explain in detail? What is the relationship between the sacrificer, sacrifice and the One to whom the sacrifice is made? Do we really need to sacrifice totally defenseless animals to realize this Truth? What is the eternal and inviolable Truth?>>> Of course, I would be glad to explain. The implication is of primal sacrifice and renewal of creation, the symbolical enactment of the cyclic process of mother nature. Life and death are parts of an interdependent unified system – one cannot be without the other. Death feeds life and life feeds death in turn. The death of something is only the transformation of the life energy into something else. Sacrifice simply represents the continued state of self-destruction and self-renewal, in a cyclic order. The act, when performed in its true spirit, in the right state of mind and awareness, jolts the sacrificer and the viewer into an awareness of the eternal and profound truth that life feeds on death, is nourished by death, and necessitates death and essentially the purpose of death is to feed more life. The cosmic process – the rythims of creation, preservation and destruction, the universal economy of Mother Nature – Mula Prakriti who is the Mother Herself – is a harmonious alteration of giving and taking, of feeding and feeding, of nourishing and being nourished – all as an endless chain of action and reaction, cause and effect that the Supreme Mother or Parashakti holds within Herself. Hence the Mother's symbolic " need " for blood – which is the symbol of life and is essential for life – represents only one aspect of this eternal process of giving and taking. As Mother Nature, or Mula-Prakriti, she feeds and is fed in turn. She feeds through the mouth of all her creation – from the invisible bacteria to the biggest whale, from the tiny blades of grass to the greatest tress. And she is in turn fed to those same manifestations of life – all the varieties of life forms that She becomes. So essentially, it is none but She alone who ever feeds. And it is none but she alone who is fed. And it si none but she alone who is the feeder. Because there is none but She alone that exists, and none but She alone who has manifested as everything in creation. What is the greatest, highest offering that we can give to the one who is the One and Only? What is the most fitting offering we can ever offer to She who has become everything out of Her own Self, and who preserves everything by Her power, and who will absorb back everything again into her own Self? What is the best thing we can offer to the One who is the cource of all life, who is the Primal energy that is the source of all of Life energy? Life itself. Because in the ultimate analysis, there IS nothing else but her! There is nothing else but Energy-Consciousness! So we can only offer Her something that is Her own manifestation, because there is nothing exsting which is not essentially and ultimately She Herself. Whether we offer he a fruit, or a flower, or rice or cereals, or wine, or meat, or plants or vegetables – all ultimately traces back to Her, all ultimately IS Herself only – Nature – Mula-Prakriti. Brahmarpanam brahma habi brahmagnou brahmanahutam Brahmaiva tena gantavyam brahma karma samadhinah The arpan (act of offering) is Brahman, the habi (the offered substance) is Brahman, the fire (agni) to which it is offered is Brahman, the ahuti (the oblation to the fire) is Brahman, the gantavya (destiny, goal) of that offering/ oblation is brahman, and the performance of the whole act (karma) too, is Brahman. THIS – is the profound symbolism behind sacrifice in front of the Mother. The one who is sacrificed, is a manifestation of Life, of Nature, a manifestation of the Mother herself. The one who is offering the sacrifice, too, is another manifestation of Life, of Nature, and therefore is the Mother too. And the symbolic enactmkent of this eternal cosmic cycle of Nature, is too the Mother and nothing else. It is with that state of mind, with that attitude and approach, with that level of consciousness, that the true sadhak offers sacrifice to the Mother. At that moment, neither is he the " killer " nor is the animal the " killed " . He too is a part of the same grand and cosmic process, as much as the sacrificial animal is, and as much as the One to whom it is offered is. He and the animal are not separate in essence, though they may be physically separate. Because in essence they both are one and the same – Life, two biologically different manifestations of the same Nature – manifestations of the same Mother who has become everything. Because she in the animal as much as she is in the worshipper. At that moment, the sacrificer and the sacrificed are one and the same in essence, in principle. And both of them are the expression of the same Supreme truth, the differencfe only being in degree, but not in kind. He is the Mother, the animal is the Mother, the image of the Mother is the Mother, and the whole act of offering, the act of worship, the enactment of nature's cycle – that too is the Mother. So, the question of " cruelty " or " kindness " does not arise. These things are irrelevant, and though it is obviously a fad or a fashion in modern times to display disapproval, or talk of " cruelty to animals " – that is all but the results of an uneducated and unconscious collective mind, that is too bound up and hung up of superficial and artificial notions of " propriety " and " morality " . That is why, such people never have it occur to them that Nature is neither " moral " nor " immoral " , neither " kind " nor " cruel " – whatever these terms and concepts may mean to different people depending on their socio-cultural conditioning – but Nature is beyond moral or immoral, beyond kindness or cruelty. It may sound unpalatable to those who always look for an opportunity to display how very " modern " , " progressive " , or " kindhearted " , or " sattvik " , or " humanitarian " they are, by making a show of turning up their noses at anything and everything – but without first bothering to understand that thing which they want to disapprove or condemn. They invariably think that they are " proving " themselves, but in their false consciousness, little do they realize that whether they know it or not, whether they consciously intend it or not (as if they are anybody to do so) they are also, as parts of Nature are always bound to that eternal cyclic process of Nature, and they too, as manifestations of Life, are not outside that process and will never be outside that process. In order to condemn anything, or disapprove of anything, one should at least take some responsibility to first understand that thing, which they seek to disapprove. When people, who are not even aware of the true meaning of " kindness " or " progressiveness " or " spirituality " or " sattva guna " mouth these terms and concepts, and think that they have become greater than Nature herself, or that they have gone beyond the eternal processes of Nature and Existence, and act under the self-delusion that mere mouthing of these concepts, and that the mere display of superficial and counterfeit and `fashionable " disapproval, condemnation, self-righteous angst automatically makes them truly humane or progressive or spiritual – then that becomes the height of gross-egoism and self-delusion. And only a true understander of traditions, only the true worshipper, true sadhaka who has understood and realized the truths behind the symbolisms that he practices, will smile to himself at best in amusement and at worst with contempt – at these kind of displays of false, limited consciousness, and superficial, uneducated, mindless and above all pretentious ways of looking at Life. Traditions like sacrifice, or bali-daan – that have continued and come down to us from the misty, hoary past, traditions like these that have existed and continued through ages and ages, are not as flimsy, as counterfeit, as superficial or as pretentious as the counterfeit morality and false consciousness of the artificial, plastic, ego-centric and ego-driven civilization that we have today. And that is why traditions such as these, symbols such as these have existed for millennia all over the world. In order to understand what lies beneath such traditions, the first requirement for any person is to submit his/her ego, throw away his/her self-righteous and false consciousness, and view that thing from the in finite all-encompassing perspective of the Mother Herself, instead of trying to reduce that thing to fit the tiny boundaries of the blind, delusional, ego-driven and ego-bound entity that he/she is. Other wise, it is just a case of empty vessels making a lot of noise. And I like to believe that something more than just that could be expected from a group of people who have by themselves joined and forum called " Shakti-Sadhana " , and who like to see themselves as the devotees of the Mother. " Killing " and " being killed " , " cruelty " and " kindness " , " life " and " death " – these are categories that we – the disembodied expressions of limited fragmented consciousness, create in our artificial lives. From the perspective of the one who is the All, the Supreme, the All-Encompassing reality – these categories and concepts are meaningless – redundant. These things do not exist at all. In the economy of the Mother, there is no gain or loss, no killing and being killed. I believe everyone in this group has at least read in their school science books that energy is constant and infinite, and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only be transformed from one from to another. All that exists, had existed, and will ever exist, is the one and same sum-total, without any addition or substraction – Primordial Energy-Consciousness, or Adya-Parashakti. Nothing can be added to it, nothing can ever get subtracted from it, nothing is outside its pale or scope, because there is only It, and nothing else. It is Fullness itself. It is the Totality, the Constant. Om purna-madah: purnam-idam purnat purnamudachyate Purnasya purnamadayah: purnam-eva vishishyate That (The Transcendent) is Complete; This (The immanent) is Complete. From That Completeness comes this Completeness. Remove Complete from the Complete, yet Complete alone abides. Life feeds on death, and death feeds on life. " life " and " death " are life and death only from the empirical perspective of the limited organism in the physical empirical world. In reality, in essence, there is really nothing such as " life and `death " there is only One great Life-force, which continuously transforms itself in a cyclic process and thereby propagates and maintains itself. " death " is only transition and transformation of that universal life force – in invidual manifestations – from one form of existence to another. All of this ever continuing process is in that " Purna " – Fullness or Completeness. " life " or `death " , " killing " or " being killed " is only from our individual, physical perspective. But it has to be seen and understood not form that, but form the perspective of that Fullnes and Completeness. That is the significance of sacrifice – we, as Life, are offering Life, to She who is the source of all Life. We as Nature, are offering Nature, to the Primordial Nature Herself. We are enacting the cosmic cycle of Nature, of whioch every living being is a part of – whether one remembers it or not. Like worshipping the Ganges with the water of the Ganges itself. If one does not and cannot realize this understand this most fundamental truth, is most basic understanding in one's way of realizing the Mother, what is the use of one's imagining oneself to be " worshippers " or " seekers " of the Mother? What is the use of dabbling and quibbling on e-forums or even in going through formal rituals and pratices in one's life, if one has not learnt to see a tradition/concept/ symbolism from the perspective of the All-encompassing, instead of seeing it from a limited, fragmented, false perspective? Sri Gopal Narayan wrote: <<<there r atelast 4 ways to worship the divine. tamaik,rajasik,sattwic and samya path. samya path was adopted by NATH YOGIS, siddhas,like gurudev dutt,guru gorakshnathji etc, and we are followers of same path and jains have copied the same.nothing wrong with it though. samya path means internal worship of the god,where the god,mantra,yantra and self is considered as one and the worshipper worships the divine inside,not outside in external idols.and finally over time the worshipper realise that he or she is same same as the god,and attains jeevan mukti = salvation when still alive,the real step towards attaining true salvation after death.