Guest guest Posted April 26, 2008 Report Share Posted April 26, 2008 Generally speaking, compared to other traditions, Amma's org is Sakta. No, not Sri Vidya or any traditional Saktism or Tantra, etc. Vaishnava's see Vishnu as the highest, Shaivites see Shiva as the greatest. Devotees of each will give you appropriate scripture stories to indicate their view is the truth. Same with Sakta's, in that Devi is the most Supreme, that everything is a form of Devi. These distinctions are good to know on the practical level, when someone starts talking about Amma to an ORTHODOX Vaishnava and they look at you strangely. Even the founder of ISKCON's purport on the the Vedantic phrase of " Aham Brahmasmi " is not " I Am/Everything is Brahman " or " I Am/Everything is the formless God/consciousness " . It is " This means 'I am not the mind, I am not the body " because they reject certain parts of Vedanta philosophy (at least ISKCON does). Same phrase, different interpretations. Their ultimate state is being part of Krishna (or a part in his leelas) eternally, not Brahman. Another example is that although you're allowed to find a satguru, you're generally supposed to follow the local Acharya as your guru in Vaishnavism. tom Ammachi , " manoj_menon " <manoj_menon wrote: > > > Also, contrary to what you perceive, my perception is that Amma's org > is DEFINITELY not SAKTA, even though the DIVINE MOTHER is so strongly > present. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2008 Report Share Posted April 26, 2008 In the sense that the Devi aspect is so strongly present in this org, I understand why you say it is Sakta. However I still see it as " SMARTHA with a strong SAKTA inclination " . ISCKON is Vaishanava, no doubt. They are not even about ADVAITA (non-dual). They are purely DVAITA (dual - jiva and Krsna) ..... so much so that all other deities without any exception are " demi-gods " , a term that still rankles me mildly. Their interpretation of Bhagavad Gita is very literal, in that wherever Krishna says " I " , they refer to the personal form of Krishna and not to the Impersonal Supreme Consciousness. To each his own..... Paths are many, the goal is one. Pointless to say which path is " superior " or the " only true way " . The smart thing to do is to decide which path is " superior for me " or the " only true way for me " and then walk that path single-mindedly instead of being distracted along the way by 1. other paths, or 2. personalties (gurus, sadhaks) from other paths, or 3. even more serious distractions like " women and gold " , to paraphrase Sri Ramakrishna. (to all the women of the world: the remark is no way meant to be sexist, it is symbolic of the bipolar attraction-distraction inherent in the human species.) Jai Ma! Ammachi , " tom " <tomgull wrote: > > Generally speaking, compared to other traditions, Amma's org is Sakta. > No, not Sri Vidya or any traditional Saktism or Tantra, etc. > > Vaishnava's see Vishnu as the highest, Shaivites see Shiva as the > greatest. Devotees of each will give you appropriate scripture > stories to indicate their view is the truth. Same with Sakta's, in > that Devi is the most Supreme, that everything is a form of Devi. > > These distinctions are good to know on the practical level, when > someone starts talking about Amma to an ORTHODOX Vaishnava and they > look at you strangely. > > Even the founder of ISKCON's purport on the the Vedantic phrase of > " Aham Brahmasmi " is not " I Am/Everything is Brahman " or " I > Am/Everything is the formless God/consciousness " . It > is " This means 'I am not the mind, I am not the body " because they > reject certain parts of Vedanta philosophy (at least ISKCON does). > Same phrase, different interpretations. Their ultimate state is > being part of Krishna (or a part in his leelas) eternally, not Brahman. > > Another example is that although you're allowed to find a satguru, > you're generally supposed to follow the local Acharya as your guru in > Vaishnavism. > > tom > > Ammachi , " manoj_menon " <manoj_menon@> wrote: > > > > > > Also, contrary to what you perceive, my perception is that Amma's org > > is DEFINITELY not SAKTA, even though the DIVINE MOTHER is so strongly > > present. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2008 Report Share Posted April 26, 2008 " Outwardly Vedic, a Shaiva at home, secretly a Shakta... " Doesn't this just capture the essence of practice for most of us here? P. Ammachi , " manoj_menon " <manoj_menon wrote: > > In the sense that the Devi aspect is so strongly present in this org, > I understand why you say it is Sakta. However I still see it as > " SMARTHA with a strong SAKTA inclination " . > > ISCKON is Vaishanava, no doubt. They are not even about ADVAITA > (non-dual). They are purely DVAITA (dual - jiva and Krsna) ..... so > much so that all other deities without any exception are " demi-gods " , > a term that still rankles me mildly. > > Their interpretation of Bhagavad Gita is very literal, in that > wherever Krishna says " I " , they refer to the personal form of Krishna > and not to the Impersonal Supreme Consciousness. > > To each his own..... Paths are many, the goal is one. > > Pointless to say which path is " superior " or the " only true way " . > > The smart thing to do is to decide which path is " superior for me " or > the " only true way for me " and then walk that path single-mindedly > instead of being distracted along the way by > 1. other paths, or > 2. personalties (gurus, sadhaks) from other paths, or > 3. even more serious distractions like " women and gold " , to paraphrase > Sri Ramakrishna. (to all the women of the world: the remark is no way > meant to be sexist, it is symbolic of the bipolar > attraction-distraction inherent in the human species.) > > > Jai Ma! > > > Ammachi , " tom " <tomgull@> wrote: > > > > Generally speaking, compared to other traditions, Amma's org is Sakta. > > No, not Sri Vidya or any traditional Saktism or Tantra, etc. > > > > Vaishnava's see Vishnu as the highest, Shaivites see Shiva as the > > greatest. Devotees of each will give you appropriate scripture > > stories to indicate their view is the truth. Same with Sakta's, in > > that Devi is the most Supreme, that everything is a form of Devi. > > > > These distinctions are good to know on the practical level, when > > someone starts talking about Amma to an ORTHODOX Vaishnava and they > > look at you strangely. > > > > Even the founder of ISKCON's purport on the the Vedantic phrase of > > " Aham Brahmasmi " is not " I Am/Everything is Brahman " or " I > > Am/Everything is the formless God/consciousness " . It > > is " This means 'I am not the mind, I am not the body " because they > > reject certain parts of Vedanta philosophy (at least ISKCON does). > > Same phrase, different interpretations. Their ultimate state is > > being part of Krishna (or a part in his leelas) eternally, not Brahman. > > > > Another example is that although you're allowed to find a satguru, > > you're generally supposed to follow the local Acharya as your guru in > > Vaishnavism. > > > > tom > > > > Ammachi , " manoj_menon " <manoj_menon@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Also, contrary to what you perceive, my perception is that Amma's org > > > is DEFINITELY not SAKTA, even though the DIVINE MOTHER is so strongly > > > present. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2008 Report Share Posted April 26, 2008 Ammachi , " parzival35 " <parzival2 wrote: > > " Outwardly Vedic, a Shaiva at home, secretly a Shakta... " > > Doesn't this just capture the essence of practice for most of us here? > > P. Vedic or Vaishanva? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2008 Report Share Posted April 26, 2008 I've heard Vaishnava before too. P. Ammachi , " manoj_menon " <manoj_menon wrote: > > Ammachi , " parzival35 " <parzival2@> wrote: > > > > " Outwardly Vedic, a Shaiva at home, secretly a Shakta... " > > > > Doesn't this just capture the essence of practice for most of us here? > > > > P. > > Vedic or Vaishanva? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2008 Report Share Posted April 26, 2008 Of course, I can see where this scheme presents problems for those who are outwardly " cast off " and avadhuta, not necessarily observing anything conventional outwardly. Do not deny that Mother used to act this way much more frequently than she does these days. P. Ammachi , " parzival35 " <parzival2 wrote: > > " Outwardly Vedic, a Shaiva at home, secretly a Shakta... " > > Doesn't this just capture the essence of practice for most of us here? > > P. > > > Ammachi , " manoj_menon " <manoj_menon@> wrote: > > > > In the sense that the Devi aspect is so strongly present in this org, > > I understand why you say it is Sakta. However I still see it as > > " SMARTHA with a strong SAKTA inclination " . > > > > ISCKON is Vaishanava, no doubt. They are not even about ADVAITA > > (non-dual). They are purely DVAITA (dual - jiva and Krsna) ..... so > > much so that all other deities without any exception are " demi-gods " , > > a term that still rankles me mildly. > > > > Their interpretation of Bhagavad Gita is very literal, in that > > wherever Krishna says " I " , they refer to the personal form of Krishna > > and not to the Impersonal Supreme Consciousness. > > > > To each his own..... Paths are many, the goal is one. > > > > Pointless to say which path is " superior " or the " only true way " . > > > > The smart thing to do is to decide which path is " superior for me " or > > the " only true way for me " and then walk that path single-mindedly > > instead of being distracted along the way by > > 1. other paths, or > > 2. personalties (gurus, sadhaks) from other paths, or > > 3. even more serious distractions like " women and gold " , to paraphrase > > Sri Ramakrishna. (to all the women of the world: the remark is no way > > meant to be sexist, it is symbolic of the bipolar > > attraction-distraction inherent in the human species.) > > > > > > Jai Ma! > > > > > > Ammachi , " tom " <tomgull@> wrote: > > > > > > Generally speaking, compared to other traditions, Amma's org is Sakta. > > > No, not Sri Vidya or any traditional Saktism or Tantra, etc. > > > > > > Vaishnava's see Vishnu as the highest, Shaivites see Shiva as the > > > greatest. Devotees of each will give you appropriate scripture > > > stories to indicate their view is the truth. Same with Sakta's, in > > > that Devi is the most Supreme, that everything is a form of Devi. > > > > > > These distinctions are good to know on the practical level, when > > > someone starts talking about Amma to an ORTHODOX Vaishnava and they > > > look at you strangely. > > > > > > Even the founder of ISKCON's purport on the the Vedantic phrase of > > > " Aham Brahmasmi " is not " I Am/Everything is Brahman " or " I > > > Am/Everything is the formless God/consciousness " . It > > > is " This means 'I am not the mind, I am not the body " because they > > > reject certain parts of Vedanta philosophy (at least ISKCON does). > > > Same phrase, different interpretations. Their ultimate state is > > > being part of Krishna (or a part in his leelas) eternally, not > Brahman. > > > > > > Another example is that although you're allowed to find a satguru, > > > you're generally supposed to follow the local Acharya as your guru in > > > Vaishnavism. > > > > > > tom > > > > > > Ammachi , " manoj_menon " <manoj_menon@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, contrary to what you perceive, my perception is that > Amma's org > > > > is DEFINITELY not SAKTA, even though the DIVINE MOTHER is so > strongly > > > > present. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2008 Report Share Posted April 27, 2008 I would think, none of the worldly-created 'schemes' apply for " avadhutas " ! Jai Ma! Ammachi , " parzival35 " <parzival2 wrote: > > Of course, I can see where this scheme presents problems for those > who are outwardly " cast off " and avadhuta, not necessarily observing > anything conventional outwardly. > > Do not deny that Mother used to act this way much more frequently > than she does these days. > > P. > > Ammachi , " parzival35 " <parzival2@> wrote: > > > > " Outwardly Vedic, a Shaiva at home, secretly a Shakta... " > > > > Doesn't this just capture the essence of practice for most of us here? > > > > P. > > > > > > Ammachi , " manoj_menon " <manoj_menon@> wrote: > > > > > > In the sense that the Devi aspect is so strongly present in this org, > > > I understand why you say it is Sakta. However I still see it as > > > " SMARTHA with a strong SAKTA inclination " . > > > > > > ISCKON is Vaishanava, no doubt. They are not even about ADVAITA > > > (non-dual). They