Srichakra and shankaracharya

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

Recently i listened to an audio recording by Vidwan Pavagada Prakasha

Rao, Stating that Adi shankaracharya played the game of dice with

Godess meenakshi in madurai temple and transformed the shakthi from

tamas to sathvik bhav. Is this true! He also stated that the Srichakra

was newly designed by adi shankaracharya during the game by replacing

the beejaksharas. Can the learned members give clarifications on the

same.

 

Thanks and Regards

Lakshminarayan

 

[shankaracharya has little or nothing to do with shrIvidya or shrIchakra. The

connection many believe came later.- Satish]

[Guest guest]

Namasthe,

 

Shri Shankaracharya and his Guru had a lot to do with Shri Chakra &

Shri Devi's Mantra. Saahakas with any doubt can refer to "

Subhagodaya " and " Soundarya Lahari "

 

Please do not give mis leading messages.

 

Shubhamasthu.

 

Renjith.C.Krishnan

[Guest guest]

Dear satish,

 

Your comment on Sankara Bhagatpada is taken with a pinch of salt. Is

not sriyantra pratishtas in amnaya mutts a true fact. Which yantra

receives the worship on behalf of pitha devata in amnaya mutt.

 

I presume that he might not have sat hours together before sriyantra

and did kumkumarchana like ordinary people practice bahiryaga. He

must have done the antaryaga worship in his DAHARA AKASA which also

acceptable by the tantra sastra. For uttama adhikaris, Dahara Akasa

is the sriyantra. After all it is our pindanda which is the

sriyantra and the chidakasa is the seat of tripurasundari. Is not

the anusandhana of this chitkala at chidakasa a higher form of

srividya rather than sitting with lots of paraphernalia like

vardhani kalasa, shatpatra prayoga, vishesha arghya etc.. Adi

sankara might not have done these but he was surely a

srividyopasaka, a TRUE SRIVIDYOPASAKA, always in communion with the

chitkala in daharakasa.

 

On what basis and with what pramana you conclude that sankara has

nothing to do with srividya / srichakra.

 

I want a valid pramana for this.

 

with regards,

sriram

 

, " lakshminarayansr "

<luckynarayan.sr wrote:

>

> Dear all,

> Recently i listened to an audio recording by Vidwan Pavagada

Prakasha

> Rao, Stating that Adi shankaracharya played the game of dice with

> Godess meenakshi in madurai temple and transformed the shakthi from

> tamas to sathvik bhav. Is this true! He also stated that the

Srichakra

> was newly designed by adi shankaracharya during the game by

replacing

> the beejaksharas. Can the learned members give clarifications on

the

> same.

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Lakshminarayan

>

> [shankaracharya has little or nothing to do with shrIvidya or

shrIchakra. The connection many believe came later.- Satish]

>

[Guest guest]

shrI gurubhyo namaH

shrI mahAgaNapataye namaH

 

My understanding is that Adi Shankara adopted shrI vidyA during his travels

North.

 

Thanks.

shrI mAtre namaH

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

How did you get these " minute " upasna details of sankara that

Jagatguru picked up srividya from North and in which Sankara Vijaya it

is written? And who is the srividya guru of Sankara in North?

 

with regards,

sriram

 

, " Kumar Ramachandran " <kramach

wrote:

>

> shrI gurubhyo namaH

> shrI mahAgaNapataye namaH

>

> My understanding is that Adi Shankara adopted shrI vidyA during his

travels

> North.

>

> Thanks.

> shrI mAtre namaH

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sriram,

 

One could turn the question to teh other side and actually ask on

what basis does one claim shankarAchArya is a shrIvidya upAsaka?

 

If one looks at his main works like the brahmasUtra bhAShya or any

other works, he does not even make a passing reference to this

subject of shrIvidya or shrIchakra. He might be aware(with knowledge

of its principles, achara etc) of it but due to this absence of

referneces one doubts his association with shrIvidya.