>>> Mr. Gopal, I am afraid that even though you have chosen to advise someone about something specific – namely, the way of worship of Shakti, you have not bothered to understand it with the self-understanding of that tradition itself – which is the minimum requirement for anyone to comment on anything. Tantra marga does not differentiate between " sattvic " " rajasic " and " tamasic " , and worship to the Divine Shakti is by definition sacred and sanctified. In the Tantrik worldview, nothing is " sattvic " or tamasic " , because everything that has emanated from the same Adyashakti, IS by definition pure. Categories like that do not make sense and are redundant in that worldview. The brahminical take on tantra is not tantra, it just remains what it is – a deliberate and prejudiced misinterpretation, based on limited and superficial notions and constructs of another dysfunctional traditiona and worldview that is not at all the tantrik approach, and that does not have the capacity to grasp that tradition in its scope and depth. The " samya " path that you talk of, is not a legitimate, or historically authentic path at all in tantramarga, but a brahminical take on tantra and a gross callous misinterpretation and bowdlerization of it, that took place since the time of vedic-supremacists and brahmincal chauvinists like Sankaracharya and that insufferable sanctimonious bigot Laxmidhara. This gros parody of Tantra, Shaktisadhana and Kulachara, which has historically practically usurped and disfigured the whole of Tantra in South India, is a particularly South Indian phenomenon. There is nothing called " samayachara " – it is an attempt by brahminist bigots and prudes to usurp tantra, and rob tantra of its essential elements and paradigms and unique defining aspects, and make it into something that remains " tantra " by name but is actually " vedachara " or smarta brahminism under a superficial garb of " tantra " . The authentic classification and order of the different " acharas " or approaches in the authentic tantrik texts are entirely different, and there is no category or term such as " samayachara " in that system oif classification and categoriszation of the various approaches to sadhana. Intellectual burglaries committed in mediaval times by bigots and chauvinists do not become legitimate " achara " , just because they have tried to forcefully create an artificial category and therefore the typical brahminist southindian " doing tantra " since that time, have been mortgaging their intellets and minds to that past burglary and bowdlerization and repeating `samaya " , `samaya " for a few centuries now – without even bothering to know what is the meaning of that term, or whether that is really and authentic and legitimate tantrik path, or whther the ideology and appro0ach of `samaya " has got anything really to do with authentic tantra sadhana. Did you know that even by your short " definition " that you have given for " samayachara " , I can at once see that you are completely unaware or clueless about the approach of Tantra and the essential Shakta philosophy? And not only that, in that short comment, you also have made a big factual error. The siddhas that you mention were not followers of `samaya " – because among other things that artificially created and category did not exist at the time of the ones you mentuion, and they had never heard of anything like that in their own immediate socio-cultural sphere. The nathas were the followers of the Tantra as it is – what those `samayacharis " like to call " vamachara " without even knowing the actual meaning and the original context of that term. " samaya " was and is something that is pecualiar to only south-indian brahminical society. " Ganpra " wrote: <<<Who perform animal sacrifices say, " Those jeevan(s) directly attain salvation. " The counter argument is, " If so, then sacrifice your parents and family, so they can go directly to heaven. " >>> For that particular argument, the above counter argument does serve as a fitting reply. But there is only one problem. That argument itself is not the correct understanding or perspective. And so the counter argument too, does not carry any weight or edge, if there is no such stupid argument to provoke it in the first place. I have already explained at length the real significance and symbolism behind the sacrifice of – not only animals – but ANY manifestation of nature such as vegetables, fruits, plants, etc. So, here it is just a case of the blind trying to lead the blind. Ignorant and misinformed people make up their own " explanations' and " justifications " like " salavation " and what not (without ever bothering to search for the real meaning and knowledge), and so that is the kind of counter reply they get in return. And both sides remain as ignorant as always. <<<My personal opinion is, " If you can kill the animal yourself, then do it. If you do not have the guts to see/watch an animal thrashing around, done to death by your own hands, don't do it. " >>> Exactly. Very Right. Sacrifice is not something to be done mechanically, for the sake of it, just because the scriptures prescribe so. Whether animal or vegetable. Without the understanding of the process, without the performance of the act based on nthe inner realization of the symbolism of the sacrifice as explained above, without getting into that state of realization and awareness and outlook towards life and worship, there is no use doing it. The word " sacrifice " loses its meaning. Whether it's a goat or a pumpkin, it has to be done with the right understanding and in the right spirit. Or else it is just empty ritual. One who understand truly and has reached that realization will not see " a goat thrashing around " . He will see the enactment of a cosmic process, in which he and the goat are both equally parts and players. He wont give much attention or concern to external superficial things like goats thrashing around. As if those people who make a show of displaying " humanitarian concern " against " animal rights " abuse do not enjoy a chicken burger or a fish fry or a mutton curry in their daily lives. And as if nature will change its processes and rules to adjust to the notions of " morality " or " kindness " of a bunch of deluded and hypocritical limited and blind beings. <<<Heard of a legend a few years ago, related to a SV guru in Chennai, who had left his physical being couple or 3 years ago. When he was younger, he was performing some yagna. Goddess asked for animal sacrifice. He replied, " I cannot kill an animal. It is against my belief. Since you are asking for blood and flesh, here it is. " He cut off one of his big toes and sacrificed it into the fire.>>> If this story is true, then that man was not a true sadhaka. He had not achieved that realization and understanding. He was still bound to the notions and constructs of his non- integrated superego. He was still more concerned about **his** beliefs, and has not been able to integrate himself with the greater impersonal truth. Since he says – even during the worship -- that he " cannot kill and animal " – it shows that this so-called sadhaka had not really achieved the expanded consciousness and integrated, advaitic worldview and insight. He is differentiating between himself and the animal. And he – just like any other ordinary lay person – interprets sacrifice as merely " killing " and in his mind it is only about `flesh and blood " . If this guy and this story is real, then he was really not " guru " material at all. Neither was he a true sadhaka. Maybe he did the rituals and goes through the rites and motions, but it is obvious that he knows and understands no more or no better than the uninitiated and untrained layman. to the insight of one who truly understands shakti sadhana and tantra, his alleged " reply " to the Goddess is not at ll a sign of spiritual realization or siddhi, bu of self delusion, auto-suggestion and pretentiousness. Kulasundari Devi wrote: <<<This is really true - in India, brahminical and local beliefs integrate seamlessly,>>> That is a factual error – both historically and otherwise. Local beliefs – the folk, tribal, regional traditions – to be precise, are in fact the main ingredient that whololy makes up for the bulk and body of Hinduism – all its legends, mythologies, beliefs, folklore, regional myths and traditions both historical and semi-historical, its cultural aspects like dance, devotional music, the various rites, rituals and observances in all social institutions and events like marriage, death, birth, the different rites and rituals of women with its regional variations all over India, and the great pantheon of gods, goddesses, demigods, heroes, antiheroes, supernatural creatures etc. – are derived in their entirety from the tribal, and animistic roots of what is known as Hinduism. Brahmincal beliefs – or to be more technically correct – srauta and smarta beliefs, are long dead and exist only in name and in a stagmant, fossilized form that spreads itself over the body of Hinduism like a worn out and soiled piece of cloth, failing to cover all the numerous elements and components that come from the tribal, folk and agamic/ tantrik traditions. There are today less than 20 srauta and 20 smarta communities all over India – who follow the proper " brahminical " religion. They are ever dwindling and will continue to become lesser in number over the coming years. And as we know commonly and know well, the few of the vedic gods that have remained in the public memory of the hindus and have remained a part of their mythology and legends, are totally chaged in their characters and aspects and personalities – gods like Indra, Agni, Vayu, Soma, Surya, Varuna etc. – who were the " big studs " and the main, powerful gods in the vedic religion, became mere demigods and " middle level " gods – subordinate to and dependant on the Great Triad of Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva (especially Shiva and Vishnu) and to the Great Mother Goddess as Durga or Kali – in the post vedic age. Other vedic gods – like Aryaman, Pushan, Mitra, Vasus, Dayus, Ushas, etc – have long faded into oblivion – even before the time of the Buddha. That is why this well know saying – kaliyuge ved achal (in kali yuga, the veda is lifeless and fruitless). Far from brahminism blending into the folk and tribal traditions, it is exactly the other way round – it is brahminism and a few fossilized remnants of vedism that has survived – much diluted, modified, and transformed over the ages due to contact and mixing with the Hinduism of the masses – agamas/ tantrik, puranik, and tribal. <<<and there are often people who practice both Hinduism and Islam seamlessly.