Guest guest Report post Posted November 1, 2009 Dear Ramatas Did you read my email ? Did I " intimidate " ? Where did you extract " who-is-the-smartest " arguments? If anything I consider myself to be an ignorant fool and a bumbling idiot. I offer my sincere, unqualified and unconditional apologies if anybody here has been offended by my posts. regards Aditya Kumar JHA O Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 2, 2009 ________________________________ Santo Sengupta <s.santo.sengupta Fri, October 30, 2009 10:38:14 AM Re: Shakti peethas Namaste: Respectfully, while the original Vedic Gayatri mantra is addressed to the male Aditya Savitr, in modern days the mantra has become deified as the Goddess Gayatri. The structure of the mantra has become so popular and profound that countless different " gayatris " exist for different devatas. Some may wonder why a mantra to masculine aspect of the Sun has transformed into a modern day goddess. Many would claim this is change from Vedic tradition becoming influenced by Tantra and Shaktaa worship. But even in the Vedas, *Speech* is feminine! The goddess Vac is mentioned in famous " Devi Suktam " - Rg Veda 10.125, where she proclaims herself as the voice of creation. http://sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10125.htm -S. Santo Sengupta " Aum Shanti Shanti Shantih. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 2, 2009 NMadasamy wrote: > > > > > > <%40>, Buwaneshwari Ramatas > <khiravani wrote: > > > > Ssri Mathre Namaha > > > > Dear Adityaji > > > > don't try to prove you are very smart. > ------- And in saying so, are you not trying to do the same? ------- > discussions ought to be healthier way, not like proving 'who's the > smartest' pls. do not intimidate others. > ------- Intimidation is never possible without your permission. The answer to Aditya's propositions, (whether they are a pile of crap or the profound truth).........is another set of propositions in opposition. Or am amused witnessing of the hoopla of thought .... ....as thought attempts to bathe the daughter of a barren woman. -------- > > > > bhuvana > > Do you know what I think of all these..............a natural human > tendency. Its all about this need.........this desire to show to prove > that we know so much and that we are better than the other. > -------- And the need........to try and expose such desires? :-) > So its just natural. Where all this will lead us, I'm just watching. > Its interesting to see how we get ourselves trap in our own illusion. > And then we get ourselves tired and drag, and we wonder why are we not > getting to our " goals " and why this journey is taking such a long time. > > So my take is.... for some, its very important to them. To argue and > wanting to prove that they are right... and others are wrong. They > want to prove a point whatever point that is, who cares. But their > voice must be heard..by all.. must be acknowledge by others. As I was > reading all these, I'm reminded of a book introduce to me by a good > friend... " The Power of Now " > > You see we are all trap in this situation. Its either we are in the > past or we constantly think about the future. We never bother to look > at the present.. > ------ In the very looking at the present ...the present is already past. Can the present ever be looked? Or only the past gets looked? And if the present can never be looked at, ............forget attributed qualities to this present.........can even something as " present " be present? Or what is present is merely the creation of thought as something labeled as " present? The future exists only as imagination. The past as memories Seeing the unreality of the existence of these two pillars which define life...... ......can even their absence....aka the present... ...have a reality? ----- > the now. Be conscious of our own self and our action. > -------- And the awareness of this very sense of looking at something as self and it's seeming actions. ---------- > I always believe that NOW is very important and powerful by itself. > NOW is when the past and the future meet. > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 2, 2009 NMadasamy wrote:> > Do you know what I think of all these..............a natural human tendency. Its all about this need.........this desire to show to prove that we know so much and that we are better than the other. Gurubuster <fanatofida wrote:And the need........to try and expose such desires? :-) Yes all comes to this basic fundamental : THIS NEED. We are all born with this NEED yes! But depend on what does this need hope to achieve. This need say : you see something, you have the urge to say it, and you say it. The need say who care who is reading or responding to it. This need don't have to say it but the desire to want to say it and then move away. Whatever way what is the intention of this need? To get something in return like praises or to do it because its a right thing to do, removed of this fears of being ridicule ,criticized or bashed? They are two different issues altogether. NMadasamy wrote:> So its just natural. Where all this will lead us, I'm just watching. Its interesting to see how we get ourselves trap in our own illusion. And then we get ourselves tired and drag, and we wonder why are we not getting to our " goals " and why this journey is taking such a long time.So my take is.... for some, its very important to them. To argue and wanting to