 

The fact that shrIchakra is worshipped in the mutts says nothing

about shankarAchArya. It is possible someone installed it later or

that the later AchArya-s adopted it.

 

 

, " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi

wrote:

>

> Dear satish,

>

> Your comment on Sankara Bhagatpada is taken with a pinch of salt.

Is

> not sriyantra pratishtas in amnaya mutts a true fact. Which yantra

> receives the worship on behalf of pitha devata in amnaya mutt.

[Guest guest]

It can also be other side. Just observe prapanchasara tantra,

saundaryalahari. You can understand the brilliance of sankara in

srividya.

 

 

, " Satish " <satisharigela wrote:

>

> Namaste Sriram,

>

> One could turn the question to teh other side and actually ask on

> what basis does one claim shankarAchArya is a shrIvidya upAsaka?

>

> If one looks at his main works like the brahmasUtra bhAShya or any

> other works, he does not even make a passing reference to this

> subject of shrIvidya or shrIchakra. He might be aware(with

knowledge

> of its principles, achara etc) of it but due to this absence of

> referneces one doubts his association with shrIvidya.

>

> The fact that shrIchakra is worshipped in the mutts says nothing

> about shankarAchArya. It is possible someone installed it later or

> that the later AchArya-s adopted it.

>

>

> , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear satish,

> >

> > Your comment on Sankara Bhagatpada is taken with a pinch of

salt.

> Is

> > not sriyantra pratishtas in amnaya mutts a true fact. Which

yantra

> > receives the worship on behalf of pitha devata in amnaya mutt.

>

[Guest guest]

, " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi

wrote:

>

> It can also be other side. Just observe prapanchasara tantra,

> saundaryalahari. You can understand the brilliance of sankara in

> srividya.

>

 

Namaste,

 

I can take your side and even add the trishatI bhAShya. Till a few

years back I used to toe a similar line as above.

 

But over the years I grew doubtful about these attributions

especially about s.lahari and trishatI bhAShya. Some even doubt that

prapancha.s.t was by Shankara and I am neutral on that. The last one

is about mantra shAstra in general and not a special work on

shrIvidya. As an example: I dont think the panchadashi is ever

mentioned in prapancha sara. It talks about bAlA-tripura bhairavi and

tvaritA along with other shAkti-s.

 

Still teh question remains: How come not evena passing mention of

shrIvidya in any of AchArya's main works..?

[Guest guest]

[Moderator's note: This message was marked as spam by . Please pay

attention to all the text in your message. Do not BLINDLY copy what all was

written previously in the thread. Quote only relevant portions]

 

shrI gurubhyo namaH

shrI mahAgaNapataye namaH

 

I think he wrote " bhaja govindam " on his way North. Soundarya and Shivananda

laharI were written when he came back from his travels North.

(I think).

 

shrI mAtre namaH

 

_____

 

On Behalf Of

Satish

Tuesday, February 17, 2009 1:08 AM

 

Re: Srichakra and shankaracharya

 

 

 

@ <%40> .com, " sriram "

<sriram_sapthasathi

wrote:

>

> It can also be other side. Just observe prapanchasara tantra,

> saundaryalahari. You can understand the brilliance of sankara in

> srividya.

>

[Guest guest]

The Jnanarnava tantra mentions about 3 upasanas. Tripura bala,

tripura bhairavi and tripura lalitha. Sankara covers these aspects.

So, it is understood that he was " well-versed " with the navarna

mahameru vidhana uddhara and the contemporary tantras.

 

Why would Acharya Sankara Bhagavatpada, who is ONLY BOTHERED ABOUT

JNANA AND MOKSHA would lay emphasis on other aspects of

purusharthas? His natural inclinaton would be towards the 4th

purushartha which is reflected in his bhasyas.