>>> Not " often " , but in the rarest of the rare cases. I wonder – why this tendency in many people to artificially try to " blend " fundamentally different traditions and worldviews, and why this tendency to fantasise about this monochromatic " seamless " " blending " and " joining " of different and sometimes opposing things, and auto-suggest to oneself and feed one's own fantasy of self-defeating radical universalism – when there is no real and genuine " seamlessness " ? why not find and establish " seamlessness " where it genuinely exists, instead of forcefully and artifially trying to establish sameness where there is none? There are Americans who have taken up Hinduism and practice any of the traditions of Hinduism. Does that mean America has become a hindu nation in its national character and collective values?? <<<<I am thinking in particular about the Hindustani music tradition, where you have Hindus paying homage to Muslim gurus, and Muslims paying homage to Saraswati. And there is no conflict in this.>>> Why this continuous attempts by a section of people to create artificial and self-deluding relations of " sameness " when there is none? I know the answer, but do those people ever ask themselves how this cliché of mindless universalism and misleadinmg concept of " sameness " came about, what were the factors for its development and what is the collective psychology behind it? <<<So one can be a " Shakta " but also hold many different beliefs and ideas, with a core emotional connection to seeing the divine as MAA/Devi/etc. >>> No, that is not so. As I said above such notions sound very `fashionable " but they sound so only because we say them without any slightest clue as to what we are talking about. the word 'shakta " like any other word with a specific meaning and conceptual value, loses its meaning, because it has in effect become " something that is evrything and nothing " -- by your definition of it. For example, do you know that the above sentence, " so one can be ……Maa/ Devi etc. " – is logically self-contradictory and like all other statements like that, collapses into itself? <<<My guru has said that no one needs to " convert " to be a Shakta. You can be any religion and be a Shakta. MAA accepts everyone as Her children, everything else is man-made labels based in ego.>>> If your guru said that, he was wrong. Because he, as an individual of his society and culture, has in his individual capacity just internalized a long time cliché, that's all. Just like we all do in case of clichés, he too as an individual has just not analysed the cliché or the notion behind it by himself, so he is just repeating hat he has been hearing all his life. And Hindu gurus of all shades and hues are the most prone people in the world to repeat this sameness cliché with regards to their own tradition, among all peoples of the world. Because the diseased collective psychology behind it is borne by the hindu collective more than any other society. So, your guru, is just repeating a cliché, merely voicing a collective delusion and flawed self-understanding as an individual of his society, that's all. That is of course not something that necessarily has any bearing on his capacity/ qualification as a Shakta guru. Sri Gopal Narayan wrote: <<<i am a shakta and my family have been shakti for generations, and we have never indulged in killing animals-sacrifice,nor any voilence,nor eat meat,or drink alcohol,etc...why ????>>> Why? Because though you call yourself as " shakta " and superficially maybe worshipping the Goddess at home, you are not realy a shakta in your consciousness, in your realization. Had you and your family been so, you would not have differentiated between meat and vegetable, alcohol and milk, animal sacrifice and non-animal sacrifice. Why? Because you are a typical brahmincal hindu who just worships the goddess, but has not been able to achieved the sjakta vision and realization. If just worshipping the goddess in one's family for generations in ones home shrine makes one automatically into a true Shaktain consciousness and way of life, then every other Hindu in India would have been a Vamakhepa or a Ramprasad, because a picture or a small image of the mother goddess, whether it is that of Lakshmi or Lalita, Durga or Kali, Saraswati or Annapurna – exists in almost every shrine in every home in this land. You not eating meat or not drinking alcohol, or not sacrificing animals is because of your family tradition and beliefs, and because of your inability to grow beyond notions and constrictions, because you have been conditioned all your life by your family background to be unable to become free of these bindings. What has that got to do with being or not being Shakta. You or anybody else are not shaktas just because they don't eat meat or don't drink wine. <<<as informed,there r atleast 4 ways to worship the divine. rajasic,tamasic,sattvic,samya path.>>> I have replied to this point above. May I add that you seem to be unaware –like the typical post-colonial Hindu suffering from civilizational amnesia – the original meanings and context of terms and concepts like sattva, rajas and tamas, before these concepts were misinterpreted and disfigured by later traditions and specially the brahminical ideology. Why don't you make a little effort to do at least some studying and homework before you just mouth terms and concepts without knowing their meaning and context? <<<forllower of samya and sattvic path do not indulge in animal sacrifice.>>> So? That only proves their superficiality and their imprisonment in ignorance and false values. and let me point to your usage of the wrong verb in the wrong place -- what do you mean by using the word " indulge " -- as if you are talking about an addiction or some " bad habit " ???? <<<<it is upto the devotee what to do, we follow path of non voilence wherr the the mantra,yantra,god and devotee are 1>>> (1) it is not upto the devotee, unless and until he/she knows what he/she is doing and why, and that in turn is not possible unless and until he/she trains him/herself, educates him/herself and lets him/herself guided and taught by a genuine competent teacher. One can do whatever one wants to do and imagine that he has become a great siddha, but that remains his fantasy. Then the terms like " tradition " or " discipline " loses their meaning. Shakti sadhana is a gurumukhi vidya, because it is a scientifically based, psycho-physiological integrated discipline. When a " devotee " imagines that anything he does or likes to do automatically qualifies as sadhana, it is really laughable. Ordinary worship by lay masses is another different matter, but real specific sadhana is not wishful thinking. (2) you talk about `non-violence " like most people in modern times. Did it ever occur to you that for the term and the concept of " non-violence " to even exist and have any meaning, first the term and the concept of " violence " must exist, in order for is " non " to follow? Did it ever occur to you that in that very clichéd, oft-repeated, `fashionable " term " non-violence " itself, the main component is the term and the concept " violence " ? (3) you fantasize, with a typical " samayachari " sanctimonious frame of mind, that only in the so-called " samaya " – the " mantra, yantra, god and devotee are one " . Which means that you are implying, that in the authentic acharas of Tantra, these coimponents are supposedly not one. Excuse me, but that single sentence is enough to show someone like me how much you really know an understand about the different paths of tantra, and how much you know and understand of tantra even in general. You – like many people in many forums, typically mouth terms and concepts, but at the first casual glance come across as someone without an idea of what he is talking about. So you see, this is the difference between real shaktism and wish-fulfilling fantasy. People always like to talk without knowing what they are talking about. But that inciciveness with which I can cut down your points and expose the meaningless nature of your points, can only come about whn you give your effort in practicing, learning and knowing directly, understsnding and realizing directly, instead of just mouthing clichés and meaningless illogical observations based on seconf-hand, borrowed notions and misconceptions. <<<[ adwaith path as preached by ved and also by sri adi shankaracharyaji and also great yogis like guru gorakshnathji ].>>> (1) the advaita of the natha/siddha tradition is not the same as the `advaita " of the Sankara tradition. (2) the former advaita – that of the naths and siddhas, of the shaktas, and the shaivas, is the real, true, flawless advaita. That advaita is not the self-contradictory pseudo-advaita like that of Sankara, which first says that all is Brahman and Brahman is the all and the only truth, and then immediately goes on to say that **only** Brahman is true and this world that has supposedly come from that " truth' is all an " illusion " . So I sugest that you get your facts at least correct, and do some studying on the differences between the tantrik advaita and the so-called vedantic version of advaita, and do some studying on the problems, basic flaws and self-contradictions of the Sankarite advaita. <<<so truth is, there is no need to kill animals, for worship of mother. fyi>>> Whose " truth " is that – you own version of imaginary " truth " that you repeat to yourself to comfort your limited ego and mental horizon, just because that is the only thing by which you have been conditioned, or is that the impersonal and cosmic truth of Nature and the Universe?? Are you speaking for yourself, or are you speaking for the Mother herself? You, who come forward to speak on so many hi-fi things like sattva, rajas, tamas, mantra, yantra, non-violence, etc. – are still so superficial and ignorant in your way of looking at things that you call it " killing " . Hope you see that itself shows how much you really understand that pratice on which you comment so casually without doing some homework, and how much you really are qualified as a " shakta " that you imagine yourself to be, even while you take it upon yourself to arbitrarily decide what the " truth' is, on behalf of the Mother herself. <<<,i am devotee of 10 mahavidya and also doing mother dakshin kaali mantra,kavach,etc,but never once i have sacrificed any animal,not mother asked for killing any animals.