are purely DVAITA (dual - jiva and Krsna) ..... so > > > much so that all other deities without any exception are " demi-gods " , > > > a term that still rankles me mildly. > > > > > > Their interpretation of Bhagavad Gita is very literal, in that > > > wherever Krishna says " I " , they refer to the personal form of Krishna > > > and not to the Impersonal Supreme Consciousness. > > > > > > To each his own..... Paths are many, the goal is one. > > > > > > Pointless to say which path is " superior " or the " only true way " . > > > > > > The smart thing to do is to decide which path is " superior for me " or > > > the " only true way for me " and then walk that path single-mindedly > > > instead of being distracted along the way by > > > 1. other paths, or > > > 2. personalties (gurus, sadhaks) from other paths, or > > > 3. even more serious distractions like " women and gold " , to paraphrase > > > Sri Ramakrishna. (to all the women of the world: the remark is no way > > > meant to be sexist, it is symbolic of the bipolar > > > attraction-distraction inherent in the human species.) > > > > > > > > > Jai Ma! > > > > > > > > > Ammachi , " tom " <tomgull@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Generally speaking, compared to other traditions, Amma's org is > Sakta. > > > > No, not Sri Vidya or any traditional Saktism or Tantra, etc. > > > > > > > > Vaishnava's see Vishnu as the highest, Shaivites see Shiva as the > > > > greatest. Devotees of each will give you appropriate scripture > > > > stories to indicate their view is the truth. Same with > Sakta's, in > > > > that Devi is the most Supreme, that everything is a form of Devi. > > > > > > > > These distinctions are good to know on the practical level, when > > > > someone starts talking about Amma to an ORTHODOX Vaishnava and they > > > > look at you strangely. > > > > > > > > Even the founder of ISKCON's purport on the the Vedantic phrase of > > > > " Aham Brahmasmi " is not " I Am/Everything is Brahman " or " I > > > > Am/Everything is the formless God/consciousness " . It > > > > is " This means 'I am not the mind, I am not the body " because they > > > > reject certain parts of Vedanta philosophy (at least ISKCON > does). > > > > Same phrase, different interpretations. Their ultimate state is > > > > being part of Krishna (or a part in his leelas) eternally, not > > Brahman. > > > > > > > > Another example is that although you're allowed to find a satguru, > > > > you're generally supposed to follow the local Acharya as your > guru in > > > > Vaishnavism. > > > > > > > > tom > > > > > > > > Ammachi , " manoj_menon " <manoj_menon@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, contrary to what you perceive, my perception is that > > Amma's org > > > > > is DEFINITELY not SAKTA, even though the DIVINE MOTHER is so > > strongly > > > > > present. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2008 Report Share Posted April 27, 2008 >3. even more serious distractions like " women and gold " , to paraphrase >Sri Ramakrishna. (to all the women of the world: the remark is no way >meant to be sexist, it is symbolic of the bipolar >attraction-distraction inherent in the human species.) kamini kanchana They always translate kaamini as " women, " but maybe it should be rendered as " sexpot " . As far as i can see it means either " desired one " or " desiring one. " Max Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2008 Report Share Posted April 27, 2008 Thy God for Women and Gold that is Lakshmi Herself aspects of Gold are actually within our human matter , Gold also cures its radiance is SREEM Light You take the L you are left with God L stand for Lakshmi . Now this can be interpreted in gazylion ways. What is pretty cool about Amma whichever way You decide to see Her be it Krishna or Devi no one will or should under normal circumstances mind, besides Amma says I am to them whatever they want me to be , be it Mother , Devi , Kali , Siva so here You have it All in All. Siva/Shakti is Wisdom another subject of e-mail from Swami since its considered to be authentic , I trust His judgment so here you have it pretty clearly , no short versions of Divine ! Fast food will not replace Whole some Food in its