 

Even what you call the " srividya " which stresses on " parinama vada "

accepts the " duality " of Brahman and Maya. For the sake of upasana,

the parinamavada could be taken as the spring board, which allows

the worship of Maya but this is not the objective in sankara

siddhanta. And hence maya-upasana does not find its mention in his

bhashyas. Srividya, for that matter any upasana, is for lesser

mortals which is a sadhana and NOT sAdhyA. Advaita is a sAdhyA, an

experience, which is a culmination of all the upasanas, even the

srividya upasana.

 

The person who has transcended all upasanas, all acharas, all stages

of varna ashrama, of what use is the srividya (i mean the tantra,

per se). Naturally, for him, the bindusthana is Jnana (the

Knowledge Absolute) and constant reflection on that Jnana is the

Bindu Tarpana (this is what is mentioned by Shri Bhaskara in LS name

Bindutarpanasantushta). So, when Sankara does this sort of Bindu

Tarpana, naturally, his preference, his inclination would be towards

Jnana upasana. Afterall, this is the objective of Tantra in general,

srividya in particular.

 

As regards the composition of Saundaryalahari, there are several

arguments of its authorship (reg., dravida sisu etc...). But most of

the scholars even Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi states that it is

composed by Sankara and dravida sisu is referred here as

Tirujnanasambandar.

 

with regards,

sriram

 

 

, " Satish " <satisharigela wrote:

>

> , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi@>

> wrote:

> >

> > It can also be other side. Just observe prapanchasara tantra,

> > saundaryalahari. You can understand the brilliance of sankara in

> > srividya.

> >

>

> Namaste,

>

> I can take your side and even add the trishatI bhAShya. Till a few

> years back I used to toe a similar line as above.

>

> But over the years I grew doubtful about these attributions

> especially about s.lahari and trishatI bhAShya. Some even doubt

that

> prapancha.s.t was by Shankara and I am neutral on that. The last

one

> is about mantra shAstra in general and not a special work on

> shrIvidya. As an example: I dont think the panchadashi is ever

> mentioned in prapancha sara. It talks about bAlA-tripura bhairavi

and

> tvaritA along with other shAkti-s.

>

> Still teh question remains: How come not evena passing mention of

> shrIvidya in any of AchArya's main works..?

>

[Guest guest]

2009/2/17 Satish <satisharigela:

>

> Still teh question remains: How come not evena passing mention of

> shrIvidya in any of AchArya's main works..?

 

Pardon my language but the above is an idiotic question. The bhAShya-s

are explanations of source texts and follow the maryAdA of the source

text. If the source text does not deal with shrIvidyA, then why should

he refer to it in the commentary?

 

The idea that the entire gamut of sha~Nkara's knowledge and practices

should be reflected in the bhAShya-s is an unreasonable assumption.

 

The second point regarding attributions etc. Very little is

conclusively known about sha~NkarAchArya's life. Even his dates are a

matter of endless dispute. For that matter how do we know conclusively

that the bhAShya-s were written by him? And what does authorship mean

in such a context anyway? Does it mean that he wrote them down himself

on palm leaves? Or did he dictate it to someone? Perhaps he gave

general discourses during his travels wherein his disciples compiled

notes and then expanded them into texts? Maybe he wrote or said

something as sUtra-s or in some other brief form that was later

expanded by his successors. The so-called authorship is hardly an easy

thing to define. There are endless possibilities.

 

The historical investigation into such matters can hardly be conclusive.

 

What we know is that the sha~Nkara maTha-s have been amongst the prime

exponents of shrIvidyA for centuries and a fair amount of literature

concerning shrIvidyA has come from the sha~Nkaran tradition. This is

all that should matter to an upAsaka and even historians cannot really

be sure about anything more. Apart from this it is all speculation

this way or that.

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy

wrote:

>

> 2009/2/17 Satish <satisharigela:

> >

> > Still teh question remains: How come not evena passing mention of

> > shrIvidya in any of AchArya's main works..?