>>>> I wonder what your objective is behind saying all this – are you advertising yourself, or are you trying to say that just because you are limited in your consciousness and mental horizon, and just because you do it *your* way instead of the doing it the Mother's* way, so should we also follow your path? You are a devotee of – not one, not two, not three, but all ten all together!!! Do you even have the minutest, vaguest idea of what it means to be a mahavidya sadhaka, or what it means to achieve siddhi in any one of the mahavidyas? Time and again, I get to hear this kind of typical " samayachari " crap from a section of people in various forums. And of course almost all the time – these are from the south India – to which tis particular phenomenon called " samaya " is very peculiar. And it is surprising how they all sound the same, repeat the same nonsense without knowing what they talk about, and how they take on all ten Mahavidyas together. These things gives the intelligent and intellectual observer and insight into the particular phenomenon called `samaya " that has practically destroyed and screwed up all of tantra marga and kaula sadhana in the south for centuries. They seem to be on a fantasy – just going on saying wishfulfilling things and second hand and third-hands ideas and expressions – without even understanding their meaning or implications. And after that, they try to teach pratitioners of tantra what tantra is supposed to be, and they try to decide for us what is " sattvic " and what is `rajasic' and what is `tamasic " . They, come to tell US – what is the " right " way of worshiping the Mother, and what is " violence " and what is " non-violence " . <<<lol, yes, but in some vaam margi sadhana there is provision of offering to mataji as sacrifice men, elephants, buffallo, and in some very odd sadhanas which i even fear to mention, tiger blood is used to draw yantra, do tarpan etc. i have heard of this tiger blood thing from some hard core vaam margi sadhakas, like kapalik.>>> And exactly in continuation of the above misculture, they make callous, irrelevant and vague comments about " vam margis " and " tiger blood " and " kapalik " – simplu just mouthing some words and phrases and associating them with each other without knowing or understanding anything about these, and spoiling the chances for any constructive and meaningful discussion. But at the end of it, they are seen not to know even this simple bit of fact, that " kapalik " is a Shaiva sect and they are not Shaktas, and " kapalik " is not the same as " vamachari " . Just pull together some disembodied words and phrases like elephants, buffalo, tiger blood, " hard core " (as if you are discussing pornography) " vaam margi " " kapalik " etc. -- throw them together, and create and vague and irrelevant comment that carries no meaning or relavcne to the discussion but nevertheless feeds into popular misconceptions and imaginations. no need to make any sense , no need to contribute anything substantial and scholarly to the discussion. Just mouth some vague buzzwords -- that is the proff of being a Mahavidya worshipper -- that too all ten at a time. Hope you will excuse me (I gues not) for being a bit harsh in my rejoinder to you, but honestly speaking, you are making callous, and stupid comments on things that you have not bothered to do homework on, things that make up vast and deep and profound traditions. Pls understand that rights are based on duties, and your right to comment on something, esp if that is a great tradition which is revered by those who dedicate themselves to it, is only earned when you fulfill first the moral duty of educating yourself and making your concepts clear. Thanks to all -- Jit Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 24, 2009 , " riktanandanath " <jitmajumder212 wrote: " Killing " and " being killed " , " cruelty " and > " kindness " , " life " and " death " – these are categories that we – the disembodied expressions of limited > fragmented consciousness, create in our artificial lives. From the > perspective of the one who is the All, the Supreme, the All-Encompassing reality – these categories and concepts are meaningless – > redundant. These things do not exist at all. In the economy of the > Mother, there is no gain or loss, no killing and being killed. I love these..........I'm always being killed....and I kill myself all the time. And I " killed " others too.... So I don't understand the fuss some people are making in this forum sometimes. I'm being told my a wise lady once " there's are people out there will never understand what you do...no matter how much you try to explain to them they will not...its not their fault. Its just the nature of their mind...... " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 24, 2009 Thanks. All the aspects of puja from prana-prathista to bali-dana to homa aims to make the worshipper aware of the vast presence of the iShTa (vyApaka Ishvara vAda), in our small minds which cannot comprehend it as such.  When this limited mind pretends to comprehend this vyApakatA it comes out in form of ill-digested theories and imaginary concepts of 'sameness' and 'oneness'.  Regarding your disgust for srauta-smarta, I am no one to make a comment, but perhaves you are putting too much weight on the pauranik-smriti element which clouds the sruti.  Without the fire of sruti there is no abhay. And life which is fearful has little hope for truth, which is reserved for the warrior.  dhanvanA gA dhanvanAjiM jayema dhanvanA tIvrAH samado jayema | dhanuH shatrorapakAmaM kRNoti dhanvanA sarvAH pradisho jayema || With Bow let us win cattle, with Bow the battle, with Bow be victors in our hot encounters. The Bow brings grief and sorrow to the enemy: armed with the Bow may we subdue all regions. ~Rg Ved manNDla 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 24, 2009 Riktanandanath ji, I'll stop arguing now since you have already come to a conclusion and I already know my path. Looks like we have picked totally different ways to worship Mother and so be it. All I could think of in the end after reading your post is " BULL SHIT " .So let's just agree to disagree and move on to next topic. Priya ________________________________ riktanandanath <jitmajumder212  Sri Priya Babu wrote: <<<Could you please explain in detail? What is the relationship between the sacrificer, sacrifice and the One to whom the sacrifice is made? Do we really need to sacrifice totally defenseless animals to realize this Truth? What is the eternal and inviolable Truth?>>> Of course, I would be glad to explain. The implication is of primal sacrifice and renewal of creation, the symbolical enactment of the cyclic process of mother nature. Life and death are parts of an interdependent unified system – one cannot be without the other. Death feeds life and life feeds death in turn. The death of something is only the transformation of the life energy into something else. Sacrifice simply represents the continued state of self-destruction and self-renewal, in a cyclic order. The act, when performed in its true spirit, in the right state of mind and awareness, jolts the sacrificer and the viewer into an awareness of the eternal and profound truth that life feeds on death, is nourished by death, and necessitates death and essentially the purpose of death is to feed more life. The cosmic process – the rythims of creation, preservation and destruction, the universal economy of Mother Nature – Mula Prakriti who is the Mother Herself – is a harmonious alteration of giving and taking, of feeding and feeding, of nourishing and being nourished – all as an endless chain of action and reaction, cause and effect that the Supreme Mother or Parashakti holds within Herself. Hence the Mother's symbolic " need " for blood – which is the symbol of life and is essential for life – represents only one aspect of this eternal process of giving and taking. As Mother Nature, or Mula-Prakriti, she feeds and is fed in turn. She feeds through the mouth of all her creation – from the invisible bacteria to the biggest whale, from the tiny blades of grass to the greatest tress. And she is in turn fed to those same manifestations of life – all the varieties of life forms that She becomes. So essentially, it is none but She alone who ever feeds. And it is none but she alone who is fed. And it si none but she alone who is the feeder. Because there is none but She alone that exists, and none but She alone who has manifested as everything in creation. What is the greatest, highest offering that we can give to the one who is the One and Only? What is the most fitting offering we can ever offer to She who has become everything out of Her own Self, and who preserves everything by Her power, and who will absorb back everything again into her own Self? What is the best thing we can offer to the One who is the cource of all life, who is the Primal energy that is the source of all of Life energy? Life itself. Because in the ultimate analysis, there IS nothing else but her! There is nothing else but Energy-Consciousnes s! So we can only offer Her something that is Her own manifestation, because there is nothing exsting which is not essentially and ultimately She Herself. Whether we offer he a fruit, or a flower, or rice or cereals, or wine, or meat, or plants or vegetables – all ultimately traces back to Her, all ultimately IS Herself only – Nature – Mula-Prakriti. Brahmarpanam brahma habi brahmagnou brahmanahutam Brahmaiva tena gantavyam brahma karma samadhinah The arpan (act of offering) is Brahman, the habi (the offered substance) is Brahman, the fire (agni) to which it is offered is Brahman, the ahuti (the oblation to the fire) is Brahman, the gantavya (destiny, goal) of that offering/ oblation is brahman, and the performance of the whole act (karma) too, is Brahman. THIS – is the profound symbolism behind sacrifice in front of the Mother. The one who is sacrificed, is a manifestation of Life, of Nature, a manifestation of the Mother herself. The one who is offering the sacrifice, too, is another manifestation of Life, of Nature, and therefore is the Mother too. And the symbolic enactmkent of this eternal cosmic cycle of Nature, is too the Mother and nothing else. It is with that state of mind, with that attitude and approach, with that level of consciousness, that the true sadhak offers sacrifice to the Mother. At that moment, neither is he the " killer " nor is the animal the " killed " . He too is a part of the same grand and cosmic process, as much as the sacrificial animal is, and as much as the One to whom it is offered is. He and the animal are not separate in essence, though they may be physically separate. Because in essence they both are one and the same – Life, two biologically different manifestations of the same Nature – manifestations of the same Mother who has become everything. Because she in the animal as much as she is in the worshipper. At that moment, the sacrificer and the sacrificed are one and the same in essence, in principle. And both of them are the expression of the same Supreme truth, the differencfe only being in degree, but not in kind. He is the Mother, the animal is the Mother, the image of the Mother is the Mother, and the whole act of offering, the act of worship, the enactment of nature's cycle – that too is the Mother. So, the question of " cruelty " or " kindness " does not arise. These things are irrelevant, and though it is obviously a fad or a fashion in modern times to display disapproval, or talk of " cruelty to animals " – that is all but the results of an uneducated and unconscious collective mind, that is too bound up and hung up of superficial and artificial notions of " propriety " and " morality " . That is why, such people never have it occur to them that Nature is neither " moral " nor " immoral " , neither " kind " nor " cruel " – whatever these terms and concepts may mean to different people depending on their socio-cultural conditioning – but Nature is beyond moral or immoral, beyond kindness or cruelty. It may sound unpalatable to those who always look for an opportunity to display how very " modern " , " progressive " , or " kindhearted " , or " sattvik " , or " humanitarian " they are, by making a show of turning up their noses at anything and everything – but without first bothering to understand that thing which they want to disapprove or condemn. They invariably think that they are " proving " themselves, but in their false consciousness, little do they realize that whether they know it or not, whether they consciously intend it or not (as if they are anybody to do so) they are also, as parts of Nature are always bound to that eternal cyclic process of Nature, and they too, as manifestations of Life, are not outside that process and will never be outside that process. In order to condemn anything, or disapprove of anything, one should at least take some responsibility to first understand that thing, which they seek to disapprove. When people, who are not even aware of the true meaning of " kindness " or " progressiveness " or " spirituality " or " sattva guna " mouth these terms and concepts, and think that they have become greater than Nature herself, or that they have gone beyond the eternal processes of Nature and Existence, and act under the self-delusion that mere mouthing of these concepts, and that the mere display of superficial and counterfeit and `fashionable " disapproval, condemnation, self-righteous angst automatically makes them truly humane or progressive or spiritual – then that becomes the height of gross-egoism and self-delusion. And only a true understander of traditions, only the true worshipper, true sadhaka who has understood and realized the truths behind the symbolisms that he practices, will smile to himself at best in amusement and at worst with contempt – at these kind of displays of false, limited consciousness, and superficial, uneducated, mindless and above all pretentious ways of looking at Life. Traditions like sacrifice, or bali-daan – that have continued and come down to us from the misty, hoary past, traditions like these that have existed and continued through ages and ages, are not as flimsy, as counterfeit, as superficial or as pretentious as the counterfeit morality and false consciousness of the artificial, plastic, ego-centric and ego-driven civilization that we have today. And that is why traditions such as these, symbols such as these have existed for millennia all over the world. In order to understand what lies beneath such traditions, the first requirement for any person is to submit his/her ego, throw away his/her self-righteous and false consciousness, and view that thing from the in finite all-encompassing perspective of the Mother Herself, instead of trying to reduce that thing to fit the tiny boundaries of the blind, delusional, ego-driven and ego-bound entity that he/she is. Other wise, it is just a case of empty vessels making a lot of noise. And I like to believe that something more than just that could be expected from a group of people who have by themselves joined and forum called " Shakti-Sadhana " , and who like to see themselves as the devotees of the Mother. " Killing " and " being killed " , " cruelty " and " kindness " , " life " and " death " – these are categories that we – the disembodied expressions of limited fragmented consciousness, create in our artificial lives. From the perspective of the one who is the All, the Supreme, the All-Encompassing reality – these categories and concepts are meaningless – redundant. These things do not exist at all. In the economy of the Mother, there is no gain or loss, no killing and being killed. I believe everyone in this group has at least read in their school science books that energy is constant and infinite, and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only be transformed from one from to another. All that exists, had existed, and will ever exist, is the one and same sum-total, without any addition or substraction – Primordial Energy-Consciousnes s, or Adya-Parashakti. Nothing can be added to it, nothing can ever get subtracted from it, nothing is outside its pale or scope, because there is only It, and nothing else. It is Fullness itself. It is the Totality, the Constant. Om purna-madah: purnam-idam purnat purnamudachyate Purnasya purnamadayah: purnam-eva vishishyate That (The Transcendent) is Complete; This (The immanent) is Complete. From That Completeness comes this Completeness. Remove Complete from the Complete, yet Complete alone abides. Life feeds on death, and death feeds on life. " life " and " death " are life and death only from the empirical perspective of the limited organism in the physical empirical world. In reality, in essence, there is really nothing such as " life and `death " there is only One great Life-force, which continuously transforms itself in a cyclic process and thereby propagates and maintains itself. " death " is only transition and transformation of that universal life force – in invidual manifestations – from one form of existence to another. All of this ever continuing process is in that " Purna " – Fullness or Completeness. " life " or `death " , " killing " or " being killed " is only from our individual, physical perspective. But it has to be seen and understood not form that, but form the perspective of that Fullnes and Completeness. That is the significance of sacrifice – we, as Life, are offering Life, to She who is the source of all Life. We as Nature, are offering Nature, to the Primordial Nature Herself. We are enacting the cosmic cycle of Nature, of whioch every living being is a part of – whether one remembers it or not. Like worshipping the Ganges with the water of the Ganges itself. If one does not and cannot realize this understand this most fundamental truth, is most basic understanding in one's way of realizing the Mother, what is the use of one's imagining oneself to be " worshippers " or " seekers " of the Mother? What is the use of dabbling and quibbling on e-forums or even in going through formal rituals and pratices in one's life, if one has not learnt to see a tradition/concept/ symbolism from the perspective of the All-encompassing, instead of seeing it from a limited, fragmented, false perspective? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 would I able to meet Riktanandanath ji? I also think almost similar, Priya ji, those who like " Cow Dung " Or " Horse Dung " would not like to keep bull shit away! anyway I like it. sreekumar. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Priya Babu <sripriyasivanathbabuwrote: > > > Riktanandanath ji, > > I'll stop arguing now since you have already come to a conclusion and I > already know my path. Looks like we have picked totally different ways to > worship Mother and so be it. All I could think of in the end after reading > your post is " BULL SHIT " .So let's just agree to disagree and move on to > next topic. > > Priya > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 Dear Priya, The jist of all what Rikht has said was simple, " knowing one self " . We as a group discuss various facets of Shakta, but I guess it goes more than beyond mere technicalities, it teaches us to look into ourselves and " understand the nuances of our sorrounding " without the " I " factor and thereby understanding the " I " . It would have been more beautiful and more wonderful, if a posting from your side would have stated " Thank you " for Rikht, that would have bought forward your inner side, the beauty of yourself! (Let not the mere postings spoil your equilibrium my dear sister) By stating Bull Shit, you have given a freeway to all those members who watch very closely in the group to understand yourself! May Amma bless you with Her Prudence! Vivek , Priya Babu <sripriyasivanathbabu wrote: > > Riktanandanath ji, > > I'll stop arguing now since you have already come to a conclusion and I already know my path. Looks like we have picked totally different ways to worship Mother and so be it. All I could think of in the end after reading your post is " BULL SHIT " .So let's just agree to disagree and move on to next topic. > > Priya > > ________________________________ > riktanandanath <jitmajumder212 >  > > Sri Priya Babu wrote: > > <<<Could you please explain in detail? What is the relationship between > the sacrificer, sacrifice and the One to whom the sacrifice is made? Do > we really need to sacrifice totally defenseless animals to realize this > Truth? What is the eternal and inviolable Truth?>>> > > Of course, I would be glad to explain. > > The implication is of primal sacrifice and renewal of creation, the > symbolical enactment of the cyclic process of mother nature. Life and > death are parts of an interdependent unified system †" one cannot be > without the other. Death feeds life and life feeds death in turn. The > death of something is only the transformation of the life energy into > something else. Sacrifice simply represents the continued state of > self-destruction and self-renewal, in a cyclic order. The act, when > performed in its true spirit, in the right state of mind and awareness, > jolts the sacrificer and the viewer into an awareness of the eternal and > profound truth that life feeds on death, is nourished by death, and > necessitates death and essentially the purpose of death is to feed more > life. The cosmic process †" the rythims of creation, preservation and > destruction, the universal economy of Mother Nature †" Mula Prakriti > who is the Mother Herself †" is a harmonious alteration of giving and > taking, of feeding and feeding, of nourishing and being nourished †" > all as an endless chain of action and reaction, cause and effect that > the Supreme Mother or Parashakti holds within Herself. Hence the > Mother's symbolic " need " for blood †" which is the symbol > of life and is essential for life †" represents only one aspect of > this eternal process of giving and taking. As Mother Nature, or > Mula-Prakriti, she feeds and is fed in turn. She feeds through the mouth > of all her creation †" from the invisible bacteria to the biggest > whale, from the tiny blades of grass to the greatest tress. And she is > in turn fed to those same manifestations of life †" all the varieties > of life forms that She becomes. > > So essentially, it is none but She alone who ever feeds. And it is none > but she alone who is fed. And it si none but she alone who is the > feeder. Because there is none but She alone that exists, and none but > She alone who has manifested as everything in creation. > > What is the greatest, highest offering that we can give to the one who > is the One and Only? What is the most fitting offering we can ever offer > to She who has become everything out of Her own Self, and who preserves > everything by Her power, and who will absorb back everything again into > her own Self? What is the best thing we can offer to the One who is the > cource of all life, who is the Primal energy that is the source of all > of Life energy? > > Life itself. Because in the ultimate analysis, there