Am I a Jain or a Shakta?

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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. "

>

> >

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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. "

>

> >

>

>

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

:-) 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. "

>

> >

>

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

, " 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...... "

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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?

[Guest guest]

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

>

[Guest guest]

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?

>

[Guest guest]

<<<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

>

> ________________________________

[Guest guest]

<<<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 " .

>

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

>

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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?

[Guest guest]

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.

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

<<<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