prove that they are right... and others are wrong. They want to prove a point whatever point that is, who cares. But their voice must be heard..by all.. must be acknowledge by others. As I was reading all these, I'm reminded of a book introduce to me by a good friend... " The Power of Now " You see we are all trap in this situation. Its either we are in the past or we constantly think about the future. We never bother to look at the present.. Gurubuster wrote: The very looking at the present ...the present is already past.Can the present ever be looked? Or only the past gets looked? And if the present can never be looked at, ............forget attributed qualities to this present.........can even something as " present " be present? Or what is present is merely the creation of thought as something labeled as " present? The future exists only as imagination. The past as memories Seeing the unreality of the existence of these two pillars which define life........... can even their absence....aka the present.....have a reality? NMadasamy responded : Past, Present and Future too can be considered as the creation of the mind... the thoughts? Everything is the creation of the mind? Can we look at the present? What do we mean when we say " look " as an observer or the object being observe? Or the observer observing the observed? If the present is the point where the past and the future meets, the present should be like the void? The empty space without any attributes. Its like the vast universe.. Then if that is so it is not possible to look in the present because there is nothing to look at in the present. Present is but just a vast empty spaces.... you can feel its existence, you know there are something in there but when you try to touch it, you can't. You only experience it. You cannot have words to describe it... once you have learn to describe it, it becomes the past. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 2, 2009 Dear Mr. Sen Gupta, Thank you for mentioning the Sloka no 10.125 of Rigveda as Devi Duktam. Well my opinion is under: * Rig Veda consists of more than 10,500 slokas. out of which you find only one, where as more than 1000 slokas are dedicated to each of Indra, Agni. Being such a condition what is the condition od Devi worship in Vedic period is understandable. * The 10th Mandala of Rig Veda is not considered as a prt of original Rig Veda. The original Rig Veda Slokas were composed by the Great Seven Rishis and their families. * Now please find below the slokas from rig vedas what they opined about female in general: Ref: Rig Veda 8/33/17, Rig Veda 10/95/15 Atharva Veda 6/11/3 Atharva Veda 2/3/23 One can find many examples , how women were treated and how they should be treated. The married woman used to be blessed by " be the mother of 100 sons " , But same was not true in non Vedic Places, like East India or South India. Even to day in Vedic place the birth of a daughter is looked down. However due to the influence of east, the vedic thought changed gradually. But my doubt/questions on Gayatri still remain unansweared Please help by sharing information. With regards --- On Mon, 2/11/09, Theresa Kato <thkato9 wrote: Theresa Kato <thkato9 Re: Shakti peethas Monday, 2 November, 2009, 2:41 AM ____________ _________ _________ __ Santo Sengupta <s.santo.sengupta@ gmail.com> Fri, October 30, 2009 10:38:14 AM Re: Shakti peethas Namaste: Respectfully, while the original Vedic Gayatri mantra is addressed to the male Aditya Savitr, in modern days the mantra has become deified as the Goddess Gayatri. The structure of the mantra has become so popular and profound that countless different " gayatris " exist for different devatas. Some may wonder why a mantra to masculine aspect of the Sun has transformed into a modern day goddess. Many would claim this is change from Vedic tradition becoming influenced by Tantra and Shaktaa worship. But even in the Vedas, *Speech* is feminine! The goddess Vac is mentioned in famous " Devi Suktam " - Rg Veda 10.125, where she proclaims herself as the voice of creation. http://sacred- texts.com/ hin/rigveda/ rv10125.htm -S. Santo Sengupta " Aum Shanti Shanti Shantih. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 3, 2009 NMadasamy wrote: > > > > > NMadasamy wrote:> > Do you know what I think of all > these..............a natural human tendency. Its all about this > need.........this desire to show to prove that we know so much and > that we are better than the other. > > Gurubuster <fanatofida wrote:And the need........to try and > expose such desires? :-) > > Yes all comes to this basic fundamental : THIS NEED. We are all born > with this NEED yes! > -------- All needs are really a sense of a need. The sense of a need to be right , which necessitates the sense of a belief that such and such actions, verbal or otherwise will make the other wrong... ....this entire drama rests on the sense of an " other " . Which co-creates the sense of " me " for which the " other " is an " other " Without this sense of distinctiveness........who is to be proved wrong? Who is held to be right? All seen as hoopla of thought. --------- > But depend on what does this need hope to achieve. This need say : you > see something, you have the urge to say it, and you say it. The need > say who care who is reading or responding to it. This need don't have > to say it but the desire to want to say it and then move away. > Whatever way what is the intention