IS nothing else but > her! There is nothing else but Energy-Consciousnes s! > > So we can only offer Her something that is Her own manifestation, > because there is nothing exsting which is not essentially and ultimately > She Herself. Whether we offer he a fruit, or a flower, or rice or > cereals, or wine, or meat, or plants or vegetables †" all ultimately > traces back to Her, all ultimately IS Herself only †" Nature †" > Mula-Prakriti. > > Brahmarpanam brahma habi brahmagnou brahmanahutam > > Brahmaiva tena gantavyam brahma karma samadhinah > > The arpan (act of offering) is Brahman, the habi (the offered substance) > is Brahman, the fire (agni) to which it is offered is Brahman, the ahuti > (the oblation to the fire) is Brahman, the gantavya (destiny, goal) of > that offering/ oblation is brahman, and the performance of the whole act > (karma) too, is Brahman. > > THIS †" is the profound symbolism behind sacrifice in front of the > Mother. The one who is sacrificed, is a manifestation of Life, of > Nature, a manifestation of the Mother herself. The one who is offering > the sacrifice, too, is another manifestation of Life, of Nature, and > therefore is the Mother too. And the symbolic enactmkent of this eternal > cosmic cycle of Nature, is too the Mother and nothing else. > > It is with that state of mind, with that attitude and approach, with > that level of consciousness, that the true sadhak offers sacrifice to > the Mother. At that moment, neither is he the " killer " nor is > the animal the " killed " . He too is a part of the same grand and > cosmic process, as much as the sacrificial animal is, and as much as the > One to whom it is offered is. He and the animal are not separate in > essence, though they may be physically separate. Because in essence they > both are one and the same †" Life, two biologically different > manifestations of the same Nature †" manifestations of the same > Mother who has become everything. Because she in the animal as much as > she is in the worshipper. At that moment, the sacrificer and the > sacrificed are one and the same in essence, in principle. And both of > them are the expression of the same Supreme truth, the differencfe only > being in degree, but not in kind. He is the Mother, the animal is the > Mother, the image of the Mother is the Mother, and the whole act of > offering, the act of worship, the enactment of nature's cycle †" > that too is the Mother. > > So, the question of " cruelty " or " kindness " does not > arise. These things are irrelevant, and though it is obviously a fad or > a fashion in modern times to display disapproval, or talk of > " cruelty to animals " †" that is all but the results of an > uneducated and unconscious collective mind, that is too bound up and > hung up of superficial and artificial notions of " propriety " and > " morality " . That is why, such people never have it occur to them > that Nature is neither " moral " nor " immoral " , neither > " kind " nor " cruel " †" whatever these terms and > concepts may mean to different people depending on their socio-cultural > conditioning †" but Nature is beyond moral or immoral, beyond > kindness or cruelty. It may sound unpalatable to those who always look > for an opportunity to display how very " modern " , > " progressive " , or " kindhearted " , or " sattvik " , > or " humanitarian " they are, by making a show of turning up their > noses at anything and everything †" but without first bothering to > understand that thing which they want to disapprove or condemn. They > invariably think that they are " proving " themselves, but in > their false consciousness, little do they realize that whether they know > it or not, whether they consciously intend it or not (as if they are > anybody to do so) they are also, as parts of Nature are always bound to > that eternal cyclic process of Nature, and they too, as manifestations > of Life, are not outside that process and will never be outside that > process. > > In order to condemn anything, or disapprove of anything, one should at > least take some responsibility to first understand that thing, which > they seek to disapprove. When people, who are not even aware of the true > meaning of " kindness " or " progressiveness " or > " spirituality " or " sattva guna " mouth these terms and > concepts, and think that they have become greater than Nature herself, > or that they have gone beyond the eternal processes of Nature and > Existence, and act under the self-delusion that mere mouthing of these > concepts, and that the mere display of superficial and counterfeit and > `fashionable " disapproval, condemnation, self-righteous angst > automatically makes them truly humane or progressive or spiritual †" > then that becomes the height of gross-egoism and self-delusion. And only > a true understander of traditions, only the true worshipper, true > sadhaka who has understood and realized the truths behind the symbolisms > that he practices, will smile to himself at best in amusement and at > worst with contempt †" at these kind of displays of false, limited > consciousness, and superficial, uneducated, mindless and above all > pretentious ways of looking at Life. > > Traditions like sacrifice, or bali-daan †" that have continued and > come down to us from the misty, hoary past, traditions like these that > have existed and continued through ages and ages, are not as flimsy, as > counterfeit, as superficial or as pretentious as the counterfeit > morality and false consciousness of the artificial, plastic, ego-centric > and ego-driven civilization that we have today. And that is why > traditions such as these, symbols such as these have existed for > millennia all over the world. In order to understand what lies beneath > such traditions, the first requirement for any person is to submit > his/her ego, throw away his/her self-righteous and false consciousness, > and view that thing from the in finite all-encompassing perspective of > the Mother Herself, instead of trying to reduce that thing to fit the > tiny boundaries of the blind, delusional, ego-driven and ego-bound > entity that he/she is. Other wise, it is just a case of empty vessels > making a lot of noise. And I like to believe that something more than > just that could be expected from a group of people who have by > themselves joined and forum called " Shakti-Sadhana " , and who > like to see themselves as the devotees of the Mother. > > " Killing " and " being killed " , " cruelty " and > " kindness " , " life " and " death " †" these are > categories that we †" the disembodied expressions of limited > fragmented consciousness, create in our artificial lives. From the > perspective of the one who is the All, the Supreme, the All-Encompassing > reality †" these categories and concepts are meaningless †" > redundant. These things do not exist at all. In the economy of the > Mother, there is no gain or loss, no killing and being killed. I believe > everyone in this group has at least read in their school science books > that energy is constant and infinite, and energy can neither be created > nor destroyed, but can only be transformed from one from to another. > > All that exists, had existed, and will ever exist, is the one and same > sum-total, without any addition or substraction †" Primordial > Energy-Consciousnes s, or Adya-Parashakti. Nothing can be added to it, > nothing can ever get subtracted from it, nothing is outside its pale or > scope, because there is only It, and nothing else. It is Fullness > itself. It is the Totality, the Constant. > > Om purna-madah: purnam-idam purnat purnamudachyate > > Purnasya purnamadayah: purnam-eva vishishyate > > That (The Transcendent) is Complete; This (The immanent) is Complete. > From That Completeness comes this Completeness. Remove Complete from the > Complete, yet Complete alone abides. > > Life feeds on death, and death feeds on life. " life " and > " death " are life and death only from the empirical perspective > of the limited organism in the physical empirical world. In reality, in > essence, there is really nothing such as " life and `death " > there is only One great Life-force, which continuously transforms itself > in a cyclic process and thereby propagates and maintains itself. > " death " is only transition and transformation of that universal > life force †" in invidual manifestations †" from one form of > existence to another. All of this ever continuing process is in that > " Purna " †" Fullness or Completeness. " life " or > `death " , " killing " or " being killed " is only > from our individual, physical perspective. But it has to be seen and > understood not form that, but form the perspective of that Fullnes and > Completeness. That is the significance of sacrifice †" we, as Life, > are offering Life, to She who is the source of all Life. We as Nature, > are offering Nature, to the Primordial Nature Herself. We are enacting > the cosmic cycle of Nature, of whioch every living being is a part of > †" whether one remembers it or not. Like worshipping the Ganges with > the water of the Ganges itself. > > If one does not and cannot realize this understand this most fundamental > truth, is most basic understanding in one's way of realizing the > Mother, what is the use of one's imagining oneself to be > " worshippers " or " seekers " of the Mother? What is the > use of dabbling and quibbling on e-forums or even in going through > formal rituals and pratices in one's life, if one has not learnt to > see a tradition/concept/ symbolism from the perspective of the > All-encompassing, instead of seeing it from a limited, fragmented, false > perspective? > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 <<<I'll stop arguing now since you have already come to a conclusion and I already know my path. Looks like we have picked totally different ways to worship Mother and so be it. All I could think of in the end after reading your post is " BULL SHIT " .So let's just agree to disagree and move on to next topic. > Priya>>> I am much too familiar with this particular type of " rejoinders " to have to say anything new to it here. This is the most common way people try to " save face " when they have nothing really left to present by way of any counterpoint. But that is to be expected when one does not bother or does not have the calibre enough to understand things, yet want to make noises on e-forums. You are making a few mistakes there. Firsly, the question does not arise of your " stopping " arguing, because you have never started arguing in the first place. you never had any argument, all you had was a query, which i had answered at length. Secondly, between the two of us, you do not have any way to worship the Mother, only I do. You are just a follower of generic, " pop " hinduism. Thirdly it is not that you could " think " at the end after reading my post. Your so-called " query " was just for the sake of it, with the common presumption that I would not be able to answer it. That is why, the " bullshit " that you talk about is not really in my post, but in your mind -- you like the typical " pashus " , have decided before hand to stick to your ignorance and misconceptions, even when pretending to be " open " to explanations by asking people questions. And as you see, because of that bullshit that you have in your head and your mind, which makes you ask questions but