>

> Pardon my language but the above is an idiotic question. The

bhAShya-s

> are explanations of source texts and follow the maryAdA of the

source

> text. If the source text does not deal with shrIvidyA, then why

should

> he refer to it in the commentary?

 

This is a very common line of defense.

Those who questioned did not expect that shrIvidya should be given an

elaborate treatment in these texts. Typically parallel subjects are

reffered to in such commentaries in many ways like for ex: drawing an

analogy or comparing with a related subject. And what perplexes

people is the portrayal of Shankara as a seasoned shrIvidya upAsaka

within the shankara tradition, while his works contains relatively

less or no references to this subject. This is what makes people

doubtful.

 

 

> The idea that the entire gamut of sha~Nkara's knowledge and

practices

> should be reflected in the bhAShya-s is an unreasonable assumption.

 

Take for example bhAskara rAya: His knowledge and practices can be

inferred from his works and so it is with other teachers. That he is

a shrIvidya upAsaka is well known and his works reflect it.

He is likewise learned in other branches and produced works on the

same.

 

This is not the case with shankara and hence this question.

 

<Non -relevant - snipped>

 

 

> What we know is that the sha~Nkara maTha-s have been amongst the

prime

> exponents of shrIvidyA for centuries and a fair amount of literature

> concerning shrIvidyA has come from the sha~Nkaran tradition.

 

Can you give examples of this shrIvidya literature coming from

shankaran tradition?

 

The source texts of shrIvidya are called the shrIkula tantra-s and

they for certain *did not* come from the shankara matha-s. How do we

know this? This is a reasonable guess based on an examination of

their contents.

[Guest guest]

, " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi

wrote:

>

> The Jnanarnava tantra mentions about 3 upasanas. Tripura bala,

> tripura bhairavi and tripura lalitha. Sankara covers these aspects.

> So, it is understood that he was " well-versed " with the navarna

> mahameru vidhana uddhara and the contemporary tantras.

 

Prapanchasara does not mention trpura lalita. The panchadashi maha

mantra is *absent* in this shankaracharya's work! This is what I

wanted to highlight in the previous post.

 

>So, when Sankara does this sort of Bindu

> Tarpana, naturally, his preference, his inclination would be

towards

> Jnana upasana. Afterall, this is the objective of Tantra in

general,

> srividya in particular.

 

If one ponders the implication of above it means to say all GYAni-s

are shrIvidya upAsaka-s.

That is like a christian saying to us Hindu-s, " since you beleive in

god, you are all christians " .

 

 

> The person who has transcended all upasanas, all acharas, all

stages

> of varna ashrama, of what use is the srividya (i mean the tantra,

> per se). Naturally, for him, the bindusthana is Jnana (the

> Knowledge Absolute)

 

Hmm.. Then why bother to project him as a shrIvidya upAsaka?

[Guest guest]

Any great composition by poets, seers have an aspect of " mudrAnkita "

ie.,

encoding the names of poets/seers in the composition during mangala

slokas or

upasamhara slokas. So, couple of the great compositions of our hero

Jagatguru

sankara bhagavatpada are Sivanandalahari and Saundaryalahari. In

Sivanandalahari,

Sloka No. 23 encodes the name of bhagavatpada. This stotra is

dedicated to the

Mahalinga of Srisailam.

 

Saundaryalahari is a masterpiece composed by Sankara which has its

mudrankita

in the first sloka itself " sivahsaktyA yukto.....makritapunyah

prabhavati " .

 

Sankara places his name " sankara " in the last line. I leave this

exercise to

the upasakas to decode.

 

Also, the great Kaulachari hailing from Natha sect Shri Jnaneshwar

(belonging to

9 nathas), in his magnum opus " Amritanubhava " which is a gloss on

Saundaryalahari

states that:

 

" gururityAkhyaya loke sAkShAt vidyAhi sAnkarI

jayAtyAdyA namastasyai dayArdrAyai nirantaram... " . The author

prostrates to

Sankara Bhagavatpada and says that he is going to explain

the " Sankari Vidya "

which is in line with Sankara Siddhanta.

 

The work Amritanubhava is a written after Jnanaraja was inspired by

Saundaryalahari who

endorses its authorship to Sankara.

 

Also, Acharya Sankara mentions about the parinamavada in his Brahma

Sutra Bhashya.

" pariNAma prakriyAm chAshrayati saguNeShUpasanEShu..... " (refer the

Brahma Sutra Bhashya

of 2nd chapter, 1st patha, 14th sutra) which says Parinamavada can

be adopted for

Saguna Upasana. Invariably, parinamavada is the core of srividya.

 

So, it can be concluded that all Jnanis are not srividyopasakas but

all srividyopasakas

who are siddhas in Sankara Siddhanta are Jnanis. So, it is like

saying

" All muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims " .

 

Now, coming to the place of composition of saundaryalahari by

Acharya Sankara,

as presiding deity and presiding sthala of Sivanandalahari is

Mallikarjuna

and Srisaila, the presiding deity and sthala of Saudaryalahari is

Sivakamasundari and

Chidambaram.

 

Generally, it is a practice that upasakas compose the poetry keeping

in view of their

ishta devata in mind that is related to a particular region.

It can be found out that this Soundaryalahari

was composed keeping in view of one such devata, and that is Goddess

Sivakamasundari of Chidambaram. There are several instances in

Saundaryalahari,

when traced back the origin of certain words, would refer to this

great goddess.

For example, the sloka no. 69:

 

gale rekhas-tisro gati-gamaka-gitaika-nipune

vivaha-vyanaddha-praguna-guna-sankhya-pratibhuvah /

virajante nanavidha-madhura-ragakara-bhuvam

trayanam gramanam sthiti-niyama-simana iva te //

 

The word " gramanam " occurs in the fourth line of the shloka – means

the

three-fold classification of ragas Shadja, Madhyama and Gandhara.

Background of

carnatic music is necessary here to understand these. These 3 ragas

are

manifested as three lines on the neck of Tripurasundari.

 

A still deeper meaning is that Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada refers the

three (3)

villages that are encoded in this sloka. These 3 villages are 1)

Puliyoor 2)

Thillaivanam 3) Chidambaram.

 

Puliyoor was the place where Sage Vyaghrapada resided. Thillaivanam

was the

forest where there were several mutts and ashrams of upasakas.

Chidambaram is

the Chit Sabha where Nataraja sports with Sivakamasundari.

The " laasya " , a

typical dance of Sivakamasundari is described in Soundaryalahari.

 

The fact that there were 3 villages called 1) Tillaivanam 2)

Puliyoor 3) Chidambaram

were endorsed by Arunagirinathar in his magnum opus " Tiruppugazh " .

 

Also, in Nateshapancharatna, the Goddess Sivakamasundari is

addressed as

Tripurambika / Sundari etc. So, the wave of beauty is poetically

described

as the " Lasya of Sivakamasundari " .

 

This Lasya of Sundari is mentioned in the 41st sloka:

 

" tavAdhArE mUlE saha samayA lAsyaparayA

navAtmAnam ........jagatidam " .....(41)

 

Here the siva dampati is described as " samayAmba-MahAnateshwara "

murti.

If we deeply ponder over it, Mahanateswara murti who is navAtma ie.,

Mahatandaveshwara murti having navarasas dances with His consort who

exhibits

the Lasya who is invariably the Sivakamasundari and Nataraja Murti.

 

This sloka is also linked with the Sloka No. 34 ie.,

 

" sariram tvam sambhoh.....samarasaparAnandaparayOh " .......(34).

 

This sloka depicts the sculptural style of the Alaya Mukha Mantapa

at Chidambaram

where two animals " Vrishabha " and " Hasti " (Ox and Elephant) are

entwined together

forming the " Kamakala Mahamantra " or " Aham " .

 

NavAtmAnam Anagham decodes the Great Kamakala Mantra and also the

shilpakala chaturya

in the Chidambaram Mukhamantapam. " anagham " is to be taken as " an-

aham " (gha and ha to be

the similar padas in sanskrit).

 

Similarly, there are several slokas that refer to this great place

Chidambaram.

So, it is concluded that Saundaryalahari was composed in the

premises of Chidambaram keeping in view the Goddess Sivakamasundari.

 

Also, the stava-karta of Saundaryalahari is Shri Sankara whose name

as Mudrankita

is encoded in the first line.

 

Food for thought........

 

With regards,

Sriram

 

 

 

, " Satish " <satisharigela wrote:

>

> , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi@>

> wrote:

> >

> > It can also be other side. Just observe prapanchasara tantra,

> > saundaryalahari. You can understand the brilliance of sankara in

> > srividya.

> >

>

> Namaste,

>

> I can take your side and even add the trishatI bhAShya. Till a few

> years back I used to toe a similar line as above.

>

> But over the years I grew doubtful about these attributions

> especially about s.lahari and trishatI bhAShya. Some even doubt

that

> prapancha.s.t was by Shankara and I am neutral on that. The last

one

> is about mantra shAstra in general and not a special work on

> shrIvidya. As an example: I dont think the panchadashi is ever

> mentioned in prapancha sara. It talks about bAlA-tripura bhairavi

and

> tvaritA along with other shAkti-s.

>

> Still teh question remains: How come not evena passing mention of

> shrIvidya in any of AchArya's main works..?

>

[Guest guest]

Having spent some time studying the bhashyams for the past couple of

years, my ignorance level has changed. I am not any better, but the

loci of misunderstandings have changed. ļ

 

Srividya is not mentioned by Acharya as a practice or as a means of

upasana anywhere in the prasthana triyii, There are pUrva paksha

arguments with both pAshupata and bhAgavata/Vaishnava secular

schools in Brahma sutra bAshya, but for some reason Acharya does not

take any shakta traditions for pUrvapaksha. One thing to observe is,

most of thes pUrvapaksha-s are not there in the sutras itself.

Acharya brings them up and answers them in order to clarify

misconceptions of his time.

 

It is almost impossible to understand Adi Shankaracharya as a

person with the plethora of information and biographies we have

today. But we can always ask some simple questions and find

definite answers.

 

Does Srividya has anything to do with the Advaita siddanta that is

talked about by Shankaracharya in his Brahma sutra and Upanishad

bashyam-s ?

The straight answer is no.

 

Can Srividya as practiced today and with the literature that we have

in hand be connected to Advaita Vedanta and the Acharyas who

propagate it? In other words , can Srividya be brought with in the

umbrella of Advaita Vedanta ?

The answer is yes.

 

 

Just my 2c,

Aravind

[Guest guest]

Satish,

 

[shankaracharya has little or nothing to do with shrIvidya or shrIchakra. The

connection many believe came later.- Satish]

 

I dont think we have to go into prapanchasara tantra or soundaryalahari,

what about mantra matruka pushpa mala stavam? assuming that it is the work of

Acharyal

 

again absence of proof is not proof of absence :-) so a definitive statement as

the one in is far fetched and could have been pre qualified with an IMHO and

some qualification for the term " many "

 

 

 

regards

Vishwam

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

To all who took note of this thread:

 

shrI Aravind said it in a better way.

 

> Can Srividya as practiced today and with the literature that we

>have

> in hand be connected to Advaita Vedanta and the Acharyas who

> propagate it? In other words , can Srividya be brought with in the

> umbrella of Advaita Vedanta ?

> The answer is yes.

 

There are works like the shAradA chatushshati which attempt to do

what is mentioned above. I having nothing for or against this but

only take objection when this attempt goes overboard and states this

is what is real shrIvidya like some people did in the past.

 

Even that(mentioning this new shrIvidya as correct one) is ok but

usually this is done with a dUShaNa(mud slinging) of old works(read

the source kula texts) on shrIvidya. It will be better if people

avoid that.

 

Atlast, one reasonable voice!!.... I need not say any more on this

thread.

 

Regards - Please read below post a couple of times.

 

, " seeksha " <aravind75 wrote:

>

>

>

> Having spent some time studying the bhashyams for the past couple

of

> years, my ignorance level has changed. I am not any better, but

the

> loci of misunderstandings have changed. ??

>

> Srividya is not mentioned by Acharya as a practice or as a means of

> upasana anywhere in the prasthana triyii, There are pUrva paksha

> arguments with both pAshupata and bhAgavata/Vaishnava secular

> schools in Brahma sutra bAshya, but for some reason Acharya does

not

> take any shakta traditions for pUrvapaksha. One thing to observe

is,

> most of thes pUrvapaksha-s are not there in the sutras itself.

> Acharya brings them up and answers them in order to clarify

> misconceptions of his time.

>

> It is almost impossible to understand Adi Shankaracharya as a

> person with the plethora of information and biographies we have

> today. But we can always ask some simple questions and find

> definite answers.

>

> Does Srividya has anything to do with the Advaita siddanta that is

> talked about by Shankaracharya in his Brahma sutra and Upanishad

> bashyam-s ?

> The straight answer is no.

>

> Can Srividya as practiced today and with the literature that we

have

> in hand be connected to Advaita Vedanta and the Acharyas who

> propagate it? In other words , can Srividya be brought with in the

> umbrella of Advaita Vedanta ?

> The answer is yes.

>

>

> Just my 2c,

> Aravind

>

[Guest guest]

Namasthe,

 

The True Saadhaka in the True Path never suspects the Guru parampara.

 

He trust the Holistic life in an around him " inch thick, knee deep " .

 

For him all the myths are lamp posts. All accidents, all incidents are

" godincidents " . Arguments and unnecessary thoughts regarding the

history and trueness of myths are never his Style.

 

I humbly suggest never to discuss things which is not in the Matrix.

 

Shubhamasthu.

 

Renjith.C.Krishnan

 

[While this is agreeable to some extent, in the long run such an attitude can be

disastrous both to the individual and to the tradition and hence should be

avoided. This kind of blind faith is alien to our traditions. It was most likely

imported from Christianity or Islam. In traditional Hinduism such an attitude of

gulping down things without questioning is never encouraged. Please read shrI

Aravind's post 3 or 4 times.- Satish]

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

On the other hand, aren't works like Soundarya Lahari or other similar

works written on the goddess by Acharya Shankara testimony enough

that the Acharya must have dwelled and practiced upon Srividya?

 

Would such works have been possible without the Acharya having

adequate knowledge about Srividya?

 

Regards,

Raghav

 

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Kumar Ramachandran

<kramach wrote:

> [Moderator's note: This message was marked as spam by . Please pay

> attention to all the text in your message. Do not BLINDLY copy what all was

> written previously in the thread. Quote only relevant portions]

>

> shrI gurubhyo namaH

> shrI mahAgaNapataye namaH

>

> I think he wrote " bhaja govindam " on his way North. Soundarya and Shivananda

> laharI were written when he came back from his travels North.

> (I think).

>

> shrI mAtre namaH

>

> _____

>

> On Behalf Of

> Satish

> Tuesday, February 17, 2009 1:08 AM

>

> Re: Srichakra and shankaracharya

>

> @ <%40> .com, " sriram "

> <sriram_sapthasathi

> wrote:

>>

>> It can also be other side. Just observe prapanchasara tantra,

>> saundaryalahari. You can understand the brilliance of sankara in

>> srividya.

>>

>

>