of this need? To get something in > return like praises or to do it because its a right thing to do, > removed of this fears of being ridicule ,criticized or bashed? They > are two different issues altogether. > -------- That there are intentions (noble or debased) as driving the content of action.......is once more the construct of thought. For the enlightened(to use a mere phrase and in no way connotes an enlightened sentient object)... .....there are no un-enlightened, intentional deluded seekers. The seeming appearance of intentional activity, accompanied by the sense of an accompanying agenda, aka to be seen as right, as a Guru, as a repository of all knowledge.......et al........the entirety of the drama is seen to be what it is. Aka, a display of what would it be like..............IF.............something could ever be. ------ > > NMadasamy wrote:> So its just natural. Where all this will lead us, > I'm just watching. Its interesting to see how we get ourselves trap in > our own illusion. And then we get ourselves tired and drag, and we > wonder why are we not getting to our " goals " and why this journey is > taking such a long time.So my take is.... for some, its very important > to them. To argue and wanting to prove that they are right... and > others are wrong. They want to prove a point whatever point that is, > who cares. But their voice must be heard..by all.. must be acknowledge > by others. As I was reading all these, I'm reminded of a book > introduce to me by a good friend... " The Power of Now " You see we are > all trap in this situation. Its either we are in the past or we > constantly think about the future. We never bother to look > at the present.. > > Gurubuster wrote: The very looking at the present ...the present is > already past.Can the present ever be looked? Or only the past gets > looked? And if the present can never be looked at, ............forget > attributed qualities to this present.........can even something as > " present " be present? Or what is present is merely the creation of > thought as something labeled as " present? The future exists only as > imagination. The past as memories Seeing the unreality of the > existence of these two pillars which define life........... > can even their absence....aka the present.....have a reality? > > NMadasamy responded : Past, Present and Future too can be considered > as the creation of the mind... the thoughts? > ------ The sense of something held to be a past, held to be a future....and thus the belief that if there can be a movement away from the past, away from the future, throgh some means......the present will be experienced.... .....is the very sense of the mind. Mind can never create anything. The sense of something has got created and it's nature is such and such........is the very sense of the mind. The sense that lo behold such and such as a perceived creation, whether that perceived creation is the thought of Shakti Peetha, the thought of ascribing a male or female hue to Shakti, the lineage of such expressions of divinity....... ...or this very so real physical phenomenon..............in which this dilaogue is appearing to occur........et al.... .....is simply the hoopla of thought. Including these very squiggly lines appearing as pixels on a PC screen. ------- > Everything is the creation of the mind? Can we look at the present? > What do we mean when we say " look " as an observer or the object being > observe? Or the observer observing the observed? If the present is the > point where the past and the future meets, the present should be like > the void? The empty space without any attributes. > ------- Without attributes..........is an attribute. When something is held to be void..........something is primarily held to be true/real and then " voidity " is ascribed to it. Which is a classic oxymoron. The absence of the presence of a referring........ .......AND........ .........the absence of the absence of the presence of a referring. ---------- > Its like the vast universe.. Then if that is so it is not possible to > look in the present because there is nothing to look at in the > present. Present is but just a vast empty spaces.... you can feel its > existence, you know there are something in there but when you try to > touch it, you can't. You only experience it. You cannot have words to > describe it... once you have learn to describe it, it becomes the past. > --------- Experience is an experience only when cognized. That cognition may be verbalized or may not be. Cognition no matter in what form hue shape, colour, content.........is once again the drama of thought. What is not of thought? That very question.......is the play of thought. And no matter what answer arises to the question........ no matter how profound the answer..........no matter what is the validating lineage of the answer... ......the answer cannot be but a wriggle within the confining field of thought. Apperceiving (to use a mere term)........there is no issue with any aspect of thought. No nuance of thought is held higher than any another nuance. Each nuance, whether that is the debate on the historical validation on Shakti peethas, or the sweetness of Benarasi Pethas... .....each nuance apperceived to be a completion in itself........as itself.... ....towards a display of what would it be like............ if ..............something could ever be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