keeps you unable to take in information and knowledge, all you could come up with are four sentences, none of which carry any matter or specific point, but only reaction. And lastly, I do not bother to " disagree " or 'agree " with anyone, much less those ego-driven fools who cannot do anything else but always think in temrs of " agreeing " and/or " disagreeing " . That is why I can post matter, while you can only post some useless reaction. You are the one bringing up the question of " agreeing " or " disagreeing " into this, so let yourself be the sole one to 'disagree " or do whatever else you want. The " i-know-it-all-and-I-dont-have-anything-more-in-life-to-learn " type of humans are the more in number always. It is not my job to do for them what they dont bother to do for themselves. Just pointing it all out. You are free to remain in your delusion, that you have " a path " of your own. thanks -- Jit. , Priya Babu <sripriyasivanathbabu wrote: > > Riktanandanath ji, > > I'll stop arguing now since you have already come to a conclusion and I already know my path. Looks like we have picked totally different ways to worship Mother and so be it. All I could think of in the end after reading your post is " BULL SHIT " .So let's just agree to disagree and move on to next topic. > > Priya > > ________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 <<<It would have been more beautiful and more wonderful, if a posting from your side would have stated " Thank you " for Rikht, that would have bought forward your inner side, the beauty of yourself! (Let not the mere postings spoil your equilibrium my dear sister) By stating Bull Shit, you have given a freeway to all those members who watch very closely in the group to understand yourself! May Amma bless you with Her Prudence!>>> Let us not stop anyone from doing what comes **naturally** to him/her. People will react according the the level and structure of their consciousness. we cannot change the world, we can only change ourselves. we cannot make those people understand, we can only answer their queries and challenges. Dont try to tell others whether they should have said " thanks " to me or not. They might come up with another " bullshit " -- this time for you. I did not answer that query to get a mere " thanks " . I have put it out there as a practitioner, as a seeker, as somebody who understands, and can help others understand. But as you know that understanding one has to do for one's own self. Thsoe who have chosen to see it and make themselves a little bit more informed today than they were yesterday, they did it. Those who believe that they know it all and have nothing else to learn or have no area to improve themselves, that they have no need to see themselves as bit more menatlly liberated and educated today then they were yesterday -- they are free to remain where they are. I would not give that post any more attention than it deserves, and I would politely suggest that you or anyone else, too, refrain from either speaking for, or against that " bullshit " , for that would only encourage the poster further. It makes no difference to me or to the Truth, if one particular individual somewhere comes up ith a reaction. I as a sadhaka do not think in terms of " agreeing " or " disagreeing " . That is how I could be a sadhaka. Thanks -- Jit. , " vivekkvn " <vivekkvn wrote: > > Dear Priya, > > The jist of all what Rikht has said was simple, " knowing one self " . > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 Okay. Only you have a way to worship Mother and I do not. Only you have enough knowledge and matter in your head to do lengthy posts and I have nothing. Only you have a true understanding of hinduism and saktha tradition and nobody does. If you have all this , how come you have not been able to overcome your hatred towards other sect of people? How come you still segregate brahmin-non brahmin, south indian-north indian?How come you have not been able to accept and love another sect ? And you call Shankaracharya and Lakshmidhara chauvinist and bigots? The beauty of hinduism itself is embracing different ideas and practices into it's fold and focusing on attaining the One and Only Goal. We have even accepted Buddha , Mahavira and Jesus as avatars. So what if Samaya is not original and evolved later? It has bloomed into another beautiful flower! It has only added more flavour and beauty to already beautiful system ! What right do you have to condemn everybody as wrong ? Just because you have read a few books more than the others? Just because you have a guru? Your post clearly shows your hatred for other beliefs and sects and that is disgusting. Your post shows your swollen ego and pride. Your post only shows your disrespect for Parama Gurus like Shankaracharya who has given us matchless nirvana shatkam,vivekachudamani and the Brahmasutras. I wonder what you have to say about Ramakrishna parahamsa? Yes, you are right. I do not know anything about tantra. I do not have a Guru. I do not have a way to worship. But I have the ability to appreciate all the paths and see the beauty and oneness in them. I can see the Goal, what we are all striving for, only in different styles.Whether it be vama or samaya it is only various bhavas of the sadhak. I am surprised that a person like you with so much knowledge fail to see the various bhavas of sadhaks, instead condemn them not sadhaks at all! Priya ________________________________ riktanandanath <jitmajumder212 Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:10:36 AM Re: Am I a Jain or a Shakta? <<<I'll stop arguing now since you have already come to a conclusion and I already know my path. Looks like we have picked totally different ways to worship Mother and so be it. All I could think of Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 Dear brother Vivek, I would have definitely said " thanks " if only he had not attacked other sect of people and beliefs. May be whatever he has said in his post is true, but why so much hatred and arrogance? We already have hindu-muslim problem, brahmin-non brahmin problem in India and now the new north indian - south indian segretation? This is a curse on India we should all question and overcome. We belong to a beautiful religion which says " All is One and One is All " but what do we do? only attack and condemn each other.!!! Priya ________________________________ vivekkvn <vivekkvn  Dear Priya, The jist of all what Rikht has said was simple, " knowing one self " . [....] It would have been more beautiful and more wonderful, if a posting from your side would have stated " Thank you " for Rikht, that would have bought forward your inner side, the beauty of yourself! (Let not the mere postings spoil your equilibrium my dear sister) By stating Bull Shit, you have given a freeway to all those members who watch very closely in the group to understand yourself! May Amma bless you with Her Prudence! Vivek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 Priya wrote: <<<Okay. Only you have a way to worship Mother and I do not. Only you have ....<clip>...<clip>...<clip> ... instead condemn them not sadhaks at all!>>> Looks like you have put many things in my mouth (very typical), and have also asked me some questions -- once again and this time several (also very typical). Now, I dont mind answering your post and all your questions. after all that is the idea behind being in a e-group. I can easily answer all your points. But let me ask you this time -- are you capable of being ready to receive, take in, and process answer that you receive, and do some thinking on them before you rush to shoot of another mail, or do you always decide beforehand that you are going to find the reply a " bullshit " ? Because if you have pre-decided that my posts is gonna be " bullshit " , I will hardly need to put in the labour, right? And try not to get agitated. You see, your pervious post and also your this one with so many " queries " and so many things put in my mouth, have not agitated me. But you are the one who seems pretty agitated. Did you know that an agitated mind is the last mind that can make any use of the answers provided to it, even if it was the one asking the questions? I am not in this group for useless acrimonies to waste the listowner's bandwidth. neither am i here to answer to questions thrown by those whose only purpose is to see how good I am or how much capable I am to counter back with answers, but not to constructively share, learn and exchange. When you tell me " a person like you with so much knowledge " -- youre not saying anything I do not already know. And neither am I pleased or displeased to hear such things. But why not become a person like that yourself, too? Why not bother to do some reading, do some homework, to cultivate your mind and intellect a bit, instead of coming to quibble with people and say " i do not know anything about... " ? Who stopped you from knowing first, and then coming to engage somebody? so, pls think about it -- whether you *really need* me to answer you (i.e. whether you are a person who also has the ability to listen after he/she questions). and then give me a little confirmation, okay? Thanks -- Jit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 25, 2009 What is written below is much worse than saying " Bullshit, " and stinks of condescension. How convenient: everyone who disagrees with you is a pashu! To throw out a string of insults and then accuse the recipient of " getting agitated " is one of the oldest tricks in the book, but it has nothing to do with samatva or divine consciousness. Max >. Secondly, between the two of us, you do >not have any way to worship the Mother, only I do. You are just a >follower of generic, " pop " hinduism. Thirdly it is not that you could > " think " at the end after reading my post. Your so-called " query " was >just for the sake of it, with the common presumption that I would not be >able to answer it. That is why, the " bullshit " that you talk about is >not really in my post, but in your mind -- you like the typical > " pashus " , have decided before hand to stick to your ignorance and >misconceptions, even when pretending to be " open " to explanations by >asking people questions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 26, 2009 I have been mostly a silent observer here. I have been silent as a fairly new member of the group out of respect and to open myself to shared experience of Ma, worship and sadhana. I so longed for other practitioners experience (practitioner's experience, personal experience, results and, perhaps, pitfalls) in their own worship. I so longed for this connection and to learn how others worshipped. For the experience of community. Each e-mail of blame, accusation and criticism is like an arrow in the heart. I know, I know, some of you will say it is part of my spiritual experience to sit with this edge. And I do. My own inner critic, my own internalized hatred, etc..But the sadness persists. The patriarchal underpinnings even in Shakti worship are crushing to me. The need to be right rather than share experience from the heart. The subtle ways in which we try to have " power over " . If we were really free from our " triggers' what is there to comment on? We could move on from this need to correct, define and agitate to the work that truly begins when enlightenment happens. The presence to the