nutritional value ! I never really knew there are such shortcuts till it was brought to the attention by the e-mail. joanna > I would think, none of the worldly-created 'schemes' apply for > " avadhutas " ! > > Jai Ma! > > > Ammachi , " parzival35 " <parzival2@> wrote: > > > > Of course, I can see where this scheme presents problems for those > > who are outwardly " cast off " and avadhuta, not necessarily observing > > anything conventional outwardly. > > > > Do not deny that Mother used to act this way much more frequently > > than she does these days. > > > > P. > > > > Ammachi , " parzival35 " <parzival2@> wrote: > > > > > > " Outwardly Vedic, a Shaiva at home, secretly a Shakta... " > > > > > > Doesn't this just capture the essence of practice for most of us here? > > > > > > P. > > > > > > > > > Ammachi , " manoj_menon " <manoj_menon@> wrote: > > > > > > > > In the sense that the Devi aspect is so strongly present in this > org, > > > > I understand why you say it is Sakta. However I still see it as > > > > " SMARTHA with a strong SAKTA inclination " . > > > > > > > > ISCKON is Vaishanava, no doubt. They are not even about ADVAITA > > > > (non-dual). They are purely DVAITA (dual - jiva and Krsna) ..... so > > > > much so that all other deities without any exception are > " demi-gods " , > > > > a term that still rankles me mildly. > > > > > > > > Their interpretation of Bhagavad Gita is very literal, in that > > > > wherever Krishna says " I " , they refer to the personal form of > Krishna > > > > and not to the Impersonal Supreme Consciousness. > > > > > > > > To each his own..... Paths are many, the goal is one. > > > > > > > > Pointless to say which path is " superior " or the " only true way " . > > > > > > > > The smart thing to do is to decide which path is " superior for > me " or > > > > the " only true way for me " and then walk that path single-mindedly > > > > instead of being distracted along the way by > > > > 1. other paths, or > > > > 2. personalties (gurus, sadhaks) from other paths, or > > > > 3. even more serious distractions like " women and gold " , to > paraphrase > > > > Sri Ramakrishna. (to all the women of the world: the remark is > no way > > > > meant to be sexist, it is symbolic of the bipolar > > > > attraction-distraction inherent in the human species.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Jai Ma! > > > > > > > > > > > > Ammachi , " tom " <tomgull@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Generally speaking, compared to other traditions, Amma's org is > > Sakta. > > > > > No, not Sri Vidya or any traditional Saktism or Tantra, etc. > > > > > > > > > > Vaishnava's see Vishnu as the highest, Shaivites see Shiva as the > > > > > greatest. Devotees of each will give you appropriate scripture > > > > > stories to indicate their view is the truth. Same with > > Sakta's, in > > > > > that Devi is the most Supreme, that everything is a form of Devi. > > > > > > > > > > These distinctions are good to know on the practical level, when > > > > > someone starts talking about Amma to an ORTHODOX Vaishnava and > they > > > > > look at you strangely. > > > > > > > > > > Even the founder of ISKCON's purport on the the Vedantic phrase of > > > > > " Aham Brahmasmi " is not " I Am/Everything is Brahman " or " I > > > > > Am/Everything is the formless God/consciousness " . It > > > > > is " This means 'I am not the mind, I am not the body " because they > > > > > reject certain parts of Vedanta philosophy (at least ISKCON > > does). > > > > > Same phrase, different interpretations. Their ultimate state is > > > > > being part of Krishna (or a part in his leelas) eternally, not > > > Brahman. > > > > > > > > > > Another example is that although you're allowed to find a satguru, > > > > > you're generally supposed to follow the local Acharya as your > > guru in > > > > > Vaishnavism. > > > > > > > > > > tom > > > > > > > > > > Ammachi , " manoj_menon " <manoj_menon@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, contrary to what you perceive, my perception is that > > > Amma's org > > > > > > is DEFINITELY not SAKTA, even though the DIVINE MOTHER is so > > > strongly > > > > > > present. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.