suffering of others. Don't get me wrong. I think lineage is important, has its place, and must be respected. I feel lineage is a powerful conduit that transmits the teachings beyond logic. But all forms of identity are a trap eventually. The true questions to me are- " how do we honor lineage and potency while remaining free? " " How do we honor what we have learned? " I understand deeply the frustrations of lineage becoming distorted, mis-used, and co-opted and the desire to keep traditions pure. This has been the dilemma of the Feminine for ages. I am in Bhairavi sadhana right now. It has been taught to me that Bhairvai holds the " both/and " place. Just because you choose to worship one way does not mean you are in opposition to the other ways. " Both/and " All of you here-I am interested in your worship. I am longing to hear of your felt experience and how you are awakening. I am longing to hear how Ma comes to you and teaches you from direct experience. I am longing to hear of your challenges and how you overcome them so I can gain strength to keep in my sadhana. And yes, I am fascinated and captivated by your lineage, your teachers, and how the teachings are transmitted. I would love to hear of your specific practices (ones that are appropriate to share as I also understand the need for secrecy). Please fulfill a yearning heart and let it all go. Share from the depths of yourselves. Spill yourselves wide open as the ultimate sacrifice to Ma. Om Shanti, Nita , Max Dashu <maxdashu wrote: > > What is written below is much worse than saying " Bullshit, " and > stinks of condescension. > > How convenient: everyone who disagrees with you is a pashu! To throw > out a string of insults and then accuse the recipient of " getting > agitated " is one of the oldest tricks in the book, but it has nothing > to do with samatva or divine consciousness. > > Max > > >. Secondly, between the two of us, you do > >not have any way to worship the Mother, only I do. You are just a > >follower of generic, " pop " hinduism. Thirdly it is not that you could > > " think " at the end after reading my post. Your so-called " query " was > >just for the sake of it, with the common presumption that I would not be > >able to answer it. That is why, the " bullshit " that you talk about is > >not really in my post, but in your mind -- you like the typical > > " pashus " , have decided before hand to stick to your ignorance and > >misconceptions, even when pretending to be " open " to explanations by > >asking people questions. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 26, 2009 eko satyaH vipraaH bahudhaa vadanti. The vipra here is NOT a Brahmana but visheshena Prayanam karoti iti vipraH - one who cleaves a special path is a viprah. There are paths and paths. The same path with slight variation will be claimed by its adherants to be superior. But in reality there is no superior or inferior path. So is this acrimony having any meaning? (But i do agree it IS entertaining and even enlightening - as long as personalities are NOT invoked) --- On Tue, 8/25/09, Priya Babu <sripriyasivanathbabu wrote: Priya Babu <sripriyasivanathbabu Re: Re: Am I a Jain or a Shakta? Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 11:48 PM Okay. Only you have a way to worship Mother and I do not. Only you have enough knowledge and matter in your head to do lengthy posts and I have nothing. Only you have a true understanding of hinduism and saktha tradition and nobody does. If you have all this , how come you have not been able to overcome your hatred towards other sect of people? How come you still segregate brahmin- non brahmin, south indian-north indian?How come you have not been able to accept and love another sect ? And you call Shankaracharya and Lakshmidhara chauvinist and bigots? The beauty of hinduism itself is embracing different ideas and practices into it's fold and focusing on attaining the One and Only Goal. We have even accepted Buddha , Mahavira and Jesus as avatars. So what if Samaya is not original and evolved later? It has bloomed into another beautiful flower! It has only added more flavour and beauty to already beautiful system ! What right do you have to condemn everybody as wrong ? Just because you have read a few books more than the others? Just because you have a guru? Your post clearly shows your hatred for other beliefs and sects and that is disgusting. Your post shows your swollen ego and pride. Your post only shows your disrespect for Parama Gurus like Shankaracharya who has given us matchless nirvana shatkam,vivekachuda mani and the Brahmasutras. I wonder what you have to say about Ramakrishna parahamsa? Yes, you are right. I do not know anything about tantra. I do not have a Guru. I do not have a way to worship. But I have the ability to appreciate all the paths and see the beauty and oneness in them. I can see the Goal, what we are all striving for, only in different styles.Whether it be vama or samaya it is only various bhavas of the sadhak. I am surprised that a person like you with so much knowledge fail to see the various bhavas of sadhaks, instead condemn them not sadhaks at all! Priya ____________ _________ _________ __ riktanandanath <jitmajumder212@ .co. in> Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:10:36 AM Re: Am I a Jain or a Shakta? <<<I'll stop arguing now since you have already come to a conclusion and I already know my path. Looks like we have picked totally different ways to worship Mother and so be it. All I could think of Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 26, 2009 I rest my case here, the intentions were far from your reaction... , " riktanandanath " <jitmajumder212 wrote: > > > <<<It would have been more beautiful and more wonderful, if a posting > from your side would have stated " Thank you " for Rikht, [....]> > > > Let us not stop anyone from doing what comes **naturally** to him/her. > People will react according the the level and structure of their > consciousness. we cannot change the world, we can only change ourselves. > [....] I did not answer that query to get a mere " thanks " . I > have put it out there as a practitioner, as a seeker, as somebody who > understands, and can help others understand. [....] > Those who believe that they know it all and > have nothing else to learn or have no area to improve themselves, > [....] > Thanks -- Jit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 26, 2009 Hiya Jit riktanandanath wrote: > > > Priya wrote: > <<<Okay. Only you have a way to worship Mother and I do not. Only you > have ....<clip>...<clip>...<clip> ... instead condemn them not sadhaks > at all!>>> > > Looks like you have put many things in my mouth (very typical), and have > also asked me some questions -- once again and this time several (also > very typical [....] > > But let me ask you this time [....] > if you have pre-decided that my posts is gonna be > " bullshit " , I will hardly need to put in the labour, right? > -------- For a worshiper of Mother or Shakti.......is there any other left ..let alone an other who is right or wrong? For a worshiper of Mother or Shakti........does hurled statements whether in praise or in abuse.... .....have any relevance, any meaning, any significance? If they do.......all that is happening in the garb of worship, is the play of ego, now seen to be haloed by two bits spiritual knowledge accumulations. --------- > > And try not to get agitated. > -------- LOL. And you are not? If you are not, you would have said whatever you spewed, irrespective of whether anybody got it, accepted, appreciated, sneered, rejected. In the worship.......if worship is not all consuming.... ...then what is happening is spucatum tauri(Bull shit in Latin). --------- > You see, your pervious post and also your > this one with so many " queries " and so many things put in my mouth, have > not agitated me. But you are the one who seems pretty agitated. > ----------- My friend, it's only an agitated mind which sees agitation elsewhere. Just like worship is total and allows no space for anything else..... ......calmness is total, allows no space for any agitation anywhere. -------- > Did you > know that an agitated mind is the last mind that can make any use of the > answers provided to it, even if it was the one asking the questions? > ---------- That which believes something can be useful or not useful for something else..... ......is the sense of the mind. The tenet of useful/not useful is concurrent with the sense of seeking accumulations, which is the sense of a mind. Whether the sought accumulations are material goodies or conceptual spiritual goals. And a calm mind is an oxymoron. ----- > > I am not in this group for useless acrimonies to waste the listowner's > bandwidth. neither am i here to answer to questions thrown by those > whose only purpose is to see how good I am or how much capable I am to > counter back with answers, > ------- LOL Jit.......the goodness and capability is evident. --------- > but not to constructively share, learn and > exchange. When you tell me " a person like you with so much knowledge " -- > youre not saying anything I do not already know. > -------- You know Jit..........you know nothing. When this is known..........worship descends. Otherwise it is all gas in the air. ---------- > And neither am I > pleased or displeased to hear such things. But why not become a person > like that yourself, too? Why not bother to do some reading, do some > homework, to cultivate your mind and intellect a bit, instead of coming > to quibble with people and say " i do not know anything about... " ? Who > stopped you from knowing first, and then coming to engage somebody? > ------ Who stopped you? ------- > > so, pls think about it -- whether you *really need* me to answer you > (i.e. whether you are a person who also has the ability to listen after > he/she questions). and then give me a little confirmation, okay? > -------- Forget listening dear Jit.........can your scriptural accumulations .... ....allow even a hearing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 26, 2009 Rikthanand ji, I want to meet you please. Sreekumar On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:54 AM, vivekkvn <vivekkvn wrote: > > > I rest my case here, the intentions were far from your reaction... > > <%40>, > " riktanandanath " <jitmajumder212 wrote: > > > > > > <<<It would have been more beautiful and more wonderful, if a posting > > from your side would have stated " Thank you " for Rikht, [....]> > > > > > > Let us not stop anyone from doing what comes **naturally** to him/her. > > People will react according the the level and structure of their > > consciousness. we cannot change the world, we can only change ourselves. > > [....] I did not answer that query to get a mere " thanks " . I > > have put it out there as a practitioner, as a seeker, as somebody who > > understands, and can help others understand. [....] > > Those who believe that they know it all and > > have nothing else to learn or have no area to improve themselves, > > [....] > > Thanks -- Jit. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted August 26, 2009 <<<Rikthanand ji, I want to meet you please.>>> Sure, why dont you make it to Kolkata!! -- Jit. , Sreekumar <nairvps wrote: > > Rikthanand ji, I want to meet you please. > > Sreekumar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites