Guru Dev and "Sri Vidya"
mhutchinson
by Guru Dev was like, what kind of yoga it is?? Please and
Thank-You!!
yoganta
internal puja to all the deities of the Sri Yantra. The only people who you
might ever meet who practice something even close are at www.srividya.org.
They are kaula marga. Good luck.
"mhutchinson" <hu...@yogaelements.com> wrote in message
news:9ef6b08e.03041...@posting.google.com...
James Duffy
tantric path dedicated to the worship of the Goddess Tripura Sundari,
aka Sodasi...aka Lalita, as in the Lalita Sahasranam (a core text used
in Sri Vidya worship). Although Tripura Sundari has Her own
yantra...usually the Sri Cakra yantra is used in Sri Vidya practices.
The Sri Cakra is unique in that it can be used to worship any Goddess.
I'm under the impression that Swami Brahmananda, "Guru Dev", used a
Sri Cakra made out of rubies (very nice!)in his worship. The yantra is
not a symbol of the Goddess, but IS the Goddess...in the same way a
mantra IS the deity it invokes. An elaborate ritual called the prana
prathistha "enlivens" the yantra...installs prana...LIFE...into it.
Otherwise it's just pretty art! Then the devotee can make offerings to
the Goddess via the yantra accompanied by mantras, mudras and various
nyasas. (Nyasa are practices that install the deity into one's own
body.) The primary mantra for Sri Vidya practice is a 16 syllable
mantra which I will not reveal here because it must be done in a
precise manner. I recommend you research the "Mahasodashaksari"
version of the mantra. I HIGHLY recommend Douglas Brooks' book,
"Auspicious Wisdom". It can be difficult to find, but if you want to
know about Sri Vidya you will not be disappointed. Try the
Bodhitree.com... or SUNY Press publications....or Amazon. Also, if you
happen to live near Rochester, NY, there is an authentic Sri Vidya
Tripura Sundari temple. If you live in southern California, you can
learn Sri Vidya sadhana from Nandu Menon. Gotta run....
take care,
james
hu...@yogaelements.com (mhutchinson) wrote in message news:<9ef6b08e.03041...@posting.google.com>...
George DeForest
> The yantra is not a symbol of the Goddess, but IS the Goddess...
> the yantra...installs prana...LIFE...into it. Otherwise
> it's just pretty art! Then the devotee can make offerings to
my growing impression of Hinduism is that -all- hindu temples
use that procedure of "installing" various "deities", who are
then considered physically present. (Kind of like a
"consecrated host" in a Catholic church is a "real presence".)
this is not unique to "sri vidya" which centers on mother divine,
imo it is found thru-out all hinduism, including temple worship
of "male" deities also.
(warning: all my "knowledge" of hinduism comes off the internet!)
Judy Stein
> James Duffy wrote:
> > The yantra is not a symbol of the Goddess, but IS the Goddess...
> > An elaborate ritual called the prana prathistha "enlivens"
> > the yantra...installs prana...LIFE...into it. Otherwise
> > it's just pretty art! Then the devotee can make offerings to
> > the Goddess...
>
> my growing impression of Hinduism is that -all- hindu temples
> use that procedure of "installing" various "deities", who are
> then considered physically present.
The question is, what are "dieties"?
Willytex
> path as practiced by Guru Dev was like, what kind
> of yoga it is?
Hutch - There is no evidence that Guru Dev followed the path of 'Sri Vidya'.
Apparently, Guru Dev practiced TM just like we do now. But it all depends on
how you define TM - according to the definition proposed by Maharsihi, Guru
Dev was a TMer because he was able to transcend the relative field and make
contact with Brahmin or the Absolute. There are numerous photographic images
of Guru Dev sitting in meditative repose and numerous disciples have
attested to his habit of seeking solitary surroundings so that he could
meditate.
According to his official biography, Guru Dev was a chela of Swami
Krishnanda Saraswati, a Sannyasin of the Shankaracharya Dasanami, of
Sringeri. This puts both Guru Dev and his teacher in the Adwaita Sampradya
and squarely in the path of Yoga, which is another term name for TM. There
is no evidence that Guru Dev used a Shri Yantra for dualistic, devotional
purposes or as a personal devata - Adwaita Sannyasins are not supposed to be
playing around with fire and worshipping mundane physical constructs such as
poles or magic circles.
The Sri Vidya is described as a mnemonic device used for meditation practice
and it derives from the Buddhist tantric practices which utilize mantra,
yantra, and dharani. The Shri Yantra is a graphical representation of the
TM bija-mantras, and it was invented in the fifth century in Bengal at the
beginning of the Gupta era by the Sahajiyas or Baulas.
In fact, any device can be used for meditation, a word, a diagram - even the
word "mic" or "one", however, it has been found through experience over many
years that certain sounds are more beneficial than others. At any rate, the
use of the Sri Yantra is a purely mental technique - it's been termed a
visualization excercise by Swami Ageananda Bharati.
There are a number of Guru Dev disciples still living, that is, besides the
Maharishi. According to the Swami Prakashanada Saraswati, a direct disciple,
Guru Dev taught Divine Love Meditation, which is an aspect of transcendental
meditation. According to Swami Prabhupada, another Saraswati Sannyasin, all
meditation is transcendental, and that Swami advocates meditation on the
maha-mantra of Swami Chaitanya Bharati, founder of the Gaudhiya Sampradaya.
So, from the above observations, it is probable that Guru Dev meditated on
bija-mantras contained in Shri Vidya, a yantra, or mnemonic device for
transcending. However, there is no evidence that I can find which would lead
me to believe that Guru Dev practiced any tantric forms of sadhana such as
Shaktism or sex-magic. Guru Dev was a life-long celibate, an Adwaitan who
practiced Raja Yoga all his life, just like the great Sri Ramana Maharshi.
I don't think Guru Dev had anything to do with Baula Tantra. If he did, he
kept it from a galaxy of devotees!
"mhutchinson" <hu...@yogaelements.com> wrote in message
news:9ef6b08e.03041...@posting.google.com...
Willytex
> "Guru Dev", used a Sri Cakra made out of rubies
> (very nice!)in his worship.
James - Based on what evidence?
> The yantra is not a symbol of the Goddess, but IS
> the Goddess...in the same way a mantra IS the deity
> it invokes.
This is pure unadulterated clap-trap, James, and I think you know it.
There's no such thing as a "power" outside human conciousness, that enters
into the physical universe and causes change. These notions are all part and
parcel of prakriti, maya, and simply don't exist in expereience. And, there
is no such thing as a "diety" outside human conciousness either. These are
all false ideas spread by dualistic scribes and priests in order to fool the
people. Besides, there are no Sri Chakra Goddesses mentioned in the Vedas,
the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras or Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.
In fact all these ideas are pre-Buddhist, totemic, dualistic ritual magic
practices that are derived from Dravidian shamanisn and have nothing to do
with Adwaita, the path of Guru Dev. If he was a tantric, he would have said
so, would he not? Or, at least one of a galaxy of desiples would have said
so.
"James Duffy" <jaduf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb894cbd.03041...@posting.google.com...
ayspoze
<will...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>This is pure unadulterated clap-trap, James, and I think you know it.
>There's no such thing as a "power" outside human conciousness, that enters
>into the physical universe and causes change. These notions are all part and
>parcel of prakriti, maya, and simply don't exist in expereience. And, there
>is no such thing as a "diety" outside human conciousness either. These are
>all false ideas spread by dualistic scribes and priests in order to fool the
>people. Besides, there are no Sri Chakra Goddesses mentioned in the Vedas,
>the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras or Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.
>
Anyone who has associated at all with the TMO through the
years knows how frequently Maharishi has made reference to
God as Mother, or to Mother Divine, etc.
>In fact all these ideas are pre-Buddhist, totemic, dualistic ritual magic
>practices that are derived from Dravidian shamanisn and have nothing to do
>with Adwaita, the path of Guru Dev. If he was a tantric, he would have said
>so, would he not? Or, at least one of a galaxy of desiples would have said
>so.
>
My sense is that even Indian Advaitists feel free to turn
towards dualism whenever they please. They seem to explore
the potentials of non-dualistic enlightnment and also of
dualistic approaches when they wish to accomplish
something.
We westerners seem to want to find one distilled truth,
one highest truth. Or "the true religion" or whatever.
A lot of what we have heard about Guru Dev has come to us
through Maharishi, and if M is into goddess bhakti as well
as the impresonal realisation of being, then does that
suggest something about Guru Dev's approach?
ayspoze
ColdBluICE
> > Anyone able to elucidate any on what the Sri Vidya
> > path as practiced by Guru Dev was like, what kind
> > of yoga it is?
>
> Hutch - There is no evidence that Guru Dev followed the path of 'Sri Vidya'.
> Apparently, Guru Dev practiced TM just like we do now.
- Hogwash!
Sri GuruDevJi *never* practised "tm"!
> <snip>
> There are a number of Guru Dev disciples still living, that is, besides the
> Maharishi. According to the Swami Prakashanada Saraswati, a direct disciple,
> Guru Dev taught Divine Love Meditation, which is an aspect of transcendental
> meditation.
- Hogwash!
More of Richard Williams *delusional Fanatsies*.
Your parents havent kicked you out of their house after 50 odd years?
> According to Swami Prabhupada, another Saraswati Sannyasin, all
> meditation is transcendental,....
> <blah blah blah> get a life!
ColdBluICE
> > > James Duffy wrote:
> > > The yantra is not a symbol of the Goddess, but IS the Goddess...
> > > An elaborate ritual called the prana prathistha "enlivens"
> > > the yantra...installs prana...LIFE...into it. Otherwise
> > > it's just pretty art! Then the devotee can make offerings to
> > > the Goddess...
> >
> > my growing impression of Hinduism is that -all- hindu temples
> > use that procedure of "installing" various "deities", who are
> > then considered physically present.
>
> The question is, what are "dieties"?
The *Personal Form of God/Brahm*... dumbass
willytex
Mrs. Perino - Never heard of a personal form of God/Brahm called 'dumbass',
but if so, why did the priests give Him a girl's nickname, Sri?
Also, your definition of a 'diety' as 'God/Brahm' tells us nothing. What's a
Brahm?
P.S. I didn't see a statue of 'God/Brahm' at your Barsana temple, why not?
"ColdBluICE" <ColdB...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:cd5299c0.03041...@posting.google.com...
willytex
Mrs Perino - You are incorrect - according to Swami Prakashananda Saraswati,
a direct desciple of Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Guru Devji was fully
established in Brahman, the transcendental state. That Guru Dev practiced a
yogic sadhana is attested to by a galaxy of other disciples. In addition,
Guru Dev was reportedly a great Raja Yogi who was fully accomplished in the
siddhis.
It has already been established that Guru Dev was a member of the Dasanami
Sampradaya, which would place him on the Adwaita path.
There are many reports by disciples who all agree that Guru Dev was a fully
realized master, who had passed beyond all dualism and who was always in a
state unity conciousness. Many people who knew Guru Dev have reported that
he practiced meditation on a regular basis and there are photographic images
and films which show that he sat with eyes closed during meditation. I have
a photograph of the Maharishi and Guru Dev meditating together.
According to Swami Prabhupada Saraswati, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu used to
meditate on the maha-mantra and by doing so Chaitanya reached a
transcendental state of conciousness. Shakya the Muni, Sage Patanjali,
Gaudapadaji and the Adi Shankaracharya all practiced a meditation that was
transcendental.
Therefore, your statement is without basis, and lacks any merit whatsoever.
One thing cannot be disputed - there have never been any reports or
photographs which show the Guru Devji dancing the two-step with the Swami
Prakashji while bangin' on a drum and wavin' a camphor flame around.
> Your parents havent kicked you out of
> their house after 50 odd years?
No, my parents still live with me. When is the last time you saw your
parents, Steve?
> ...get a life!
This one will be enough for me, but thanks, anyway.
James Duffy
absolutely absurd. "Dualistic"? "Ritual magic"? Sri Vidya is NOT
dualistic. I refuse to get involved amt silliness...arguing with
individuals who clearly...ah...I'm not going there. FACT #1-Guru Dev
was a disciple of Swami Krishananda...who was a tantric Guru. FACT
#2-Guru Dev practiced Sri Vidya in the tradition of Bhaskararaya. Far,
far more importantly imo...what you have stated reveals that you
possess zero experience or knowledge about yantras and/or traditional
tantric practice....which is fine...advaita vedanta is a wonderful
path... I just ask that you not be so freakin' deluded about your
understanding of tantra. Is that really too much to ask??? I answered
someone's question and referred them to information where they could
deepen their experience and knowledge if they should chose to do so.
Simple.
So why do I get the following from you???
> This is pure unadulterated clap-trap, James, and I think you know it.
WillyT....Could you be any more antagonistic???
> There's no such thing as a "power" outside human conciousness, that enters
> into the physical universe and causes change.
WillyT....Are you suggesting there isn't any possible realms or Beings
more evolved than humans? Did a human create this universe?
>>Besides, there are no Sri Chakra Goddesses mentioned in the Vedas,
>>the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras or Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.
WillyT....Please show me where you find the bija mantras used in TM in
the Vedas,
the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras or Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. GOOD
LUCK! YOU'LL NEED IT! Yet....gee...I can easily find the bija mantras
used in TM in the tantric traditions. Yet you argue Guru Dev wasn't a
tantric??? The mantras of TM are DIRECTLY related to Sri Vidya.
>These notions are all part and
> parcel of prakriti, maya, and simply don't exist in expereience.
WillyT....talk about DUALISTIC!!! Indeed... there is only
Consciousness, so why are you belittling the play of Shakti...aka
prakriti, maya, which is inseperable from Shiva??? Your so-called
"Maya" is the sublime expression of Consciousness...and that tantrics
such as Guru Dev and myself choose to honor this manifestation and the
"powers at be" through mantra, yantra, nyasa, etc is a personal
choice. If you choose not to do so as well, that's fine and you are no
lesser for it imo...but please have the integrity not to mislead
people with your "version" of tantra.
james
"Willytex" <will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1ROdneSgAY7...@texas.net>...
kasha
James Duffy
Following the path of Advaita Vedanta in no way excludes one from
practicing Sri Vidya or tantra in general...which is precisely the
case with Guru Dev. To see it any other way....WillyTex's way
specifically....IS INDEED DUALISTIC! Only some of the hard right wing,
orthodox, fundamentalist hindus have a "problem" with this combination
of practices. Guru Dev has some pretty awesome company in this regard.
Just a few examples of "Advaitins" who performed practices (sadhanas)
that WillyTex has referred to as "false ideas", "ritual magic",
"dualistic", etc.: Shankara! Sri Ramakrishna! Bhagavan Nityananda!
Ammachi! Karunamayi! Nisargadatta! Even Ramana Maharshi had a Sri
Cakra installed at his mother's shrine where puja is performed daily.
Ramana spoke very highly of Ganapati Muni's writings on the Divine
Mother...even going so far as to make a comment that implied Ganapati
Muni was merely taking his dictation. HWL Poonjaji aka Papaji....a
disciple of Ramana's and a hard core advaitin, wept openly when
speaking of his devotion to Lord Krishna. In my opinion, this pitting
of Advaita against tantra / bhakti is to miss the "boat" entirely.
james
kasha <steph...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<3E9A260C...@sympatico.ca>...
> YES!
>
> James Duffy wrote:
>
> > WillyT... I'm sorry, but your representation of Sri Vidya is
> > absolutely absurd. "Dualistic"? "Ritual magic"? Sri Vidya is NOT
> > dualistic. I refuse to get involved in amt silliness...arguing with
> > individuals who clearly...ah...I'm not going there. FACT #1-Guru Dev
> > was a disciple of Swami Krishananda...who was a tantric Guru. FACT
> > #2-Guru Dev practiced Sri Vidya in the tradition of Bhaskararaya. Far,
> > far more importantly imo...what you have stated reveals that you
> > possess zero experience or knowledge about yantras and/or traditional
> > tantric practice....which is fine...advaita vedanta is a wonderful
> > path... I just ask that you not be so freakin' deluded about your
> > understanding of tantra. Is that really too much to ask??? I answered
> > someone's question and referred them to information where they could
> > deepen their experience and knowledge if they should choose to do so.
James Duffy
This, too, is my understanding of Guru Dev's practice as well...quite
"right handed"...
>It's a path of internal puja to all the deities of the Sri Yantra.
Exactly...via mantras and nyasas. I would add that the bija mantras
used are the same as the mantras used in TM...which speaks volumes.
james
"yoganta" <yog...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<f8gla.73388$yh1.4...@news1.east.cox.net>...
Billy Smith
Hi All,
I've had enough!
I'm coming out of my silence!
Bija mantras issued by TM are ''Sri Vidya'' bija mantras. To be fair,I
Won't go into what they are,but if one listens to all TM mantras,
except for 2, they are 2 or 3 syllable,and this is a very important
component of the technique.
**** If you want to do your best friend a favour,teach them to
meditate,and give them your mantra,no puja will be necessary as your
mantra will already be a ''live mantra'' through repetition!!!
****Puja enlivens a mantra immediately,Purascharana or Anusthana
enlivens any other mantra!
Ultimately,all mantras produce a result once they become enlivened!
Jai Guru Dev,
Billy Smith
mhutchinson
> "Auspicious Wisdom". It can be difficult to find, but if you want to
> know about Sri Vidya you will not be disappointed. Try the
> Bodhitree.com... or SUNY Press publications....or Amazon. Also, if you
> happen to live near Rochester, NY, there is an authentic Sri Vidya
> Tripura Sundari temple. If you live in southern California, you can
> learn Sri Vidya sadhana from Nandu Menon. Gotta run....
>
> take care,
> james
>
>
my library through "interlibrary loan" and I'll read it.
>
James Duffy
> >James: Thanks very much. Interesting. I'm ordering the book from
> my library through "interlibrary loan" and I'll read it.
> >
Hutch...you're welcome. I hope you find the book inspiring. Also, I
was recently reminded by someone of an easy to find reference to Guru
Dev as a Sri Vidya practitioner...Swami Rama's book, "Living with the
Himalayan Masters". There's a sweet, though short chapter on Swami
Rama's meeting with a great Sri Vidya practitioner who has a Sri
Yantra made of rubies, etc, etc...and this tantrika is none other than
Swami Brahmananda, aka Guru Dev. The whole book is cool too! Enjoy!!!
james
mhutchinson
> was recently reminded by someone of an easy to find reference to Guru
> Dev as a Sri Vidya practitioner...Swami Rama's book, "Living with the
> Himalayan Masters". There's a sweet, though short chapter on Swami
> Rama's meeting with a great Sri Vidya practitioner who has a Sri
> Yantra made of rubies, etc, etc...and this tantrika is none other than
> Swami Brahmananda, aka Guru Dev. The whole book is cool too! Enjoy!!!
>
James! "Living W/himalayan Masters" is one of my all-time
favorite books; if you type in "Living With the Himalayan Masters"
search in AMT, you'll see several posts I've made recommending it.
One of the most inspiring books I've ever read...
You know what you've gotta do??? YOU'VE got to read "Walking With a
Himalayan Master" by one of Swami Rama's chief western disciples
"Justin O'Brien". It's a beautiful companion volume to the first book
with many personal insights to Swami Rama & his tradition. It also is
obscure, and I suggest you also order it at youre local library via
"inter-library loan", an incredibly cool service from the libraries -
You can order any book you know the title of this way. Any-way,
having read "Living with..." was the origin of my question about more
details about Sri Vidya in the first place. I became aware of
"Walking with a Him. Master from one of Willytex's list - thank you
Willy!
Best regards!
willytex
James - You got the advantage since tantra is a secret cult. : ) But
according to some respondents on this newsgroup, Guru Dev has no
connection to any TM mantras at all, including those of Sri Vidya. In
fact, you must be talking about another Sankara, because according to
one particular respondent, Sankara lived over 500 years before the
historical Buddha and Shankara didn't even teach Adwaita.
> Guru Dev practiced Sri Vidya in the tradition of
> Bhaskararaya.
I don't think so - Guru Dev by all indications was a Shankara Adwaita
Vedantin, while Bhaskara did not accept the doctrine of Maya and of
the quality-less Brahman. To Bhaskara, Brahman is the personal God
Ishvara. Bhaskara was the first important Vedantin to introduce the
idea of identity-in-difference.
I'm not following a Hindu adwaita path - but, I'm sympathethic to
Buddhist Vijnanavada. In my opinion Hindu trantricism is a distorted
corruption of Buddhist tantricism. It's a mistake to think that
enlightenemnt could be obtained through sacrifical acts limited to a
select few. Shakya the Muni completely blasted to bits all false
knowledge concerning a spiritual hierarchy based on birth
circumstances and liberation through cultic ritual acts.
>> Please show me where you find the bija mantras
>> used in TM in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the
>> Brahma Sutras or Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.
There are bija mantras in the Atharva Veda and there is attached to
this Veda the Mān.d.ūkya Upanis.ad. in which Sri Gaudapada comments on
the prananva. In fact, the great sentence from the Atharva Veda
contains TM bija mantras "ayam ātmā brahma" - this self is brahman.
> I can easily find the bija mantras
> used in TM in the tantric traditions.
The bija mantras used in TM are meaningless sounds - they are not
intended to be associated with any particular idea or ideology.
They're just thought-tools to be used as aids to meditation. Shakya
the Muni and Patanjali both agreed on this. If Buddha and
Shankaracharaya had intended for us to propitiate the gods and
demi-gods while we meditate by performing ritual acts, they would have
said so, would they not?
> Yet you argue Guru Dev wasn't a tantric?
It depends on what you mean by the term tantric - if by that term you
mean someone who practices ritualized magical group coitus, he was
not. Guru Dev may or may not have owned a Sri Chakra, but from all
reports he was a Siddha Yogi of the Nath lineage, i.e. Gorakshanatha,
the founder of Hatha Yoga sect. According to Professor Coplin, author
of Origins of the SRF, Guru Dev was a member of the Ramamanadi sect of
Aydhoya. Sannysins of Guru Dev's stature usually don't go around
playing with fire and sacrificing small animals, you know hwat I mean?
> The mantras of TM are DIRECTLY related to Sri Vidya.
The TM mantras originated with the Eighty-four Mahasiddas of the sixth
century Buddhist era - the Sri Vidya cult came much later following
the Gupta age and the age of the sects - Shaivaism, Vaisnavism,
Shaktism and after Chaitanya. According to my sources Guru Dev was a
nominal member of his family sect, the Ramanandis of Ayodyha. I've
seen no evidence that Guru Dev ever visited Karanataka or Tamil Nadu.
The main sources of the TM mantras are:
First, Tibetan translations of Indian sources on the lives of the
Mahasiddhas; such as Abhyabhatta's work and those of Buddhaguptanatha.
Second, Tibetan traditions about the lives of the Mahasiddhas; such as
Taranatha's works.
Third, Indic manuscripts with isolated stanzas of vernacular
Mahasiddha songs in them. Some of these songs are called "diamond
songs" and some are isolated dohas as in the case of the dohas of
Saraha in the Hevajratrantra. A doha is a rhyming couplet akin to a
haiku and contained bija mantras.
Fourth, a single Indic manuscript of caryapata songs in olfd Brahmi
and a Sanskrit and a Tibetan commentary on this text. The name of this
language varies according to scholars and is also spoken of sometimes
as Old Hindi, or Old Bengali. The term caryapada means songs of
action, such as the "Queen dohas" attributed to Saraha which is extant
only in Tibetan.
Tibetan translations of tantric works predate many Hindu tantras,
according to Swami Ageananda Bharati. In my opinion, Guru Dev was
following the Vijnana Buddhist path, similar to the practices of the
Buddhist Yogacara conciousness only sect. Apparently, Guru Dev was an
adept yogi as well and I suspect he had strong ties to the Nath
Siddhas around Gorakpur.
I've spoken to three direct desciples of Guru Dev and none of them
confirmed that Guru Dev was a tantric who worshiped the Sri Vidya.
James Duffy
I'll check it out next time I'm there. On a more "curious" note, you
wrote:
>I became aware of "Walking with a Him. Master from one of Willytex's
list - thank you
> Willy!
I can only guess then that WillyTex, despite recommending the "sequel"
book, doesn't accept what Swami Rama wrote of his encounter with Guru
Dev. For WillyTex took great exception to what I'd recently written
about Guru Dev practicing Sri Vidya, yet it is 110% confirmed in Swami
Rama's account of his PERSONAL, DIRECT contact with Guru Dev. The rest
of my info on Guru Dev's practices comes from individuals who spent
many years in northern India throughout the '60's. Most of the info
coming from Tat Walla Baba. But back to Swami Rama's "Living with the
Himalayan Masters". For those not possessing the book, I would like to
share a few paragraphs from the chapter on Guru Dev called "The Wave
of Bliss":
"....in a holy place called Vindhyachal, there lived many Shakti
worshippers. Traveling toward the forests of Rewa State, I went to the
Satana forest and there met a swami who was very handsome and highly
educated in the Vedantic and yoga traditions. He knew the scriptures
and was a very brilliant sadhaka (spiritual practitioner)......"
"During our conversations he started talking to me about Sri Vidya,
the highest of paths...."
"It is a path which joins raja yoga, kundalini yoga, bhakti yoga, and
advaita Vedanta....."
"Swami Brahmananda was one of the rare siddhas who had the knowledge
of Sri Vidya."
"One thing very attractive about his way of teaching was his
combination of the bhakti and advaita systems"
"Swami Brahmananda had a Sri Yantra made out of rubies, and as he
showed it to me, he explained the way he worshipped it."
I hope this brings some clarity to the topic. And WillyT....so much
for my comments being "clap trap".
james
hu...@yogaelements.com (mhutchinson) wrote in message news:<9ef6b08e.03042...@posting.google.com>...
willytex
> being "clap trap".
James - That's right, clap-trap - I don't ascribe to 'tantric' sex-cult
proclivities in the name of spirituality. Some so-called 'tantrics' sure
like to paint with a large brush don't they? And, just how would you be
knowing about a secret 'tantric' cult down in Karnataka anyway? All this
clarifies is that you read a book by a Swami Rama, who is a convicted rapist
and sex pervert.
I don't think Guru Dev had anything to do with a Shakti cult and I don't
believe a word that Swami Rama said. I have very strong doubts that Swami
Rama was really a Swami or a one-time Shankaracharya. Apparently, nobody has
even heard of him in India. In fact, the Swami Rama has given Indian
spiritualty a black eye, not-with-standing his interesting book writing
proclivities.
You need to get some smarts, James - if you think anyone is going to buy
into believing that Guru Dev belonged to a cult that practiced sex magic,
you're just nuts, Sir.
Let's be reasonable - do you honestly think that Guru Dev, by all accounts a
lifelong celibate, would give speeches to the masses of Brahmins up in Kasi
extolling the non-dual Brahman and Adwaita, and then retire to a dark cave,
get down on his hands and knees, lubricate a linga with ghee, mumble a bunch
of nonsense syllables, then snooze the rest of the day with fantasy visions
of a sixteen year-old virgin dalit girl with a magic circle diagram under
her butt?
If this is your idea of Guru Dev's religion, you're mixed-up, man. Get
real - you're way over the top on this one. Your insinuation is baseless and
totally without merit. Guru Dev a 'tantric' - just a lusty old geezer with a
foot fetish, who worshipped a South Indian fallen Buddhist, female fertility
yakshi spirit named Dampa?
I don't think so - it's pure clap trap. Swami Rama? Zen Master Rama? Get
real.
Myth #4:
The Catholic Church is alone in covering up instances of sexual misconduct
of its clergy.
Institutions, with very few exceptions, tend to circle the wagons to protect
its own. Take the case of Swami Rama, an Indian yogi who came to this
country in 1969. In 1974, yoga students accused the swami of inappropriate
sexual behavior, falsification of his background, and financial
improprieties.
But it wasn't until legal action was taken 20 years later--two civil
lawsuits were filed against the swami, against the Himalayan Institute (an
organization he founded), and against three institute officials--that his
organization was forced to seriously deal with complaints of his sexual
misconduct.
Testimony from depositions indicates that one of the defendants, Rudolph
Ballentine, M.D.--a member of the institute's board of directors in the
1970s and institute president from 1987 to 1993--received verbal reports and
letters describing instances of sexual contact between the swami and female
disciples for years. In case after case, he discounted the allegations based
on the swami's denials and his own judgments about the character and
motivations of those reporting the abuse.
When Swami Rama died before the case came to trial, the prosecution dropped
charges against him and the officials, but won a judgement against the
Institute, which was forced to pay almost $2 million in compensatory and
punitive damages.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/101/story_10199.html
Woman wins $1.8M for lecherous swami
http://www.rickross.com/reference/swami_rama/swami_rama1.html
"James Duffy" <jaduf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb894cbd.03042...@posting.google.com...
Michael
out to "collect mantras". That is maybe the reason why Guru Dev showed
him the yantra - because it has lots of mantras on it. I have no doubt
that Guru Dev knew all about Sri Yantra, and in fact might have known
a lot about many traditions. But I find the idea absurd, that he was
daily sitting there in front of his yantra, invoking all the 10
aspects of the deity, performing all those rituals and nyasas you are
so font of. Anyone who is fairly enlightened will find all these
exercises completely unecessary, nay even disturbing. What is the use
of invoking deities, even minor aspects of them, inviting them to your
body parts, when you see God everywhere? In such a state, even the
slightest thought serves as an invokation. I might want to read in the
diaries of Krishnamurthy, that he purposely avoided to talk of God, as
even the mention of the name "Buddha" was calling in His presence. I
have no problem if you say, that at a time during his sadhana he might
have practised the worship of the yantra, but to declare that this as
his ultimate teaching is simply ubsurd. Rather I think that his
teaching was mainly, as the Swami mentioned a combination of Bhakti
and Advaita. Btw. just fyi, Sri Vidya is not pure Advaita in the sense
of Shankara. It asumes Shakti to be a real force in creation. It is
based on the union of Shiva and Shakti. No doubt though that Guru Dev
was an Advaitin in the sense of Shankara, i.e. advocating pure
nonduality. I am also quite certain that he taught the Sri Vidya
mantras for meditation. Also one should note, that Bhakti, like
Advaita, does not stress on ritualism, but rather on purity of the
heart and simplicity. The simplicity part is at the very core of TM. I
am quite sure that TMers through their practise develope Bhakti.
Others might want to comment on this. (If you don't, I can't help
you). I think that Swami Ramas book is more about revealing "secret
practises" than portraying the personalities of the saints he visited.
So the emphazise of Sri Vidya in the case of Guru Dev has IMHO more
to do with the purpose of his book, which relates the most phantastic
stories, and probably had Yoganandas Autobiography as a model
.
jaduf...@hotmail.com (James Duffy) wrote in message news:<fb894cbd.03042...@posting.google.com>...
James Duffy
DO NOT HAVE A CLUE WHAT SRI VIDYA IS (or tantra in general)....and
frankly, you're making a fool of yourself to anyone who does...but
please...go ahead and knock yourself out. Everyone you (like most of
the pro-TMers on this newsgroup) disagree with...you respond with
personal attacks...or the fundamentalist two-step. It's sad. For you,
as a MMY supporter, to talk about an individual giving a "black-eye to
Indian spirituality" is particularly outrageous. MMY has warrants out
for his arrest in the US, he's been kicked out of India more than
once, Switzerland is / was investigating him, so he split to Holland
(what did he have to hide??), MMY has been accused of sexual exploits
as well.....and ..... he is the most commercialized, mass marketing,
wanna-be guru there is....yet THAT doesn't bother you. I can only
say..."wow".
But as an attempt to get things out of the gutter......Tat Walla Baba
also described Guru Dev's teachings as a blend of bhakti and
Advaita...and that Guru Dev did, indeed, personally practice Sri Vidya
in the Samaya tradition.... as MOST do in the Shankaracharya tradition
btw, which you seem entirely unaware of. You know Bhagavan Das... ASK
HIM! Do you know Swami Ramananda (BD's longtime friend)?....ASK HIM!
They were both at the bhakti bash you attended....and they can set you
straight. You might also want to ask them whom they and many others
believe is responsible for Tat Walla Baba's murder in 1975...but that
takes us back into the gutter...
I know of two other individuals who spent time in India in the late
50's and 60's...and the same story of Guru Dev is repeated, but with
much more detail. I won't bother sharing any more since it's clearly
pointless. It's not a secret that Guru Dev initiated people based on
their istadevata (personal deity)...and WOULD NOT UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES ACCEPT A SINGLE RUPEE ($). MMY initiates based on the
individual's age and a $2,500. fee...uhhh.....pray tell WillyTex,
which do you find more "spiritual"???
WillyT, you catagorized tantra as a "sex-cult", so I ask you:
Ammachi is a tantric.....does she lead a 'tantric' sex-cult in your
opinion? Karunamayi is a tantric...does she lead a 'tantric' sex-cult
in your opinion? Shree Maa is a tantric....does she lead a 'tantric'
sex-cult in your opinion? Swami Laksmanjoo was a tantric...did he lead
a 'tantric' sex-cult in your opinion? Sri Ramakrishna was a
tantric...did he lead a 'tantric' sex-cult in your opinion? Ramana
Maharshi participated in worship of the Sri Yantra that HE HAD
INSTALLED at his mother's shrine....was Ramana actually part of a
secret sex-cult WillyT? Are you at least beginning to see how
completely and utterly absurd your views are???
Regarding your:
>And, just how would you be
> knowing about a secret 'tantric' cult down in Karnataka anyway?
If I thought you had a sincere interest in understanding tantra...what
my practices are...or where I learned and from whom....I would share
that with you happily. Clearly that sincere interest is absent...so
I'll pass.
Jai Ma!
Jai Jagadambe!
Om Sri Maha Tripurasundaryai namah!
james
"willytex" <will...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<n6OdnR2uJOc...@texas.net>...
Jeff Ridley
> believe is responsible for Tat Walla Baba's murder in 1975...but that
> takes us back into the gutter...
It was the summer of '74. I was at Queens University in Kingston Ontario
attending an ATR and symposium which included Buckminster Fuller and
Marshall McLuhan and of course MMY. The news of Tat Walla Baba's murder
came. Maharishi told us not to think it was Tat's karma that he got whacked.
What else could it be, I wondered. Are you trying to insinuate that MMY had
Tat whacked? Why Tat? Any others besides Guru Dev and Tat?
Judy Stein
MMY has warrants out
> for his arrest in the US, he's been kicked out of India more than
> once, Switzerland is / was investigating him, so he split to Holland
> (what did he have to hide??), MMY has been accused of sexual exploits
> as well.....
Documentation for the above, please? (Yes, he lives in Holland
now--no need to document that.)
Stu
jri...@direct.ca wrote on 4/27/03 8:19 PM:
>
> James Duffy <jaduf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fb894cbd.03042...@posting.google.com...
>> You might also want to ask them whom they and many others
>> believe is responsible for Tat Walla Baba's murder in 1975...but that
>> takes us back into the gutter...
>
> It was the summer of '74. I was at Queens University in Kingston Ontario
> attending an ATR and symposium which included Buckminster Fuller and
> Marshall McLuhan and of course MMY.
Are we really to believe this flimsy alibi? One doesn't have to be Sherlock
Holmes here to see Jeff is just trying to throw us off track.
--
~Stu
Closet Detective
James Duffy
> If you read the rest of the book, you will notice, that Swami Rama was
> out to "collect mantras". That is maybe the reason why Guru Dev showed
> him the yantra - because it has lots of mantras on it.
Michael...I didn't take his "collecting mantras" in that light. I
think Swami Rama makes it quite clear he himself saw that attitude
toward mantras as immature.
> I have no doubt
> that Guru Dev knew all about Sri Yantra, and in fact might have known
> a lot about many traditions. But I find the idea absurd, that he was
> daily sitting there in front of his yantra, invoking all the 10
> aspects of the deity, performing all those rituals and nyasas you are
> so font of. Anyone who is fairly enlightened will find all these
> exercises completely unecessary, nay even disturbing.
This I totally disagree with...and it reflects a very dualistic
perspective imo. As I asked WillyT...I will ask you....Do you consider
Ramakrishna, Ammachi , Karunamayi, Shree Maa, Bhagavan Nityananda, etc
etc to be "fairly unenlightened" as you put it???...for they are/were
very fond of worship of form. To celebrate and honor the play of the
Divine through ritual in no way diminishes the Truth of Advaita. To
deny the divinity of form is very dualistic...which is a primary
reason I'm so fond of the Kashmir Saivite tradition. It is the
ultimate non-dual philosophy.
> What is the use
> of invoking deities, even minor aspects of them, inviting them to your
> body parts, when you see God everywhere?
WHY NOT? The sublime is more blissful. Try it...then talk to me about
it :)
> In such a state, even the
> slightest thought serves as an invokation.
I agree, but are there not gross to sublime manifestations? Mantra,
nyasa, etc are the most sublime forms of invocations. One does not
have to deny hierarchy of creation to embrace non-dual truth. This is
precisely what tantra is all about. Otherwise there's no difference
between Hitler and Guru Dev...cuz "All's One". "Boomeritis" in the
words of Ken Wilber. It's rampant in the westernization of the yogic
tradtions...ESPECIALLY ADVAITA. Please, please read Ken Wilber's
Boomeritis.
> I might want to read in the
> diaries of Krishnamurthy, that he purposely avoided to talk of God, as
> even the mention of the name "Buddha" was calling in His presence. I
> have no problem if you say, that at a time during his sadhana he might
> have practised the worship of the yantra, but to declare that this as
> his ultimate teaching is simply ubsurd.
I'm sorry, but I didn't say Guru Dev taught Sri Vidya (generally). The
path has many prerequisites, etc. Adikara is high for these practices.
> Rather I think that his
> teaching was mainly, as the Swami mentioned a combination of Bhakti
> and Advaita. Btw. just fyi, Sri Vidya is not pure Advaita in the sense
> of Shankara.
I feel there is ample evidence that Shankara, especially toward the
end of his life embraced Mother Divine and tantra. This is argued, no
doubt...by the othodox, right wing, hindus, but the man did build
shakti(goddess)temples...and that is pretty large hint. Though
disputed by some....most in the Shankaracharya tradition practice
samaya sri vidya and accept that he wrote several tantric texts
including Saundaryalahari, etc, etc.
>It asumes Shakti to be a real force in creation.
I could not agree more...and this is the key point. If shakti is
unreal and Shiva is real....we have the real and the unreal....that
adds up to two!....so much for non-dual Truth!!! Again, Kashmir
Saivism takes Advaita Vedanta that final, though small, very
PROFOUND, last step. Please study Kashmir saivism's system of 36
tattvas.
> It is
> based on the union of Shiva and Shakti. No doubt though that Guru Dev
> was an Advaitin in the sense of Shankara, i.e. advocating pure
> nonduality. I am also quite certain that he taught the Sri Vidya
> mantras for meditation.
Which side of the fence are you on? :) You want it both ways...which I
actually agree with(!), but yet you argue with me, because you, like
WillyT, feel advaita denies Shakti. If Advaita denies Shakti, then it
is dualistic. You say Guru Dev advocated "pure Advaita", but he also
taught the mantras of Sri Vidya??(which is absolutely true). We
agree... so, what would be the point of him teaching the mantras of
Goddesses...of the divine in form.... if he denied the reality of
Shakti (god in form) as you have stated? What I'm attempting to say
is... one in no way denies the other...otherwise you have dualism.
That's why you have SOOOO many non-dualists that also practice ritual,
etc.... if they are "enlightened" THERE IS NO CONFLICT. It is to honor
God...and there is tremendous bliss. There is no bliss in the
impersonal, transcendent, flat, unmoving state of Shiva. That's
precisely why creation exists, so Shiva can know it's own bliss.
Shakti is the mirror through which Shiva comes to know it's own
potential. Now the form is the formless...and the formless is form.
This is non-dual Truth....and the basis of tantra....to know and
celebrate the formless through the form.
take care,
james
PS: Though there are dualistic schools of tantra too.
>Also one should note, that Bhakti, like
> Advaita, does not stress on ritualism, but rather on purity of the
> heart and simplicity. The simplicity part is at the very core of TM. I
> am quite sure that TMers through their practise develope Bhakti.
> Others might want to comment on this. (If you don't, I can't help
> you). I think that Swami Ramas book is more about revealing "secret
> practises" than portraying the personalities of the saints he visited.
> So the emphazise of Sri Vidya in the case of Guru Dev has IMHO more
> to do with the purpose of his book, which relates the most phantastic
> stories, and probably had Yoganandas Autobiography as a model
>
James Duffy
well documented that Ramana Maharshi....(without a doubt, one of the
greatest advaitin, non-dualists ever)....was very fond of quoting the
Tripura Rahasya. The text is considered a great treatise on non-dual
philosophy...but WillyT...guess what..... it's a SHAKTA scripture. For
anyone interested...you can order the text through Ramana Maharshi's
website ramana-maharshi.org where they describe the text by saying,
"this ancient Sanskrit work on Advaita philosophy that was very
popular with the Maharshi." Ramana Maharshi recommending Shakta texts
as representative of Advaita?....WillyT...from what you've been
saying,how can this be?!? Georg Feuerstein, on his website, also
comments on this shakta text, and Ramana's love for it. Here's one
quote from Georg on the Tripura Rahasya:"In a style similar to the
voluminous Yoga-Vāsishtha, the Tripura-Rahasya makes use of didactic
stories to illustrate Shākta metaphysics and spirituality: The world
is regarded as an image projected onto the screen of consciousness.
Behind it looms the infinite reality of the Goddess, who is our
ultimate essence." Talk of Ramana Maharshi, Advaita, the Yoga Vasistha
and the Goddess as our "ultimate essence"...without there being any
contradiction...I must say, I find it "refreshing".
Also... for those who wish to look further into Shankara's history
with Sri Vidya, I highly recommend starting with researching
Shankara's installation of the Sri Yantra at Kanchipuram. The Sri
Vidya temple there also has a major shrine to Shankara. Plus, Shankara
and the Shankaracharya Math at Sringiri...a major shakta / tantric
pithe.
james
Jeff Ridley
Stu <nos...@no.spam> wrote in message news:BAD2AA6F.1CE61%nos...@no.spam...
> in article vap7dlp...@corp.supernews.com, Jeff Ridley at
> jri...@direct.ca wrote on 4/27/03 8:19 PM:
>
> >
> > James Duffy <jaduf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:fb894cbd.03042...@posting.google.com...
> >> You might also want to ask them whom they and many others
> >> believe is responsible for Tat Walla Baba's murder in 1975...but that
> >> takes us back into the gutter...
> >
> > It was the summer of '74. I was at Queens University in Kingston Ontario
> > attending an ATR and symposium which included Buckminster Fuller and
> > Marshall McLuhan and of course MMY.
>
> Are we really to believe this flimsy alibi? One doesn't have to be
Sherlock
> Holmes here to see Jeff is just trying to throw us off track.
> --
> ~Stu
> Closet Detective
You make jokes. But all the while your little hero, the guy who sold you his
"ancient rediscovered" meditation technique (actually just generic japa) is
being made the target of aspersions, insinuations and broad hints attempting
to portray him as some kind of gangster style godfather who doesn't hesitate
to whack those who, for whatever reason, he deems should be whacked; and in
the meantime is busy extorting exorbitant sums of cash from his dwindling
victim...er, I mean customer base; has a warrant out for his arrest in the
USA; has been thrown out repeatedly from India; ditto (though only once)
from Switzerland; and, in short (no pun intended), is far, far worse than
just the patently obvious fraud that all of humanity (with a few exceptions)
regard him as. James Doofus, whilst pretending to be above the gutter, is
not above a little carefully timed and intentionally vague inuendo when it
suits him. And you make jokes.
Stu
jri...@direct.ca wrote on 4/29/03 10:36 PM:
>
> Stu <nos...@no.spam> wrote in message news:BAD2AA6F.1CE61%nos...@no.spam...
>> in article vap7dlp...@corp.supernews.com, Jeff Ridley at
>> jri...@direct.ca wrote on 4/27/03 8:19 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> James Duffy <jaduf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fb894cbd.03042...@posting.google.com...
>>>> You might also want to ask them whom they and many others
>>>> believe is responsible for Tat Walla Baba's murder in 1975...but that
>>>> takes us back into the gutter...
>>>
>>> It was the summer of '74. I was at Queens University in Kingston Ontario
>>> attending an ATR and symposium which included Buckminster Fuller and
>>> Marshall McLuhan and of course MMY.
>>
>> Are we really to believe this flimsy alibi? One doesn't have to be
> Sherlock
>> Holmes here to see Jeff is just trying to throw us off track.
>> --
>> ~Stu
>> Closet Detective
>
> You make jokes.
Yes.
> But all the while your little hero, the guy who sold you his
> "ancient rediscovered" meditation technique (actually just generic japa) is
> being made the target of aspersions, insinuations and broad hints attempting
> to portray him as some kind of gangster style godfather who doesn't hesitate
> to whack those who, for whatever reason, he deems should be whacked; and in
> the meantime is busy extorting exorbitant sums of cash from his dwindling
> victim...er, I mean customer base; has a warrant out for his arrest in the
> USA; has been thrown out repeatedly from India; ditto (though only once)
> from Switzerland; and, in short (no pun intended), is far, far worse than
> just the patently obvious fraud that all of humanity (with a few exceptions)
> regard him as. James Doofus, whilst pretending to be above the gutter, is
> not above a little carefully timed and intentionally vague inuendo when it
> suits him. And you make jokes.
Yes.
--
~Stu
Still making jokes.
James Duffy
> Stu <nos...@no.spam> wrote in message news:BAD2AA6F.1CE61%nos...@no.spam...
> > in article vap7dlp...@corp.supernews.com, Jeff Ridley at
> > jri...@direct.ca wrote on 4/27/03 8:19 PM:
> >
> > >
> > > James Duffy <jaduf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:fb894cbd.03042...@posting.google.com...
> > >> You might also want to ask them whom they and many others
> > >> believe is responsible for Tat Walla Baba's murder in 1975...but that
> > >> takes us back into the gutter...
> > >
> > > It was the summer of '74. I was at Queens University in Kingston Ontario
> > > attending an ATR and symposium which included Buckminster Fuller and
> > > Marshall McLuhan and of course MMY.
> >
> > Are we really to believe this flimsy alibi? One doesn't have to be
> Sherlock
> > Holmes here to see Jeff is just trying to throw us off track.
> > --
> > ~Stu
> > Closet Detective
>
> not above a little carefully timed and intentionally vague inuendo when it
> suits him.
Jeff...I'm not pretending to be above getting into the gutter, simply
attempting to acknowledge when I'm knee deep! Secondly, I don't think
my comment was particularly vague at all....and thirdly, lighten up
dude!!
james
Michael
> ..... But all the while your little hero, the guy who sold you his
> "ancient rediscovered" meditation technique (actually just generic japa)....
To say that TM is generic japa, is like saying Zen is generic counting.
Michael
> > If you read the rest of the book, you will notice, that Swami Rama was
> > out to "collect mantras". That is maybe the reason why Guru Dev showed
> > him the yantra - because it has lots of mantras on it.
>
> Michael...I didn't take his "collecting mantras" in that light. I
> think Swami Rama makes it quite clear he himself saw that attitude
> toward mantras as immature.
The Swami Rama who went to Guru Dev was still a seeker, and he had a
Guru already. He was after "secret teachings" no doubt, and thats what
GD attended to.
> > I have no doubt
> > that Guru Dev knew all about Sri Yantra, and in fact might have known
> > a lot about many traditions. But I find the idea absurd, that he was
> > daily sitting there in front of his yantra, invoking all the 10
> > aspects of the deity, performing all those rituals and nyasas you are
> > so font of. Anyone who is fairly enlightened will find all these
> > exercises completely unecessary, nay even disturbing.
>
> This I totally disagree with...and it reflects a very dualistic
> perspective imo.
I am sayng this because its my experience.
> As I asked WillyT...I will ask you....Do you consider
> Ramakrishna, Ammachi , Karunamayi, Shree Maa, Bhagavan Nityananda, etc
> etc to be "fairly unenlightened" as you put it???
No.
...for they are/were
> very fond of worship of form. To celebrate and honor the play of the
> Divine through ritual in no way diminishes the Truth of Advaita.
It's your stress on ritual which I am suspicious of. Not devotion to a
personal God. I already said that I believe that GD combined Bhakti
and Jnana.
>To
> deny the divinity of form is very dualistic...which is a primary
> reason I'm so fond of the Kashmir Saivite tradition. It is the
> ultimate non-dual philosophy.
I don't say its wrong. I just say that it is different from Shankara
Advaita.
> > What is the use
> > of invoking deities, even minor aspects of them, inviting them to your
> > body parts, when you see God everywhere?
> WHY NOT? The sublime is more blissful. Try it...then talk to me about
> it :)
As I said, I am talking from experience. Thats what made me respond in
the first place. When you are overwhelmed by the Divine in the
marketplace (and what better proof for omnipresence would there be)
then it becomes profane going to the temple (and utter
"omnipresence").
> > In such a state, even the
> > slightest thought serves as an invokation.
>
> I agree, but are there not gross to sublime manifestations?
Sure
> Mantra,
> nyasa, etc are the most sublime forms of invocations. One does not
> have to deny hierarchy of creation to embrace non-dual truth. This is
> precisely what tantra is all about.
I am not saying that Tantra is bad. What I am atually saying is that
"elements" of tantra are used in different traditions, within a
different context. In Shankaras teaching a differentiation is being
made between "higher" and "lower" knowledge. Therefore, when Advaitins
worship, they do it within this context. When an enlightened worships,
he may do it, to set an example, or out of habbit, or because it is
his/her last vice :-)
Otherwise there's no difference
> between Hitler and Guru Dev...cuz "All's One". "Boomeritis" in the
> words of Ken Wilber. It's rampant in the westernization of the yogic
> tradtions...ESPECIALLY ADVAITA. Please, please read Ken Wilber's
> Boomeritis.
I don't have time to read it, but I think I know what you mean.
> > I might want to read in the
> > diaries of Krishnamurthy, that he purposely avoided to talk of God, as
> > even the mention of the name "Buddha" was calling in His presence. I
> > have no problem if you say, that at a time during his sadhana he might
> > have practised the worship of the yantra, but to declare that this as
> > his ultimate teaching is simply ubsurd.
>
> I'm sorry, but I didn't say Guru Dev taught Sri Vidya (generally). The
> path has many prerequisites, etc. Adikara is high for these practices.
Then I misunderstood you. And then consequently much of your criticism
of TM as "diluted Tantra" is invalid.
> > Rather I think that his
> > teaching was mainly, as the Swami mentioned a combination of Bhakti
> > and Advaita. Btw. just fyi, Sri Vidya is not pure Advaita in the sense
> > of Shankara.
>
> I feel there is ample evidence that Shankara, especially toward the
> end of his life embraced Mother Divine and tantra. This is argued, no
> doubt...by the othodox, right wing, hindus, but the man did build
> shakti(goddess)temples...and that is pretty large hint.
As I said, Shankara spoke of a "higher" and a "lower" knowledge.
Shankara actively supported bhakti. But his conspceptual framework
wasn't Shri Vidhya, but the Smarta practise, which allows for the
worship of any of the 6 major deities (Ganesh, Sun, Vishnu, Shiva,
Shakti, Kartikeya) as equally representing the highest Brahman in
form. That's different from Shri Vidhya. That is also what is
purportedly the teaching of GD.
>Though
> disputed by some....most in the Shankaracharya tradition practice
> samaya sri vidya and accept that he wrote several tantric texts
> including Saundaryalahari, etc, etc.
That's actually quite disputed by historians. I love the text, esp.the
beginning, but I don't believe its by Shankara. My favourate verse is
27: "Japo Jalpah Silpam..let my prattle be recitation of your name"
Actualy thats very much what I was trying to say anyway ;-)
> >It asumes Shakti to be a real force in creation.
>
> I could not agree more...and this is the key point. If shakti is
> unreal and Shiva is real....we have the real and the unreal....that
> adds up to two!....so much for non-dual Truth!!!
It's not that I disagree with you here philosophically, and its btw.
the main criticism of S.Aurobindo of Shankara. But its not Shankara
Advaita. What i object to is that you want to make GD as a
practitioneer of your brand of worship, while he is not. In that you
come across as very intolerant and fundamentalistic (which is not your
intention). You say: well this is his practise, and you are all doing
it wrong, while in reality you belong to quite a different tradition.
I don't object that you do what you do, but I told you why I couldn't
practise it. Its far too rigit for me.
Again, Kashmir
> Saivism takes Advaita Vedanta that final, though small, very
> PROFOUND, last step. Please study Kashmir saivism's system of 36
> tattvas.
Aurobindo would agree with you, but Shankara taught differently.
> > It is
> > based on the union of Shiva and Shakti. No doubt though that Guru Dev
> > was an Advaitin in the sense of Shankara, i.e. advocating pure
> > nonduality. I am also quite certain that he taught the Sri Vidya
> > mantras for meditation.
>
> Which side of the fence are you on? :)
I am on my side of the fence.
>You want it both ways...which I
> actually agree with(!), but yet you argue with me, because you, like
> WillyT, feel advaita denies Shakti.
Not really. There is no denial here. I am a Shakta myself. I just say
that Advaita, Shaktism, Kashmir Shaivaism and Shaiva Siddhanta of the
south are different approaches. Shri Vidya is more belonging to the
last two traditions. I don't disagree with you philosophically. But I
am also not into the ritualism of it. There is a time for everything.
> If Advaita denies Shakti, then it
> is dualistic. You say Guru Dev advocated "pure Advaita", but he also
> taught the mantras of Sri Vidya??(which is absolutely true). We
> agree... so, what would be the point of him teaching the mantras of
> Goddesses...of the divine in form.... if he denied the reality of
> Shakti (god in form) as you have stated?
He didn't and I didn't state he did. But he did it within the
Advaita/Smarta conceptual framework of the Shankara tradition.
>What I'm attempting to say
> is... one in no way denies the other...otherwise you have dualism.
> That's why you have SOOOO many non-dualists that also practice ritual,
> etc.... if they are "enlightened" THERE IS NO CONFLICT. It is to honor
> God...and there is tremendous bliss.
But the bliss is not dependent on anything, nor are you dpendent of
the Bliss
There is no bliss in the
> impersonal, transcendent, flat, unmoving state of Shiva. That's
> precisely why creation exists, so Shiva can know it's own bliss.
That's away to put it, a conceptual framework. In the end you have
bliss, you have no bliss, you don't have to think about "why". This is
on the level of theorizing.
> Shakti is the mirror through which Shiva comes to know it's own
> potential. Now the form is the formless...and the formless is form.
Sure
> This is non-dual Truth....and the basis of tantra....to know and
> celebrate the formless through the form.
But then there are infinite joices to do so, and really speaking, you
don't need to do anything.
> take care,
> james
>
> PS: Though there are dualistic schools of tantra too.
I have said anything against dualism.
Michael
> > If you read the rest of the book, you will notice, that Swami Rama was
> > out to "collect mantras". That is maybe the reason why Guru Dev showed
> > him the yantra - because it has lots of mantras on it.
>
> Michael...I didn't take his "collecting mantras" in that light. I
> think Swami Rama makes it quite clear he himself saw that attitude
> toward mantras as immature.
The Swami Rama who went to Guru Dev was still a seeker, and he had a
Guru already. He was after "secret teachings" no doubt, and thats what
GD attended to.
> > I have no doubt
> > that Guru Dev knew all about Sri Yantra, and in fact might have known
> > a lot about many traditions. But I find the idea absurd, that he was
> > daily sitting there in front of his yantra, invoking all the 10
> > aspects of the deity, performing all those rituals and nyasas you are
> > so font of. Anyone who is fairly enlightened will find all these
> > exercises completely unecessary, nay even disturbing.
>
> This I totally disagree with...and it reflects a very dualistic
> perspective imo.
I am sayng this because its my experience.
> As I asked WillyT...I will ask you....Do you consider
> Ramakrishna, Ammachi , Karunamayi, Shree Maa, Bhagavan Nityananda, etc
> etc to be "fairly unenlightened" as you put it???
No.
...for they are/were
> very fond of worship of form. To celebrate and honor the play of the
> Divine through ritual in no way diminishes the Truth of Advaita.
It's your stress on ritual which I am suspicious of. Not devotion to a
personal God. I already said that I believe that GD combined Bhakti
and Jnana.
>To
> deny the divinity of form is very dualistic...which is a primary
> reason I'm so fond of the Kashmir Saivite tradition. It is the
> ultimate non-dual philosophy.
I don't say its wrong. I just say that it is different from Shankara
Advaita.
> > What is the use
> > of invoking deities, even minor aspects of them, inviting them to your
> > body parts, when you see God everywhere?
> WHY NOT? The sublime is more blissful. Try it...then talk to me about
> it :)
As I said, I am talking from experience. Thats what made me respond in
the first place. When you are overwhelmed by the Divine in the
marketplace (and what better proof for omnipresence would there be)
then it becomes profane going to the temple (and utter
"omnipresence").
> > In such a state, even the
> > slightest thought serves as an invokation.
>
> I agree, but are there not gross to sublime manifestations?
Sure
> Mantra,
> nyasa, etc are the most sublime forms of invocations. One does not
> have to deny hierarchy of creation to embrace non-dual truth. This is
> precisely what tantra is all about.
I am not saying that Tantra is bad. What I am atually saying is that
"elements" of tantra are used in different traditions, within a
different context. In Shankaras teaching a differentiation is being
made between "higher" and "lower" knowledge. Therefore, when Advaitins
worship, they do it within this context. When an enlightened worships,
he may do it, to set an example, or out of habbit, or because it is
his/her last vice :-)
Otherwise there's no difference
> between Hitler and Guru Dev...cuz "All's One". "Boomeritis" in the
> words of Ken Wilber. It's rampant in the westernization of the yogic
> tradtions...ESPECIALLY ADVAITA. Please, please read Ken Wilber's
> Boomeritis.
I don't have time to read it, but I think I know what you mean.
> > I might want to read in the
> > diaries of Krishnamurthy, that he purposely avoided to talk of God, as
> > even the mention of the name "Buddha" was calling in His presence. I
> > have no problem if you say, that at a time during his sadhana he might
> > have practised the worship of the yantra, but to declare that this as
> > his ultimate teaching is simply ubsurd.
>
> I'm sorry, but I didn't say Guru Dev taught Sri Vidya (generally). The
> path has many prerequisites, etc. Adikara is high for these practices.
Then I misunderstood you. And then consequently much of your criticism
of TM as "diluted Tantra" is invalid.
> > Rather I think that his
> > teaching was mainly, as the Swami mentioned a combination of Bhakti
> > and Advaita. Btw. just fyi, Sri Vidya is not pure Advaita in the sense
> > of Shankara.
>
> I feel there is ample evidence that Shankara, especially toward the
> end of his life embraced Mother Divine and tantra. This is argued, no
> doubt...by the othodox, right wing, hindus, but the man did build
> shakti(goddess)temples...and that is pretty large hint.
As I said, Shankara spoke of a "higher" and a "lower" knowledge.
Shankara actively supported bhakti. But his conspceptual framework
wasn't Shri Vidhya, but the Smarta practise, which allows for the
worship of any of the 6 major deities (Ganesh, Sun, Vishnu, Shiva,
Shakti, Kartikeya) as equally representing the highest Brahman in
form. That's different from Shri Vidhya. That is also what is
purportedly the teaching of GD.
>Though
> disputed by some....most in the Shankaracharya tradition practice
> samaya sri vidya and accept that he wrote several tantric texts
> including Saundaryalahari, etc, etc.
That's actually quite disputed by historians. I love the text, esp.the
beginning, but I don't believe its by Shankara. My favourate verse is
27: "Japo Jalpah Silpam..let my prattle be recitation of your name"
Actualy thats very much what I was trying to say anyway ;-)
> >It asumes Shakti to be a real force in creation.
>
> I could not agree more...and this is the key point. If shakti is
> unreal and Shiva is real....we have the real and the unreal....that
> adds up to two!....so much for non-dual Truth!!!
It's not that I disagree with you here philosophically, and its btw.
the main criticism of S.Aurobindo of Shankara. But its not Shankara
Advaita. What i object to is that you want to make GD as a
practitioneer of your brand of worship, while he is not. In that you
come across as very intolerant and fundamentalistic (which is not your
intention). You say: well this is his practise, and you are all doing
it wrong, while in reality you belong to quite a different tradition.
I don't object that you do what you do, but I told you why I couldn't
practise it. Its far too rigit for me.
Again, Kashmir
> Saivism takes Advaita Vedanta that final, though small, very
> PROFOUND, last step. Please study Kashmir saivism's system of 36
> tattvas.
Aurobindo would agree with you, but Shankara taught differently.
> > It is
> > based on the union of Shiva and Shakti. No doubt though that Guru Dev
> > was an Advaitin in the sense of Shankara, i.e. advocating pure
> > nonduality. I am also quite certain that he taught the Sri Vidya
> > mantras for meditation.
>
> Which side of the fence are you on? :)
I am on my side of the fence.
>You want it both ways...which I
> actually agree with(!), but yet you argue with me, because you, like
> WillyT, feel advaita denies Shakti.
Not really. There is no denial here. I am a Shakta myself. I just say
that Advaita, Shaktism, Kashmir Shaivaism and Shaiva Siddhanta of the
south are different approaches. Shri Vidya is more belonging to the
last two traditions. I don't disagree with you philosophically. But I
am also not into the ritualism of it. There is a time for everything.
> If Advaita denies Shakti, then it
> is dualistic. You say Guru Dev advocated "pure Advaita", but he also
> taught the mantras of Sri Vidya??(which is absolutely true). We
> agree... so, what would be the point of him teaching the mantras of
> Goddesses...of the divine in form.... if he denied the reality of
> Shakti (god in form) as you have stated?
He didn't and I didn't state he did. But he did it within the
Advaita/Smarta conceptual framework of the Shankara tradition.
>What I'm attempting to say
> is... one in no way denies the other...otherwise you have dualism.
> That's why you have SOOOO many non-dualists that also practice ritual,
> etc.... if they are "enlightened" THERE IS NO CONFLICT. It is to honor
> God...and there is tremendous bliss.
But the bliss is not dependent on anything, nor are you dpendent of
the Bliss
There is no bliss in the
> impersonal, transcendent, flat, unmoving state of Shiva. That's
> precisely why creation exists, so Shiva can know it's own bliss.
That's away to put it, a conceptual framework. In the end you have
bliss, you have no bliss, you don't have to think about "why". This is
on the level of theorizing.
> Shakti is the mirror through which Shiva comes to know it's own
> potential. Now the form is the formless...and the formless is form.
Sure
> This is non-dual Truth....and the basis of tantra....to know and
> celebrate the formless through the form.
But then there are infinite joices to do so, and really speaking, you
don't need to do anything.
> take care,
> james
>
> PS: Though there are dualistic schools of tantra too.
I have said anything against dualism.
James Duffy
> > being "clap trap".
>
> James - That's right, clap-trap - I don't ascribe to 'tantric' sex-cult
> proclivities in the name of spirituality.
<SNIP>
WillyTex....This should settle things imo ...once and for
all....regarding the Shankaracharya tradition and Sri Vidya. You have
stated repeated, the two are not associated in any way whatsoever. If
so, then, please explain the following from a book called,"Jagadguru
Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati Mahaswami"
Mystic and Seer- A birth Centerary Offering by A.R. Natarajan. The
book is a tribute to the 34th. Pontiff (Shankaracharya) of the
Sringeri Math. The current Pontiff is the 36th. The 34th. Pontiff's
rein was from 1912 to 1953, so he was a contemporary of Guru Dev. The
33rd. was Sri Narasimha Bharati Mahaswami....making him a contemporary
of Guru Dev's Guru, Swami Krishanand.
To quote the book regarding the main deity of the Shankaracharya
Sringeri Math: "The principal deity, Saradambal, the Goddess of
Learning is a focus of a mighty spiritual force. Saradamba, by all
legendary accounts, is a deity of Kashmir who was literally brought
down to the south of India by Adi Shankara. He installed the idol made
of sandalwood on a Sri Chakra drawn by himself."
James: For clarity... here we have Shankara installing an IDOL of a
Goddess on a Sri Cakra (Sri Yantra) as the MAIN DEITY of the math. I
can only say, I wish I could have been there.
Moving forward, the 33rd. died before he could give all the
initiations to
the 34th. "Worship of Sri Chakra is a must for the Swamis of the
peetha. Normally the Srividya mantropadesa would be done by the guru.
Narasimha Bharati had passed away before his disciple arrived at
Sringeri. Hence the mantropadesa was done by Srikanta Sastri. He had
been initiated into it by Narasimha Bharati Mahaswami."
James: Just to emphasize....stated above, we have the Shankaracharya
of Sringeri not only initiating disciples into Sri Vidya
practices...but stating, "Worship of Sri Chakra is a must for the
Swamis of the peetha." Please note, not householders either, but
Swamis.
So WillyT...how do explain the above? or...the shrine to Shankara at
the Sri Vidya temple? or...the Sri Cakra (Sri Yantra) at the
Kanchipuram peeth? or... Swami Rama's direct, first hand account of
Guru Dev? etc, etc, etc. WillyT, my man, is EVERYONE in the
Shankaracharya tradition deluded? ...OR.... does this mean the past
Shankaracharyas, as you have stated "ascribe to 'tantric' sex-cult
proclivities in the name of spirituality"??? Personally....I don't
think so.
james
willytex
> to Shankara. Plus, Shankara and the Shankaracharya
> Math at Sringiri...a major shakta / tantric pithe.
James - You are incorrect - the Adi Shankara had nothing to do with the
founding of the Kanchi Peeth and Shankara had nothing to do with a 'Sri
Vidya' cult down in Karnataka. According to Vidyasankar Sundaresan, the
claims made by the Kanch Math are bogus, and the claim that the Adi Shankara
founded a Kanchi Matha in 500 B.C., with jurisdiction over the other four
mathas, is false. Therefore your claims concerning Guru Dev being a tantric
are also baseless and have no merit.
You need to get some smarts before you go posting false information on the
Internet, Sir.
Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
Thread: Mutt
Subject: The real history of the Kanchi Math.
Author: Willytex
Date: 12/12/2002
Real history of the Kanchi Math
By Vidyasankar Sundaresan
"The reality is that the Kanchi math is a relatively recent institution with
tall claims. That it has a large following is an undeniable fact. Every
saffron-robed person invariably attracts some following. Couple that with
the tremendous charisma that C.S. had, and a famous temple like the Kamakshi
temple in Kanchipuram - one has a ready-made formula for success in
attracting a following. The sad part is that the sannyasis involved take
advantage of the general reverence that people show them, for their own
ulterior motives.
In India, among south Indian Brahmin circles especially, when this topic
comes up for discussion, most people usually say something like, "The Kanchi
math is also doing so much for the cause of dharma. Why rake up this issue?"
My answer is that firstly it is the Kanchi math which forces one to rake up
the issue by ceaselessly continuing its propaganda of disinformation.
Secondly, and more importantly, an institution like the Kanchi math which
supposedly is doing so much for dharma, should not forget the most basic
dharma of all - satyam vada. People are free to choose their gurus, but when
the guru sets such a perniciously wrong example, by not sticking to the
truth, dharma itself is compromised."
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/alt_hindu_msg.html
willytex
Michael - It all depends on what you mean by bhakti and tantra. Neither you
nor James has defined the terms. Some people really like to paint with a
large brush, don't they? In fact, there is no evidence that the Adi Shankara
had anything to do with the 'bhakti movement'. If he had, he would have said
so, would he not? Certainly, if the Adi Shankara had been a Vaishnava in the
line of Chaitanya, he would have written a vartikka on Sri Chaitanya
Caritamrita, would he not?
Or, he would written a commentary on the Srimad Bhagwatam. If the only
evidence that Guru Dev worshipped Tripuri Sundari, is Swami Rama's book,
that's not very much to go on, is it? We already agreed that the Adi
Shankara didn't compose the Sound Arya La Hari, a hymn to Shakti.
The Adi Shankara and Shakya the Muni both proved that liberation from
samsara is not dependent on ritual acts. There are two darshanas, points of
view, which prove the adwaita position that reality is conciousness only.
What two?
The Adwaita of Sri Adi Shankaracharya and the Vijnanavada of Vasubandhu.
Many a ship of realism has crashed against the solid rock the powerful logic
of illusion. According to Pandit Chandrahar Sharma, no form of realism,
Eastern or Western, has been able to satisfactorily answer the fact of
illusion. To wit, if knowledge truly reveals the real, then how can their be
error or illusion in the first place? And, why do no two individuals
percieve the same exact object in exactly the same way?
If conciousness can create its content and project it as objective illusion,
hallucination, or dream, then it is logical to conclude that it can do the
same during the waking state.
In order to make statements concerning any 'powers' or 'forces' you'll find
yourself in the ego-centric predicament - we cannot know without knowing.
Percieved content is dependent on the act of perception. The object and it's
perception are always found together, hence the being of objects exists in
their being percieved. For example, we see a snake in the evening, coiled
rope in the morning; a thief in the night, fence post the next day; fool's
gold, mother-of-pearl, a hare's horn, double-vision, a barren woman's son,
etc. etc.
The notion of an object, existing in time and space, having an origin and a
will of it's own, being separate from the observer, is an illusion, maya. We
percieve mental qualities not substances; we percieve parts not the whole.
It would be illogical to presume that substances, which cannot be known,
could be the cause of mental experiences, would it not? Empirical data is
known through karma-samkaras, action-traces, which are in the mind. If
things are known through the mind, then how could objects be imagined
outside of the mind?
Are things really out there, or just inside our tiny brains?
Reference:
"The Adwaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy"
A Study of Adwaita in Buddhism, Vedanta, and Kashmira Shaivism
Chandrahar Sharma, M.A., D.Phil., D. Litt., Acharya
Formerly Professor of Philosophy
University of Jabalpur
(quotations from page 84)
"Michael" <han...@telda.net> wrote in message
news:c4b2aca1.03043...@posting.google.com...
Michael
Willy wrote:
"Michael - It all depends on what you mean by bhakti and tantra.
Neither you
nor James has defined the terms."
Willy, its hardly necessary to define Bhakti. Its the practise of
devotion as either a direct means, or as in Shankaras case, as a
preparation for God realization. You know where I got this idea, that
Shankara equally advocated devotion? It is written down in the preface
of "Love and God", a work attributed to MMY :-) Maharishi there makes
a case, that the Advaita teaching deteriorated, because it was taken
to be only onesided refering to the intellect. MMY makes clear that
Adishankara composed a number of devotional hymns, and established
several shrines and temples. Shankara thought that the common people
were not yet ready for the high teachings of Advaita. His works are
full of reverences that the adepts who are ready,had already mastered
the ritual part of the Vedas and were purified enough. As I already
mentioned he refers to the higher and the lower knowledge, the lower
knowledge being the preparation to gain the higher, and consisting all
the ritual portion of the Vedas. If Shankara had no interest in the
Vedas, he would hardly be regarded as the reviver of Hinduism amongst
all Hindus. I never said that Shankara had anything to do with tantra.
" Some people really like to paint with a large brush, don't they? In
fact, there is no evidence that the Adi Shankara had anything to do
with the 'bhakti movement'. If he had, he would have said so, would he
not? "
Well Willy, you give it a twist here. The Bhakti *movement* wasn't
existing then. According to MMY the Bhakti movement was a response to
the partial deterioration of the Vedanta movement, in becoming
onesidedly intelectual.
"Certainly, if the Adi Shankara had been a Vaishnava in the
line of Chaitanya, he would have written a vartikka on Sri Chaitanya
Caritamrita, would he not?"
Willy, this is a strawman.
"Or, he would written a commentary on the Srimad Bhagwatam."
I think he even critized it in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya, but not for
its Bhakti emphazise, but for its philosopic inconsistencies. (even
though I am not sure, if he was refering to the scripture, or simply
to the followers of he Bhagavata cult.)
"If the only evidence that Guru Dev worshipped Tripuri Sundari, is
Swami Rama's book, that's not very much to go on, is it?"
No. But yantras are so commonly spread amongs Hindu Sadhus, that it
really doesn't mean anything IMHO. I also found out, that wandering
Sadhus gather various practises on their way through India, that there
is indeed an exchange among Sadhus.
"We already agreed that the Adi Shankara didn't compose the Sound Arya
La Hari, a hymn to Shakti."
It has always been practise by sects to attribute their works to some
commonly accepted authority, to give it added credibility.
"The Adi Shankara and Shakya the Muni both proved that liberation from
samsara is not dependent on ritual acts."
No, but Shankara restricted his path to male recluses, who have gone
throught the necessary scriptural training.
<snipt many agreeable and thoughtful points about the world as
illusion here>
"The notion of an object, existing in time and space, having an origin
and a will of it's own, being separate from the observer, is an
illusion, maya. We
percieve mental qualities not substances; we percieve parts not the
whole. It would be illogical to presume that substances, which cannot
be known, could be the cause of mental experiences, would it not? "
Not according to Kant, who says exactly this. The "thing-in-itself" is
just this: an object which causes our experience of it without being
known itself. Ask Malenor.
"Empirical data is known through karma-samkaras, action-traces, which
are in the mind. If things are known through the mind, then how could
objects be imagined outside of the mind?"
They could be, why not? Like the objects, who are reflected in the
mirror could very well be outside the mirror itself. What Kant says is
that there is no way of knowing them "as they are", except through the
medium of our perceptual and mental tools, which recreate that object
within the mind. That image within the mind is really all we know.
But I think, that the question what is really outside (if there is
anything at all) is really irrelevent in a way, as any object, if it
is not consciousness itself, is always an object of consciousness, and
as such, it is really only a piece of information. An information,
that is not relevent to any consciousness is no information at all.
This brings us back to subjectivity.
But even if everything is only consciousness, the objects of
consciousness are real as just that. IOW when a person is dreaming,
you can see it in his brainwaves, and as Maharishi so aptly said, you
need a dream-gun to shoot the dream-tiger. When you go to leave the
Matrix, you still have to die within the Matrix. So the Matrix is
real, not from its content, but from the space of imagination it
provides. And I think James would agree, that is what Tantra is all
about. In Tantra objects are regarded as objects of consciousness
projected from inside out, and they are dealed with accordingly. Just
the emphazis is different: In Advaita it lies on the illusion side of
it, while Tantra concentrates on the force of projection. There are
indee many similarities between Advaita, Kashmere Shaivaism, and
Shaiva Siddhanta, but they are not identical. Which doesn't make Guru
Dev a tantric.
"Are things really out there, or just inside our tiny brains?"
Outside where? Inside where?
Judy Stein
<snip>
> Willy, its hardly necessary to define Bhakti. Its the practise of
> devotion as either a direct means, or as in Shankaras case, as a
> preparation for God realization. You know where I got this idea, that
> Shankara equally advocated devotion? It is written down in the preface
> of "Love and God", a work attributed to MMY :-)
Actually it's also in his preface to his Gita translation/
commentary, in some detail.
At one point MMY notes:
"[Shankara's] expressions of deep devotion made in the
state of complete surrender and oneness with God, and
his intellectual clarifications made in the state of
awareness of the divine nature, are both so full and
complete in themselves that, seen from the ordinary level
of consciousness, they appeared to present two independent
paths to enlightenment: the path of knowledge and the path
of devotion."
Michael
> > PS: Though there are dualistic schools of tantra too.
>
> I have said anything against dualism.
Correction: This should read
"I have NOT said anything against dualism."
( Meaning to say: I accept different perspectives as equally valid -
but not as equally useful at a given time - this includes Advaita )
James Duffy
> jaduf...@hotmail.com (James Duffy) wrote in message news:<fb894cbd.03042...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > If you read the rest of the book, you will notice, that Swami Rama was
> > > out to "collect mantras". That is maybe the reason why Guru Dev showed
> > > him the yantra - because it has lots of mantras on it.
Point taken, with a big "but" though...cuz Swami Rama said, he showed
me "how he worshipped it". This clearly implies Guru Dev involved in
the practice of Sri Vidya rather than just merely sharing some
intellectual knowledge of it. Yes?
> >
> > Michael...I didn't take his "collecting mantras" in that light. I
> > think Swami Rama makes it quite clear he himself saw that attitude
> > toward mantras as immature.
>
> The Swami Rama who went to Guru Dev was still a seeker, and he had a
> Guru already. He was after "secret teachings" no doubt, and thats what
ÿ GD attended to.
Sri Vidya is indeed a "secret teaching".
>
> > > I have no doubt
> > > that Guru Dev knew all about Sri Yantra, and in fact might have known
> > > a lot about many traditions. But I find the idea absurd, that he was
> > > daily sitting there in front of his yantra, invoking all the 10
> > > aspects of the deity, performing all those rituals and nyasas you are
> > > so font of. Anyone who is fairly enlightened will find all these
> > > exercises completely unecessary, nay even disturbing.
> >
> > This I totally disagree with...and it reflects a very dualistic
> > perspective imo.
>
> I am sayng this because its my experience.
But I have to ask, have you been initiated into any tantric practices
such as nyasas, etc? If so, please share by whom? For what deity, etc?
My point being, what experience of tantra do you have to base an
opinion on?
>
> > As I asked WillyT...I will ask you....Do you consider
> > Ramakrishna, Ammachi , Karunamayi, Shree Maa, Bhagavan Nityananda, etc
> > etc to be "fairly unenlightened" as you put it???
>
> No.
Thank you. And they are all non-dualists who practice(d) various
tantric practices.
>
> ...for they are/were
> > very fond of worship of form. To celebrate and honor the play of the
> > Divine through ritual in no way diminishes the Truth of Advaita.
>
> It's your stress on ritual which I am suspicious of. Not devotion to a
> personal God. I already said that I believe that GD combined Bhakti
> and Jnana.
I'm only stressing ritual because we are discussing the ritual of
worshipping a Sri Cakra in the context of Sri Vidya. I would ask….
Bhakti, devotion… to what? The formless, Absolute??? Why pray to the
impersonal Brahman...it has no ears to hear you!! :)
>
> >To
> > deny the divinity of form is very dualistic...which is a primary
> > reason I'm so fond of the Kashmir Saivite tradition. It is the
> > ultimate non-dual philosophy.
>
> I don't say its wrong. I just say that it is different from Shankara
> Advaita.
OK. :) There are differences between Shankara and Abhinavagupta's
Kashmir Saivism.
>
> > > What is the use
> > > of invoking deities, even minor aspects of them, inviting them to your
> > > body parts, when you see God everywhere?
>
> > WHY NOT? The sublime is more blissful. Try it...then talk to me about
> > it :)
>
> As I said, I am talking from experience. Thats what made me respond in
> the first place. When you are overwhelmed by the Divine in the
> marketplace (and what better proof for omnipresence would there be)
> then it becomes profane going to the temple (and utter
ÿ "omnipresence").
Profane? This sounds like "flatland, pluralism". No hierarchy, so
Hitler and Guru Dev are equally spiritual? No difference in being in a
strip club in Vegas and in the presence of a Siddha….? Please don't
misunderstand me…to be overwhelmed by the Divine in the marketplace
…to recognize the Divine regardless of circumstances, states of mind,
etc, etc…this is Sahaja Samadhi. I'm not pooh-poohing That!….only my
boomeritis meter is jumping. :)
>
> > > In such a state, even the
> > > slightest thought serves as an invokation.
> >
> > I agree, but are there not gross to sublime manifestations?
>
> Sure
>
> > Mantra,
> > nyasa, etc are the most sublime forms of invocations. One does not
> > have to deny hierarchy of creation to embrace non-dual truth. This is
> > precisely what tantra is all about.
> I am not saying that Tantra is bad. What I am atually saying is that
> "elements" of tantra are used in different traditions, within a
> different context. In Shankaras teaching a differentiation is being
> made between "higher" and "lower" knowledge. Therefore, when Advaitins
> worship, they do it within this context. When an enlightened worships,
> he may do it, to set an example, or out of habbit, or because it is
> his/her last vice :-)
Love this. This has been my point all along. Or maybe the enlightened
individual really digs it! A question though...what/who are the
advaitins worshipping? What does the worship look like?
>
> Otherwise there's no difference
> > between Hitler and Guru Dev...cuz "All's One". "Boomeritis" in the
> > words of Ken Wilber. It's rampant in the westernization of the yogic
> > tradtions...ESPECIALLY ADVAITA. Please, please read Ken Wilber's
> > Boomeritis.
>
> I don't have time to read it, but I think I know what you mean.
>
> > > I might want to read in the
> > > diaries of Krishnamurthy, that he purposely avoided to talk of God, as
> > > even the mention of the name "Buddha" was calling in His presence. I
> > > have no problem if you say, that at a time during his sadhana he might
> > > have practised the worship of the yantra, but to declare that this as
> > > his ultimate teaching is simply ubsurd.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I didn't say Guru Dev taught Sri Vidya (generally). The
> > path has many prerequisites, etc. Adikara is high for these practices.
>
> Then I misunderstood you. And then consequently much of your criticism
> of TM as "diluted Tantra" is invalid.
You lost me here. The mantras of TM are tantric. They are not
Vedic...which is why WillyT never responded to my request that he find
the mantras in ANY vedic context or scripture. Yet, the mantras of TM
are commonly known in the tantric traditions...and are throughout the
tantric scriptures…which I'm sure you are very aware of.
>
> > > Rather I think that his
> > > teaching was mainly, as the Swami mentioned a combination of Bhakti
> > > and Advaita. Btw. just fyi, Sri Vidya is not pure Advaita in the sense
> > > of Shankara.
> >
> > I feel there is ample evidence that Shankara, especially toward the
> > end of his life embraced Mother Divine and tantra. This is argued, no
> > doubt...by the othodox, right wing, hindus, but the man did build
> > shakti(goddess)temples...and that is pretty large hint.
>
> As I said, Shankara spoke of a "higher" and a "lower" knowledge.
> Shankara actively supported bhakti. But his conspceptual framework
> wasn't Shri Vidhya, but the Smarta practise, which allows for the
> worship of any of the 6 major deities (Ganesh, Sun, Vishnu, Shiva,
> Shakti, Kartikeya) as equally representing the highest Brahman in
> form. That's different from Shri Vidhya.
Let me get this straight. We have talk of six deities equally
representing the highest Brahman. Does this not illustrate an
acceptance of form as divine? Specifically, you mention the "worship"
of "Shakti" as being acceptable to Shankara....so please describe to
me, what this worship looks like? How is it performed? How did
Shankara perform / teach this "worship"? How is worshipping Shakti as
the highest Brahman different from Sri Vidya???!!!???
>That is also what is
> purportedly the teaching of GD.
Also, purported by whom?
>
> >Though
> > disputed by some....most in the Shankaracharya tradition practice
> > samaya sri vidya and accept that he wrote several tantric texts
> > including Saundaryalahari, etc, etc.
>
> That's actually quite disputed by historians. I love the text, esp.the
> beginning, but I don't believe its by Shankara. My favourate verse is
> 27: "Japo Jalpah Silpam..let my prattle be recitation of your name"
> Actualy thats very much what I was trying to say anyway ;-)
I agree that scholars can make a strong case that Shankara did not
write the four texts most commonly attributed to him by tantrics. The
fact remains though, that many, if not most, of the Shankaracharya
tradition embrace the practice of Sri Vidya and accept the texts as
valuable and authentic (though maybe not written by Adi Shankara).
>
> > >It asumes Shakti to be a real force in creation.
> >
> > I could not agree more...and this is the key point. If shakti is
> > unreal and Shiva is real....we have the real and the unreal....that
> > adds up to two!....so much for non-dual Truth!!!
>
> It's not that I disagree with you here philosophically, and its btw.
> the main criticism of S.Aurobindo of Shankara. But its not Shankara
> Advaita. What i object to is that you want to make GD as a
> practitioneer of your brand of worship, while he is not. In that you
> come across as very intolerant and fundamentalistic (which is not your
> intention). You say: well this is his practise, and you are all doing
> it wrong, while in reality you belong to quite a different tradition.
> I don't object that you do what you do, but I told you why I couldn't
> practise it. Its far too rigit for me.
I have several, as in 7, various sources that have confirmed to me
that Guru Dev practiced Sri Vidya. Unlike some, it doesn't suffice
for me to simply say, "uh, I don't believe it". It has also been my
aim to support this by showing that such a practice is not
inconsistent with the Shankaracharya tradition.(Please see my latest
post to WillyT). In my view, TMers like to think they are practicing
some great, esoteric teaching of the Shankaracharya tradition....when
in fact, it is a derivative....watered down version (and that's being
kind) of the traditional practice that involves those bija mantras.
As to my "intolerance", I hope(!) it's my lack of communication skills
to blame. I tried to make clear in my first post to WillyT, that in no
way whatsoever do I feel the practice of ritual is mandatory. I wrote
to WillyT that imo, ritual, etc is a choice made by some like myself,
to honor the Divine, and that if he does not choose to practice
ritual, he is, and I quote, "no lesser for it". With that said, to be
an "Advaitin" publicly and a "tantric" privately....is VERY common in
the traditions of Shankara and even Kashmir Saivism. Another example
of an Advaitin that sheds light on this topic is Nisargadatta
Maharaj….a personal fave. Though known as one of the great "pure"
advaitins….he was DIRECTLY in the lineage of the NATHS! Now you just
can't possibly get any more tantric than the Naths. Again, a great
example of how these "paths" are not exclusive of one another.
>
> Again, Kashmir
> > Saivism takes Advaita Vedanta that final, though small, very
> > PROFOUND, last step. Please study Kashmir saivism's system of 36
> > tattvas.
>
> Aurobindo would agree with you, but Shankara taught differently.
I don't believe Shankara's enlightenment is any different from
Aurobindo's. I think the so-called differences are mostly
semantics...and the by-product of Shankara having to deal with
Kapalikas, etc :) and possibly the hagiography of Shankara created by
the orthodox hindus.
>
> > > It is
> > > based on the union of Shiva and Shakti. No doubt though that Guru Dev
> > > was an Advaitin in the sense of Shankara, i.e. advocating pure
> > > nonduality. I am also quite certain that he taught the Sri Vidya
> > > mantras for meditation.
> >
> > Which side of the fence are you on? :)
>
> I am on my side of the fence.
>
> >You want it both ways...which I
> > actually agree with(!), but yet you argue with me, because you, like
> > WillyT, feel advaita denies Shakti.
>
> Not really. There is no denial here. I am a Shakta myself. I just say
> that Advaita, Shaktism, Kashmir Shaivaism and Shaiva Siddhanta of the
> south are different approaches. Shri Vidya is more belonging to the
> last two traditions. I don't disagree with you philosophically. But I
> am also not into the ritualism of it. There is a time for everything.
OK...but do I sense a…. "ritual" is a lesser , lower practice vibe?
This all reminds me of how Vivekananda, Saradananda, etc sanitized
Ramakrishna's teachings to support their Advaitin mission. The
"Gospel" is very sanitized. …but that's another topic for another day.
>
> > If Advaita denies Shakti, then it
> > is dualistic. You say Guru Dev advocated "pure Advaita", but he also
> > taught the mantras of Sri Vidya??(which is absolutely true). We
> > agree... so, what would be the point of him teaching the mantras of
> > Goddesses...of the divine in form.... if he denied the reality of
> > Shakti (god in form) as you have stated?
>
> He didn't and I didn't state he did. But he did it within the
> Advaita/Smarta conceptual framework of the Shankara tradition.
Wait, above you wrote " I am also quite certain that he taught the Sri
Vidya
mantras for meditation". Then here…"he didn't"…but then "he did".
Please choose. I would say that framework includes samaya Sri Vidya as
Guru Dev's teaching of the mantras of the Sri Vidya tradition
demonstrates.
>
> >What I'm attempting to say
> > is... one in no way denies the other...otherwise you have dualism.
> > That's why you have SOOOO many non-dualists that also practice ritual,
> > etc.... if they are "enlightened" THERE IS NO CONFLICT. It is to honor
> > God...and there is tremendous bliss.
>
> But the bliss is not dependent on anything, nor are you dpendent of
> the Bliss
If your point is....all states are just that... states...(even
nirvikalpa Samadhi)…..having a beginning and an end.... so are not the
Eternal Truth...cool. I would rather not jump ship into a discussion
of Atma Vichara at this point, though I do love it.
>
> There is no bliss in the
> > impersonal, transcendent, flat, unmoving state of Shiva. That's
> > precisely why creation exists, so Shiva can know it's own bliss.
>
> That's away to put it, a conceptual framework. In the end you have
> bliss. ….(unintentional snip! Sorry!) This is
> on the level of theorizing.
We are attempting to communicate what can't be communicated...the
second we open our mouths we're in duality. We're going into
Ramana-land now, which is fine, but not the topic at hand.
>
> > Shakti is the mirror through which Shiva comes to know it's own
> > potential. Now the form is the formless...and the formless is form.
>
> Sure
>
> > This is non-dual Truth....and the basis of tantra....to know and
> > celebrate the formless through the form.
>
> But then there are infinite joices to do so, and really speaking, you
ÿ don't need to do anything.
It seems to me one must be careful in these days of westernized,
Neo-Advaita…that "not doing" is "reality"…a doing.
>
> > take care,
> > james
> >
> > PS: Though there are dualistic schools of tantra too.
>
ÿ I have said anything against dualism.
Below I have included my latest post to WillyT on the Sringeri Math
which I feel sheds great light on this topic.
Thank you for your posts. They are informed and actually contribute to
the discussion…what a concept!
James
Jeff Ridley
Saying Zen is generic counting, is like saying TM is an ancient rediscovered
meditation technique.
Rediscovered or generic, samadhi cannot undo the bonds of ignorance.
Michael
> jaduf...@hotmail.com (James Duffy) wrote in message news:<fb894cbd.03042...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > If you read the rest of the book, you will notice, that Swami Rama was
> > > out to "collect mantras". That is maybe the reason why Guru Dev showed
> > > him the yantra - because it has lots of mantras on it.
"Point taken, with a big "but" though...cuz Swami Rama said, he showed
me "how he worshipped it". This clearly implies Guru Dev involved in
the practice of Sri Vidya rather than just merely sharing some
intellectual knowledge of it. Yes?"
It shows he knew how to worship it. It doesn't say, for how long he
did it, and how elaborate he was.
<snip>
>>> But I find the idea absurd, that he was
> > > daily sitting there in front of his yantra, invoking all the 10
> > > aspects of the deity, performing all those rituals and nyasas you are
> > > so font of. Anyone who is fairly enlightened will find all these
> > > exercises completely unecessary, nay even disturbing.
> >
> > This I totally disagree with...and it reflects a very dualistic
> > perspective imo.
>
> I am sayng this because its my experience.
"But I have to ask, have you been initiated into any tantric practices
such as nyasas, etc? If so, please share by whom? For what deity, etc?
My point being, what experience of tantra do you have to base an
opinion on?"
I am not making a statement about tantra here, but about Sahaja as you
call it. I assume that GD was in such a state. Invocations in such a
state a completely superflous, except if you do it in the context of
teaching sombody, or praying for someone. Otherwise watching TV is
just as good.
> > As I asked WillyT...I will ask you....Do you consider
> > Ramakrishna, Ammachi , Karunamayi, Shree Maa, Bhagavan Nityananda, etc
> > etc to be "fairly unenlightened" as you put it???
>
> No.
"Thank you. And they are all non-dualists who practice(d) various
tantric practices."
Thats a wrong conclusion. They have been practising pujas or doing
some worship, but not necessarily tantric. I don't know about
Karunamayi (she changed her name from Vijneshvari mayi, to be more
acceptable in the US!) or Shree Maa. Nityananda was an Avadhuta.
Ramakrishna had a "tantric phase", he practised many religions. To my
knowledge none of them was a tantric in particular. As i said, tantra
is pervading many practises, but that doesn't mean its tantra in
particular, the way you want to have it.
>
> ...for they are/were
> > very fond of worship of form. To celebrate and honor the play of the
> > Divine through ritual in no way diminishes the Truth of Advaita.
>
> It's your stress on ritual which I am suspicious of. Not devotion to a
> personal God. I already said that I believe that GD combined Bhakti
> and Jnana.
"I'm only stressing ritual because we are discussing the ritual of
worshipping a Sri Cakra in the context of Sri Vidya. I would ask
Bhakti, devotion to what? The formless, Absolute??? Why pray to the
impersonal Brahman...it has no ears to hear you!! :)"
You are mistaking me here. Of course you can have Bhakti when you are
enlightened. But you just don't find any need to invite Gods or
Goddeses into your various body-parts, or empower your chakras. That
would be simply absurd.
> >To
> > deny the divinity of form is very dualistic...which is a primary
> > reason I'm so fond of the Kashmir Saivite tradition. It is the
> > ultimate non-dual philosophy.
>
> I don't say its wrong. I just say that it is different from Shankara
> Advaita.
"OK. :) There are differences between Shankara and Abhinavagupta's
Kashmir Saivism."
Exactly.
> > > What is the use
> > > of invoking deities, even minor aspects of them, inviting them to your
> > > body parts, when you see God everywhere?
> > WHY NOT? The sublime is more blissful. Try it...then talk to me about
> > it :)
>
> As I said, I am talking from experience. Thats what made me respond in
> the first place. When you are overwhelmed by the Divine in the
> marketplace (and what better proof for omnipresence would there be)
> then it becomes profane going to the temple (and utter "omnipresence").
"Profane? This sounds like "flatland, pluralism".
But that's exactly how it is! In that state it doesn't make any
difference if you read a spiritual book or the instruction manual of
your washing machine. It's flat in the sense that everything is the
same. But its also blissful, so its not flat in that sense.
"No hierarchy, so Hitler and Guru Dev are equally spiritual?"
I haven't met Hitler yet in that state.
"No difference in being in a
strip club in Vegas and in the presence of a Siddha?"
Everywhere means everywhere. But then you are not very interested in
the strip anymore, cuz your kundalini is elsewhere. (No I am not
advocating to go to strip-clubs)
"Please don't misunderstand me to be overwhelmed by the Divine in the
marketplace to recognize the Divine regardless of circumstances,
states of mind, etc, etc this is Sahaja Samadhi. I'm not pooh-poohing
That!"
Good
."only my boomeritis meter is jumping. :)"
Then please note, that I am not advocating this as a practise, but
rather I am saying this refering to GD's state, which I assume was
higher than mine.
<snip>
> In Shankaras teaching a differentiation is being
> made between "higher" and "lower" knowledge. Therefore, when Advaitins
> worship, they do it within this context. When an enlightened worships,
> he may do it, to set an example, or out of habbit, or because it is
> his/her last vice :-)
"Love this. This has been my point all along. Or maybe the enlightened
individual really digs it! A question though...what/who are the
advaitins worshipping? What does the worship look like?"
Like his worship before. Ordinary puja would do, singing of bhajans in
a group, maybe even doing puja to a Shri Yantra. But why alone? To
empower himself? To empower his chakras with the presence of
Divinities? I guess there is a difference of worshipping God (well
with form, no problem) and trying to empower oneself as it is the case
in certain tantric practises. I guess nyasa would be one, unless its
done habitual, sort of obeying the formal tradition.
> > I'm sorry, but I didn't say Guru Dev taught Sri Vidya (generally). The
> > path has many prerequisites, etc. Adikara is high for these practices.
>
> Then I misunderstood you. And then consequently much of your criticism
> of TM as "diluted Tantra" is invalid.
"You lost me here. The mantras of TM are tantric."
No doubt, that was never a point of dispute.
" They are not Vedic..."
But the tradition is vedic. The energy of the tradition of masters is
what matters, not *only* the mantras.
<snip>
"Yet, the mantras of TM are commonly known in the tantric
traditions...and are throughout the
tantric scriptures which I'm sure you are very aware of."
Sure. But as I already told you, Tantra has infiltrated all of
Hinduism. And that is why you find tantric mantras are given as part
of mantra diksha in almost all traditions, which doesn't make these
traditions especially tantric. They still stay Vaishnavic, Shaivic or
whatever. The mantras are only one MEANS. They are not an END in
itself. (Like counting in Zen is only a means and not an end in
itself.)
> As I said, Shankara spoke of a "higher" and a "lower" knowledge.
> Shankara actively supported bhakti. But his conspceptual framework
> wasn't Shri Vidhya, but the Smarta practise, which allows for the
> worship of any of the 6 major deities (Ganesh, Sun, Vishnu, Shiva,
> Shakti, Kartikeya) as equally representing the highest Brahman in
> form. That's different from Shri Vidhya.
"Let me get this straight. We have talk of six deities equally
representing the highest Brahman. Does this not illustrate an
acceptance of form as divine?"
You are on the wrong track. I never doubted this.
"Specifically, you mention the "worship" of "Shakti" as being
acceptable to Shankara....so please describe to me, what this worship
looks like? How is it performed? How did Shankara perform / teach this
"worship"? "
If he found it acceptable, it didn't mean he taught it. He taught
Advaita, the END of knowlede. He accepted various ways of purification
done beforehand. But the texts indicate that these where mainly the
established vedic performances. All else is simply the propaganda of
the tantrics.
"How is worshipping Shakti as the highest Brahman different from Sri
Vidya???!!!???"
It could be Shri Vidya, it doesn't have to be. Calm down.
>That is also what is
> purportedly the teaching of GD.
Also, purported by whom?
GD= Guru Dev
"I agree that scholars can make a strong case that Shankara did not
write the four texts most commonly attributed to him by tantrics. The
fact remains though, that many, if not most, of the Shankaracharya
tradition embrace the practice of Sri Vidya and accept the texts as
valuable and authentic (though maybe not written by Adi Shankara)."
They do it within the context of the smarta worship. They equally
advocate devotion ala "Bhaja Govindam". When I visited Kanchi, the
Shankaracharya had me handed over a copy of Bhaja Govindam, and not
the Saundarya Lahari. Never mind, they did vedic rituals there all the
time. But then the tradition in the south is known to be much more
ritualistic then the one in the north. Northern Shankaracharyas are
more meditative I was told.
<snip>
>
> It's not that I disagree with you here philosophically, and its btw.
> the main criticism of S.Aurobindo of Shankara. But its not Shankara
> Advaita. What i object to is that you want to make GD as a
> practitioneer of your brand of worship, while he is not. In that you
> come across as very intolerant and fundamentalistic (which is not your
> intention). You say: well this is his practise, and you are all doing
> it wrong, while in reality you belong to quite a different tradition.
> I don't object that you do what you do, but I told you why I couldn't
> practise it. Its far too rigit for me.
"I have several, as in 7, various sources that have confirmed to me
that Guru Dev practiced Sri Vidya."
Nice for you. but then you don't mention them.
" Unlike some, it doesn't suffice
for me to simply say, "uh, I don't believe it". "
Gosh, you are hardheaded. I didn't really deny that he may have
practised Shri Chakra puja. After all he had a lot of time, and he
must have gone through various phases. But I explicitely deny that the
Shankaracharya tradition is tantric *in nature*, and that Guru Dev
taught Chakra Puja as a means to enlightenment. I know Sadhus who had
a ritualistic phase and then abundoned it all together. AND I JUST
CAN'T IMAGINE HE DID NYASA, WHEN HE WAS ANYWHERE CLOSE TO SAHAJA
SAMADHI. But yes, thats an assumption.
"It has also been my aim to support this by showing that such a
practice is not inconsistent with the Shankaracharya tradition."
Didn't say this. But its neither what the Shankaracharya tradition is
all about.
"(Please see my latest post to WillyT). In my view, TMers like to
think they are practicing some great, esoteric teaching of the
Shankaracharya tradition...."
Let me tell you one important point: A tradition of masters is not
just a set of mantras. Its an energetic thing. When you are initiated
by a master, he may do so in various ways, e.g. by giving you a bhija
mantra. This is very common(and you don't have to do nyasa for it).
This is a means to connect you with the energy-circuit of the
tradition. The mantras are thereby only a vehicle. The main teaching
is unspoken: it is only energetical, vibrational. That is why the
whole Hindu tradition lies such a great emphasis on being initiated by
a Guru of that tradition. In the case of TM this is the Shankara
tradition, as this is invoked by the teacher, and not any tantric
tradition or Goddess! Its enough to invoke it and it works as it has
been testified by inumerable people.
"when in fact, it is a derivative....watered down version (and that's
being kind) of the traditional practice that involves those bija
mantras."
You are enervingly intolerant! Bija mantras - yes essentially tantric
of origin are given in a lot of different traditions which have
nothing to do with tantra otherwise.
"As to my "intolerance", I hope(!) it's my lack of communication
skills
to blame. I tried to make clear in my first post to WillyT, that in no
way whatsoever do I feel the practice of ritual is mandatory. "
I am glad to hear this, but what does watered down mean then?
"I wrote to WillyT that imo, ritual, etc is a choice made by some like
myself,
to honor the Divine, and that if he does not choose to practice
ritual, he is, and I quote, "no lesser for it". With that said, to be
an "Advaitin" publicly and a "tantric" privately....is VERY common in
the traditions of Shankara and even Kashmir Saivism. Another example
of an Advaitin that sheds light on this topic is Nisargadatta
Maharaj….a personal fave. Though known as one of the great "pure"
advaitins….he was DIRECTLY in the lineage of the NATHS! Now you just
can't possibly get any more tantric than the Naths. Again, a great
example of how these "paths" are not exclusive of one another.
>
> Again, Kashmir
> > Saivism takes Advaita Vedanta that final, though small, very
> > PROFOUND, last step. Please study Kashmir saivism's system of 36
> > tattvas.
>
> Aurobindo would agree with you, but Shankara taught differently.
"I don't believe Shankara's enlightenment is any different from
Aurobindo's."
At least not in the interpretation of Maharishi.
"I think the so-called differences are mostly semantics...and the
by-product of Shankara having to deal with Kapalikas, etc :) "
I knew there are some bad guys
"and possibly the hagiography of Shankara created by the orthodox
hindus."
Now its the orthodox which are to blame, possibly for not accepting
what a great tantric he was. But guess what? You say he was a tantric,
Cold Blue wants him to be a dualistic Vaishnava, so I can see everyone
makes Shankara a proponent of his own cult. Poor Shankara, he can't
say a word to it!
> I don't disagree with you philosophically. But I am also not into the ritualism of it. There is a time for everything.
"OK...but do I sense a "ritual" is a lesser , lower practice vibe?"
No, not really. I had a ritual phase, but at one point it is over. And
I do mind, when you say, if you don't practise certain rituals, that
something is watered down. OTOH I have strongly objected against rouge
initiators who skip the puja.
<snip>
>
> > If Advaita denies Shakti, then it
> > is dualistic. You say Guru Dev advocated "pure Advaita", but he also
> > taught the mantras of Sri Vidya??(which is absolutely true). We
> > agree... so, what would be the point of him teaching the mantras of
> > Goddesses...of the divine in form.... if he denied the reality of
> > Shakti (god in form) as you have stated?
>
> He didn't and I didn't state he did. But he did it within the
> Advaita/Smarta conceptual framework of the Shankara tradition.
"Wait, above you wrote " I am also quite certain that he taught the
Sri
Vidya mantras for meditation". Then here "he didn't" but then "he
did"."
Sorry for your confusion here. He didn't deny the reality of Shakti,
and I didn't say he did(deny it). What made you assume so? When I for
example say, that there is no need to invoke God, I don't say there is
no God, right? It's only that you feel God to be already there, its so
simple. Why would you invoke a God who is already there? It is just
interfering of the ego with reality. As Krishnamurti said it, even
somebody mentioning Buddha made Buddha come already! Its not denying
him! Thats actually the reason why K couldn't speak about God. He
avoided it intentionally. ( Okay thats different for different people)
"Please choose. I would say that framework includes samaya Sri Vidya
as Guru Dev's teaching of the mantras of the Sri Vidya tradition
demonstrates."
That framework includes almost evrything, not just tantra. But always
from a non-dual perspective.
>
> >What I'm attempting to say
> > is... one in no way denies the other...otherwise you have dualism.
> > That's why you have SOOOO many non-dualists that also practice ritual,
> > etc.... if they are "enlightened" THERE IS NO CONFLICT. It is to honor
> > God...and there is tremendous bliss.
>
> But the bliss is not dependent on anything, nor are you dpendent of
> the Bliss
If your point is....all states are just that... states...(even
nirvikalpa Samadhi)..having a beginning and an end.... so are not the
Eternal Truth...cool. I would rather not jump ship into a discussion
of Atma Vichara at this point, though I do love it.
> There is no bliss in the
> > impersonal, transcendent, flat, unmoving state of Shiva. That's
> > precisely why creation exists, so Shiva can know it's own bliss.
>
> That's away to put it, a conceptual framework. In the end you have
> bliss. ….(unintentional snip! Sorry!) This is
> on the level of theorizing.
We are attempting to communicate what can't be communicated...the
second we open our mouths we're in duality. We're going into
Ramana-land now, which is fine, but not the topic at hand.
>
> > Shakti is the mirror through which Shiva comes to know it's own
> > potential. Now the form is the formless...and the formless is form.
>
> Sure
>
> > This is non-dual Truth....and the basis of tantra....to know and
> > celebrate the formless through the form.
>
> But then there are infinite joices to do so, and really speaking, you
˙ don't need to do anything.
"It seems to me one must be careful in these days of westernized,
Neo-Advaita that "not doing" is "reality" a doing."
Right, it's not what I meant to convey. It's the problem, as we were
primarily talking about Guru Devs state, which is of course not
applicable to everyone. Then I brought in some experience of mine, and
from that perspective made some conclusion. So Shiva and Shakti are
always there and are always connected. But you don't have to call them
like that. Both are there in every moment of the whole process.
Actually you cannot separate them. So you may not be aware of them,
yet still the process works. Tantra puts them into a system, a
graphical representation, with invocation, mantras etc. In my
experience these forces are very real. In fact, I know Kali better
than you might think! But I don't talk much about it.
<snip>
"Thank you for your posts. They are informed and actually contribute
to
the discussion what a concept!"
Sorry James, I may be harsh at times. But I also feel that you are a
bit intolerant sometimes. I am not trying to dissuade you from your
own practise or say it's inferior! In my POV everybody has his own
stage and speed of development. I found TM valuable in the past when I
practised it, and I will continue to say so. When I came in contact
with Mother Meera, I had a clear vision that all states are equal.
There is nothing superior or inferior. In my case this was important,
as I was until then always living with the movement, and I found it
difficult to accept the average, non-spiritual persons. I also had to
learn to not mind any atmosphere. I also do not want to show up or
boast with experiences here. I guess everybody has his/her own
experiences, and they are just as valuable to them as ours are to us.
James Duffy
> WillyT wrote:
> You need to get some smarts before you go posting false information on the
> Internet, Sir.
Well WillyT...since you feel I'm lacking in "smarts", I would like to
reference one of the foremost scholars in Indian spiritual
traditions. He is without a doubt, "smarter" than I. He is very
likely, THE foremost scholar of Shakta tantric traditions....I'm
speaking of Douglas Renfrew Brooks...author of "Auspicious Wisdom" and
"The Secret of the Three Cities". Hardly light reading! We must
recognize that scholarly work has come a LONG, LONG way in the last 15
years in terms of the traditions of India, especially in understanding
the massive influence of "tantra". In a previous post of mine...way
back when, you wisely acknowledged Douglas as an authority. Douglas'
work is highly acknowledged by Alexis Sanderson, Coburn, Ortega... and
all the leading scholars of Indian traditions. To further support my
earlier post regarding the Sringeri Math that explicitly showed the
Shankaracharya teaching Srividya practices...here are some quotes from
Douglas Brooks' books on the topic of the Shankaracharya tradition and
Srividya.
From "The Secret of the Three Cities":
p.273 referring to Shankara:
"From at least the fifteenth century, Shankara is clearly identified
with Srividya tradition and the contemporary Shankara mathas in both
North and South India support the belief that he was a Srividya adept
(but not solely a Srividya worshiper).
James: I can't imagine it stated any clearer!
After discussing a wide variey of issues and controversies surrounding
Shankara, his paramaguru Gaudapada, etc and Srividya, Brooks concludes
the section with the following:
From "Auspicious Wisdom":
p.50
"Precisely how and when the Shankara traditions adopted Shaktism
remains unknown, that they did is the crucial fact for post
eleventh-century Shankarites.
James: Though the above comes close!
From "Auspicious Wisdom":
p.xiv
"Srividya was created, elaborated and perpetuated by Sanskrit-literate
Hindus familiar with the most sophisticated forms of brahmanic
culture, that is, by male smarta brahmans, the self appointed
guardians of Vedic authority, ritual practice, culture and custom."
James: I include this quote epecially for Michael, since he made a
point of saying smarta brahmans (Shankara's folks) would never be
involved in Srividya practices. Clearly, that is mistaken...though I'm
sure many smartas wouldn't!
I also want to say that though Douglas Brooks and other scholars
acknowledge some of the issues regarding the Kanchipuram peeth that
WillyT has legitimately raised...they recognize the Kanchipuram peeth
as authentically representative of the Shankaracharya tradition. This
is made clear repeatedly.
My latest posts do not give any evidence that Guru Dev practiced
Srividya! What the posts do however...is prove that Guru Dev being a
Srividya practitioner would not be inconsistent with the
Shankaracharya tradition. That's huge...first, in rebutting the
arguments made against the idea on this newsgroup...but also giving
greater weight to Swami Rama's, Tat Walla Baba's and others' accounts
that Guru Dev was indeed a Srividya practitioner.
And finally....now Willy....is Douglas just spewing "clap trap"?
Careful...he's a friend of mine.
james
ColdBluICE
> <snip>
> James - You are incorrect - the Adi Shankara had nothing to do with the
> founding of the Kanchi Peeth and Shankara had nothing to do with a 'Sri
> Vidya' cult down in Karnataka. According to Vidyasankar Sundaresan, the
> claims made by the Kanch Math are bogus, and the claim that the Adi Shankara
> founded a Kanchi Matha in 500 B.C., with jurisdiction over the other four
> mathas, is false. Therefore your claims concerning Guru Dev being a tantric
> are also baseless and have no merit.
>
> You need to get some smarts before you go posting false information on the
> Internet, Sir.
>
> Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
> Thread: Mutt
> Subject: The real history of the Kanchi Math.
> Author: Willytex
> Date: 12/12/2002
>
> Real history of the Kanchi Math
> By Vidyasankar Sundaresan
Willytex - perhaps you'd do best to follow your master's highly
recommended sesame oil basti brainflush, before you post spurious
comments regarding the five Mathas established by Sri Adi Shankar
(509-476BC).
As for your baseless comments regarding Kanchi Kamkoti Peetham... we
can find (via a very simple web search) *HUNDREDS* of news articles
relating to this very ancient Peetham at Kanchi... see related news
clippings below
http://www.rediff.com/index.html
BJP supports Shankaracharya s efforts on Ayodhya Date: 02-05-2003
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/05ayo.htm
welcomes the sincere efforts" by Kanchi Shankaracharya to bring about
a dialogue between Hindus
Kanchi seer discuses conversions with evangelist Date: 02-05-2003
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/05kanchi.htm
day of his peace mission in New Delhi, Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra
Saraswati on Wednesday sought
Ayodhya land Centre moves SC to lift ban Date: 02-06-2003
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/05ayo1.htm
was taken immediately after Vajpayee met Kanchi Shankaracharya
Jayendra Saraswati on Tuesday. The
VHP RSS cannot speak on Ayodhya Kanchi seer Date: 02-18-2003
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/17ayo1.htm
Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati is peeved with the
VHP Muslim Board have no say in Ayodhya issue Date: 02-18-2003
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/18ayo1.htm
Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati on Tuesday dismissed
All should accept excavation outcome Kanchi seer Date: 03-11-2003
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/mar/11ayo1.htm
Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati said on Tuesday
SC sticks to Feb 21 date for Ayodhya case Date: 02-13-2003
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/13ayo.htm
Atal Bihari Vajpayee's meeting with the Kanchi shankaracharya, who had
last year played a crucial
Court summons Kanchi seer Date: 01-29-2003
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/jan/29tn1.htm
Vannur, Tamil Nadu, has issued summons to Kanchi Shankaracharya
Jayendra Saraswati asking him to appear
CPI M attacks Anand s support to POTA Date: 02-19-2003
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/19pota.htm
was raked up last March, he remarked, "Suddenly a shankaracharya came
to Delhi& 160;and a flurry of
The story of a sanyasi Date: 03-25-2003
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/mar/25spec.htm
Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal began his 50th year as Shankaracharya of
Kanchi last week S ixty-eight
rediff.com Kanchi Shankaracharya accused of making anti Dalit remarks
Date: 11-01-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/nov/01dalit.htm
court in Tamil Nadu against Kanchi Kamakoti Shankaracharya alleging
that the seer demeaned the
Kanchi Shankaracharya refuses to comment on Fernandes' visit Date:
02-03-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/feb/03satya1.htm
in Chennai Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, the Shankaracharya of
Kanchi Kamakoti Mutt, refused to
Kanchi Shankaracharya blesses Ambani Date: 06-27-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/27amb.htm
Kanchi Shankaracharya blesses Ambani The Shankaracharya
Badri shankaracharya wants a Ram temple at Ayodhya Date: 05-22-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/21ayo.htm
Badri shankaracharya wants a Ram temple at Ayodhya Syed
Cong leaders in Gujarat to organise 'sadhu sammelan' Date:
05-25-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/25train.htm
which will be attended among others by the shankaracharya of Dwarka,
in Gandhinagar in June.
rediff.com The Rediff Interview R Thirumalvalavan Date: 11-14-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/nov/14inter.htm
welcomed the ordinance and congratulated her: the shankaracharya [of
Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham], Hindu
Jayendra Saraswati to visit Ayodhya on Friday Date: 04-26-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/26ayo.htm
Pradhan in Lucknow Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, shankaracharya of
Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam, is reaching
Kanchi seer holds talks with Muslim leaders Date: 04-27-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/27ayo.htm
seer holds talks with Muslim leaders Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra
Saraswati held informal talks
RSS leaders meet Vajpayee over lunch Date: 04-29-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/28rss.htm
in the wake of Vajpayee's meeting with Shankaracharya Jayendra
Saraswati of the Kanchi Kamakoti
Capital Buzz, political gossip from the Delhi Durbar Date:
05-07-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/07buzz.htm
statement, where someone claiming to be a Shankaracharya had condemned
the Sangh Parivar and
Sangh Parivar meeting leads to speculation about D Date: 12-04-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/dec/04up.htm
was presided over by Swami Vasudevanand, the Shankaracharya of
Jyotirpeeth. But it was the presence
Sri Lankan PM arrives on three-day trip Date: 08-23-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/aug/23lanka.htm
where he is scheduled to call on the Kanchi Shankaracharya, Jayendra
Saraswati. From there, he
Buddhist monks demanding control of Bodh Gaya temple seek UN
intervention Date: 08-22-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/aug/22bihar.htm
All India Monks' Federation had asked Shankaracharya Jayendra
Saraswati of Kancheepuram
National executive of RSS begins Date: 06-29-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/29rss.htm
on the Ayodhya issue and mediation by Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra
Saraswati, sources said.
Shahi Imam shoots down Kanchi seer's proposal Date: 06-29-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/29abbas.htm
Bukhari, on Saturday ruled out talking to Kanchi Shankaracharya Swami
Jayendra Saraswati on the Ayodhya
Kanchi Seer against trifurcation of J&K Date: 07-05-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jul/05jk2.htm
Kanchi Seer against trifurcation of J&K Shankaracharya of Kanchi
Kamakoti Peetam Swami Jayendra
Kalam makes low-profile visit to Puttaparthi Date: 07-14-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jul/14prez.htm
Kancheepuram in Tamil Nadu for meeting the shankaracharya, and
Kanyakumari near his hometown Rameshwaram.
Nepalese King Gyanendra arrives in New Delhi Date: 06-24-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/23nep.htm
King Gyanendra will seek the blessings of the Shankaracharya of
Kamakoti who will reach Delhi especially
Hold J&K polls under President's rule: RSS Date: 07-01-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/30kash.htm
the mediatory role being played by the Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra
Saraswati in the Ayodhya dispute,
No need to involve VHP in Ayodhya issue: Kanchi seer Date:
06-26-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/26ayo1.htm
Kanchi seer Shahid K Abbas in New Delhi Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra
Saraswati on Wednesday said
AIMPLB not averse to talks With Kanchi Seer Date: 06-25-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/24jafri.htm
Law Board is not averse to talks with Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra
Saraswati on the Ayodhya issue.
VHP goes back on promise to abide by court verdict Date: 06-22-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/22vhp1.htm
was part of the peace initiative taken by Kanchi Shankaracharya Swami
Jayendra Saraswati. Togadia
The Week's Images Date: 07-09-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/28wk2.htm
King Gyanendra and his wife offer clothes to the Shankaracharya of
Kanchi Jayendra Saraswati after
VHP demands return of agreement letter Date: 06-25-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/25ayo1.htm
the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on Tuesday asked Kanchi Shankaracharya
Jayendra Saraswati to get back its
Death threat to Kanchi seer Date: 06-26-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/26kanchi.htm
town of Kancheepuram following death threats to Shankaracharya
Jayendra Saraswati. A letter, signed
The Week's Images Date: 03-09-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/08wk4.htm
in New Delhi on Tuesday, March 5, the senior shankaracharya of Kanchi,
Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal,
VHP demands enactment of law to resolve Ram temple issue Date:
06-16-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/16ram.htm
Meanwhile, in a bid to resolve the Ayodhya issue, Shankaracharya of
Kamakoti Jayendra Saraswati will
AIBMAC asks Kanchi seer to dissociate himself from VHP Date:
06-25-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/25ayo.htm
Masjid Action Committee on Tuesday asked the Shankaracharya of the
Kanchi Kamakoti Peeth Swami
VHP to review commitment to abide by court verdict Date: 06-19-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/19vhp.htm
Bihari Vajpayee following mediation by the Kanchi Shankaracharya Swami
Jayendra Saraswati between the
Kanchi seer in Delhi to find solution to Ayodhya issue Date:
06-25-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jun/24ayo.htm
Delhi to find solution to Ayodhya issue Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra
Saraswati arrived in Delhi
RSS to decide on Ayodhya issue on March 15 Date: 03-11-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/11ayo11.htm
the government prior to the entry of the Kanchi Shankaracharya into
the scene, would also discuss
Kanchi Seer sends written proposal to Muslim Board Date: 03-09-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/09ayo7.htm
to Muslim Board In a significant move, Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra
Saraswati on Saturday sent
My arrest would not be in anyone's interest: Singhal Date:
03-12-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/11ayo7.htm
there was no mention of the apex court in the Shankaracharya of
Kanchi's formula for resolution
Ayodhya crisis may have cost the nation Rs 800 million Date:
03-19-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/19ayo2.htm
motion a process of negotiation with the Kanchi Shankaracharya
Jayendra Saraswati at its head. All
The Rediff Interview/The Kanchi Shankaracharya, His Holiness Sri
Jayendra Saraswati Date: 03-22-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/22inter.htm
Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal The shankaracharya of Kanchi, His Holiness
Sri Jayendra
The Week's Images Date: 03-09-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/08wk3.htm
Meeting Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, senior shankaracharya of the
Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, with
Arvind Lavakare on the Sangh Parivar's failure to understand the law
on Ayodhya Date: 03-19-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/19arvind.htm
1998 work out that sum till last week, though the Shankaracharya of
Kanchi has quickly arrived at seven
Allies warn PM over temple issue Date: 03-07-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/06ayo3.htm
court is of paramount importance." With Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra
Saraswati on Tuesday ostensibly
VHP commitment positive: Muslim Law Board Date: 03-07-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/07ayo4.htm
pull out of the peace moves initiated by Kanchi Shankaracharya after
VHP leader Acharya Giriraj Kishore
Muslim Board agrees to consider proposal Date: 03-06-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/05ayo2.htm
disputed site. The proposal was made by Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra
Saraswathi at a meeting he
VHP denies proposal to resolve Ayodhya dispute Date: 03-06-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/05ayo.htm
this cause. He pointed out that both the senior shankaracharya of
Kanchi, Swami Jayendra Saraswati,
Centre to ease restrictions in Ayodhya Date: 03-08-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/08ayo.htm
The meeting was attended among others by Kanchi Shankaracharya Sri
Jayendra Saraswati, Bharatiya Janata
VHP has no role to play in Ayodhya issue: Shankaracharya Date:
03-07-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/07ayo3.htm
VHP has no role to play in Ayodhya issue: Shankaracharya The Vishwa
Hindu Parishad has
Ayodhya peace moves suffer another blow Date: 03-07-2002
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/07ayo.htm
a temple on the "undisputed land." "Either the Shankaracharya was
misleading us or the VHP has backed
Searched pages from hinduonnet.com for shankaracharya.
Results 1 - 10 of about 152. Search took 0.09 seconds.
The Hindu : Shankaracharya in Ayodhya
... National Shankaracharya in Ayodhya. ... The Shankaracharya, during
his brief stay,would meet leaders of both the communities and assess
their views...
www.hinduonnet.com/2002/04/27/ stories/2002042704351100.htm
- 12k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu : Shankaracharya wants pressure on Afghan regime
... Other States | Previous | Next Shankaracharya wants pressure on
Afghan
regime. By Our Staff Reporter. NEW DELHI, MAY 25. Lambasting ...
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/ 05/26/stories/14262182.htm
- 7k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu : Philosopher and saint in the true sense
...SRI CHANDRASEKHARENDRA Saraswati Swamigal, the 68th Shankaracharya
of the Kanchi Math, also known as "Maha Periaval" and "Mahaswami" by
other appellations, was ...
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2003/
01/03/stories/2003010301550800.htm
- 18k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu : VHP will abide by court verdict: Kanchi Acharya
..The Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam, Jayendra Saraswathi,
with Muslim leaders during their meeting on Ayodhya in New Delhi on
Tuesday. ...
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/03/ 06/stories/2002030603000100.htm
- 18k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu : Dharmacharyas absent
..Dharam Sansad' spokesman, Swami Chinmayanand, announced grandly that
the `sansad' would be inaugurated in the afternoon today by the
Shankaracharya of Kanchi..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/ 01/20/stories/02200008.htm
- 8k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu : Saturday, April 27, 2002
..Shankaracharya in Ayodhya AYODHYA, APRIL 26.The Kanchi
Shankaracharya, Jayendra Saraswati, arrived here today to hold talks
with Hindus and Muslims as part of...
www.hinduonnet.com/2002/04/27/02hdline.htm
- 13k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu: Govt. still hopeful of solution
..to Ayodhya after the All India Muslim Personal Law Board politely
but firmly said no to the Ayodhya-related proposals of the Kanchi
Shankaracharya and the..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/03/ 11/stories/2002031106020100.htm
- 13k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu: India should display its strength
..The Shankaracharya of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Jayendra
Saraswathi, said
on Saturday that India should display its ability and strength and
prevent..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/05/ 26/stories/2002052603340400.htm
- 12k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu: VHP willing to give three months' time to Govt.
..For this it enlisted the help of the Shankaracharya of Kanchi
Kamakoti Peetam, Jayendra Saraswati, who met the Prime Minister, AB
Vajpayee, late today..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/03/ 05/stories/2002030507400100.htm
- 14k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu: Karnataka — a trekkers' paradise
..a trail leads to the towering Kodachadri peak where a temple complex
and a monument called Sarvagnya Peeta, the seat where Shankaracharya
attained divine..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mag/2002/
09/01/stories/2002090100440800.htm
- 26k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu: Keep politics out of Ayodhya row, says Kanchi seer
.. Vijayawada July 1. The Shankaracharya of Kanchi, Swami Jayendra
Saraswathi, has asserted that the Ayodhya dispute is purely a
religious issue, that can be best..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/07/ 02/stories/2002070204400400.htm
- 13k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu: Keeping the pot boiling
..Neither the Shankaracharya of Puri, nor Sringeri, nor the
Jyotishpeeth, not even the Varanasi Srimath head, Ramanandachari
Ramnareshacharya, will participate..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/ 01/14/stories/05141341.htm
- 13k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu: 'Ice lingam' worshipped
..The Shankaracharya of Kanchipuram Math, Sri Jayendra Saraswati,
visited
the shrine on Wednesday and offered prayers. The Shankaracharya..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/ 06/29/stories/0129000h.htm
- 6k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu: Bhavan's journal
..More than 80 persons including Sri Jayendra Saraswati of Kanchi
Kamakoti Peetam, Sri Dayananda Saraswati, Swami Ranganathananda, the
Shankaracharya of Sringer..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2002/
08/30/stories/2002083001000200.htm
- 13k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu : Wednesday, February 05, 2003
... 4. The one-on-one meeting of the Shankaracharya of Kanchi,
Jayendra Saraswati, with the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee,
this evening has once again..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2003/02/05/
- 16k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu: VHP for division of Kashmir
..The VHP international working president, Ashok Singhal, said he
would meet the Kanchi Shankaracharya in New Delhi on June 25 and urge
him to take back from the..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/06/ 24/stories/2002062405220100.htm
- 14k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu: VHP attacks Fernandes on Ram temple issue
..He did not pay heed to even the Kanchi Shankaracharya's plea to
convince the National Democratic Alliance allies on the issue,'' he
told presspersons at the..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/06/ 09/stories/2002060903451000.htm
- 12k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu :Friday, January 03, 2003
..Philosopher and saint in the true sense SRI CHANDRASEKHARENDRA
Saraswati Swamigal, the 68th Shankaracharya of the Kanchi Math, also
known as "Maha Periaval..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2003/01/03/
- 23k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu: India for Indians
..I am proud of those Hindus, like the Shankaracharya of Kanchi, who
say
that Hindus and Muslims must live like Ram and Lakshman in India..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mag/2002/
04/28/stories/2002042800260300.htm
- 18k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu : Highly deplorable
..Sir, — It is sad that the Shankaracharya of Kanchi Mutt, Jayendra
Saraswathi,
has said that even after 50 years of Independence, religious
conversions are
..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/10/ 09/stories/2002100901051001.htm
- 11k - Cached - Similar pages
The Hindu: Sants won't take holy bath
... The protesters, led by the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath, Swami
Swaroopanand Saraswati, and Swami Nischalanand Saraswati of Puri, said
this was only the..
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2003/02/ 02/stories/2003020203641000.htm
- 14k - Cached - Similar pages
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/search
Section : Panaji
Date : Tuesday, April 22, 2003
Kanchi Seer emphasises Hindu-Muslim unity
Source : TIMES NEWS NETWORK
PANAJI: Kanchi seer shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswathi has said that
the solution to the Ayodhya issue lay in dialogue with Muslim leaders
and not excavation. "The Supreme Court's verdict on carrying out
excavation through the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) at the
disputed Ayodhya site is a supreme judicial pronouncement. To my guess
this effort will turn not reall...
Section : India
Date : Tuesday, March 5, 2002
Congress mum on Shankaracharya's proposal
Source : TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: The Congress is maintaining a studied silence on the
"compromise formula" put forward by Swami Jayendra Saraswathi, the
shankaracharya of Kanchipuram, to resolve the ongoing Ayodhya tangle.
Taking the plea that the Congress was not a party to this dispute,
party spokesperson S Jaipal Reddy chose not to dwell on the
Shankaracharya's proposals. "There are so many proposals being su...
Section : India
Date : Friday, June 28, 2002
Kanchi seer opposes VHP demand for J&K division
Source : PTI
MUMBAI: shankaracharya of Kanchi Mutt Jayendra Saraswati on Friday
opposed the VHP's demands for division of Jammu and Kashmir into four
parts and lifting of Article 370. "Unless the state is free from
terrorists and declared a warfree zone, it is not advisable to fulfil
the demands of VHP", the shankaracharya said here. "Terrorists are
still present in the area and Muslim population is do...
Section : India
Date : Thursday, June 27, 2002
Nepal King seeks Shankaracharya's blessings
Source : TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: Nepal's King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah paid his first visit
after ascending the throne to the official ‘Rajguru' of the Nepalese
monarchy, the Kanchi shankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, at New
Delhi's Kamakshi Temple on Wednesday. Queen Komal Rajya Lakshmi and
daughter Prerana accompanied the King. Amidst the beating of drums and
playing of nadaswarams, the royal family pai...
Section : India
Date : Saturday, April 27, 2002
Kanchi seer holds talks with Muslim leaders
Source : PTI
AYODHYA: As part of attempts to revive dialogue with the Muslim
community on the Ayodhya issue, Kanchi shankaracharya Jayendra
Saraswati held informal talks with local Muslim leaders here on Friday
night.
He told reporters here on Saturday that there was a frank exchange of
views during the meeting and he received encouraging response from the
Muslim leaders for creating a conducive atmosph...
Section : India
Date : Wednesday, March 6, 2002
No commitment to abide by court verdict: VHP
Source : TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: The Kanchi Shankaracharya's compromise formula is running
into roadblocks already, with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad clarifying on
Wednesday that it had not committed to abide by a court verdict in the
Ayodhya case, only assured that status quo would be maintained till
the judgment. Read this story in...
Section : India
Date : Tuesday, March 5, 2002
Kanchi seer offers new peace formula for temple
Source : TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: After a series of whirlwind meetings with central
ministers, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Muslim leaders, Swami
Jayendra Saraswati, the shankaracharya of Kanchipuram — the latest
mediator on the Ayodhya issue — said that the VHP had agreed to await
the verdict of the of the Supreme Court on the disputed site.
Section : India
Date : Tuesday, March 5, 2002
Advani meets Shankaracharya
Source : PTI
NEW DELHI: Home Minister L K Advani on Tuesday met the shankaracharya
of Kanchi and discussed with him the current imbroglio in the wake of
VHP's plans to perform a puja and move carved pillar stones near the
disputed site in Ayodhya.
The meeting lasted lasted 45 minutes but Advani refused to disclose
anything.
Section : India Date : Thursday, March 7, 2002 PM meets Kanchi seer,
Sangh Parivar heads on Ayodhya Source : PTI NEW DELHI: Hours after VHP
gave a written commitment to abide by the court verdict on the
disputed land in Ayodhya, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on
Thursday night held a crucial meeting with mediator Kanchi
shankaracharya and senior BJP and Sangh Parivar leaders in a bid to
resolve the imbroglio.
willytex
Michael - To say that TM is generic meditation is to say that TM is Zen.
There is no counting in Zen; that would tend to keep the meditator on the
concious thinking level.
willytex
Jeff - But, in a previous post you claimed that there was no such thing as
'nirvana' and that the practice of TM does 'nothing'. Which statement is
true? So, now you're claiming a 'samadhi' state for the practice of Zen? Go
figure.
What, exactly, is 'samadhi' anyway? Are we bound? If. so, by what means can
we free ourselves? If not bound, is there any need for yoga?
Jeff Ridley
> What, exactly, is 'samadhi' anyway? Are we bound? If. so, by what means
can
> we free ourselves? If not bound, is there any need for yoga?
We all try to avoid what is unpleasant and seek what is pleasant. We are all
bound, but if what we are bound to is pleasant, it won't occur to us to free
ourselves. If what we are bound to is unpleasant, will we seek freedom from
it. In all the millenia that people have lived on this planet, we still
haven't figured out a way to turn an unpleasant life experience into a
pleasant one, with any consistency. Existentialists say there is a core
anxiety that will never go away. I believe this is probably true for most
people, but maybe not absolutely everyone; some may possess natural joie de
vivre. I don't. I have a core anxiety that, to date, hasn't gone away.
Having tried yoga - if MMY's yoga is really that - I believe it is
absolutely useless.
James Duffy
> han...@telda.net (Michael) wrote in message news:<c4b2aca1.03043...@posting.google.com>...
> > jaduf...@hotmail.com (James Duffy) wrote in message news:<fb894cbd.03042...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > > If you read the rest of the book, you will notice, that Swami Rama was
> > > > out to "collect mantras". That is maybe the reason why Guru Dev showed
> > > > him the yantra - because it has lots of mantras on it.
>
> "Point taken, with a big "but" though...cuz Swami Rama said, he showed
> me "how he worshipped it". This clearly implies Guru Dev involved in
> the practice of Sri Vidya rather than just merely sharing some
> intellectual knowledge of it. Yes?"
>
> It shows he knew how to worship it. It doesn't say, for how long he
> did it, and how elaborate he was.
True, but why would he bother practicing something of no value?OR...
teaching something he didn't believe had value?
>
> <snip>
> >>> But I find the idea absurd, that he was
> > > > daily sitting there in front of his yantra, invoking all the 10
> > > > aspects of the deity, performing all those rituals and nyasas you are
> > > > so font of. Anyone who is fairly enlightened will find all these
> > > > exercises completely unecessary, nay even disturbing.
> > >
> > > This I totally disagree with...and it reflects a very dualistic
> > > perspective imo.
> >
> > I am sayng this because its my experience.
>
> "But I have to ask, have you been initiated into any tantric practices
> such as nyasas, etc? If so, please share by whom? For what deity, etc?
> My point being, what experience of tantra do you have to base an
> opinion on?"
>
> I am not making a statement about tantra here, but about Sahaja as you
> call it. I assume that GD was in such a state. Invocations in such a
> state a completely superflous, except if you do it in the context of
> teaching sombody, or praying for someone. Otherwise watching TV is
> just as good.
I knew it! :) "Boomeritis" city...as you make even clearer later...see
below. Why hang with Mother Meera versus Hitler? Jerry Falwell and
Mother Meera are exactly the same. They're all the same..it's All
One". Everyone is realized...can't you tell? This is a mockery of
Advaita teachings. Advaita does not deny hierarchy. You do. Please ask
Mother Meera if it's ok with her for you to do anything you
wish...since of course, there are no do's or don'ts. Uh, I don't think
so. Andrew found Mother Meera to have a strong sense of "right and
wrong". BTW, do you know my friend, John Raatz?
>
> > > As I asked WillyT...I will ask you....Do you consider
> > > Ramakrishna, Ammachi , Karunamayi, Shree Maa, Bhagavan Nityananda, etc
> > > etc to be "fairly unenlightened" as you put it???
> >
> > No.
>
> "Thank you. And they are all non-dualists who practice(d) various
> tantric practices."
>
> Thats a wrong conclusion. They have been practising pujas or doing
> some worship, but not necessarily tantric. I don't know about
> Karunamayi (she changed her name from Vijneshvari mayi, to be more
> acceptable in the US!)
Michael...come on ...be fair...she did no such thing. I've got the
flyer right in front of me. It's simply a name of endearment ...and a
lot easier for everyone to say than Sri Sri Sri Vijayeswari Devi. Same
with Ammachi, my Guru...whose name is Sri Mata Amritanandamayi Devi.
I'm personally thankful for the "easy version" :)
or Shree Maa. Nityananda was an Avadhuta.
> Ramakrishna had a "tantric phase", he practised many religions. To my
> knowledge none of them was a tantric in particular. As i said, tantra
> is pervading many practises, but that doesn't mean its tantra in
> particular, the way you want to have it.
You are contradicting yourself above. Plus, Ramakrishna until the end
of his life said, "Neti, neti" is NOT the highest...and saw the world
as a "mansion of fun"....that is a tantric world view.
> >
> > ...for they are/were
> > > very fond of worship of form. To celebrate and honor the play of the
> > > Divine through ritual in no way diminishes the Truth of Advaita.
> >
> > It's your stress on ritual which I am suspicious of. Not devotion to a
> > personal God. I already said that I believe that GD combined Bhakti
> > and Jnana.
>
> "I'm only stressing ritual because we are discussing the ritual of
> worshipping a Sri Cakra in the context of Sri Vidya. I would ask
> Bhakti, devotion to what? The formless, Absolute??? Why pray to the
> impersonal Brahman...it has no ears to hear you!! :)"
>
> You are mistaking me here. Of course you can have Bhakti when you are
> enlightened. But you just don't find any need to invite Gods or
> Goddeses into your various body-parts, or empower your chakras. That
> would be simply absurd.
Post realization....I agree there's no "need" per se, but that doesn't
mean one wouldn't do it as a celebration of the Divine. We have major
examples of just such individuals!!
>
> > >To
> > > deny the divinity of form is very dualistic...which is a primary
> > > reason I'm so fond of the Kashmir Saivite tradition. It is the
> > > ultimate non-dual philosophy.
> >
> > I don't say its wrong. I just say that it is different from Shankara
> > Advaita.
>
> "OK. :) There are differences between Shankara and Abhinavagupta's
> Kashmir Saivism."
>
> Exactly.
>
> > > > What is the use
> > > > of invoking deities, even minor aspects of them, inviting them to your
> > > > body parts, when you see God everywhere?
> > > WHY NOT? The sublime is more blissful. Try it...then talk to me about
> > > it :)
> >
> > As I said, I am talking from experience. Thats what made me respond in
> > the first place. When you are overwhelmed by the Divine in the
> > marketplace (and what better proof for omnipresence would there be)
> > then it becomes profane going to the temple (and utter "omnipresence").
>
> "Profane? This sounds like "flatland, pluralism".
>
> But that's exactly how it is! In that state it doesn't make any
> difference if you read a spiritual book or the instruction manual of
> your washing machine. It's flat in the sense that everything is the
> same. But its also blissful, so its not flat in that sense.
You have Boomeritis my friend....and we almost all do to some degree.
You deny differentiation / hierarchy in the name of Advaita. In the
realm of not judging based on gender, race, sexual preference,
etc...this has been a blessing. In the realm of spirituality, it's
been a disaster!
>
> "No hierarchy, so Hitler and Guru Dev are equally spiritual?"
>
> I haven't met Hitler yet in that state.
>
> "No difference in being in a
> strip club in Vegas and in the presence of a Siddha?"
>
> Everywhere means everywhere. But then you are not very interested in
> the strip anymore, cuz your kundalini is elsewhere. (No I am not
> advocating to go to strip-clubs)
Well...why not? There's no difference according to you. It's "All
One"...so let's get some Heroin ...some prostitues...and have a party.
Actually, sorry, "I'm busy" tonight. :0
"Kundalini"....where did this come from??? You're in "tantra-land" big
time now.
>
> "Please don't misunderstand me to be overwhelmed by the Divine in the
> marketplace to recognize the Divine regardless of circumstances,
> states of mind, etc, etc this is Sahaja Samadhi. I'm not pooh-poohing
> That!"
>
> Good
>
> ."only my boomeritis meter is jumping. :)"
>
> Then please note, that I am not advocating this as a practise, but
> rather I am saying this refering to GD's state, which I assume was
> higher than mine.
Michael....how could GD's state possibly be "higher" than yours...cuz
according to you ...there is nothing any higher than anything else!!!
You said it very clearly above...you said, "It's flat in the sense
that everything is the same." Other times, you've said.."there's
nothing to do". So leave Mother Meera...and go "watch TV".
Very interesting...you not only acknowledge that tantric and Vedic
traditions are not in conflict ...but say the vedic tradition
(Shankara) is teaching tantric mantras.
GEEEEEEZZZZZZZZ.......Michael...this is what I've been saying all
along.
>
> <snip>
>
> "Yet, the mantras of TM are commonly known in the tantric
> traditions...and are throughout the
> tantric scriptures which I'm sure you are very aware of."
>
> Sure. But as I already told you, Tantra has infiltrated all of
> Hinduism. And that is why you find tantric mantras are given as part
> of mantra diksha in almost all traditions, which doesn't make these
> traditions especially tantric.
huh????????? It's simple....they is or they ain't. You're doing quite
the dance here. Then again, at least you are acknowledging that many
traditions have tantric aspects to them. Which again, is ALL I've been
saying.
>They still stay Vaishnavic, Shaivic or
> whatever. The mantras are only one MEANS. They are not an END in
> itself. (Like counting in Zen is only a means and not an end in
> itself.)
>
> > As I said, Shankara spoke of a "higher" and a "lower" knowledge.
> > Shankara actively supported bhakti. But his conspceptual framework
> > wasn't Shri Vidhya, but the Smarta practise, which allows for the
> > worship of any of the 6 major deities (Ganesh, Sun, Vishnu, Shiva,
> > Shakti, Kartikeya) as equally representing the highest Brahman in
> > form. That's different from Shri Vidhya.
>
> "Let me get this straight. We have talk of six deities equally
> representing the highest Brahman. Does this not illustrate an
> acceptance of form as divine?"
>
> You are on the wrong track. I never doubted this.
>
> "Specifically, you mention the "worship" of "Shakti" as being
> acceptable to Shankara....so please describe to me, what this worship
> looks like? How is it performed? How did Shankara perform / teach this
> "worship"? "
>
> If he found it acceptable, it didn't mean he taught it. He taught
> Advaita, the END of knowlede. He accepted various ways of purification
> done beforehand. But the texts indicate that these where mainly the
> established vedic performances. All else is simply the propaganda of
> the tantrics.
No way. Major contradiction here. If he only taught the "end" as you
say, then "ways of purification beforehand". Which is it?
>
> "How is worshipping Shakti as the highest Brahman different from Sri
> Vidya???!!!???"
>
> It could be Shri Vidya, it doesn't have to be. Calm down.
Oh, I'm quite calm, but attempting to have fun. Then again, calm isn't
any better than agitated is it Michaael...cuz everything's the same to
you. Remember?
>
> >That is also what is
> > purportedly the teaching of GD.
>
> Also, purported by whom?
>
> GD= Guru Dev
I knew that! Who is doing the "purporting"?
>
> "I agree that scholars can make a strong case that Shankara did not
> write the four texts most commonly attributed to him by tantrics. The
> fact remains though, that many, if not most, of the Shankaracharya
> tradition embrace the practice of Sri Vidya and accept the texts as
> valuable and authentic (though maybe not written by Adi Shankara)."
>
> They do it within the context of the smarta worship. They equally
> advocate devotion ala "Bhaja Govindam". When I visited Kanchi, the
> Shankaracharya had me handed over a copy of Bhaja Govindam, and not
> the Saundarya Lahari. Never mind, they did vedic rituals there all the
> time. But then the tradition in the south is known to be much more
> ritualistic then the one in the north. Northern Shankaracharyas are
> more meditative I was told.
Please see my quotes from Douglas Brooks in my recent posts regarding
the smartas, kanchi, Sringeri, etc.
> <snip>
> >
> > It's not that I disagree with you here philosophically, and its btw.
> > the main criticism of S.Aurobindo of Shankara. But its not Shankara
> > Advaita. What i object to is that you want to make GD as a
> > practitioneer of your brand of worship, while he is not. In that you
> > come across as very intolerant and fundamentalistic (which is not your
> > intention). You say: well this is his practise, and you are all doing
> > it wrong, while in reality you belong to quite a different tradition.
> > I don't object that you do what you do, but I told you why I couldn't
> > practise it. Its far too rigit for me.
>
>
> "I have several, as in 7, various sources that have confirmed to me
> that Guru Dev practiced Sri Vidya."
>
> Nice for you. but then you don't mention them.
Cuz they can't be verified by you.
>
> " Unlike some, it doesn't suffice
> for me to simply say, "uh, I don't believe it". "
>
> Gosh, you are hardheaded.
Indeed.
> I didn't really deny that he may have
> practised Shri Chakra puja. After all he had a lot of time, and he
> must have gone through various phases. But I explicitely deny that the
> Shankaracharya tradition is tantric *in nature*, and that Guru Dev
> taught Chakra Puja as a means to enlightenment.
If it's not a "means to enlightenment"...why would GD bother? Was he
just killing time?
>I know Sadhus who had
> a ritualistic phase and then abundoned it all together. AND I JUST
> CAN'T IMAGINE HE DID NYASA, WHEN HE WAS ANYWHERE CLOSE TO SAHAJA
> SAMADHI. But yes, thats an assumption.
yes...and....it's an assumption based on a fundamental
misunderstanding of tantra. I do not deny there have been many who
have abandoned ritual and other sadhanas after realization. But you
insist it's just a "phase"...like it's a mandatory abandonment...seen
as child's play or something....not true...which is why I list the
great Saints that continued various "practices" for the shear joy of
it. It's a sublime way to honor God...to express bhakti.
Also, I've made it clear that I don't believe everyone that doesn't
practice tantra is missing the boat. Self Inquiry is awesome....and
was the principle practice given to me by Ammachi. At a certain point
(this is all quite personal)...she said..."now become a vijnani" and
sent me to Nandu Menon to study a specific form of tantra. I lead a
Atma Vichara group here in LA!... where I rarely mention tantric
practices of any kind.
>
> "It has also been my aim to support this by showing that such a
> practice is not inconsistent with the Shankaracharya tradition."
>
> Didn't say this. But its neither what the Shankaracharya tradition is
> all about.
These posts get hard to follow :) I wrote the "my aim" statement. You
are misinformed...please see my Douglas Brooks and Sringeri posts.
>
> "(Please see my latest post to WillyT). In my view, TMers like to
> think they are practicing some great, esoteric teaching of the
> Shankaracharya tradition...."
>
> Let me tell you one important point: A tradition of masters is not
> just a set of mantras. Its an energetic thing. When you are initiated
> by a master, he may do so in various ways, e.g. by giving you a bhija
> mantra. This is very common(and you don't have to do nyasa for it).
> This is a means to connect you with the energy-circuit of the
> tradition. The mantras are thereby only a vehicle. The main teaching
> is unspoken: it is only energetical, vibrational. That is why the
> whole Hindu tradition lies such a great emphasis on being initiated by
> a Guru of that tradition.
I agree...pretty obvious stuff.
>In the case of TM this is the Shankara
> tradition, as this is invoked by the teacher, and not any tantric
> tradition or Goddess!
Well....First, I don't think MMY in any way represents the
Shankaracharya tradition. He couldn't possibly...he's NOT A
BRAHMIN....and GD was BIG on the caste system. You have acknowledged
there is a tantric element involved...the mantras. That "opens the
door". I agree the TM puja does not invoke a goddess, but the mantra
sure does. I'm not out to equate the Shankaracharya traditon with
Kaula tantrism, Kapalikas, Aghoris, etc. The Shankaracharya "flavor"
of tantra is quite puritanical actually....but it is tantric....there
is no doubt.
>Its enough to invoke it and it works as it has
> been testified by inumerable people.
>
> "when in fact, it is a derivative....watered down version (and that's
> being kind) of the traditional practice that involves those bija
> mantras."
>
> You are enervingly intolerant! Bija mantras - yes essentially tantric
> of origin are given in a lot of different traditions which have
> nothing to do with tantra otherwise.
:)
>
> "As to my "intolerance", I hope(!) it's my lack of communication
> skills
> to blame. I tried to make clear in my first post to WillyT, that in no
> way whatsoever do I feel the practice of ritual is mandatory. "
>
> I am glad to hear this, but what does watered down mean then?
>
> "I wrote to WillyT that imo, ritual, etc is a choice made by some like
> myself,
> to honor the Divine, and that if he does not choose to practice
> ritual, he is, and I quote, "no lesser for it". With that said, to be
> an "Advaitin" publicly and a "tantric" privately....is VERY common in
> the traditions of Shankara and even Kashmir Saivism. Another example
> of an Advaitin that sheds light on this topic is Nisargadatta
> Maharaj?.a personal fave. Though known as one of the great "pure"
> advaitins?.he was DIRECTLY in the lineage of the NATHS! Now you just
> can't possibly get any more tantric than the Naths. Again, a great
> example of how these "paths" are not exclusive of one another.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Again, Kashmir
> > > Saivism takes Advaita Vedanta that final, though small, very
> > > PROFOUND, last step. Please study Kashmir saivism's system of 36
> > > tattvas.
> >
> > Aurobindo would agree with you, but Shankara taught differently.
>
> "I don't believe Shankara's enlightenment is any different from
> Aurobindo's."
>
> At least not in the interpretation of Maharishi.
>
> "I think the so-called differences are mostly semantics...and the
> by-product of Shankara having to deal with Kapalikas, etc :) "
>
> I knew there are some bad guys
Oh, I love the Kapalikas... :)
>
> "and possibly the hagiography of Shankara created by the orthodox
> hindus."
>
> Now its the orthodox which are to blame, possibly for not accepting
> what a great tantric he was. But guess what? You say he was a tantric,
> Cold Blue wants him to be a dualistic Vaishnava, so I can see everyone
> makes Shankara a proponent of his own cult. Poor Shankara, he can't
> say a word to it!
You are misreading the spirit of my comments.
>
> > I don't disagree with you philosophically. But I am also not into the ritualism of it. There is a time for everything.
>
> "OK...but do I sense a "ritual" is a lesser , lower practice vibe?"
>
> No, not really. I had a ritual phase, but at one point it is over. And
> I do mind, when you say, if you don't practise certain rituals, that
> something is watered down.
Specific to TM, MMY's teachings...yes, it's very watered down. Is
ritual the determining factor for it being watered down? NOT IN THE
LEAST. You're not getting me at all. And frankly, it's because of such
a massive misunderstanding of tantra.
> OTOH I have strongly objected against rouge
> initiators who skip the puja.
Exactly. Great point! It's the SHAKTI (hint, hint) that is the key. I
would rather get the mantra "dog" from Ammachi (or Mother Meera) than
the panchadasi mantra from a book. MMY said the mantras are "dead"
without the puja. BTW, for those not familiar, the panchadasi is a
very powerful mantra....that Guru Dev supposedly (see I'm learning)
from the Srividya tradition.
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > > If Advaita denies Shakti, then it
> > > is dualistic. You say Guru Dev advocated "pure Advaita", but he also
> > > taught the mantras of Sri Vidya??(which is absolutely true). We
> > > agree... so, what would be the point of him teaching the mantras of
> > > Goddesses...of the divine in form.... if he denied the reality of
> > > Shakti (god in form) as you have stated?
> >
> > He didn't and I didn't state he did. But he did it within the
> > Advaita/Smarta conceptual framework of the Shankara tradition.
>
> "Wait, above you wrote " I am also quite certain that he taught the
> Sri
> Vidya mantras for meditation". Then here "he didn't" but then "he
> did"."
>
> Sorry for your confusion here. He didn't deny the reality of Shakti,
> and I didn't say he did(deny it). What made you assume so? When I for
> example say, that there is no need to invoke God, I don't say there is
> no God, right? It's only that you feel God to be already there, its so
> simple. Why would you invoke a God who is already there? It is just
> interfering of the ego with reality. As Krishnamurti said it, even
> somebody mentioning Buddha made Buddha come already! Its not denying
> him! Thats actually the reason why K couldn't speak about God. He
> avoided it intentionally. ( Okay thats different for different people)
Krishnamurti? He would say you're wasting your time with Mother Meera.
>
> "Please choose. I would say that framework includes samaya Sri Vidya
> as Guru Dev's teaching of the mantras of the Sri Vidya tradition
> demonstrates."
>
> That framework includes almost evrything, not just tantra. But always
> from a non-dual perspective.
I agree.
>
>
> >
> > >What I'm attempting to say
> > > is... one in no way denies the other...otherwise you have dualism.
> > > That's why you have SOOOO many non-dualists that also practice ritual,
> > > etc.... if they are "enlightened" THERE IS NO CONFLICT. It is to honor
> > > God...and there is tremendous bliss.
> >
> > But the bliss is not dependent on anything, nor are you dpendent of
> > the Bliss
>
> If your point is....all states are just that... states...(even
> nirvikalpa Samadhi)..having a beginning and an end.... so are not the
> Eternal Truth...cool. I would rather not jump ship into a discussion
> of Atma Vichara at this point, though I do love it.
>
> > There is no bliss in the
> > > impersonal, transcendent, flat, unmoving state of Shiva. That's
> > > precisely why creation exists, so Shiva can know it's own bliss.
> >
> > That's away to put it, a conceptual framework. In the end you have
> > bliss. ?.(unintentional snip! Sorry!) This is
> > on the level of theorizing.
>
> We are attempting to communicate what can't be communicated...the
> second we open our mouths we're in duality. We're going into
> Ramana-land now, which is fine, but not the topic at hand.
>
> >
> > > Shakti is the mirror through which Shiva comes to know it's own
> > > potential. Now the form is the formless...and the formless is form.
> >
> > Sure
> >
> > > This is non-dual Truth....and the basis of tantra....to know and
> > > celebrate the formless through the form.
> >
> > But then there are infinite joices to do so, and really speaking, you
> ˙ don't need to do anything.
>
> "It seems to me one must be careful in these days of westernized,
> Neo-Advaita that "not doing" is "reality" a doing."
>
> Right, it's not what I meant to convey. It's the problem, as we were
> primarily talking about Guru Devs state, which is of course not
> applicable to everyone. Then I brought in some experience of mine, and
> from that perspective made some conclusion. So Shiva and Shakti are
> always there and are always connected. But you don't have to call them
> like that. Both are there in every moment of the whole process.
> Actually you cannot separate them. So you may not be aware of them,
> yet still the process works. Tantra puts them into a system, a
> graphical representation, with invocation, mantras etc. In my
> experience these forces are very real. In fact, I know Kali better
> than you might think! But I don't talk much about it.
This is awesome! I'm a Kali devotee btw. You are speaking tantric
philosophy here.
> <snip>
> "Thank you for your posts. They are informed and actually contribute
> to
> the discussion what a concept!"
>
> Sorry James, I may be harsh at times.
Oh, you're not in my league :)
>But I also feel that you are a
> bit intolerant sometimes.
Point taken to heart.
>I am not trying to dissuade you from your
> own practise or say it's inferior! In my POV everybody has his own
> stage and speed of development. I found TM valuable in the past when I
> practised it, and I will continue to say so. When I came in contact
> with Mother Meera, I had a clear vision that all states are equal.
> There is nothing superior or inferior. In my case this was important,
> as I was until then always living with the movement, and I found it
> difficult to accept the average, non-spiritual persons. I also had to
> learn to not mind any atmosphere. I also do not want to show up or
> boast with experiences here. I guess everybody has his/her own
> experiences, and they are just as valuable to them as ours are to us.
Well said!
take care,
james
Michael
>>..I assume that GD was in such a state. Invocations in such a
> > state a completely superflous, except if you do it in the context of
> > teaching sombody, or praying for someone. Otherwise watching TV is
> > just as good.
>
> I knew it! :) "Boomeritis" city...as you make even clearer later...see
> below. Why hang with Mother Meera versus Hitler? Jerry Falwell and
> Mother Meera are exactly the same. They're all the same..it's All
> One". Everyone is realized...can't you tell? This is a mockery of
> Advaita teachings. Advaita does not deny hierarchy. You do.
NO! You are reading me wrong. But I am saying, there is a state where
you perceive everything to be Divine. That is hardly news. That's the
problem with you: you are immediately putting me into your readymade
waterproof compartments. I am either in "Ramana-land" or am "talking
Tantra", and then you come up with strawmen like this. I never said
this to be the basis for ethical behaviour. I never said there are no
hierarchies or there is no form of God. I am just talking about my own
experience in fact. You are reading it into it. I never said you
shouldn't follow a path. Ask Uncle Tantra. I defended the "path". Ask
everyone here how I defended Bhakti (including its dualistic approach)
just a few weeks back. Wilbern would say that you are making a
category mistake with regard to me. See what I said:
"Invocations *in such a state* a completely superflous, except if you
do it in the context of
teaching sombody, or praying for someone. Otherwise watching TV is
just as good."
Note I wrote "in such a state", referring to Guru Dev. And this is my
- on and off - experience. If this is so for me, how much more would
it be even for someone of the stature of Guru Dev? Everything, okay
not everything, but many things, very profane things start to become a
metaphore of God, enlightenment. I remember, when it started, I used
to think: Oh in this state I am loosing all discrimination. You can
still discriminate mentally if you like though. You can still
perfectly act. But to follow in this state a rather rigid pattern of
religious practise without external need, is downright impossible, at
least in my experience. Its like hurting yourself. For me this whole
thing is rather like witnessing (or following) the "process." You
could also call the process Shakti. Then I have switched in your eyes
from Ramana-compartment to Tantra compartment. "Witnessing" it -
Ramana-compartment, "following" Tantra-compartment. Not doing anything
myself - Ramana-compartment. Observing the Shakti at work -
Tantra-compartment. Observing everything to be intruigingly
fascinating - Tantra-compartment, Observing everything as Divine -
Ramana-compartment. You see, the process is the same, with a different
description you call it "Ramana-land" or "tantric".
> Please ask
> Mother Meera if it's ok with her for you to do anything you
> wish...since of course, there are no do's or don'ts. Uh, I don't think
> so. Andrew found Mother Meera to have a strong sense of "right and
> wrong". BTW, do you know my friend, John Raatz?
Andrew Harvey? Ask John Raatz what he thinks of him. Andrew is totally
nuts and a liar by the admission of all people who know him a little
better. That also includes Mark Matthousek who wrote "Sex, death and
Enlightenment". He is just good with words, but otherwise totally
paranoic. The Washington Post wrote about his last book, that it reads
like an "overwrought soap opera". In his last book he accuses Ma to
have thrown a bomb in his appartment! I am sorry, I cannot believe one
word he says. I actually do since many years in close proximity to MM,
really I know her much better. I wouldn't know anyone more tolerant
and liberal than Mother Meera. Certainly not the saints you mentioned.
If you are interested about this Andrew story, you can read it on my
webpage(http://www.umatrix.de > Log)
E.g. one time I asked her, because I heard that a japanese zen master
used to be an alcoholic, if this was possible. She said: yes, when you
see God everywhere, you can also see him in the alcohol. I said that
it wouldn't be good for us now to become alcoholics though and she
agreed. But no problem for the enlightened. You can sit on a pile of
shit and smell only perfume. One time I asked her, how one can offer
some bad action to God, as she says one shall over all actions, good
and bad to God. ( I had some action in mind) She said: How do you know
it is bad? She told me to offer it without judging if something was
good or bad. To say that she is judgemental is simply upsurd.
Okay, lets take this one step further: I can easily see the drawback
of the Advaitic attitude - I am intelligent enough, i.e. that the
vision of unity doesn't necessarily serve as an ethical guide. I also
see the necessity of discrimination in practical life. Its a category
mistake if you are mixing the two up.(and I gave no indication that I
am doing this msitake). But do you also see the drawback of the
opposite attitude? The one who is overly concerned with purity in a
way, that one regards all places or other people as "impure" or having
a bad vibration? And to be honest, I wonder what is the greater
problem in contemporary spiritual life, "boomerities" or the fear to
loose ones energy by meeting the wrong people. In the second case you
might be caught up in a selfimposed prison. A simple change of
environment, e.g. leaving an ashram might be impossible then. I know
what I am talking about, I have been on Purusha. When you live a long
time in a situation like that, the outside world becomes a desaster.
Only the experience I am describing above, made it possible for me to
actually leave the movement. That is why I find your
compartmentization to be polemic, because in actual *real life* this
seemingly aloft experience had (and still has) an immense value. It
virtually lifts you out of a prison (not purusha in this case but the
prison of your head).
<snip>
>> I don't know about
> > Karunamayi (she changed her name from Vijneshvari mayi, to be more
> > acceptable in the US!)
>
> Michael...come on ...be fair...she did no such thing. I've got the
> flyer right in front of me. It's simply a name of endearment ...and a
> lot easier for everyone to say than Sri Sri Sri Vijayeswari Devi.
I got my information from a friend who met her in India, before anyone
in the west ever knew about her. He told me that she (or her
disciples) urged him to use his contacts to bring her to europe or US.
My friend wasn't interested. (He is generally put off by any kind of
missionary zeal. He doesn't want to be pushed. He likes the Avadhuta
type of saints with no interest whatsoever). This is not derogatory.
It's just as it is. She may be very good, but she has a missionary
zeal.
Same
> with Ammachi, my Guru...whose name is Sri Mata Amritanandamayi Devi.
Amma simply means Mother. All south indian lady saints are called
Amma. Mother Meera is also called Amma.
> I'm personally thankful for the "easy version" :)
Sure :-)
>
> or Shree Maa. Nityananda was an Avadhuta.
> > Ramakrishna had a "tantric phase", he practised many religions. To my
> > knowledge none of them was a tantric in particular. As i said, tantra
> > is pervading many practises, but that doesn't mean its tantra in
> > particular, the way you want to have it.
>
> You are contradicting yourself above. Plus, Ramakrishna until the end
> of his life said, "Neti, neti" is NOT the highest...and saw the world
> as a "mansion of fun"....that is a tantric world view.
It just all depends what you call and include in the word "Tantric".
To me it seems you take the term in a very general way, which is
completely permissable, just to say in the next sentence that it is
"watered down tantra". So everything is tantra, but then its all
watered down, just the way you want it. And, here comes compartment
thinking again, where did I ever say "neti, neti"? What are you
actually referring to in my posts except your own judgements about my
experience that they are "Ramana-land", and then in conclusion, I must
be advocating "neti, neti"? Pleeeaze, I said "everything" is divine,
not "nothing" is Divine.
>> Of course you can have Bhakti when you are
> > enlightened. But you just don't find any need to invite Gods or
> > Goddeses into your various body-parts, or empower your chakras. That
> > would be simply absurd.
>
> Post realization....I agree there's no "need" per se, but that doesn't
> mean one wouldn't do it as a celebration of the Divine. We have major
> examples of just such individuals!!
Yes. See, actually we are not so far apart. I my view though, an
enlightened will mainly do this as an inspiration to others. They do
it mainly for their disciples. I just have some problem imagining
Guru Dev sitting alone in front of his yantra, doing all his nyasas
and invocations for hours, but maybe he did, what do I know. I just
had this experience, where I was trying to do some spirtual excercise
I had learned in India (some kriyas) and I was struck by a strong
force that rendered me immobile, even as I was trying to lift my arm
for pranayama. In my eyes the Divine is celebrating itself constantly,
and doing any exercises in that state is actually like limiting God.
But of course you can do it. But to imagine that Guru Dev is doing
this and actually trying to get anywhere with this, is a funny idea to
me. In the case of Nisargadatta, he was always doing a small puja
AFAIK, but he explicitely said that it was a sort of an attachment to
him! He didn't admit any Divine purpose in it. (that may be different
for others). I especially like the story of Shirdi Sai Baba, who was
obviously very inventive when it came to rituals. He used to polish
coins, saying the names of disciples he was obvously symbolicaly
purifying thereby.
> >
> > "Profane? This sounds like "flatland, pluralism".
> >
> > But that's exactly how it is! In that state it doesn't make any
> > difference if you read a spiritual book or the instruction manual of
> > your washing machine. It's flat in the sense that everything is the
> > same. But its also blissful, so its not flat in that sense.
>
> You have Boomeritis my friend....and we almost all do to some degree.
> You deny differentiation / hierarchy in the name of Advaita.
No, wrong, see above. Actually, the above I wrote almost literally in
a testimony, which appeared in the book "The Mother". So it was
authorized by Ma :-)
In the
> realm of not judging based on gender, race, sexual preference,
> etc...this has been a blessing. In the realm of spirituality, it's
> been a disaster!
Not only, as I showed you above. And especially not if it comes by
experience. I am quite happy for that.
willytex
>> ...before you post spurious comments regarding the
>> five Mathas established by Sri Adi Shankar (509-476 BC).
Mrs. Perino - So, the Adi Shankara, who was born in the 5th century B.C.,
had nothing to do with a Shakti cult down in Karnataka, that was established
in the 8th century A.D, and that is now called Sri Vidya?
And, the Adi Shankara had nothing to do with Adwaita, because he taught the
bhakti religion of the Srimad Bhagwatam, i.e., his family religion, and
belonged to the Ramanandi sect of Vaishnavism down in Ayodhya?
And, Guru DevJi had nothing to do with any bija mantras inscribed on yantras
or any practice that even remotely resembles TM?
And, you base this information on your spiritual master, the Swami
Prakashanada Saraswati, a direct desciple of Guru DevJi?
And, there is no evidence of any groups of pandits in all of India, who
meditate on the bija mantras used in TM, including large groups of
Mahesh-ian Sri Vidya Pandits?
So, we are agreed. However, I think you made up the part about the Adi
Shankara. There is no evidence that the Adi Shankara, the author of the
Sutra Bhaysa, lived in the 5th century B.C. If he did, that would mean that
Shankara lived BEFORE the historical Buddha! In which case, there is the
problem of just how the Adi Shankara is supposed to have debated with all
those Buddhists logicians such as Dharmakirti, Bhavaviveka, etc., who lived
in the eight century A.D.
There's no historical evidence that Shakara founded any Mathas at all, much
less one down in Kanchipuram - you made that up too. The oldest extant
manuscript concerning the life of Shankara, in the Baroda Library, was
written in the 15th century A.D., and it doesn't even mention any Mathas,
let alone five of them. If the Adi Shankara had founded any Mathas, he would
have said so, would he not? Or, at least one of his desciples would have
said so, would they not?
But, in fact according to the Shankaracharya of Sringeri, the Adi Shankara
established the Sharada Matha at Sringeri in the 8th century A.D. In
addition, according to the Swami Svarupanada, the Shankaracharya of Dwarka,
the Kanchi Matha is not one of the four original mathas, but is a sub-peeth
of recent origin. Also, according to Vidyasankar Sundaresan, the Kanchi
Matha's claims are bogus.
> As for your baseless comments regarding Kanchi
> Kamkoti Peetham...
Apparently, someone is posting false information to this list.
Forum: alt.meditation.transcendental
Thread: The Real History
Subject: The Kanchi math is not one of the four peethas.
Author: Willytex
Date: 03/04/2002
The Real History of the Kanchi Math
By Vidyasankar Sundaresan
It is generally accepted as tradition that Adi Sankaracharya, the famous
Advaita philosopher, founded four maths (monasteries) at Sringeri, Puri,
Dwaraka and Badrinath; that he ascended the famous sarvagna-pitha in
Kashmir, and finally passed away near Kedarnath. None of the four recognized
mathas claims jurisdiction over the other three.
However, the Kanchi math claims that Sankaracharya established a fifth math
in Kanchi, with jurisdiction over the recognized four mathas; that
Sankaracharya ascended a sarvagna-pitha not in Kashmir, but at Kanchi, and
that he passed away not in Kedarnath, but at Kanchi. These and other such
claims have been widely publicized by the followers of the Kanchi math with
the direct participation of and encouragement from the heads of the Kanchi
math, including the recently departed centenarian Sri Chandrasekharendra
Saraswati (C.S., for short) and his successor Sri Jayendra Saraswati (J.S.).
"Sri Jayendra Saraswati cannot be regarded as a Sankaracharya at all,
because the Kanchi math is not one of the four peethas constituted by Adi
Sankaracharya. It is only a shakha (branch) of the Sringeri peetham."
- Swaroopananda Saraswati
The Sankaracharya of Dwaraka
"There is no such thing as the Kanchi Kamakoti peetham."
- Sir C. P. Ramaswamy Iyer
Director, Central Commission on Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
The Real History of the Kanchi Math
By Vidyasankar Sundaresan
Mr. Sunil captures the major facts regarding the Kanchi math correctly
though.
1. A branch of the Sringeri math was established in Kumbhakonam, the
building for which was constructed in 1821 AD, with the help of the Tanjore
king. The seal of this math is in Kannada language, and refers to it as a
"Sarada math." Since Sarada is worshipped only at Sringeri, and the Goddess
at Kanchipuram is Kamakshi, not Sarada, it is seen at once
that the Kumbhakonam math did not originally come from Kanchipuram.
2. The Kumbhakonam math soon proclaimed independence from Sringeri. In fact,
this math went one step further. In addition to denying the historical truth
of its origin as a branch of the Sringeri math, the story propagated was
that it was originally established by Adi Sankaracharya himself at
Kanchipuram, with control over the recognized four maths.
Worse, a wholly fictitious story that Adi Sankaracharya ascended a
sarvagna-pitha at Kanchi and attained samadhi at Kanchi is propagated as
"tradition." The real problem though was that in the course of this
campaign, someone with more enthusiasm than scholarship, "fixed" the date of
Adi Sankaracharya as 477 B.C. and wrote up a continuous list of gurus of the
math from 477 B.C. to the present! This guru parampara is filled with names
of sannyasis taken at random, with no thought to chronology.
3. The Kumbhakonam math shifted to Kanchipuram in accordance with its new
story. In 1839 AD, the head of the Kumbhakonam math applied for permission
to the English Collector to perform the kumbhabhishekam of the Kamakshi
temple in Kanchipuram. In 1842 AD, he was appointed sole trustee of the
Kamakshi temple by the English East India Company Government. This is well
documented because the original priests of the Kamakshi temple, who were
thereby deprived of their rights, complained to whomever they could possibly
complain to. Numerous petitions, counter petitions, letters, and other such
documents are available from this period that allow us to piece together
this account. [2] Thus the Kanchi math as an institution dates from 1842 AD.
The headquarters continued to be at Kumbhakonam but the sannyasi head would
periodically visit Kanchipuram to assert his rights over the Kamakshi
temple.
Source:
Adwaita-Vedanta Org.
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/alt_hindu_msg.html
willytex
> not be inconsistent with the Shankaracharya
James - This part of your argument sounds reasonable, but it hasn't been
established that Guru Dev was a Sri Vidya practitioner. He could have been a
Nath Yogi, and he could have practiced Hatha Yoga or Siddha Yoga as well.
Maybe we'll never know, but the description of intiation given by Raj Varma
didn't sound to me like Guru Dev was a tantric. That is, unless by tantric
you mean anyone who uses mantra and initiates others into meditation.
At any rate, I'm reading the books by Douglas Brooks.
You've made some good points - I too once believed that Guru Dev was a
practicing tantric, but not anymore. It's just not reasonable that Guru Dev
would be interested in the Sri Vidya cult or tantra. I've read some of Guru
Dev's speeches and it's pretty conservative Adwaita he's talking about.
But, it all depends on what you mean by tantra. I'm convinced that Guru Dev
didn't practice any form of sex-magic, but anything is possible. Apparently,
the pandits down around Kasi aren't to fond of non-Brahmanic ritual
activities of the kaula type. And, the Ramanandis down around Ayodhya don't
seem to be very tolerant of baula practices either. But, all the Adwaita
sannyasis are just closet Buddhists, right?
> ...they recognize the Kanchipuram peeth
> as authentically representative of the
> Shankaracharya tradition.
I'm skeptical of all claims made by the sectarians. And, it calls into
question everything you've said here concerning the tradition. Apparently,
there have been some very tall tales circulated by the late Shankaracharya
of the Kanchi Mutt!
Michael
Thanks for backing me up on this one. You know, I don't have the
Maharishi books anymore. I wrote everything just from memory, which
obviously didn't betray me. Its so nice to read the actual words
again.
Michael
jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein) wrote in message news:<19b3c03e.03050...@posting.google.com>...
Michael
Exactly, Willy, you got my point. If there is "counting" in Zen, it is
not of the ordinary kind and with a different purpose. Counting is
simple, you don't need a zen master to learn it. Same with the mantra
in TM. The mantra in TM is used to actually forget it. In Japa to the
contrary, the mantra is not supposed to be forgotten. In devotional
japa, contrary to TM, the mantra is identified with the form of God
himself, and a continous flow of the mantra is desired. In TM it is
only a means not an end in itself. In Bhakti it is an end in itself,
as the mantra is god itself. In TM it is rather the self-effulgent
nature of consciousness, which when not manipulated, will shine forth
on its own account. This is more similar to the practise of Dzogchen
or Mahamudra.
In tantra, when a mantra is used, the number of repetitions matter a
lot. You can the tantric scriptures and see it for yourself: if you
repeat a certain mantra 40.000 times, you will get a particular
desire fulfilled. (to keep count very often a japa mala is being
used). In TM there are no counts, no Japa mala.
In all this discussion, I propose, to look at a practise in its own
right, and within the context of its own philosophy, and not compare
it with different practises of another philosophy. So TM is neither
"generic japa" nor "watered down Tantra", even though it uses tools
from the same toolbox.
Michael
is to your advantage! I thank you for posting it. Indeed the Shankara
tradition is more connected to Shri Vidya than I had thought. Yet I
would still ask you to make the necessary differentiations (you
obviously do at this point). I try to make a summary :
1. There is no evidence that Shankara was a tantric. According to your
sources it entered the Shankara tradition at about the 11th or 15th
century.
2. The practise of Sri Vidya by Shankarites has to be viewed from
within the framework of the Advaita philosophy, which is different -
even though there are definitely many similarities , from the purely
tantric.
3. That framework is being provided by the concept of a "higher" and a
"lower" knowledge. While the higher is pure Advaita, the lower may
include a variety of practises, which help the adept to get ready and
purify himself.
4. The Shankara tradition is the custodian of the whole vedic path.
The Shankaracharyas have always been the gardians of Sanatan Dharma,
of the whole of it. They have always encouraged the common people to
follow their respective paths and religious duties. They have been
defenders of the whole vedic practise itself, but equally of the later
developments especially Bhakti and, as you showed, also the right
handed version of Tantra.
5. The link that you showed to be existing between the Shri Vidya
tradition and the Shankaracharyan, is further evidence that MMY didn't
actually "steal" the mantras from some pundit in a Madrasean Lakshmi
temple (as some illiterate people here have argued), but that he
rather got it out of the toolbox of his own tradition.
6. The use of the word "vedic" instead of "tantric" is no limited to
the TM, but is rather the way the whole Shankara tradition would call
itself, despite the fact that the actual practises are from various
sources. The same is true of the use "vedic" in the Bhakti movement:
The Vaishanavas go even so far as to call the Srimad Bhagavatam the
5th Veda. The truth is that the Shankara tradition is rooted in the
vedic tradition, and the basic teaching of Shankara are based
according to his own admission on the Upanishads.
This probably belongs to another post, but I put it here:
7. I strongly object that the use of the mantra serves as an
invocation, as you have said. An invocation cannot be made
involuntary. The invocation of the vedic tradition is done consciously
by the teacher, its to no Gods, but to a line of masters, whose
collective experience is being invoced. Tantric science is also a
science of vibration, spanda, I am sure you are ready to admit. While
Tantra usually personifies these forces, TM uses the mantras only in
the vibrational aspect. A personification IMHO is not implicit in the
words nor is it taught. But the vibrational value, also implicit in
the tantric tradition, IS being taught and made use of.
8. It is true that tools out of the tantric toolbox are used in many
Hindu traditions, who otherwise don't care much about the tantric
philosophy. This is especially true for Bija mantras which are common
even in the Bhakti tradition. One has to view each practise within its
own system of use.
Judy Stein
>
> >>..I assume that GD was in such a state. Invocations in such a
> > > state a completely superflous, except if you do it in the context of
> > > teaching sombody, or praying for someone. Otherwise watching TV is
> > > just as good.
> >
> > I knew it! :) "Boomeritis" city...as you make even clearer later...see
> > below. Why hang with Mother Meera versus Hitler? Jerry Falwell and
> > Mother Meera are exactly the same. They're all the same..it's All
> > One". Everyone is realized...can't you tell? This is a mockery of
> > Advaita teachings. Advaita does not deny hierarchy. You do.
>
> NO! You are reading me wrong. But I am saying, there is a state where
> you perceive everything to be Divine. That is hardly news. That's the
> problem with you: you are immediately putting me into your readymade
> waterproof compartments. I am either in "Ramana-land" or am "talking
> Tantra", and then you come up with strawmen like this. I never said
> this to be the basis for ethical behaviour. I never said there are no
> hierarchies or there is no form of God.
In a brahmin endowed with learning and
humility, in a cow, in an elephant, in
a dog and even in one who has lost his
caste, the enlightened person sees the same.
(BG V:18)
MMY comments, in part:
"The mind of the realized man is fully infused with the
state of Being--the oneness of life--and such a mind
naturally has oneness of vision irrespective of what it
sees. The apparent distinctions of relative existence
fail to create division in its view.
"This does not mean that such a man fails to see a cow
or is unable to distinguish it from a dog. Certainly he
sees a cow as a cow and a dog as a dog, but the form of
the cow and the form of the dog fail to blind him to the
oneness of the Self, which is the same in both. Although
he sees a cow and a dog, his Self is established in the
Being of the cow and the Being of the dog, which is his
own Being. The Lord stresses that the enlightened man,
while beholding and acting in the whole of diversified
creation, does not fall from his steadfast Unity of life,
with which is mind is saturated and which remains indelibly
infused into his vision."
And then there's this, which always sends a little shiver
up my spine:
Brahman is the act of offering.
Brahman the oblation poured by
Brahman into fire that is Brahman.
To Brahman alone must he go who is
fixed in Brahman through action.
(BG IV:24)
MMY:
"In this verse and those following the Lord enumerates
different aspects of the action of yagya and says that
all aspects are Brahman. Certainly offering is offering,
oblation is oblation, fire is fire and the performer is
the performer--on the level of relative life duality
prevails. Everything is Brahman only on the level of
consciousness of the performer who is established in
cosmic consciousness....The enlightened man, established
in bliss-consciousness at all times, irrespective of the
engagement of the mind and senses in action, is intent on
Brahman, while at the same time everything that action
entails proceeds naturally at the level of the senses,
through the agency of the gunas....
"The Lord speaks of yagya in order to explain that the
different parts of an action and the various modes of
their performance do not leave any race of bondgae for
the enlightened man. Ever established in the state of
pure consciousness, or eternal Being, he is simply a
silent and innocent witness of what is happening through
him; he is a means through which nature fulfils its
purpose of evolution. His actions are a response to the
needs of the time. Quite naturally he performs actions
which result in every kind of good."
Judy Stein
> Thanks for backing me up on this one. You know, I don't have the
> Maharishi books anymore. I wrote everything just from memory, which
> obviously didn't betray me. Its so nice to read the actual words
> again.
I'm glad, because I just quoted another bunch in a different
post!
James Duffy
> > Guru Dev being a Srividya practitioner would
> > not be inconsistent with the Shankaracharya
> > tradition...
>
> James - This part of your argument sounds reasonable, but it hasn't been
> established that Guru Dev was a Sri Vidya practitioner.
Hi WillyT....Indeed, I can't say 100% that he was a Srividya
practitioner, since I didn't have the opportunity to ask him myself.
:) I trust my personal sources 100%...yet alas, they aren't
verifiable for you. So, we investigate through texts and visiting the
Maths(!)....and we find that historically (and currently) Srividya has
been a vital part of the Shankaracharya tradition...especially(!) in
the Sringeri Math...which is where Swami Krishanand hung out...yes? I
take that as a big hint regarding his teachings and GD's practices. In
"Love and God", MMY mentions GD living in an area that is widely known
in India as a haven for Srividya tantrics...another HUGE hint.
Regarding the Shankaracharaya tradition, there is no question there
are debates about specifics. ...8th century ....or 11th, etc, etc.
What "tantric" texts did Shankara did ot didn't write or was it one of
his disciples, etc. Same questions about tantric texts attributed to
Gaudapada too. I do believe GD practiced Srividya sadhana. The
evidence strongly favors that conclusion...yet again, no...I can't say
100%...since I didn't have the good karma to meet him face to face. My
issue with you and Michael, as I have understood both of you to say
basically...."Guru Dev was an Advaitin, so he couldn't possibly have
been a Srividya tantric"....and that just ain't so. Advaita and
Srividya are a match made in heaven....literally :) Despite your
views of Swami Rama, I find his story of GD to be legitimate evidence.
Why would he lie? What would he possibly have to gain? Did he lie
about Anandamayi Ma and Neem Karoli Baba too? You get me?
>He could have been a
> Nath Yogi, and he could have practiced Hatha Yoga or Siddha Yoga as well.
Well sure, but we don't ANY evidence of a Nath influence within the
Shankaracharya Tradition or to GD. If your point is...."simply stating
it, don't make it so"....I couldn't agree more. There is substantial
evidence...direct and indirect... regarding GD praciticing Srividya.
> Maybe we'll never know, but the description of intiation given by Raj Varma
> didn't sound to me like Guru Dev was a tantric. That is, unless by tantric
> you mean anyone who uses mantra and initiates others into meditation.
Well, I have to be "careful" here, but yes...to a point, I do believe
when someone initiates with the bija mantras such as those used in
TM...we've entered the realm of "tantra".
>
> At any rate, I'm reading the books by Douglas Brooks.
>
> You've made some good points - I too once believed that Guru Dev was a
> practicing tantric, but not anymore. It's just not reasonable that Guru Dev
> would be interested in the Sri Vidya cult or tantra.
This is where you "lose" me....cuz....why isn't it reasonable?
Srividya is a beautiful practice dude. I'm not suggesting GD practiced
Kaula tantricism of any form. Quite the contrary, samaya Srividya is
VERY "right handed". ..and the tradition emphatically distances itself
from Kaula....which I personally disagree with, but my personal
beliefs are not what I'm "arguing" in this thread...or at least I'm
trying damn hard not to! :)
>I've read some of Guru
> Dev's speeches and it's pretty conservative Adwaita he's talking about
That is what I've heard also, but I would love for you to share what
you've read. Please! Again, I acknowledge GD was very
conservative...not my cup of tea actually, yet I respect him greatly.
He was the real deal.
>
> But, it all depends on what you mean by tantra. I'm convinced that Guru Dev
> didn't practice any form of sex-magic, but anything is possible.
WillyT...the Kaulas, as you know I'm sure, use(d) sexual fluids in
their worship and then ingested the offerings, etc...so, yes..."out
there". Abhinavagupta's Trika sanitized those practices, but embraced
sexuality in their worship too. I haven't heard anything that would
even remotely suggest GD was involved with sexual sadhanas. In fact, I
understand he held a low opinion of women in general. I think the
Kaula traditions deserve MUCH more respect than you give them. Btw,
I'm a celibate and a "Kaula" initiate..though a "mild" one :) Kaula
isn't just about sex...far from it. With this said, I feel strongly
that it is terribly misrepresentative of tantra to equate all of
tantra with Kapalikas and Aghoris. (extremely left handed)
>Apparently,
> the pandits down around Kasi aren't to fond of non-Brahmanic ritual
> activities of the kaula type. And, the Ramanandis down around Ayodhya don't
> seem to be very tolerant of baula practices either. But, all the Adwaita
> sannyasis are just closet Buddhists, right?
If you wish to align yourself with the ultra conservative
traditions.... that's your choice. I hope my position is becoming
clearer....I do not believe that tantric practice is mandatory at all.
Advaita...Atma Vichara...is awesome...and I personally agree with
Ramana...is the most "direct" path.
>
> > ...they recognize the Kanchipuram peeth
> > as authentically representative of the
> > Shankaracharya tradition.
>
> I'm skeptical of all claims made by the sectarians. And, it calls into
> question everything you've said here concerning the tradition. Apparently,
> there have been some very tall tales circulated by the late Shankaracharya
> of the Kanchi Mutt!
The view you have of Kanchi is extremely sectarian imo...again
aligning yourself with the ultra conservatives. Have you been to
Kanchi? You might want to consider checking it out....
james
James Duffy
later...I hope.
han...@telda.net (Michael) wrote in message news:<c4b2aca1.03050...@posting.google.com>...
> James, this is indeed very interesting and relevant material, and it
> is to your advantage! I thank you for posting it. Indeed the Shankara
> tradition is more connected to Shri Vidya than I had thought. Yet I
> would still ask you to make the necessary differentiations (you
> obviously do at this point). I try to make a summary :
> 1. There is no evidence that Shankara was a tantric. According to your
> sources it entered the Shankara tradition at about the 11th or 15th
> century.
The Shankaracharya tradition accepts him as a Srividya adept...but
scholars definitely challenge the historical evidence. I would add...I
highly doubt GD would have concerned himself too much with the
scholarly issues rather than the heads of the Maths or his Guru
teachings. More to the point....there is no doubt that Srividya became
a part of the tradition by at least the 11th century...yes.
> 2. The practise of Sri Vidya by Shankarites has to be viewed from
> within the framework of the Advaita philosophy, which is different -
> even though there are definitely many similarities , from the purely
> tantric.
Well said. Exactly. I won't give you a hard time about "purely
tantric"...at least not now :)
No kaula affiliation for sure.
> 3. That framework is being provided by the concept of a "higher" and a
> "lower" knowledge. While the higher is pure Advaita, the lower may
> include a variety of practises, which help the adept to get ready and
> purify himself.
I think this "higher" / "lower" stuff can be very misleading...but
regardless... that doesn't necessitate the practices be
abandoned....though they very well might be. Chanting the Divine name
is far more blissful than watching tv. Staring into Mother Meera's
eyes is far more blissful than watching tv. Worshipping a yantra is
far more blissful than watching tv.
> 4. The Shankara tradition is the custodian of the whole vedic path.
> The Shankaracharyas have always been the gardians of Sanatan Dharma,
> of the whole of it. They have always encouraged the common people to
> follow their respective paths and religious duties. They have been
> defenders of the whole vedic practise itself, but equally of the later
> developments especially Bhakti and, as you showed, also the right
> handed version of Tantra.
Yep. I like David Gordon White's term of "high tantra" in referring
to tantra after Abhinvagupta's influence....where tantra got sanitized
for Brahmanical / Smarta acceptance.
> 5. The link that you showed to be existing between the Shri Vidya
> tradition and the Shankaracharyan, is further evidence that MMY didn't
> actually "steal" the mantras from some pundit in a Madrasean Lakshmi
> temple (as some illiterate people here have argued), but that he
> rather got it out of the toolbox of his own tradition.
There would be no need for MMY to do such a thing."Steal" those
mantras? LOL. The mantras used in TM are commonly known. Please don't
misunderstand me though....just because there "common" doesn't mean
they aren't wonderful and powerful. The mantras MMY chose definitely
reveal a preference for the feminine aspect of the Divine...they are
saguna in nature..."with form". They are not Nirguna...without form.
Om, Soham, etc...are Nirguna.
> 6. The use of the word "vedic" instead of "tantric" is no limited to
> the TM, but is rather the way the whole Shankara tradition would call
> itself, despite the fact that the actual practises are from various
> sources. The same is true of the use "vedic" in the Bhakti movement:
> The Vaishanavas go even so far as to call the Srimad Bhagavatam the
> 5th Veda. The truth is that the Shankara tradition is rooted in the
> vedic tradition, and the basic teaching of Shankara are based
> according to his own admission on the Upanishads.
As far as the "big picture"...I agree. Generally...to show a
connection to the Vedas is seen as essential for legitimacy...and the
various traditions are quite willing to "stretch" to make that
connection. Yes, that "stretching" goes for the tantric traditions
too! We westerners....including me....want things to be black and
white...with clear lines drawn....well, we can all just let that idea
go bye-bye. Especially in the case of tantra...the influence of which
is just about all pervasive :)
>
> This probably belongs to another post, but I put it here:
> 7. I strongly object that the use of the mantra serves as an
> invocation, as you have said. An invocation cannot be made
> involuntary. The invocation of the vedic tradition is done consciously
> by the teacher, its to no Gods, but to a line of masters, whose
> collective experience is being invoced.
This deserves much more time than I have right now, but....
First...their "collective experience" is invoking God...and they
didn't call that
God Jehovah. :)
Secondly....Not to Gods? Does Gurur Brahma, Gurur Vishnur....ring a
bell? :) Shankara is equated to Lord Shiva. There's an invocation to
Lord Narayana, etc, etc. And this is VERY important....MMY does not
represent the Shankaracharya tradition....and his puja (arati), though
very sweet....isn't part of the tradition per se. MMY is blatantly
breaking his own Guru's... Guru Dev... and the Shankaracharya
tradition's teachings regarding the caste system regarding teaching
mantras, etc. This part of your post points to some of my key "beefs"
with MMY and his teachings. I would suggest that TM is precisely an
involuntary invocation of sorts. For most, admittedly...it is an
unknowingly, involuntary invocation. In my most recent post to
WillyT....I spoke of simply stating something to be true, doesn't make
it so...well, TM's propanganda that the bija mantras have no
connection to invocation of the Divine feminine is a good example of
doing just that. It is a joke...and a bad one...cuz it's to make the
practice palatable and sellable to the masses. Sure, MMY reduced the
traditional mantras to these "forces" just to their bija...only to
later to make up some of the "lost ground" with the "advanced
techniques". With the "advanced techniques"....the invocation is
crystal clear...and the argument that the mantras are "meaningless"
becomes utterly absurd...since they then have "meaning" in EVERY sense
of the the term. This is where I get like "a dog with a bone" :) The
very nature of these mantras makes it IMPOSSIBLE to divorce them from
their mystical, esoteric tradition. One can say whatever....yet the
"connection" of the mantra with the particular istadevata remains
eternally true. It cannot be "broken".
>Tantric science is also a
> science of vibration, spanda, I am sure you are ready to admit.
Absolutely. With great joy!
>While
> Tantra usually personifies these forces, TM uses the mantras only in
> the vibrational aspect.
>A personification IMHO is not implicit in the
> words nor is it taught.
This is the "problem". This is so key, personified or not....that
seperation is IMPOSSIBLE...which is precisely WHY THEY
"WORK"....namarupa. Whether one is conscious of the connection or
not...they will have an effect....though knowledge of their "meaning"
is extremely preferable....greatly empowering the practice. Please
don't respond with the "keeps the mind on the level of meaning"
silliness.
>But the vibrational value, also implicit in
> the tantric tradition, IS being taught and made use of.
> 8. It is true that tools out of the tantric toolbox are used in many
> Hindu traditions, who otherwise don't care much about the tantric
> philosophy. This is especially true for Bija mantras which are common
> even in the Bhakti tradition. One has to view each practise within its
> own system of use.
Well....OK...but :) ... the bhakti traditions' philosophy is greatly
influenced by the tantric traditions' philosophy (What isn't
now?)....and... the Bhakti tradition doesn't deny the mantras are
invoking a Divine force...and a very esoteric one at that.
Gotta run...
james
Judy Stein
<snip>
> This is the "problem". This is so key, personified or not....that
> seperation is IMPOSSIBLE...which is precisely WHY THEY
> "WORK"....namarupa. Whether one is conscious of the connection or
> not...they will have an effect....though knowledge of their "meaning"
> is extremely preferable....greatly empowering the practice. Please
> don't respond with the "keeps the mind on the level of meaning"
> silliness.
James, in all your rantings on this subject, never *once* have
I seen you explain why you believe "keeps the mind on the level
of meaning" is "silliness." You have always either ignored it
or dismissed it out of hand, as here.
Yet allowing the mind to transcend the level of meaning
is the core principle of what MMY teaches about meditation,
as well as being the practical heart of the TM technique.
Michael
1. I politely disagree with you on the names issue. I have written
here inumerable posts, giving all my reasons, and I am totally fed up
repeating myself here again and again. You can make a Google search
with "Michael" or "Trinity" and "Bija" to see it. If you say, that
there is such an intrinsic relatioship between a deity and a mantra,
it is only from within your particular beliefsystem. You may have this
belief, but no one else does have to have it.
2. TM is perfectly in line with the tradition as it is basically
adi-atmic meditation. It is not daivic as you want to have it. This
type of meditation, where the mental vrittis are reduced is described
in many scriptures including the YS and the Shiva Sutras.
3. In the Shankara system basically the Advaitic view is prevelant.
That does allow a person to worship Ishwara or form, but while it does
so, it also states that any form is only within maya. That may be
different from the explicitely Tantric POV. In this sense
personifications of gods are not taken absolute in any way.
4. In my opinion Tantra is among others also a system of magic. Any
system of magic, eastern or western, tries to establish a link between
certain symbols and spirit beings. These symbols serve as a means to
communicate or to manifest. They can be objects, geometrical
representations, sounds, words, colors, chakras. If you compare
different systems, they are actually quite different in the way they
associate these symbols with the unseen powers - and we can therefor
conclude that they are in no way absolute. This connection is
intentionally made by the practitioneer of the magick. It is
consciously affirmed with each ritual, with each invocation, but it is
always done consciously, with intent. The same is true for Tantra,
it's linking of Bija sounds with a deity. Now, I personally believe in
the existence of the deities, and have made experiences with them
myself, but I don't believe that this link with symbols and sounds is
absolute beyond personal belief. And of course such an intrinsic and
absolute link cannot be proven. Its a belief and nothing else.
5. It is quite possible that a differentiation between vibration and
form (and its personifaction) is being made. In Magick this difference
is called the difference between energy and form. In TM only the
vibration of the sound is used, no form is invoked, not ever, not even
one time! It is adiatmic meditation where the vibration of the sound
is being reduced, until Turya, the 4th state occures. The link that
tantrics may make between these sounds and various deities plays no
role, as this meditation is not intrinsically tantric. This is btw
also my own experience. I have not made any experience with the
Goddesses of tantra until the moment when I had a genuine interest in
them at my first India visit. And then it was NOT to the deity, tantra
ascribed to my mantra (that would have been Saraswathy) but rather to
Kali whose mantra (according to Tantra) I never used. The real reason
was an interest, and the visit to some temple (Kalkaji in Delhi).
Probably the poster vendors in Noida were more responsible for this
development than my TM mantra ;-)
6. Even in tantra, there is a difference between actual names of gods
such as Lakshmi, Shiva, or Durga and bijas, which are actually some
kind of codification. And the names Shiva etc are among others simply
epithets signifying some quality. So Shiva simply means auspicious,
Lakshmi simply means luck, Kali simply means time. Durga got her name
from a demon she killed with the very same name. E.g. Shiva was called
auspicious to ward off his anger. All these gods had their names
changed in the course of time. With this I want to say that even the
actual and conventional names of gods (which are not being used in TM)
are in no way absolute (they change) and simply mean qualities (that
are as such not related to any religion).
Now please watch out.
7. Any letter of the Sanskrit alphabet is being considered a Goddess,
a Matrika, in the tantric system. The bijas, usually one-sylabled, are
simple Sanskrit letters (who always contain vowels) with the bindu (m
or ng). Now lets look at it honestly: most bijas are simply the
beginning letter of the deity (which in itself is just the name of a
quality associated with the god!). The bija of Krishna starts with a
K, thus the bija of Kali, the bija of Ganesha starts with a G, and the
one of Shiva with an Sh. Thus it becomes even more clear, that the
bijas are simply a tantric codification of the deity, consisting of
the beginning letter (in most cases though not all) and the usual
ending. This makes it even more clear that the mantras are not in an
absolute way linked to the deity. It is rather an act of magical
linking with symbols. This is even more clear, when we consider how
sometimes certain Bijas are used with a variety of deities, or that 3
or 5 bijas are linked up for one deity, and in a different combination
the same are used *with* another deity. IOW they aren't absolute.
8. In TM, adiatmic meditation, these bijas are used as sounds,
vibrations, not to actualize their specific quality as it would be the
case in tantra, but simply as a sort of vehicle as it is so well
described in the 2nd lecture. The codification, that is done in the
tantric process, is not enacted in TM. Therefore deities are not
invoked in TM.
9. The tantric deity would have a lot to do, if each involuntary
utterance of their supposed names had to be answered. In german for
example, the word for bucket "eimer" is exactly pronounced like one of
the TM mantras. If invokation was such a mechanical act, the gods
would receive a lot spam, so to say. AFAIK the idea of a very
mechanical kind of invokations pertains more to smaller spirits and
entities, who demand this kind of thing. (but even then it is done
consciously) The higher you go up the ladder the more things like
intent, aspiration and purity of the heart matter. Krishna makes this
quite clear in the Gita, where not so much the actual act of offering,
but the actual feeling behind it matter. So if these Gods you are
referring to are higher in any sense, they'll surely not respond to
any involuntary mechanical kind of call. I don't think that's what you
are meaning to say ;-)
10) In the TM puja the lineage of masters is invoked. Brahma, Vishnu
and Shiva are NOT invoked, as these are only epithets of the Guru
here. It is true though, that while the tradition is being invoked, it
is also being linked to a divine source via the name Narayana. But
please do take note of the fact that there is actually a vedic Rishi
with the name Narayana, who is part of the tradition. So the
invocation is actually to a tradition of masters, even though
poetically rooted through the identity of names to a divine source.
(And then think, that we are actually all Gods, so how is it possible
*not* to invoke God??) This is also made clear by the fact that there
is no reference made any further to Narayana, no praise of his
qualities, or any mention of his companions, like Lakshmi, or
Hayagreeva et al. as this would be usually the case. Only Shankara and
Guru Dev are being praised especially (with the special meaning of
Shankara as Shiva being hinted at, it nevertheless it is clear, that
the historic Shankara is being meant). TM energetically links up to
this line of masters, who are all human beings who have realized the
Divine. There can be no doubt about this.
(as a side note here: I suspect that all the modern lists of Avatars
have developed out of such lists of masters in a sort of deification
process in hinduism; you can compare different lists in different
Puranas, and will see that many contain masters of the holy tradition.
This was then finally mixed with mythical figures and then reduced to
the now standard list of Dasavatars).
James, I don't think we'll ever agree on this issue. I don't believe
in the nama/rupa the way you do (besides that, bijas are no namas).
It's your belief, your practrise, which I respect. But you can't
impose your belief on other's and their practises. TM is different to
your system of Tantra. You should also note, that Tantra itself has
always developed. Yours is a system of ritual which is hardly
accessable for the modern man. Tantra has always encompassed all of
life, and has envisioned the Divine in everything, but like the Veda
itself has experienced a process of increased ritualization and
complication. That may be suitable to some persons, but not to all.
The adaptability of Tantra and the Indian system in toto has always
been it's greatest asset. TM is totally in line with this development,
and as such completely traditional.
I won't go into this mantra/names issue any further. It has been nice
talking to you, I respect your way
Michael
James Duffy
confess though, I'm disappointed...I thought we were getting close to
a common ground, now I see we weren't even remotely close. What you
have written below is 100% entirely your own fabrication and in no way
is supported by any teaching within ANY of the Indian spiritual
traditions...tantric, vedic, etc. Sure, you're free to create a
philosophy that appeals to your ego (Boomeritis), and argue its
merits...but don't be deluded thinking (like most TMers) that it is
supported scripturally or scholarly in ANY way whatsoever. What we
have here is....if I state something with enough zeal...and as long
its appears somewhat "logical", it must have some merit. Sorry, try
again. Simply stating something, doesn't make it true.
What you have written below not only isn't supported by ANY tradition
in India, but also contradicts the scholarly research of Padoux,
Brooks, Ortega, Sanderson, Silburn, Mark Dyczkowski, David Gordon
White, Kinsley, Coburn, etc. If you're "comfortable" with
this....knock yourself out.....I wish you the best of luck.
take care,
james
PS: BTW...from below, there are a detail or two...here and
there...that are correct...but terribly misunderstood...such as
multiple bijas used in a mantra for a specific deity. Sorry, I'm not
gonna bother responding.
han...@telda.net (Michael) wrote in message news:<c4b2aca1.03050...@posting.google.com>...
James Duffy
rantings about mantra, but I'll take your word for it that I haven't.
The issue as I understand it is...."meaning" is a "bad" thing for a
mantra to have....an obstacle to "transcending".
First....
My critical perspective only has relevance for those interested in God
realization...that regard TM as a spiritual practice...and MMY as a
real "Maharishi"...a
"great sage". With that said....
Let's take this approach....the Shankaracharya tradition, as just one
example, teaches (initiates) the bija mantras in the context of their
being associated with a particular istadevata... a "personal form of
God". The bijas in question (the ones used in TM) are "saguna" in
nature...meaning they have a corresponding form...a specific
form...the "deity"..."force"..."shakti"...take your pick. :) This is
fundamental mantra shastra "101". This teaching has been like this for
a LONG, LONG time....Guru Dev did not argue with it....rather Guru Dev
embraced it emphatically in becoming a Shankaracharya and teaching and
initiating "in line" with that tradition....a very conservative bunch
of folks btw. To help bring greater clarity to this issue...let's look
at the "advanced techniques" of TM. With the advanced techniques,
certain sounds are added to the bija. These sounds will have meaning
to any Hindu born in India....I say Hindu specifically as one example,
because the meanings of these "added sounds" have an obvious
"spiritual flavor" shall we say. How then can "meaning" be an obstacle
to "transcending" if "meaning" is blatantly being added to so-called
"ADVANCED techniques"? You may say..."ok, but I personally don't know
the meaning." Judy, am I to believe the advanced techiques of TM are
just for single language literate, english speaking people?? Am I (we)
to believe that the Shankaracharyas from the past including Guru Dev
never "transcended" because they knew the mantras have an esoteric
"meaning"?? Just for the record...and clarity...(cuz I would love for
you and I to finally understand one another in a respectful
manner)...I have never disagreed with you or others, that the bijas
are devoid of meaning in the common use of language. This is
acknowledged by everyone I can think of. I have never said to a
friend, "Yo....I'm going to the store to get some 'hum'...want any? "
:) But what I am ranting about is....the story doesn't end
there....we're still in the "preface". Here's where I get obnoxious
and condescending saying....MMY (TM) is using a little bit of the
"tools" and knowledge from a great, powerful, esoteric, mystical
tradition.....presenting these "teachings" at a kindergarten
level..which is what he's capable of ... yet advertising and selling
them as post graduate. Yes, I know I get really fiesty...and
disrespectful of MMY....and one can make an OUTSTANDING argument that
I should just "keep quiet". Maybe someday soon, but not right now
:).....MMY lies via omitting the esoteric, spiritual understanding of
the mantras ... divorcing the mantras from the tradition he claims to
represent. Guru Dev did not "meditate 20 minutes twice a day"! He did
real sadhana. If MMY had told people of these mantras' associations
with the esoteric sadhanas regarding various Goddesses or "forces" and
what's really going on when one uses them in terms of the koshas...he
wouldn't have reached the massses as he did in the "70's...so MMY is
....obviously... willing to lie through omission and manipulate the
presentational language to sell TM....and that, I do not support. For
all of MMY's talk of "purity of the teaching"....geez...what a joke! I
have never denied the power of the mantras used in TM....quite the
contrary....I've been attempting to say MMY hasn't told you guys
(TMers) even half of their greatness. TM is like the fruit drinks that
are "15% real fruit juice". True....regardless, that 15% is
real....and valuable. To quote Douglas Brooks "sanitized for prime
time". When mass appeal is your agenda...something great is
sacrificed.
Judy....I wasn't as much attacking MMY's concept of meditation
technique with my "Please don't respond with the "keeps the mind on
the level of meaning"
silliness" comment as I was asking not to get TM marketing one liners
regurgitated back at me. As bad as this sounds though,
frankly....that view of meditation technique (and its being SO
important) perfectly reflects just how "mainstream" MMY's intended
audience is. I don't believe it's a "bad" technique...for 20 minutes
of relaxation, it's quite nice....but it's been turned into a dogmatic
belief. It's unfortunate, imo, that MMY's teaching has become a
barrier to TMers getting to experience the profundity of traditional
japa, meditation, etc, etc under the guidance of a Sadguru.
Michael brings up an interesting question in another post... How can
multiple bijas be used to "invoke" one single "deity"?..... as they
are in many traditional mantras. There is no way I'm going to take the
weeks of writing it would require to even attempt(!) to tackle this
topic sufficiently. If you or others ( hopefully Michael) would like
to understand mantra at that level...please read Frawley's "Tantric
Yoga and the Wisdom Goddesses" as a primer... then Andre Padoux's
"Vac", then Abhinavagupta's "Paratrimsika" translated by Jaideva
Singh.
For fun...let's say I'm looney-tunes about the mantras....then I
ask...why do the bija mantras "work" better versus any "meaningless"
sound? Why? How? What makes them special? "Their effects are
known"...though very true... doesn't answer these questions. And
rather than go into presupposition after presupposition after
presupposition....can we find what scriptural texts support this
"other" explanation? What traditions recognize this "other"
explanation? etc. If, as in past arguments between myself and others
on amt....I'm left with "MMY says"....that is totally acceptable to me
as long as it is acknowledged that MMY's teachings contradict the
tradition and its scriptures that he simultaneously claims to
represent...... Also recognize in doing so, you are saying everyone
.... Guru Dev, Ramakrishna, Anandamayi Ma, Ammachi, Swami Laksmanjoo,
Karunamayi, past Shankaracharyas, etc, etc, etc(!) are all
wrong....and only MMY is correct....then indeed....it's time for us to
agree to disagree ... and for me to "keep quiet".
james
jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein) wrote in message news:<19b3c03e.03050...@posting.google.com>...
Judy Stein
> rantings about mantra, but I'll take your word for it that I haven't.
Well, actually you've posted the rancid garbage below many
times. What you *haven't* done is addressed MMY's teaching
ON ITS OWN TERMS to show why it's wrong in principle.
> The issue as I understand it is...."meaning" is a "bad" thing for a
> mantra to have....an obstacle to "transcending".
No, that's not the issue. The issue is whether *entertaining*
meaning is an obstacle to transcending meaning.
There's a more basic question, of course, which is whether
transcending is the most efficient means of developing
consciousness for householders.
Michael raised a number of excellent points about fundamental
principles in his latest post as well, which you simply brushed
off. All you seem to be able to do is cite "scripture" (or
rather, specific interpretations thereof) and other teachers
and insist that because they say (or you interpret them to be
saying) something different, therefore MMY must be wrong.
Why is it so impossibly difficult for you to address MMY's
teaching ON ITS OWN TERMS?
ColdBluICE
> James,
> 1. I politely disagree with you on the names issue. I have written
> here inumerable posts, giving all my reasons, and I am totally fed up
> repeating myself here again and again. You can make a Google search
> with "Michael" or "Trinity" and "Bija" to see it. If you say, that
> there is such an intrinsic relatioship between a deity and a mantra,
> it is only from within your particular beliefsystem. You may have this
> belief, but no one else does have to have it.
Just as you personaly claim (in your confused belief system) that-,
there does not exist an intrinsic relatioship between a deity and a
mantra.
>
> 2. TM is perfectly in line with the tradition as it is basically
> adi-atmic meditation. It is not daivic as you want to have it. This
> type of meditation, where the mental vrittis are reduced is described
> in many scriptures including the YS and the Shiva Sutras.
Hmm...probably why Lil Brahmachari MishMashi Mahesh created his own
"Confused Belief System.. aka "the holy tradition".
The contradiction in your comparison is apparent... why have a "puja"
to the "holy tradition" if indeed-, there does not exist an intrinsic
relatioship between a deity and a mantra.
> 3. In the Shankara system basically the Advaitic view is prevelant.
> That does allow a person to worship Ishwara or form, but while it does
> so, it also states that any form is only within maya. That may be
> different from the explicitely Tantric POV. In this sense
> personifications of gods are not taken absolute in any way.
Hmmm.. lets see Micheal contradiction (deep personal confusion) lies
with the facts that-;
1) at all five Pethams (Seats)-; Dwarika/Jyosimath, Puri, Sringeri &
Kanchi there is an *established temple diety*/Personal Form of God.
2). at all five Peethams(Seats) the spiritual heads (Shankaracharyas)
teach devotion to a Personal Form of God(Sakar Brahm), and Diety
worship at the Ashram Temple.
That would be the "Shankara System".
> 4. In my opinion Tantra is among others also a system of magic. Any
> system of magic, eastern or western, tries to establish a link between
> certain symbols and spirit beings.
> <snip>
There is one of Micheals spins into *Left Field*... "magic". Define
that wholly *Western Concept*.
> 5. It is quite possible that a differentiation between vibration and
> form (and its personifaction) is being made. In Magick this difference
> is called the difference between energy and form.
> <snip>
Wow.. another tailspin into left field.. "magick".
> In TM only the
> vibration of the sound is used, no form is invoked, not ever, not even
> one time! It is adiatmic meditation where the vibration of the sound
> is being reduced, until Turya, the 4th state occures.
And, your(or the "tm-ers") so-called "Turya" is indeed the *real
thing* because?... Oh let me guess.. Lil Brahmchari MishMashi Mahesh
told you so?
Yea as if?... Everyone knows Lil MishMashi Mahesh cannot even buy a
visa back to India.
As you said above... "You may have this belief, but no one else does
have to have it.
> <snip>
> 6. Even in tantra, there is a difference between actual names of gods
> such as Lakshmi, Shiva, or Durga and bijas, which are actually some
> kind of codification. And the names Shiva etc are among others simply
> epithets signifying some quality. So Shiva simply means auspicious,
> Lakshmi simply means luck, Kali simply means time. Durga got her name
> from a demon she killed with the very same name. E.g. Shiva was called
> auspicious to ward off his anger. All these gods had their names
> changed in the course of time. With this I want to say that even the
> actual and conventional names of gods (which are not being used in TM)
> are in no way absolute (they change) and simply mean qualities (that
> are as such not related to any religion).
>
> Now please watch out.
See above
>
> 7. Any letter of the Sanskrit alphabet is being considered a Goddess,
> a Matrika, in the tantric system. The bijas, usually one-sylabled, are
> simple Sanskrit letters (who always contain vowels) with the bindu (m
> or ng).
Maybe in your own *Confused Personal Ideology*.
> Now lets look at it honestly: most bijas are simply the
> beginning letter of the deity (which in itself is just the name of a
> quality associated with the god!). The bija of Krishna starts with a
> K, thus the bija of Kali, the bija of Ganesha starts with a G, and the
> one of Shiva with an Sh. Thus it becomes even more clear, that the
> bijas are simply a tantric codification of the deity, consisting of
> the beginning letter (in most cases though not all) and the usual
> ending. This makes it even more clear that the mantras are not in an
> absolute way linked to the deity. It is rather an act of magical
> linking with symbols. This is even more clear, when we consider how
> sometimes certain Bijas are used with a variety of deities, or that 3
> or 5 bijas are linked up for one deity, and in a different combination
> the same are used *with* another deity. IOW they aren't absolute.
>
> 8. In TM, adiatmic meditation, these bijas are used as sounds,
> vibrations, not to actualize their specific quality as it would be the
> case in tantra, but simply as a sort of vehicle as it is so well
> described in the 2nd lecture. The codification, that is done in the
> tantric process, is not enacted in TM. Therefore deities are not
> invoked in TM.
Then why have a "puja" to a "Wholly fabricated Tradition"?
>
> 9. The tantric deity would have a lot to do, if each involuntary
> utterance of their supposed names had to be answered. In german for
> example, the word for bucket "eimer" is exactly pronounced like one of
> the TM mantras.
No that was my "mantra"... "eima".
> <snip>
> 10) In the TM puja the lineage of masters is invoked. Brahma, Vishnu
> and Shiva are NOT invoked, as these are only epithets of the Guru
> here.
- Now there is a mis-representation of stated fact,..
Sri Shankara is a Avatar of Lord Shiva.. i think you stated that
your"self" in one of posts.
> It is true though, that while the tradition is being invoked, it
> is also being linked to a divine source via the name Narayana.
- Hey wait Micheal.. Lord Nrayana and Lord Sri Vishnu are one and the
same!
> But
> please do take note of the fact that there is actually a vedic Rishi
> with the name Narayana, who is part of the tradition. So the
> invocation is actually to a tradition of masters, even though
> poetically rooted through the identity of names to a divine source.
> (And then think, that we are actually all Gods,
-Yes Micheal.. we have all been treated to your *Delusions of
Grandeur*.
OK God... let me see a demostration of one of your Almighty Powers.. I
would like a 2nd Moon in orbit around the Earth.. please make this one
slightly smaller and a pale blue color.. also God,.. if you don't
mind.. I'd like this new Blue moon to be visible in the daylight
hours.
> <snip>
> James, I don't think we'll ever agree on this issue. I don't believe
> in the nama/rupa the way you do (besides that, bijas are no namas).
And that statement is true because... so crackpot "yogi" told you so.
Michael
> > Michael wrote:
> > James,
> > 1. I politely disagree with you on the names issue. I have written
> > here inumerable posts, giving all my reasons, and I am totally fed up
> > repeating myself here again and again. You can make a Google search
> > with "Michael" or "Trinity" and "Bija" to see it. If you say, that
> > there is such an intrinsic relatioship between a deity and a mantra,
> > it is only from within your particular beliefsystem. You may have this
> > belief, but no one else does have to have it.
>
> Just as you personaly claim (in your confused belief system) that-,
> there does not exist an intrinsic relatioship between a deity and a
> mantra.
Ad hominem with no logical bearing
>
> >
> > 2. TM is perfectly in line with the tradition as it is basically
> > adi-atmic meditation. It is not daivic as you want to have it. This
> > type of meditation, where the mental vrittis are reduced is described
> > in many scriptures including the YS and the Shiva Sutras.
>
> Hmm...probably why Lil Brahmachari MishMashi Mahesh created his own
> "Confused Belief System.. aka "the holy tradition".
>
> The contradiction in your comparison is apparent... why have a "puja"
> to the "holy tradition" if indeed-, there does not exist an intrinsic
> relatioship between a deity and a mantra.
Why would having a puja mean there exists such a relationship?
> > 3. In the Shankara system basically the Advaitic view is prevelant.
> > That does allow a person to worship Ishwara or form, but while it does
> > so, it also states that any form is only within maya. That may be
> > different from the explicitely Tantric POV. In this sense
> > personifications of gods are not taken absolute in any way.
>
> Hmmm.. lets see Micheal contradiction (deep personal confusion) lies
> with the facts that-;
> 1) at all five Pethams (Seats)-; Dwarika/Jyosimath, Puri, Sringeri &
> Kanchi there is an *established temple diety*/Personal Form of God.
No contradiction here, because I just said that the advaita system
*allows* worship of the personal, but it definitely doesn't place it
highest.
>
> 2). at all five Peethams(Seats) the spiritual heads (Shankaracharyas)
> teach devotion to a Personal Form of God(Sakar Brahm), and Diety
> worship at the Ashram Temple.
No contradiction either.
>
> That would be the "Shankara System".
Which means that there is a "higher" and a "lower" knowledge. To take
the emotion out of this issue, lets say that Shankara taught 2
approaches of knowledge. (one for the common people, personal worship,
and the main approach in his books, impersonal meditation)
>
>
> > 4. In my opinion Tantra is among others also a system of magic. Any
> > system of magic, eastern or western, tries to establish a link between
> > certain symbols and spirit beings.
> > <snip>
>
> There is one of Micheals spins into *Left Field*... "magic". Define
> that wholly *Western Concept*.
Tantra IS used for magic purposes in India. It is completely
legitimate to compare different systems of magick. I know you both
don't like the term, but I assure you, that it is NOT meant in a
derogative way. E.g. a similar relationship between meaning and sound
is also claimed for other languages, Hebrew would be one. Kabbalah, is
a similar system like Tantra, very comparable in many aspects, but of
course Hebrew and Sanskrit are totally different languages. Both can't
be absolute at the same time! It's good to step out of the narrow
confines of sectarian thinking.
>
> > 5. It is quite possible that a differentiation between vibration and
> > form (and its personifaction) is being made. In Magick this difference
> > is called the difference between energy and form.
> > <snip>
>
> Wow.. another tailspin into left field.. "magick".
See above. And: you are not able to say why this wouldn't be possible.
>
> > In TM only the
> > vibration of the sound is used, no form is invoked, not ever, not even
> > one time! It is adiatmic meditation where the vibration of the sound
> > is being reduced, until Turya, the 4th state occures.
>
> And, your(or the "tm-ers") so-called "Turya" is indeed the *real
> thing* because?... Oh let me guess.. Lil Brahmchari MishMashi Mahesh
> told you so?
No, because it is written in the Shiva Sutras.
>
> Yea as if?... Everyone knows Lil MishMashi Mahesh cannot even buy a
> visa back to India.
>
> As you said above... "You may have this belief, but no one else does
> have to have it.
Right. And that's why TM is not a religion, understand?
>
> > <snip>
> > 6. Even in tantra, there is a difference between actual names of gods
> > such as Lakshmi, Shiva, or Durga and bijas, which are actually some
> > kind of codification. And the names Shiva etc are among others simply
> > epithets signifying some quality. So Shiva simply means auspicious,
> > Lakshmi simply means luck, Kali simply means time. Durga got her name
> > from a demon she killed with the very same name. E.g. Shiva was called
> > auspicious to ward off his anger. All these gods had their names
> > changed in the course of time. With this I want to say that even the
> > actual and conventional names of gods (which are not being used in TM)
> > are in no way absolute (they change) and simply mean qualities (that
> > are as such not related to any religion).
> >
> > Now please watch out.
>
> See above
>
> >
> > 7. Any letter of the Sanskrit alphabet is being considered a Goddess,
> > a Matrika, in the tantric system. The bijas, usually one-sylabled, are
> > simple Sanskrit letters (who always contain vowels) with the bindu (m
> > or ng).
>
> Maybe in your own *Confused Personal Ideology*.
No, according to Tantra. Read the Shiva Sutras. James agrees on this.
> > Now lets look at it honestly: most bijas are simply the
> > beginning letter of the deity (which in itself is just the name of a
> > quality associated with the god!). The bija of Krishna starts with a
> > K, thus the bija of Kali, the bija of Ganesha starts with a G, and the
> > one of Shiva with an Sh. Thus it becomes even more clear, that the
> > bijas are simply a tantric codification of the deity, consisting of
> > the beginning letter (in most cases though not all) and the usual
> > ending. This makes it even more clear that the mantras are not in an
> > absolute way linked to the deity. It is rather an act of magical
> > linking with symbols. This is even more clear, when we consider how
> > sometimes certain Bijas are used with a variety of deities, or that 3
> > or 5 bijas are linked up for one deity, and in a different combination
> > the same are used *with* another deity. IOW they aren't absolute.
> >
> > 8. In TM, adiatmic meditation, these bijas are used as sounds,
> > vibrations, not to actualize their specific quality as it would be the
> > case in tantra, but simply as a sort of vehicle as it is so well
> > described in the 2nd lecture. The codification, that is done in the
> > tantric process, is not enacted in TM. Therefore deities are not
> > invoked in TM.
>
> Then why have a "puja" to a "Wholly fabricated Tradition"?
The holy tradition is invoked, NOT deities. Masters who have lived on
earth. A tradition is a stream of energy. The symbol of the river is
quite appropriate. The water is always new in the river, and yet it is
connected to all the previous streams of water flowing in the river
bed. It is the energy of the tradition that is being transmitted,
personified esp. in the person of Guru Dev, as it is only that, that
is *consciously* invoked by the initiator. One other major point here:
I claim that besides that an invokation has to be done consciously, it
usually has to be spoken aloud. Therefore each meditation couldn't be
an invokation, as the mantra is only repeated silently. So, it's just
what it is, meditation.
>
> >
> > 9. The tantric deity would have a lot to do, if each involuntary
> > utterance of their supposed names had to be answered. In german for
> > example, the word for bucket "eimer" is exactly pronounced like one of
> > the TM mantras.
>
> No that was my "mantra"... "eima".
No you know what it means in german. And I claim german to be the only
absolute language ;-)
>
> > <snip>
> > 10) In the TM puja the lineage of masters is invoked. Brahma, Vishnu
> > and Shiva are NOT invoked, as these are only epithets of the Guru
> > here.
>
> - Now there is a mis-representation of stated fact,..
> Sri Shankara is a Avatar of Lord Shiva.. i think you stated that
> your"self" in one of posts.
He is being looked upon. It's a matter of belief. But he was also a
master. In the puja though, it is not stated that he was an Avatar. So
you can believe what you want.
>
> > It is true though, that while the tradition is being invoked, it
> > is also being linked to a divine source via the name Narayana.
>
> - Hey wait Micheal.. Lord Nrayana and Lord Sri Vishnu are one and the
> same!
Really, I'm amazed...
Here is a story for our comparative religionists:
Narayana according to the Manu Smritis means, the one whos place of
movement is the water. In the Bible it is stated, that the Spirit of
God hovered over the waters. Now Spirit in hebrew is the same word as
Breath or Movement. Besides that, Narayana was also the name of a
Rishi. In ancient India it was actually a very common name. I remember
a story in the Bhagavatam..
>
> > But
> > please do take note of the fact that there is actually a vedic Rishi
> > with the name Narayana, who is part of the tradition. So the
> > invocation is actually to a tradition of masters, even though
> > poetically rooted through the identity of names to a divine source.
> > (And then think, that we are actually all Gods,
>
> -Yes Micheal.. we have all been treated to your *Delusions of
> Grandeur*.
>
> OK God... let me see a demostration of one of your Almighty Powers.. I
> would like a 2nd Moon in orbit around the Earth.. please make this one
> slightly smaller and a pale blue color.. also God,.. if you don't
> mind.. I'd like this new Blue moon to be visible in the daylight
> hours.
How am I responsible for your world?
> > <snip>
>
>
> > James, I don't think we'll ever agree on this issue. I don't believe
> > in the nama/rupa the way you do (besides that, bijas are no namas).
>
> And that statement is true because... so crackpot "yogi" told you so.
No, because there are separate namas. Why would you have to repeat two
namas in each mantra? One would be enough no? The reason is that the
bija is not a nama, thats why in traditional devotional mantras, the
nama folows after the bija. There's a reason for everything.
<snip>
ColdBluICE
> > > Michael wrote:
> > > James,
> > > 1. I politely disagree with you on the names issue. I have written
> > > here inumerable posts, giving all my reasons, and I am totally fed up
> > > repeating myself here again and again. You can make a Google search
> > > with "Michael" or "Trinity" and "Bija" to see it. If you say, that
> > > there is such an intrinsic relatioship between a deity and a mantra,
> > > it is only from within your particular beliefsystem. You may have this
> > > belief, but no one else does have to have it.
> >
> > Just as you personaly claim (in your confused belief system) that-,
> > there does not exist an intrinsic relatioship between a deity and a
> > mantra.
>
> Ad hominem with no logical bearing
> >
> > >
> > > 2. TM is perfectly in line with the tradition as it is basically
> > > adi-atmic meditation. It is not daivic as you want to have it. This
> > > type of meditation, where the mental vrittis are reduced is described
> > > in many scriptures including the YS and the Shiva Sutras.
> >
> > Hmm...probably why Lil Brahmachari MishMashi Mahesh created his own
> > "Confused Belief System.. aka "the holy tradition".
> >
> > The contradiction in your comparison is apparent... why have a "puja"
> > to the "holy tradition" if indeed-, there does not exist an intrinsic
> > relatioship between a deity and a mantra.
>
> Why would having a puja mean there exists such a relationship?
Well probably because Lil MishMashi Mahesh in his- 'Beacon Of Light of
the Himalayas'.. he(Mahesh) is quoted as saying-, "We do not select
any sound like 'mike', flower table, pen, wail, etc, because such
ordinary sounds can do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind;
whereas there are some special sounds which have the additional
efficacy of producing vibrations whose effects are found to be
congenial to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do
not select any word at random. For our practice, we select only the
suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace
of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life."
-source- http://www.trancenet.org/secrets/beacon/beacon2.shtml#25
Come on GodMicheal you make this way to easy!
>
> > > 3. In the Shankara system basically the Advaitic view is prevelant.
> > > That does allow a person to worship Ishwara or form, but while it does
> > > so, it also states that any form is only within maya. That may be
> > > different from the explicitely Tantric POV. In this sense
> > > personifications of gods are not taken absolute in any way.
> >
> > Hmmm.. lets see Micheals' contradiction (deep personal confusion) lies
> > with the facts that-;
> > 1) at all five Pethams (Seats)-; Dwarika/Jyosimath, Puri, Sringeri &
> > Kanchi there is an *established temple diety*/Personal Form of God.
> > That would be the "Shankara System".
> No contradiction here, because I just said that the advaita system
> *allows* worship of the personal, but it definitely doesn't place it
> highest.
-GodMicheal, your statement reveals your true lack of understanding
of Sri Adi Shankar's Philosphy. Sri Shankar placed the highest value
on Bhakti.. And, this would explain why He wrote..
..Bhaja Govindam is a musical piece in Sanskrit composed by the great
Hindu saint and philosopher Adi Shankaracharya hundreds of years ago.
In this piece, he describes the trials and tribulations ("samsara" )
that everyone has to go through in this life and how to escape the
"life and death" odyssey by seeking Lord Govinda (the "protector"
among the Trinity of Gods in Hindu..
Sample of Translation in English of the sloka
bhaja govindam bhaja govindam
govindam bhaja mUDhamate
samprApte sannihite kAle
nahi nahi rakShati dukrunjkaraNe]
Sample of the Meaning of the sloka in English
Adore the Lord, adore the Lord, adore the Lord, O fool! when the
appointed time (for departure) comes, the repetition of grammatical
rules will not, indeed, save you.
-source- http://www.kuladevatha.com/bhaja_govindam.htm
> >
> > 2). at all five Peethams(Seats) the spiritual heads (Shankaracharyas)
> > teach devotion to a Personal Form of God(Sakar Brahm), and Diety
> > worship at the Ashram Temple.
>
> No contradiction either.
> >
> > That would be the "Shankara System".
>
> Which means that there is a "higher" and a "lower" knowledge. To take
> the emotion out of this issue, lets say that Shankara taught 2
> approaches of knowledge. (one for the common people, personal worship,
> and the main approach in his books, impersonal meditation)
- GodMicheal, you have a nasty habit of putting words in Sri Adi
Shankar's mouth!
You are the only "god" claiming- there was any "higher" or "lower"
teaching.. Sri Shankar *NEVER SAID SUCH A THING*!
Find any example of *Original Authentic writings* of Sri Adi Shankar
teaching strictly- as a "main approach" any "impersonal meditation",
and such nonsense as- "higher and lower teaching"!..
All you will find is confused writings of "yogis".
Sri Adi Shankar did write-, "there are two types knowledge.. MayaVida
(Relative knowledge of Maya/Material Universe), and ParaVidya
(Absolute Knowledge of God).
Just as you attempted to debate me two years past, as to the author of
Prabodh Sudahkar. I said-, "Sri Adi Shankar wrote His final work
Prabodh Sudhakar, and explained devotion to Lord Krishna, as the
Supreme Path of Knowledge..
..Shankaracharya was the descension of God Shiv Who is God of yog and
liberation and also an ardent devotee of Krishn, so Shankaracharya
explained about gyan and yog but he inserted bhakti in the very end of
Aprokchanubhooti and described Krishn devotion in the Prabodh
Sudhakar.
-source-http://jkp.org/path_to_God/sanatan_dharm_the_eternal_religion3.html
..Shankaracharya considered devotion as the best means to attain
self-knowledge. He himself was a great devotee. Many Shlokas also bear
testimony to the fact that he was also an ardent devotee of Lord
Krishna. He had made quotations of many Shlokas connected with Lord
Shiva. He wrote many sacred books like Brahmasutra Bhashya,
Upanishad(Ish , Ken, Katha,Prashna, Mundaka, Mandukya) Bhashya, Gita
Bhashya, Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya, Sanatsujatiya bhashya, Hastamalak
Bhashya, Lalitatrishati Bhashya, Viveka Chudamani, Prabodh Sudhakar,
Updesh Sahashri, Aprokshanubhuti, Satashloki, Dasha shloki, Sabvedant
Siddhantsaar Sangraha, Vakya Sudha, Panchikaran, Prapanchasara, Atma
Bodh, Manishapanchak Anandlahiri, Vividh stotra etc
-source- http://www.urday.com/shankaracharya.htm
> >
> >
> > > 4. In my opinion Tantra is among others also a system of magic. Any
> > > system of magic, eastern or western, tries to establish a link between
> > > certain symbols and spirit beings.
> > > <snip>
> >
> > There is one of Micheals spins into *Left Field*... "magic". Define
> > that wholly *Western Concept*.
>
> Tantra IS used for magic purposes in India. It is completely
> legitimate to compare different systems of magick. I know you both
> don't like the term, but I assure you, that it is NOT meant in a
> derogative way. E.g. a similar relationship between meaning and sound
> is also claimed for other languages, Hebrew would be one. Kabbalah, is
> a similar system like Tantra, very comparable in many aspects, but of
> course Hebrew and Sanskrit are totally different languages. Both can't
> be absolute at the same time! It's good to step out of the narrow
> confines of sectarian thinking.
-Hmmm.. i don't think so GodMicheal.. lets see what is written at
Sringeri Math (one of the five Mathas established by Sri Shankara)..
..SriSankarAcAryavary
brahmAnandapradAyaka
ajnAnatimiraditya
sujnAnAmbudhicandramA
(1) Sri Sankaracharya, the bestower of Brahmic bliss, shines like the
moon rising over the sea, dispelling ignorance.
4) An uplifter of the order of Sannyasis, he has unfettered sway over
Tantric lore. An incarnation of Siva, he has established the tenets of
Advaita.
shaNmatasthApanAcAryas
trayImArga prakASaka
vEdavEdAntatattvajnO
durvAdimatakhaNDana
(5) Having initiated six modes of worship, he has shed light on the
vedic path. A knower of subtleties of Vedas and Vedanta, he has
refuted the doctrines of false religions.
kAncyAm ShrIcakrarAjAkhya
yantrasthApanadIkshita
SrIcakrAtmakatAtanka
tOshitAtmbA manOratatha
(16) He has installed a Sri Chakra in Kanchi and pleased with the
Divine Mother by giving her earrings in the form of Sri Chakra
surEShvarAkhya sacchishya
sanyAsAShrama dAyaka
rnusimhabhakta sadratnagarbha
hErambapoojaka
(23) He gave sannyasa diksha to his excellent disciple Suresvara. He
is a devotee of Nrisimha. He worships Ratnagarbha Ganapati
-source-http://www.svbf.org/sringeri/journal/vol1no2/ashtottara.html
-So lets see if we under stand this correctly, GodMicheal-
1) Sri Adi Shankar wrote Bhajo Govindam (a sloka to Lord Sri Krishna,
as the supreme remover of obstacles to 'self'-knowledge)..
2) Sri Adi Shankar in His *final work*(Prabodh Sudhakar) wrote of the
Supremacy of Sri Krishna Bhakti..
3). The Sringeri Matha propounds the authentic teachings of Sri Adi
Shankar (Bestower of "Brahmic" Bliss or Brahm Ananda), and taught *SIX
MODES OF WORSHIP*..
4). Sri Adi Shankara gave the Divine Mother a gift of earrings at
Kanchi Matha..
5). He was a *Great Devotee* of *Personal Form Of God(Sakar Brahm)..
Now.. stay with me GodMicheal, here comes the difficult part.. Can we
verify these facts anywhere else?.. say (for example another Matha)
such as Dwarika Sharada Peetham?.. You bet we can..
..Shankaracharya: The Lord, Adi Shankara was a great exponent of
Vedic
Sanatan Dharma. God, he taught, is grouped into six forms. He preached
six types--five based on forms of God like Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu,
etc. and one, Nirakar, without form. However, the worship of God
without
form being extremely difficult was reserved for renunciates. That
is what Adi Shankaracharya had instructed.
Bhagavan Shree Shankara revived Vedic Sanatan Dharma. He said God
has six forms. So accordingly, Maharaji (Guru Dev) gave ``upadesh''
(initiation) to meditate upon those forms for the sake of our worship.
Questioner: My Lord, Shankaracharya Brahmananda Saraswatiji Maharaj
(Guru Dev), who is our ``pujapaad'' (whose feet are worthy of our
respect), who is ``brahmaleen'' (absorbed in Brahma, the omnipresent
form of God) who is presiding over the Jyotish, who is the teacher
of the entire universe--that he (Guru Dev) used to instruct mantras
to his disciples. I would like to know which mantras were those?
Shankaracharya: The Lord, Shankaracharya Brahmananda Saraswatiji
Maharaj (Guru Dev) strictly adhered to the ``Varna'' (caste) and
``Aashram''
(four stages of life) systems. He believed in one's Varna (caste)
by birth. Whosoever came to him to become a disciple, he used to ask
him which form of God he was in love with. Whichever form the new
disciple had an interest in, that form he would explain to the new
disciple. [Guru Dev] used to explain, Either you should depend on
your own inclination or else, he, after understanding your previous
life and which form of God you worshipped then, would instruct the
initiate accordingly.
Without having an ``IshTadevataa'' (a personal form of God), no one
could have a ``Mantra'' (name of God) from him. The very meaning of
Mantra is IshTadevataa (a personal form of God). Therefore, along
with every mantra, thinking or reflecting over the form of the
IshTadevataa
is essential. Therefore, in all the modes of worship, one reflects
over one's IshTadevataa before chanting or meditating with one's
mantra.
Questioner (to interpreter): Can you explain to Maharaji (The
Shankaracharya)
that I was trained by Mahesh Yogi as a teacher of TM, and I can
explain
to him what I was taught. I don't understand whether or not what I
was taught is correct. Explain to him that I was given 16 mantras,
by Maharishi that I can pronounce to Maharaji. I will pronounce them
one after the other as I was trained. They are to be given out by
certain ages. I can read them to Maharaji and then he can comment
whether they are correct or incorrect. If he can explain how they
are supposed to be used, or whether they are supposed to be used or
not. Eng, em, enga, ema, aing, aim, ainga, aima, hiring, hirim,
kiring,
kirim, shiring, shirim, shyam, shyama.
Shankaracharya: It's like this. Here we have each mantra connected
with one god. There lies the bija mantra. That bija mantra is for
that god.
Questioner: Mahesh Yogi's mantras are of one [sound] each, for
instance,
eng, em, enga, ema, aing, aim, etc. These are given by age or sex.
This is not the teachings of the Vedas or Scriptures, what is your
opinion?
Shankaracharya: We do join Bija Aksharas (single syllabled
names/sounds)
to the mantras. But, Bija Aksharas also mean IshTadevataas (names
of the personal forms of god). The kind of process you just described
is purely imaginary and it has no connection with our Scripture of
the Shankaracharya tradition.
Bija Akshara is connected with IshTadevataas to make it a mantra.
These have relevance with the Scriptures, a tradition. Whatever Mahesh
does in this respect has no relevance to Shastra (Scriptures).
Robert Kropinski
-source- http://www.minet.org/Documents/shank-2
> >
> > > 5. It is quite possible that a differentiation between vibration and
> > > form (and its personifaction) is being made. In Magick this difference
> > > is called the difference between energy and form.
> > > <snip>
> >
> > Wow.. another tailspin into left field.. "magick".
>
> See above. And: you are not able to say why this wouldn't be possible.
> >
> > > In TM only the
> > > vibration of the sound is used, no form is invoked, not ever, not even
> > > one time! It is adiatmic meditation where the vibration of the sound
> > > is being reduced, until Turya, the 4th state occures.
> >
> > And, your(or the "tm-ers") so-called "Turya" is indeed the *real
> > thing* because?... Oh let me guess.. Lil Brahmchari MishMashi Mahesh
> > told you so?
>
> No, because it is written in the Shiva Sutras.
> >
> > Yea as if?... Everyone knows Lil MishMashi Mahesh cannot even buy a
> > visa back to India.
> >
> > As you said above... "You may have this belief, but no one else does
> > have to have it.
>
> Right. And that's why TM is not a religion, understand?
-No, "tm" is a religion. Re-read the "Beacon Of Light".
> <snip>
-Now GodMicheal this is another futile attempt by you, to distort the
statements of Lil MishMashi Mahesh..
..INVOCATION
To LORD NARAYANA, to lotus-born BRAHMA the Creator, to VASHISHTHA to
SHAKTI and his son, PARASHAR,
To VYASA, to SHUKADEVA, to the great GAUDAPADA, to GOVINDA, ruler
among the yogis, to his disciple,
SHRI SHANKARACHARYA, to his disciples PADMA-PADA and HASTA-MALAKA,
And TROTAKACHARYA and VARTIKA-KARA, to others, to the tradition of our
Masters, I bow down.
-source-http://www.trancenet.org/secrets/puja/tradt.shtml
-Yep sure looks like the "Dieties/Lord Naryana/Brahma the Creator"
are invoked!
GodMicheal you make this to easy.
> >
> > >
> > > 9. The tantric deity would have a lot to do, if each involuntary
> > > utterance of their supposed names had to be answered. In german for
> > > example, the word for bucket "eimer" is exactly pronounced like one of
> > > the TM mantras.
> >
> > No that was my "mantra"... "eima".
>
> No you know what it means in german. And I claim german to be the only
> absolute language ;-)
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > 10) In the TM puja the lineage of masters is invoked. Brahma, Vishnu
> > > and Shiva are NOT invoked, as these are only epithets of the Guru
> > > here.
> >
> > - Now there is a mis-representation of stated fact,..
> > Sri Shankara is a Avatar of Lord Shiva.. i think you stated that
> > your"self" in one of posts.
>
> He is being looked upon. It's a matter of belief. But he was also a
> master. In the puja though, it is not stated that he was an Avatar. So
> you can believe what you want.
-And, shall i find your post where you say Sri Adi Shankar is an
Avatar of Lord Sri Shiva?
Lets see a demostration of your Almighty powers.. GodMicheal.
You have claimed to be God...Micheal
-My "world" is the very same as yours... GodMicheal. Your world is
made of air, land & sea. At the end of our atmosphere is outer space..
further beyond is that celestial body that orbits our world.. known as
as the moon. Now please GodMicheal, if its not any inconvience please
make my new Blue Moon, today!
Michael
> > The contradiction in your comparison is apparent... why have a "puja"
> > to the "holy tradition" if indeed-, there does not exist an intrinsic
> > relatioship between a deity and a mantra.
>
> Why would having a puja mean there exists such a relationship?
"Well probably because Lil MishMashi Mahesh in his- 'Beacon Of Light
of
the Himalayas'.. he(Mahesh) is quoted as saying-, "We do not select
any sound like 'mike', flower table, pen, wail, etc, because such
ordinary sounds can do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind;
whereas there are some special sounds which have the additional
efficacy of producing vibrations whose effects are found to be
congenial to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do
not select any word at random. For our practice, we select only the
suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace
of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life."
-source- http://www.trancenet.org/secrets/beacon/beacon2.shtml#25"
But thats not related to the puja in any way, right?
Lets just assume, just for a moment, Maharishi is teaching meditation
to a Hindu related audience in a different way than in the west, and
that he diliberately is not teaching Hinduism here. What proof could
that statement be, made almost 50 years ago in India, except that it
is relating to what he taught at that time in India?
"Come on GodMicheal you make this way to easy!"
Not for you.
" - GodMicheal, you have a nasty habit of putting words in Sri Adi
Shankar's mouth!
You are the only "god" claiming- there was any "higher" or "lower"
teaching.. Sri Shankar *NEVER SAID SUCH A THING*!"
True, he didn't speak english. But your habbit is even more nasty:
putting works under his pen, which he never wrote.
"Find any example of *Original Authentic writings* of Sri Adi Shankar
teaching strictly- as a "main approach" any "impersonal meditation",
and such nonsense as- "higher and lower teaching"!.."
"All you will find is confused writings of "yogis".
"Sri Adi Shankar did write-, "there are two types knowledge.. MayaVida
(Relative knowledge of Maya/Material Universe), "
okay, lower
"and ParaVidya
(Absolute Knowledge of God)."
and higher Knowledge. Para= high, supreme, transcendent,
Vidya=knowledge
(of God is your vaishnavic theistic addition)
<snip>
" ..Shankaracharya considered devotion as the best means to attain
self-knowledge. He himself was a great devotee. Many Shlokas also bear
testimony to the fact that he was also an ardent devotee of Lord
Krishna."
Talk with James who thinks he was mainly a Mother worshipper...
"He had made quotations of many Shlokas connected with Lord Shiva. "
"He wrote many sacred books like Brahmasutra Bhashya,
Upanishad(Ish , Ken, Katha,Prashna, Mundaka, Mandukya) Bhashya,"
None of the above books is really devotional.
"Gita Bhashya"
The Gita is at least 50% devotional, but Shankara concentrated on the
other 50%
"Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya, Sanatsujatiya bhashya, Hastamalak
Bhashya, Lalitatrishati Bhashya, Viveka Chudamani,"
The last one he definitely wrote, but its all about discrimination.
"Prabodh Sudhakar,
Updesh Sahashri, Aprokshanubhuti, Satashloki, Dasha shloki, Sabvedant
Siddhantsaar Sangraha, Vakya Sudha, Panchikaran, Prapanchasara, Atma
Bodh, Manishapanchak Anandlahiri, Vividh stotra etc
-source- http://www.urday.com/shankaracharya.htm
>
> > > <snip>
>Kabbalah, is
> a similar system like Tantra, very comparable in many aspects, but of
> course Hebrew and Sanskrit are totally different languages. Both can't
> be absolute at the same time! It's good to step out of the narrow
> confines of sectarian thinking.
" -Hmmm.. i don't think so GodMicheal.. lets see what is written at
Sringeri Math (one of the five Mathas established by Sri Shankara).."
If I say to step out of the narrow limits of sectarian thinking, you
quote scripture?? Do you actually understand what I am saying?
<snip>
"-So lets see if we under stand this correctly, GodMicheal-
1) Sri Adi Shankar wrote Bhajo Govindam (a sloka to Lord Sri Krishna,
as the supreme remover of obstacles to 'self'-knowledge).."
I never denied, that Shankara taught Bhakti to the common people.
"2) Sri Adi Shankar in His *final work*(Prabodh Sudhakar) wrote of the
Supremacy of Sri Krishna Bhakti.."
I never heard about this book except from you.
"3). The Sringeri Matha propounds the authentic teachings of Sri Adi
Shankar (Bestower of "Brahmic" Bliss or Brahm Ananda), and taught *SIX
MODES OF WORSHIP*.."
The smarta system, so what?
"4). Sri Adi Shankara gave the Divine Mother a gift of earrings at
Kanchi Matha..
5). He was a *Great Devotee* of *Personal Form Of God(Sakar Brahm).."
"Now.. stay with me GodMicheal, here comes the difficult part.. Can we
verify these facts anywhere else?.. say (for example another Matha)
such as Dwarika Sharada Peetham?.. You bet we can.."
"..Shankaracharya: "
Oh thats the fake one.. yeah. How many times did you already post it?
Don't ask me to take the Svaroops word absolute pleeaze
"The Lord, Adi Shankara was a great exponent of Vedic
Sanatan Dharma. God, he taught, is grouped into six forms. He preached
six types--five based on forms of God like Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu, etc.
and one, Nirakar, without form."
See.. without form.
"However, the worship of God
without form being extremely difficult was reserved for renunciates.
That is what Adi Shankaracharya had instructed."
Sure, and Brahmins only. But you forgot to mention that most people at
his time where illiterate. Times change. :-)
"Bhagavan Shree Shankara revived Vedic Sanatan Dharma. He said God has
six forms. So accordingly, Maharaji (Guru Dev) gave ``upadesh''
(initiation) to meditate upon those forms for the sake of our
worship."
<snip>
"Shankaracharya: The Lord, Shankaracharya Brahmananda Saraswatiji
Maharaj (Guru Dev) strictly adhered to the ``Varna'' (caste)"
How appropriate..you would like for MMY to be more caste conscious?
"and ``Aashram'' (four stages of life) systems."
Could this have something to do with age?
"He believed in one's Varna (caste)by birth. "
Good that MMY got rid of that!
"Whosoever came to him to become a disciple, he used to ask him which
form of God he was in love with."
What would you expect to be told by a western audience?
"Whichever form the new disciple had an interest in, that form he
would explain to the new disciple. [Guru Dev] used to explain, Either
you should depend on your own inclination or else, he, after
understanding your previous life and which form of God you worshipped
then, would instruct the initiate accordingly."
Obviously not a practical approach for people who don't happen to have
Ishta Devas, right?
"Without having an ``IshTadevataa'' (a personal form of God), no one
could have a ``Mantra'' (name of God) from him."
Well that's meaningless as in India everyone has an Ishtar. It means
that he taught only Hindus then.
"The very meaning of
Mantra is IshTadevataa (a personal form of God). Therefore, along with
every mantra, thinking or reflecting over the form of the
IshTadevataa is essential. Therefore, in all the modes of worship, one
reflects over one's IshTadevataa before chanting or meditating with
one's mantra."
Thats obviously not TM.
<snip>
"Shankaracharya: It's like this. Here we have each mantra connected
with one god. There lies the bija mantra. That bija mantra is for that
god."
"Questioner: Mahesh Yogi's mantras are of one [sound] each, for
instance,eng, em, enga, ema, aing, aim, etc. These are given by age or
sex. This is not the teachings of the Vedas or Scriptures, what is
your
opinion?"
"Shankaracharya: We do join Bija Aksharas (single syllabled
names/sounds) to the mantras."
Interesting comment: I wonder that nobody seems to yet have got this.
Here he says: we *join* "Bija Aksharas" to the "Mantra". He refers to
bijas as different from the mantra. That indicates, that he is
referring to the actual practise to compose mantras out of the Pranava
(OM), then the Bija , and then the actual name of a god/goddess.
Before he comments and says the bijas are *for* the gods (who's names
follow). They are *connected*. This means that they are NOT identical.
This proves that bijas are not names, as the names follow - not in TM
though. So he wasn't referring to TM. In TM *only* the Bija is used,
not the name.
"But, Bija Aksharas also mean IshTadevataas (names of the personal
forms of god). The kind of process you just described
is purely imaginary and it has no connection with our Scripture of
the Shankaracharya tradition."
This is just to say, that TM deviates from the devotional Hindu
practise. Of course the "Shanka" has a hidden agenda in judging TM,
because he wants to be the BhadriShanka as well. MMY isn't supporting
him in this.
"Bija Akshara is connected with IshTadevataas to make it a mantra."
The isthadvatas are here identified with the names that usually
*follow* the bijas, e.g. Shiva, Durga etc. All this is actually
confirming, what I said earlier.
"These have relevance with the Scriptures, a tradition. Whatever
Mahesh does in this respect has no relevance to Shastra (Scriptures).
"
Of course it has, but it doesn't import the indian Ishtadeva system to
the west. Meditation on sound, the gradual reduction of mental
vrittis, the establishment of Turya are all described in the
scriptures, most prominently the Yoga Sutras, and even in more detail
the Shiva Sutras. Meditation with single bijas *without* actual names
of Ishtas is e.g. described in the Shiva Samhita.
> > As you said above... "You may have this belief, but no one else does
> > have to have it.
>
> Right. And that's why TM is not a religion, understand?
-No, "tm" is a religion. Re-read the "Beacon Of Light".
How do you know Beacon light refers to TM as taught in the west?
> > Then why have a "puja" to a "Wholly fabricated Tradition"?
>
> The holy tradition is invoked, NOT deities. Masters who have lived on earth. A tradition is a stream of energy.
> <snip>
"-Now GodMicheal this is another futile attempt by you, to distort the
statements of Lil MishMashi Mahesh.."
" ..INVOCATION
To LORD NARAYANA, to lotus-born BRAHMA the Creator, to VASHISHTHA to
SHAKTI and his son, PARASHAR,
To VYASA, to SHUKADEVA, to the great GAUDAPADA, to GOVINDA, ruler
among the yogis, to his disciple,
SHRI SHANKARACHARYA, to his disciples PADMA-PADA and HASTA-MALAKA,
And TROTAKACHARYA and VARTIKA-KARA, to others, to the tradition of our
Masters, I bow down.
-source-http://www.trancenet.org/secrets/puja/tradt.shtml"
" -Yep sure looks like the "Dieties/Lord Naryana/Brahma the Creator"
are invoked!"
If Narayana was a Rishi indeed, Brahma is the only one left.
Considering that he is not a major God, it is a rather weak argument
for deity worship. The truth is that his name is mentioned to indicate
a divine source of the tradition. In any case, as I have stated
earlier, only the teacher is involved in this invokation. (Note: any
*invokation*, even if it is to human masters is a religious activity
of sorts. But the question will be, if the initiation will make the
parctitioneer a practising Hindu, which it doesn't.) "-And, shall i
find your post where you say Sri Adi Shankar is an Avatar of Lord Sri
Shiva?"
He is being looked upon as Shiva, thats what I said.
" -My "world" is the very same as yours... GodMicheal. Your world is
made of air, land & sea. At the end of our atmosphere is outer
space..further beyond is that celestial body that orbits our world..
known as as the moon. Now please GodMicheal, if its not any
inconvience please
make my new Blue Moon, today!"
Why don't you ask Krishna first? Isn't he the God you believe in? If
he won't change it for you, why do you ask me ;-)
Conclusion: MMY got rid of all the hindu trappings, and taught
meditation in a nevertheless completely authentic way. The mantras are
from the tradition, but are not the names of gods. They are used along
guidelines described in the YogaSutras, Shiva Sutra and Shiva Samhita.
Therefore the mantras, as well as the way they are used as a vehicle
are both traditional. All this is being done with the grace of the
masters, being taught by the close disciple/secretary of one of the
greatest Indian masters and custodian of the tradition. Maharishi,
nevertheless took liberties, to open up the teaching for the west. The
teachings are effective and found to be working by inummerable people
in the west. Your whole arguments, as well as the Shanka's and James
arguments are basically a complaint, that TM is not enough hinduistic,
not enough religious or relating to gods. That's true, but some people
see that as an advantage.
mhutchinson
tolerance? Why do you feel it so necessary to be so contemptuous?
Don't you realize you may be undermining the little bit of devotion
people have painstakingly cultivated? What would that do karmically
for your own devotion? Isn't the ideal you worship tolerant? Do you
realize that there are as many ideations of/ paths to/ God as there
are people? It is good to be strong in your devotion, practice, and
efforts.
But it is rude to contemptuously insult the man who brought many
something they truly appreciate and cherish as a choice of their own
free will as a path to growth or even God... Is this the behaviour
that your master encourages you to display? Thoughtful discourse is
one thing, but insults are immature and unappreciated. What if you
are "right" in your intellectual expositions?, isn't the growth of
love, devotion, and surrender to your ideal the higher work? Unless
you're a jnana
yogi, what will you gain by trashing other peoples sensitivities?
Just wondering....
ColdBluICE
> > > > ColdBluICE wrote:
> > > > The contradiction in your comparison is apparent... why have a
> > > > "puja"
> > > > to the "holy tradition" if indeed-, there does not exist an
> > > > intrinsic
> > > > relatioship between a deity and a mantra.
> > > Micheal wrote:
> > > Why would having a puja mean there exists such a relationship?
>
> > "Well probably because Lil MishMashi Mahesh in his- 'Beacon Of Light
> > of
> > the Himalayas'.. he(Mahesh) is quoted as saying-, "We do not select
> > any sound like 'mike', flower table, pen, wail, etc, because such
> > ordinary sounds can do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind;
> > whereas there are some special sounds which have the additional
> > efficacy of producing vibrations whose effects are found to be
> > congenial to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do
> > not select any word at random. For our practice, we select only the
> > suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace
> > of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life."
> > -source- http://www.trancenet.org/secrets/beacon/beacon2.shtml#25"
>
> But thats not related to the puja in any way, right?
-Yes godMicheal the "tm puja" is related to the "holy tradition" and,
to the "Beacon of Light Of the Himalayas".. afterall Lil MishMashi
Mahesh is speaking of- "teaching tm" in all three. Here you can read
Lil Brahmachari MishMashi Mahesh's confused ideology for your"self"...
..THE HOLY TRADITION
The Vedic tradition, upheld in its purity by a long history of
custodians, enshrines the supreme knowledge of the integration of
life. From time to time, a revival of man's understanding of its
eternal wisdom arises from this Holy Tradition, rescuing him from
suffering, restoring him to the speedy path of evolution and awakening
him to a meaningful life in fulfilment. The Masters of this tradition
have been exponents of reality from earliest ages. In each new epoch
they have propounded the enduring truths of practical living and have
set out those standards by which men's lives may attain the highest
achievements and fulfilment, generation after generation.
Teachers of transcendental meditation around the world stem from this
pure and eternal tradition of great Masters. All teaching is carried
out in the name of these great Masters and on their behalf, linking
every teacher in every generation with the well-preserved line of
ancient tradition. This link with the Masters of antiquity is such a
precious element in the life of a teacher in every age that a set
system Of expressing gratitude to them has been handed down from time
immemorial in order to maintain the purity and vitality of the
teaching.
-source- http://www.trancenet.org/secrets/puja/tradt.shtml
> Lets just assume, just for a moment, Maharishi is teaching meditation
> to a Hindu related audience in a different way than in the west, and
> that he diliberately is not teaching Hinduism here.
-How can you make an assumption like that?... afterall the "tm puja"
is supposedly performed now, as it was 50 years ago. The "puja"
invokes the same dieties, is repeated, pronounced and performed
eaxctly the same way. That is what Lil MishMashi refers to as the-,
"purity of the knowledge".
> What proof could
> that statement be, made almost 50 years ago in India, except that it
> is relating to what he taught at that time in India?
-And,.. whats the difference of what he is "teaching" today. After 50
years the same group of Learned Vedic Pundits and Scholars(seated in
Varanasi) that appointed Sri Guru DevJi to Jyosimath in '41 *HAVE YET
TO RECOGNIZED "tm" as anything more that the *Confused Personal
Ideology* of Lil Brahmachari Mahesh.
>
> > "Come on GodMicheal you make this way to easy!"
>
> Not for you.
-Still way to easy!
>
> > - GodMicheal, you have a nasty habit of putting words in Sri Adi
> > Shankar's mouth!
> > You are the only "god" claiming- there was any "higher" or "lower"
> > teaching.. Sri Shankar *NEVER SAID SUCH A THING*!"
>
> True, he didn't speak english. But your habbit is even more nasty:
> putting works under his pen, which he never wrote.
So, godMicheal- you are once again saying Sri Adi Shankar did not
write the Prabodh Sudhakar or Bhajo Govindam?
..Shankaracharya was the descension of God Shiv Who is God of yog and
liberation and also an ardent devotee of Krishn, so Shankaracharya
explained about gyan and yog but he inserted bhakti in the very end of
Aprokchanubhooti and described Krishn devotion in the Prabodh
Sudhakar.
-source-http://jkp.org/path_to_God/sanatan_dharm_the_eternal_religion3.html
..Shankaracharya considered devotion as the best means to attain
self-knowledge. He himself was a great devotee. Many Shlokas also bear
testimony to the fact that he was also an ardent devotee of Lord
Krishna. He had made quotations of many Shlokas connected with Lord
Shiva. He wrote many sacred books like Brahmasutra Bhashya,
Upanishad(Ish , Ken, Katha,Prashna, Mundaka, Mandukya) Bhashya, Gita
Bhashya, Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya, Sanatsujatiya bhashya, Hastamalak
Bhashya, Lalitatrishati Bhashya, Viveka Chudamani, Prabodh Sudhakar,
Updesh Sahashri, Aprokshanubhuti, Satashloki, Dasha shloki, Sabvedant
Siddhantsaar Sangraha, Vakya Sudha, Panchikaran, Prapanchasara, Atma
Bodh, Manishapanchak Anandlahiri, Vividh stotra etc
-source- http://www.urday.com/shankaracharya.htm
..Bhaja Govindam is a musical piece in Sanskrit composed by the great
Hindu saint and philosopher Adi Shankaracharya hundreds of years ago.
In this piece, he describes the trials and tribulations ("samsara" )
that everyone has to go through in this life and how to escape the
"life and death" odyssey by seeking Lord Govinda (the "protector"
among the Trinity of Gods in Hindu..
Sample of Translation in English of the sloka
bhaja govindam bhaja govindam
govindam bhaja mUDhamate
samprApte sannihite kAle
nahi nahi rakShati dukrunjkaraNe]
Sample of the Meaning of the sloka in English
Adore the Lord, adore the Lord, adore the Lord, O fool! when the
appointed time (for departure) comes, the repetition of grammatical
rules will not, indeed, save you.
-source- http://www.kuladevatha.com/bhaja_govindam.htm
>
> > "Find any example of *Original Authentic writings* of Sri Adi Shankar
> > teaching strictly- as a "main approach" any "impersonal meditation",
> > and such nonsense as- "higher and lower teaching"!.."
>
> > "All you will find is confused writings of "yogis".
>
> > "Sri Adi Shankar did write-, "there are two types knowledge.. MayaVida
> > (Relative knowledge of Maya/Material Universe), "
>
> okay, lower
>
> > "and ParaVidya
> > (Absolute Knowledge of God)."
>
> and higher Knowledge. Para= high, supreme, transcendent,
> Vidya=knowledge
>
> (of God is your vaishnavic theistic addition)
No godMicheal, Not- "my God of theistic addition".. Sri Adi Shankar
took vows of sanyas from a Vaishnav Master.. the very same Master that
taught devotion to Lord Sri MahaVishnu.
Then Sri Shankar went on to establish 5 Mathas in the Vaishnav
Tradition.. All the disciples of Sri Adi Shankara (the most prominent
are four) Padmapada, Sureshwara, Hastamalaka and Trotaka went on to
teach Bhakti at the Mathas He established, in the Vaishnav Sanyasi
Tradition at five Mathas- Puri, Dwarika, Jyosimath, Sringeri, &
Kanchi. All teach Bhakti!
> <snip>
>
> " ..Shankaracharya considered devotion as the best means to attain
> self-knowledge. He himself was a great devotee. Many Shlokas also bear
> testimony to the fact that he was also an ardent devotee of Lord
> Krishna."
>
> Talk with James who thinks he was mainly a Mother worshipper...
>
> "He had made quotations of many Shlokas connected with Lord Shiva. "
>
> "He wrote many sacred books like Brahmasutra Bhashya,
> Upanishad(Ish , Ken, Katha,Prashna, Mundaka, Mandukya) Bhashya,"
>
> None of the above books is really devotional.
>
> "Gita Bhashya"
>
> The Gita is at least 50% devotional, but Shankara concentrated on the
> other 50%
-godMicheal, what exactly is "50% other".. have you ever read the Sr
Adi Shankaras' *orginial Vedic Sanskrit Maunscript*?
NO.. in fact you have read various English/German translations written
by the *Butchers of Sanatan Dharm* such as F. Max Mueller. The
original mauscripts written by Sri Adi Shankara were deliberately
destroyed by the British. With the execption of the manuscripts held
at Kanchi Matha.
> "Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya, Sanatsujatiya bhashya, Hastamalak
> Bhashya, Lalitatrishati Bhashya, Viveka Chudamani,"
>
> The last one he definitely wrote, but its all about discrimination.
Wrong sorry godMicheal, Lalitatrishati Bhashya descibes the beauty and
adorments of Devi LalitaTriSundari.
Or, the Beauty of His Divine Mother He decorated with earrings at
Kanchi.
"Discrimination" of what?
>
> > "Prabodh Sudhakar,
> > Updesh Sahashri, Aprokshanubhuti, Satashloki, Dasha shloki, Sabvedant
> > Siddhantsaar Sangraha, Vakya Sudha, Panchikaran, Prapanchasara, Atma
> > Bodh, Manishapanchak Anandlahiri, Vividh stotra etc
> > -source- http://www.urday.com/shankaracharya.htm
>
> >
> > > > <snip>
> > > <snip>
>
> > " -Hmmm.. i don't think so GodMicheal.. lets see what is written at
> > Sringeri Math (one of the five Mathas established by Sri Shankara).."
>
> If I say to step out of the narrow limits of sectarian thinking, you
> quote scripture?? Do you actually understand what I am saying?
-No godMicheal, i understand exactly what you are saying... you ask
us to believe your *Confused Misguided Misunderstanding* you gleaned
from such authors as F. Max Mueller.
>
> <snip>
>
> "-So lets see if we under stand this correctly, GodMicheal-
> 1) Sri Adi Shankar wrote Bhajo Govindam (a sloka to Lord Sri Krishna,
> as the supreme remover of obstacles to 'self'-knowledge).."
>
> I never denied, that Shankara taught Bhakti to the common people.
-Well godMicheal,.. Sri Adi Shankara taught Bhakti to Padmapada,
Sureshwara, Hastamalaka and Trotaka, who then went on to teach Bhakti
at the Mathas He established, in the Vaishnav Sanyasi Tradition at
five the Mathas- (Puri, Dwarika, Jyosimath, Sringeri, & Kanchi).
All the Mathas (and the Heads of the Mathas) teach Bhakti to the
Disciples of Shankarachrayas from 482BC to this very day!
THAT IS ALL THERE IS! .. Bhakti.. There does not any "hidden/higher
teaching".
Such assertions are the *Distorted Ramblings* of Lil Brahmachari
MishMashi Mahesh and his *Confused Personal Ideology*.
>
> "2) Sri Adi Shankar in His *final work*(Prabodh Sudhakar) wrote of the
> Supremacy of Sri Krishna Bhakti.."
>
> I never heard about this book except from you.
-And, there are many things you never heard of, godMicheal.. It is
apparent your Almighty Ominpresent All-Knowing Powers are not working
well.
see links cited..
..Shankaracharya was the descension of God Shiv Who is God of yog and
liberation and also an ardent devotee of Krishn, so Shankaracharya
explained about gyan and yog but he inserted bhakti in the very end of
Aprokchanubhooti and described Krishn devotion in the Prabodh
Sudhakar.
-source-http://jkp.org/path_to_God/sanatan_dharm_the_eternal_religion3.html
..Shankaracharya considered devotion as the best means to attain
self-knowledge. He himself was a great devotee. Many Shlokas also bear
testimony to the fact that he was also an ardent devotee of Lord
Krishna. He had made quotations of many Shlokas connected with Lord
Shiva. He wrote many sacred books like Brahmasutra Bhashya,
Upanishad(Ish , Ken, Katha,Prashna, Mundaka, Mandukya) Bhashya, Gita
Bhashya, Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya, Sanatsujatiya bhashya, Hastamalak
Bhashya, Lalitatrishati Bhashya, Viveka Chudamani, Prabodh Sudhakar,
Updesh Sahashri, Aprokshanubhuti, Satashloki, Dasha shloki, Sabvedant
Siddhantsaar Sangraha, Vakya Sudha, Panchikaran, Prapanchasara, Atma
Bodh, Manishapanchak Anandlahiri, Vividh stotra etc
-source- http://www.urday.com/shankaracharya.htm
Do a web search..probably more effective than you Almighty
Powers..godMicheal.
>
> > "3). The Sringeri Matha propounds the authentic teachings of Sri Adi
> > Shankar (Bestower of "Brahmic" Bliss or Brahm Ananda), and taught *SIX
> > MODES OF WORSHIP*.."
>
> The smarta system, so what?
-So what else is there? Thats all Sri Adi Shankara taught.
>
> > "4). Sri Adi Shankara gave the Divine Mother a gift of earrings at
> . Kanchi Matha..
> > 5). He was a *Great Devotee* of *Personal Form Of God(Sakar Brahm).."
>
> > "Now.. stay with me GodMicheal, here comes the difficult part.. Can we
> > verify these facts anywhere else?.. say (for example another Matha)
> > such as Dwarika Sharada Peetham?.. You bet we can.."
>
> > "..Shankaracharya: "
>
> Oh thats the fake one.. yeah. How many times did you already post it?
> Don't ask me to take the Svaroops word absolute pleeaze
-godMicheal, are you really *that delusional*?... Sri Swami
Swaroopananda is the *ONE & ONLY* Real Shankaracharya of Jyosimath.
Your pal Vasudevananda is widely known as *The Fake*,.. by the Courts
& 4 other Shankaracharyas, and every nearly everyone in India.
>
> > "The Lord, Adi Shankara was a great exponent of Vedic
> > Sanatan Dharma. God, he taught, is grouped into six forms. He preached
> > six types--five based on forms of God like Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu, etc.
> > and one, Nirakar, without form."
>
> See.. without form.
- Thats right godMicheal.. Nirakar Brahm(Impersonal Divine
Truth)-*one of many subserviant fractional powers* of the Divine
Personal From of Supreme Brahm.. (Lord Sri Krishna).
>
> > "However, the worship of God
> > without form being extremely difficult was reserved for renunciates.
> > That is what Adi Shankaracharya had instructed."
>
> Sure, and Brahmins only. But you forgot to mention that most people at
> his time where illiterate. Times change. :-)
- No sorry godMicheal.. the path of Nirakar Brahm is reserved for
complete renunicates.. physically (living in a cave), mentally(tapas),
and emotinally (no social ties) odf any caste.. Or iow the life of Sri
Guru DevJi.
>
> > "Bhagavan Shree Shankara revived Vedic Sanatan Dharma. He said God has
> > six forms. So accordingly, Maharaji (Guru Dev) gave ``upadesh''
> > (initiation) to meditate upon those forms for the sake of our
> > worship."
>
> > <snip>
>
> > "Shankaracharya: The Lord, Shankaracharya Brahmananda Saraswatiji
> > Maharaj (Guru Dev) strictly adhered to the ``Varna'' (caste)"
>
> How appropriate..you would like for MMY to be more caste conscious?
- Then we are agreed!.. Lil Brahmachari MishMashi Mahesh is not
teaching with the "blessings of his Master".
>
> > "and ``Aashram'' (four stages of life) systems."
>
> Could this have something to do with age?
>
> > "He believed in one's Varna (caste)by birth. "
>
> Good that MMY got rid of that!
-Sure thats why Lil MishMashi Mahesh appointed a "King" (Raja Raider)
to succeed him.. sounds an awful like a *Western Caste System*!... try
agsin godMicheal.
>
> > "Whosoever came to him to become a disciple, he used to ask him which
> > form of God he was in love with."
>
> What would you expect to be told by a western audience?
-And, godMicheal.. you would know how? .. or yea your *Dysfunctional
Almight All-Knowing Poers*.
>
> > "Whichever form the new disciple had an interest in, that form he
> > would explain to the new disciple. [Guru Dev] used to explain, Either
> > you should depend on your own inclination or else, he, after
> > understanding your previous life and which form of God you worshipped
> > then, would instruct the initiate accordingly."
>
> Obviously not a practical approach for people who don't happen to have
> Ishta Devas, right?
-So what godMicheal.. this is the same teaching as Sri Adi Shankara.
Both Sri Guru DevJi & Sri Adi Shankara taught the same thing!
Devotion/Bhakti to God to All.
>
> > "Without having an ``IshTadevataa'' (a personal form of God), no one
> > could have a ``Mantra'' (name of God) from him."
>
> Well that's meaningless as in India everyone has an Ishtar. It means
> that he taught only Hindus then.
-So whats the Difference?.. godMicheal?.. So did Sri Adi Shankara.
>
> > "The very meaning of
> > Mantra is IshTadevataa (a personal form of God). Therefore, along with
> > every mantra, thinking or reflecting over the form of the
> > IshTadevataa is essential. Therefore, in all the modes of worship, one
> > reflects over one's IshTadevataa before chanting or meditating with
> >one's mantra."
>
> Thats obviously not TM.
-very good godMicheal- "tm" is not found in any *Authentic Eternal
PAth* as taught by Sri Adi Shankara(and His Devotees) from 482BC to
this very day!!
mhutchinson
>
Michael
> > > > > The contradiction in your comparison is apparent... why have a
> > > > > "puja"
> > > > > to the "holy tradition" if indeed-, there does not exist an
> > > > > intrinsic
> > > > > relatioship between a deity and a mantra.
>
> > > > Micheal wrote:
> > > > Why would having a puja mean there exists such a relationship?
>
> > > "Well probably because Lil MishMashi Mahesh in his- 'Beacon Of Light
> > > of
> > > the Himalayas'.. he(Mahesh) is quoted as saying-, "We do not select
> > > any sound like 'mike', flower table, pen, wail, etc, because such
> > > ordinary sounds can do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind;
> > > whereas there are some special sounds which have the additional
> > > efficacy of producing vibrations whose effects are found to be
> > > congenial to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do
> > > not select any word at random. For our practice, we select only the
> > > suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the grace
> > > of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life."
> > > -source- http://www.trancenet.org/secrets/beacon/beacon2.shtml#25"
> >
> > But thats not related to the puja in any way, right?
>
> -Yes godMicheal the "tm puja" is related to the "holy tradition" and,
There's no doubt about that, but that doesn't tell us anything about
the meaning of mantras..
> to the "Beacon of Light Of the Himalayas".. afterall Lil MishMashi
> Mahesh is speaking of- "teaching tm" in all three.
He doesn't mention "TM" in the beacon light though. My point is that
it is precisely not evident that this is the same TM we are talking
about.
Why not? May be I know it.
>afterall the "tm puja"
> is supposedly performed now, as it was 50 years ago.
Sure, but the puja is not the whole teaching.
>The "puja"
> invokes the same dieties, is repeated, pronounced and performed
> eaxctly the same way. That is what Lil MishMashi refers to as the-,
> "purity of the knowledge".
The puja is not invoking deities but the holy tradition. The purity of
teaching obviously referres to the mantras that are being used, and
not the ones who are not used, e.g. names.
> > What proof could
> > that statement be, made almost 50 years ago in India, except that it
> > is relating to what he taught at that time in India?
>
> -And,.. whats the difference of what he is "teaching" today.
I am referring to the difference of what he is teaching in the west.
No names and no relationship to Ishadevatas. That's the precise
difference. Its not a matter of now and then.
ColdBluICE
> Isn't the purpose of Bhakti to grow in Love?
Namaste Sir Micheal
-Yes, Selfless love for GOD.
> Wouldn't this INCREASE
> tolerance?
-Yes
> Why do you feel it so necessary to be so contemptuous?
-Help end *yogi fraud* in this lifetime, it is my selfless service to
humanity.
> Don't you realize you may be undermining the little bit of devotion
> people have painstakingly cultivated?
-Devotion to what?.. a crackpot yogi?
There is an very old Vedic Adage that goes something like this-, A man
finds a large shiny piece of metal. Believeing it to be gold, he takes
it home, places in a place of safekeeping. Every day re-visitng, to
examine the large shiny piece of metal. One day, he shows the object
to a trusted friend who tells the man-, "its only brass."
Nevertheless, the man keeps the shiny large object, and firmly
believes his faith can change the object from brass to gold. This goes
on for many years.
Will the man's faith change brass to gold?... answer- NEVER!
Thats "tm".. worthless brass.
> What would that do karmically
> for your own devotion?
-Nothing... would pointing out a *liar and thief* to others, be "bad
karma"?
> Isn't the ideal you worship tolerant?
- i donot worship ideals.
> Do you
> realize that there are as many ideations of/ paths to/ God as there
> are people?
-The path to God is only one... not even two.
> It is good to be strong in your devotion, practice, and
> efforts.
>
> But it is rude to contemptuously insult the man who brought many
> something they truly appreciate and cherish as a choice of their own
> free will as a path to growth or even God...
- who ever said "tm" was a "path to God"?... oh yea, that Addled Old
Psychopath himself- Lil Brahmachari MishMashi Mahesh. He was run out
of India so many times,.. told so many lies,.. shown infinite
dis-respect for Personal Form Of God,.. created so much damage in the
name of "spirituality" we can't even begin to fathom the depth of his
*Bad Karma*.
> Is this the behaviour
> that your master encourages you to display?
-If a person feels that strongly towards an issue, he doesnt mind.
> Thoughtful discourse is
> one thing, but insults are immature and unappreciated.
Ok how about... Brahmachari Mahesh (afterall that is his title given
him by his Master).
> What if you
> are "right" in your intellectual expositions?,
- i am... 200%
> isn't the growth of
> love, devotion, and surrender to your ideal the higher work?
- most politley, i said i donot worship ideals.
> Unless
> you're a jnana
> yogi,
-what is a "jnana yogi"?
> what will you gain by trashing other peoples sensitivities?
-end yogi fraud... in ths lifetime.
>
> Just wondering....
-Just answering
James Duffy
actually see your point regarding my post, yet you didn't actually
respond to my post...as usual. Here's a second try on my part....for
whatever it's worth.
I do not think MMY's teaching is "wrong" per se...it's just an
elementary view...and the dogmatic beliefs that have become attached
to it are "silly" imo. As tiny of a "box" as it is...I will attempt to
show how MMY's very own teachings prove my point.
I take the term advanced to imply superior...of a higher order. Fair
enough? The advanced techniques of TM add sounds that contain
"meaning" in the common sense of language. This is a fact. The purpose
of the advanced techniques is to cause the mind to linger at the finer
states of consciousness. This is seen as being "advanced" by MMY
himself...otherwise, they would be called the "inferior techniques" .
So meaning and lingering is part of an advanced practice versus the
more basic "TM". This is entirely about embodying the "shakti" (deity)
of the mantra....which I would love to talk about, but that would
require me to leave my "box"....and Judy won't allow that. ***Also,
one should note that after receiving the second "advanced" technique,
how very, very similar the "TM" mantra is to traditional istadevata
mantras...traditional means of invoking one's personal form of God.
Very similar indeed.
Next we turn to the TM-Siddhis program. Here we have "meaning" out the
freakin' wazoo... IN ENGLISH(!) no less...and again, these practices
are considered "advanced" in comparison to basic TM instruction.
So we have MMY's own teachings showing techniques that involve
"meaning" considered "ADVANCED" versus the basic TM instruction where
so much emphasis is placed on the absolute necessity of
"meaninglessness". Using that "pitch" to show how TM is so, so
superior to all other forms of meditation that are merely forms of
concentration or contemplation.....keeping the mind on the level of
"meaning". Judy...yep..."silliness".
You mention "entertaining" meaning....that's a new twist...and a
convenient one too I might add. Regardless...who is teaching
(initiating) people with the instructions to "entertain" the meaning
of their mantra??? Maybe in some practice of dharana, which has a
specific benefit...but not in dhyana (meditation). I have never heard
of a tradition that instructs one to, for example, contemplate the
philosophical aspects of the bindu or visarga element of their mantra
during their meditation. What other initiations in meditation, etc
HAVE you experienced?
The bija mantras, such as those used in TM, are fairly numerous. Judy,
from your knowledge of mantra.....what...specifically(!)....
differentiates one from the other? Within the TM method of
initiation.....what is specifically different between the mantra one
receives at the age of 20 versus the mantra received at the age of 35?
As Michael said, to TMers mantras are just energy...spanda....if so,
what need is there for more than one? Especially since we've been
talking so much about non-dual truth lately. Why more than one? What
is different about the "energy" of the mantra received at 20 versus
the energy of the mantra received at 35? I mean, they are different
....so give me the details...and their significance. Please....wow me
with your understanding of mantra.
And just a quick response to Micheal's point on spanda,... The ability
to seperate the mantras from their "shakti"(form), which Michael
claims TM does...is to say...one can seperate heat from fire or
wetness from water. Sorry, no can do. Sure, you can say it you can,
but get real.
Here we really should get into a deep discussion of the mantras and
what's really going on internally...specifically with the koshas and
the associated "shaktis" or deities. But I'm not gonna even bother.
Judy....imo, you aren't interested in the Truth...only in winning
arguments.
Unlike the "Maharishi effect"...the "Stein effect" appears clearly
repeatable and predictable. I guess people enjoy your form of
"excitement"...it's not my cup of tea. I understand that you have
great love for MMY...and I come along trashing him....not a very nice
thing for me to do, but I sincerely believe it would be dishonest as
well as irresponsible for me not to speak out against him. I know too
many lives that have been devastated by their "devotion" to him.
james
jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein) wrote in message news:<19b3c03e.03050...@posting.google.com>...
Michael
<snip>
Even though you are disappointed by me, I will adress those points, I
had originally raised -also to clarify my position further. I will
leave it to Judy to answer the other questions.
> Within the TM method of
> initiation.....what is specifically different between the mantra one
> receives at the age of 20 versus the mantra received at the age of 35?
> As Michael said, to TMers mantras are just energy...spanda....if so,
> what need is there for more than one? Especially since we've been
> talking so much about non-dual truth lately. Why more than one?
That's a good question James. In fact, I do think that one mantra
would be really enough.
What
> is different about the "energy" of the mantra received at 20 versus
> the energy of the mantra received at 35?
But I do think, that there is a difference in the vibration/quality
part of it.
> I mean, they are different
> ....so give me the details...and their significance. Please....wow me
> with your understanding of mantra.
>
> And just a quick response to Micheal's point on spanda,... The ability
> to seperate the mantras from their "shakti"(form), which Michael
> claims TM does...is to say...one can seperate heat from fire or
> wetness from water.
I did not say that the vibration/spanda is separate from shakti, but
from its personification. Indeed Shakti has many levels, according to
Shri Aurobindo. Simply speaking, on the higher level we have a more
universal, less personified Shakti, while at the astral level, they
have the forms, which are so vividly pictured in the indian posters.
In fact, everything is Shakti - vibration. I have an objection to make
a compulsory link between a universal quality, which is adressed by
spanda and its personification in Tantra. Universal qualities are
personified by different Gods, Goddeses or angels in different
religions. These personifications are culture specific - and people
from other cultures will rightly object / feel disturbed in their own
beliefs, if you attach that specific morphological expession of a
foreign culture. If this is too abstract for you, I will give you an
example: My Mother was catholic, but at the time I was brought up,
only nominally. After I had persuaded her to start TM, she really
loved it, never missed meditation, and regained her childhood belief.
She was especially devoted to Mary, the expression of Shakti in
Xtianity. Now that is what I mean with the universal aspect of Shakti.
Obviously transcending, her mantra have brought her in contact with
some deep universal aspect of shakti, and there is no need to give
that the specific indian morphology. To make things clear here: That
-vibration/spanda- is only a support, the mantra is still only a
vehicle.
>Sorry, no can do. Sure, you can say it you can,
> but get real.
I am very real. Look at different cultures and see. I think that this
universal approach is a great asset. I'll try to rephrase it in your
favour: It's this universal appeal of tantra itself, which is so
powerful and allows so many different approaches. I am very grateful
for universal approach to exit,- in my own case, because I would have
never joined a religion; this possibility must stay open despite of
all the persuasive skills of you and others in trying to make it into
some kind of belief.
willytex
> Yes, Selfless love for GOD.
>
>> Wouldn't this INCREASE tolerance?
>
> Yes
>
>> Why do you feel it so necessary to be so contemptuous?
>
> Help end *yogi fraud* in this lifetime, it is my selfless
> service to humanity.
Steve - So, you're not a bhakta, do not have Selfless for God, and
your tolerance has decreased.
So, you're lifetime service is to muckrake.
Judy Stein
> Judy...I see you are your usual charming, inspiring self. That said, I
> actually see your point regarding my post, yet you didn't actually
> respond to my post...as usual. Here's a second try on my part....for
> whatever it's worth.
>
> I do not think MMY's teaching is "wrong" per se...it's just an
> elementary view...and the dogmatic beliefs that have become attached
> to it are "silly" imo. As tiny of a "box" as it is...I will attempt to
> show how MMY's very own teachings prove my point.
>
> I take the term advanced to imply superior...of a higher order. Fair
> enough?
As you know, MMY refers to the advanced techniques as "fertilizer."
So no, I don't buy "superior" or "of a higher order." The advanced
techniques enhance the growth of consciousness brought about via TM.
They're "advanced" because it's important to have some experience
of transcending under your belt before you use them, not because
they're "superior."
The advanced techniques of TM add sounds that contain
> "meaning" in the common sense of language. This is a fact. The purpose
> of the advanced techniques is to cause the mind to linger at the finer
> states of consciousness. This is seen as being "advanced" by MMY
> himself...otherwise, they would be called the "inferior techniques" .
> So meaning and lingering is part of an advanced practice versus the
> more basic "TM". This is entirely about embodying the "shakti" (deity)
> of the mantra...
That's debatable, depending on what level of abstraction you're
talking about, as Michael just explained.
"Lingering," yes, "meaning," no. "Lingering" is an effect of
the advanced techniques, but it doesn't come about because you
entertain the semantic meanings of the sounds. Most people, of
course, don't know the semantic meanings.
Like the mantra, the advanced techniques function the way they
do because of their vibratory qualities; unlike mantras, they
happen to also have semantic meanings, but those meanings are
completely irrelevant to the practice of TM.
.which I would love to talk about, but that would
> require me to leave my "box"....and Judy won't allow that. ***Also,
> one should note that after receiving the second "advanced" technique,
> how very, very similar the "TM" mantra is to traditional istadevata
> mantras...traditional means of invoking one's personal form of God.
> Very similar indeed.
But different in crucial respects, of course.
> Next we turn to the TM-Siddhis program. Here we have "meaning" out the
> freakin' wazoo... IN ENGLISH(!) no less...and again, these practices
> are considered "advanced" in comparison to basic TM instruction.
>
> So we have MMY's own teachings showing techniques that involve
> "meaning" considered "ADVANCED" versus the basic TM instruction where
> so much emphasis is placed on the absolute necessity of
> "meaninglessness".
Boy, is that a bogus argument. And as a former TM teacher, you
know exactly how bogus it is.
The disadvantage of entertaining meaning is that it prevents
transcending. Advanced techniques slow down transcending
but don't prevent it; indeed, they tend to make it deeper.
The TM-Sidhis are practiced *after having transcended*
during your normal period of TM. They aren't designed to
facilitate transcending during meditation, they're designed
to bring the transcendent infused during meditation out into
the relative.
So the advanced techniques and the TM-Sidhis have very different
functions from the basic TM technique, but they would be of no
use whatsoever *without* the basic TM technique. Therefore it
makes no sense whatsoever to claim they're somehow inconsistent
with the principle of not holding the mind on the level of
meaning so as not to prevent transcending. Apples and prickly
pears. It's a little like claiming it's inconsistent to carry
a fire extinguisher in your car because the motor operates by
ignition. It's just silliness.
Using that "pitch" to show how TM is so, so
> superior to all other forms of meditation that are merely forms of
> concentration or contemplation.....keeping the mind on the level of
> "meaning". Judy...yep..."silliness".
Try another argument. That one crashed and burned rather
spectacularly.
> You mention "entertaining" meaning....that's a new twist...and a
> convenient one too I might add. Regardless...who is teaching
> (initiating) people with the instructions to "entertain" the meaning
> of their mantra???
Sorry you don't care for the term. I meant it to be as broad as
possible so as to avoid quibbling, but I see you've found a way
to quibble anyway.
Maybe in some practice of dharana, which has a
> specific benefit...but not in dhyana (meditation). I have never heard
> of a tradition that instructs one to, for example, contemplate the
> philosophical aspects of the bindu or visarga element of their mantra
> during their meditation. What other initiations in meditation, etc
> HAVE you experienced?
None, but that is, of course, utterly irrelevant
to the topic at hand.
> The bija mantras, such as those used in TM, are fairly numerous. Judy,
> from your knowledge of mantra.....what...specifically(!)....
> differentiates one from the other?
Other than that they're different sounds, I haven't a clue,
but it is, of course, utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.
<snip>
> Judy....imo, you aren't interested in the Truth...only in winning
> arguments.
I'm interested in showing that you aren't qualified to make
pronouncements about the value of TM, and that you moreover
have a very unfortunate tendency to misrepresent it, as well
as an apparently limitless capacity to talk around the issues
you raise without ever digging into the nitty-gritty.
> I understand that you have great love for MMY...
You understand wrong. What I have is great respect for
his teaching about the nature and mechanics of consciousness.
and I come along trashing him....not a very nice
> thing for me to do, but I sincerely believe it would be dishonest as
> well as irresponsible for me not to speak out against him. I know too
> many lives that have been devastated by their "devotion" to him.
Well, since I'm not "devoted" to him, you don't have to worry
about me. You can trash him all you want, as far as I'm
concerned, as long as you don't try to do so dishonestly.
So far, I haven't *ever* seen you do it honestly. And it's your
dishonesty I object to, not the fact that you criticize MMY.
(Also, just incidentally, I find your smarminess repulsive. You
remind me of nobody so much as Dickens's character Uriah Heep.)
mhutchinson
> - i donot worship ideals.
> By "ideal" I meant your conception of the personal god
ColdBluICE wrote in message
The path to God is only one... not even two.
Respectfully; what is the one and only path to God?
>
ColdBluICE wrote in message
>> Ok how about... Brahmachari Mahesh (afterall that is his title
given
> him by his Master).
>Yes, this is better
> ColdBluICE wrote in message
> -what is a "jnana yogi
JNANA MEANS WISDOM or knowledge in Sanskrit. Jnana Yoga is a technique
for seeking liberation in which identification with the real Self
(rather than with the body or ego) is developed by a steady effort to
discern or discriminate between pure awareness and the objects of
awareness.
Jnana Yoga is closely associated with Advaita Vedanta.
mhutchinson
> >
> > He was a Shankaracharya.
> >
> > "Ego & Pride are two stumbling blocks on this journey. If you are
> > not humble, you cannot learn, your growth will be stunted."
> >
> > Another excerpt from the book re: Swami Rama's encounter with Guru Dev
> >
> > "He was observing silence, so he motioned for me to follow him to
> > his small cave, and I did so gladly. This was the eighth day of his
> > silence, and after staying the night with him he broke his silence and
> > I gently spoke to him about the purpose of my visit. I wanted to know
> > how he was living and the ways and methods of his spiritual practices.
> > "During our conversation he started talking to me about Sri
> > Vidya, the highest of paths, followed only by accomplished Sanskrit
> > scholars of India. It is a path which joins raja yoga, kundalini
> > yoga, bhakti yoga, and advaita Vedanta. There are two books
> > recommended by the teachers of this path: The Wave of Bliss, and The
> > Wave of Beauty; the compilation of the two books is called
> > Saundaryalahari in Sanskrit. There is another part of this
> > literature, called Prayoga Shastra, which is in manuscript form and
> > found only in the Mysore and Baroda libraries. No scholar can
> > understand these spiritual yoga poems without the help of a competent
> > teacher who himself practices these teachings.
> > "Later on I found that Sri Vidya and Madhu Vidya are spiritual
> > practices known to a very few-only ten to twelve people in all of
> > India. I became interested in knowing this science, and
> >
> > WHATEVER LITTLE I HAVE TODAY IS BECAUSE OF IT (my emphasis with caps)"
> >
> > "In this science the body is seen as a temple and the inner
> > dweller, Atman, as God. A human being is like a miniature universe,
> > and by understanding this, one can understand the whole of the
> > universe and ultimately realize the absolute One." "Finally, after
> > studying many scriptures and learning various paths, my master helped
> > me in choosing to practice the way of Sri Vidya."
>
>
eki
wrote:
>> > Quote from Swami Rama's "Living With the Himalayan Masters".
>> >
>> > He was a Shankaracharya.
>> >
>> > "Ego & Pride are two stumbling blocks on this journey. If you are
>> > not humble, you cannot learn, your growth will be stunted."
>> >
>> > Another excerpt from the book re: Swami Rama's encounter with Guru Dev
>> >
>> > "He was observing silence, so he motioned for me to follow him to
>> > his small cave, and I did so gladly. This was the eighth day of his
>> > silence, and after staying the night with him he broke his silence and
>> > I gently spoke to him about the purpose of my visit. I wanted to know
>> > how he was living and the ways and methods of his spiritual practices.
>> > "During our conversation he started talking to me about Sri
>> > Vidya, the highest of paths, followed only by accomplished Sanskrit
>> > scholars of India. It is a path which joins raja yoga, kundalini
>> > yoga, bhakti yoga, and advaita Vedanta. There are two books
>> > recommended by the teachers of this path: The Wave of Bliss, and The
>> > Wave of Beauty; the compilation of the two books is called
>> > Saundaryalahari in Sanskrit.
A small sample:
saundaryalaharI
shivaH shaktyA yukto yadi bhavati shaktaH prabhavituM
na cedevaM devo na khalu kushalaH spanditumapi |
atastvAmArAdhyAM hariharaviri~ncAdibhirapi
praNantuM stotuM vA kathamak.rtapuNyaH prabhavati || 1 ||
tanIyAMsaM pAMsuM tava caraNapaN^keruhabhavaM
viri~ncissa~ncinvan viracayati lokAnavikalam |
vahatyenaM shauriH kathamapi sahasreNa shirasAM
harassaMkShudyainaM bhajati bhasitoddhUlanavidhim || 2 ||
avidyAnAmanta\-stimira\-mihiradvIpanagarI
jaDAnAM caitanya\-stabaka\-makaranda\-srutijharI |
daridrANAM cintAmaNiguNanikA janmajaladhau
nimagnAnAM daMShTrA muraripu\-varAhasya bhavati || 3||
tvadanyaH pANibhyAmabhayavarado daivatagaNaH
tvamekA naivA.asi prakaTitavarAbhItyabhinayA |
bhayAt trAtuM dAtuM phalamapi ca vAMchAsamadhikaM
sharaNye lokAnAM tava hi caraNAveva nipuNau || 4 ||
haristvAmArAdhya praNatajanasaubhAgyajananIM
purA nArI bhUtvA puraripumapi kShobhamanayat |
smaro.api tvAM natvA ratinayanalehyena vapuShA
munInAmapyantaH prabhavati hi mohAya mahatAm || 5 ||
dhanuH pauShpaM maurvI madhukaramayI pa~nca vishikhAH
vasantaH sAmanto malayamarudAyodhanarathaH |
tathA.apyekaH sarvaM himagirisute kAmapi k.rpAM
apAMgAtte labdhvA jagadida\-manaN^go vijayate || 6 ||
kvaNatkA~ncIdAmA karikalabhakumbhastananatA
parikShINA madhye pariNatasharaccandravadanA |
dhanurbANAn pAshaM s.rNimapi dadhAnA karatalaiH
purastAdAstAM naH puramathiturAhopuruShikA || 7 ||
sudhAsindhormadhye suraviTapivATIpariv.rte
maNidvIpe nIpopavanavati cintAmaNig.rhe |
shivAkAre ma~nce paramashivaparyaN^kanilayAM
bhajanti tvAM dhanyAH katicana cidAnandalaharIm || 8 ||
mahIM mUlAdhAre kamapi maNipUre hutavahaM
sthitaM svAdhiShThAne h.rdi marutamAkAshamupari |
mano.api bhrUmadhye sakalamapi bhitvA kulapathaM
sahasrAre padme saha rahasi patyA viharase || 9 ||
sudhAdhArAsAraishcaraNayugalAntarvigalitaiH
prapa~ncaM si~ncantI punarapi rasAmnAyamahasaH |
avApya svAM bhUmiM bhujaganibhamadhyuShTavalayaM
svamAtmAnaM k.rtvA svapiShi kulakuNDe kuhariNi || 10 ||
caturbhiH shrIkaNThaiH shivayuvatibhiH pa~ncabhirapi
prabhinnAbhiH shaMbhornavabhirapi mUlaprak.rtibhiH |
catushcatvAriMshadvasudalakalAshratrivalaya
trirekhAbhiH sArdhaM tava sharaNakoNAH pariNatAH || 11 ||
tvadIyaM saundaryaM tuhinagirikanye tulayituM
kavIndrAH kalpante kathamapi viri~nciprabh.rtayaH |
yadAlokautsukyAdamaralalanA yAnti manasA
tapobhirduShprApAmapi girishasAyujyapadavIm || 12 ||
naraM varShIyAMsaM nayanavirasaM narmasu jaDaM
tavApAN^gAloke patitamanudhAvanti shatashaH |
galadveNIbandhAH kucakalashavisrastasicayA
haThAt truTyatkA~ncyo vigalitadukUlA yuvatayaH || 13||
kShitau ShaTpa~ncAshad dvisamadhikapa~ncAshadudake
hutAshe dvAShaShTishcaturadhikapa~ncAshadanile |
divi dviShShaTtriMshanmanasi ca catuShShaShTiriti ye
mayUkhAsteShAmapyupari tava pAdAmbujayugam || 14 ||
sharajjyotsnAshuddhAM shashiyutajaTAjUTamukuTAM
varatrAsatrANasphaTikaghaTikApustakakarAm |
sak.rnnatvA natvA kathamiva satAM sannidadhate
madhukShIradrAkShAmadhurimadhurINAH phaNitayaH || 15 ||
Back by popular demand
"mhutchinson" <hu...@yogaelements.com> wrote in message
news:9ef6b08e.03051...@posting.google.com...
ColdBluICE
> > - i donot worship ideals.
> By "ideal" I meant your conception of the personal god
>
>
> > ColdBluICE wrote in message
> > The path to God is only one... not even two.
>
> Respectfully; what is the one and only path to God?
-Namaste Sir MHutchinson
The Path to God is..
start here..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=raganuga+bhakti&btnG=Google+Search
Searched the web for raganuga bhakti. Results 1 - 10 of about 1,010.
Search took 0.12 seconds.
This website is a resource dedicated to all students and practitioners
of the raganuga-bhakti tradition. We expect that you, the visitor, are
already acquainted with the basics of the tradition. Should
raganuga-bhakti be an entirely new topic for you, be sure to first
study our introductory website.
http://www.raganuga.com/
.:Gaudiya.com :An Overview of the Gaudiya Vaishnava Tradition:..
..goal". There are two paths of bhakti in practice -
(1) vaidhi-bhakti, and
(2) raganuga-bhakti, and they are understood as follows:
www.gaudiya.com/philosophy.html - 31k - Cached - Similar pages
> > ColdBluICE wrote in message
> > Ok how about... Brahmachari Mahesh (afterall that is his title
> > given
> > him by his Master).
> Yes, this is better
> > ColdBluICE wrote in message
> > -what is a "jnana yogi
>
> JNANA MEANS WISDOM or knowledge in Sanskrit. Jnana Yoga is a technique
> for seeking liberation in which identification with the real Self
> (rather than with the body or ego) is developed by a steady effort to
> discern or discriminate between pure awareness and the objects of
> awareness.
>
> Jnana Yoga is closely associated with Advaita Vedanta.
-most politely.. the word is Gyan (pronounced GeeAn). The followers
of this path are Gyanis (Saints like Shukdeo & Udhao) they seek
Absolute Divine Truth (or Brahm Ananda).
The path of Gyan is practised in strict conjunction with Vaidhi
Bhakti. A path known as Gyan Bhakti (or *STRICT OBSERVANCE OF VEDIC
RITUAL along with COMPLETE RENUNICATION*.. vows of Sanyasi).
Renunication of the class you & i cannot imagine.
This Path of Gyan Bhakti cannot be practised in Kali Yuga. As *NO ONE
IS QUALIFIED TO PRACTISE* with the *Very Rare* exception... (Sri Swami
BrahmAnanda SaraswatiJi Maharaj Shankaracharya Jyoismutt Peeth
1941-1953).
That is why (now today & for the next 452,000 years) there is only One
Path To God.. Raganuga Bhakti.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=gyan+bhakti&btnG=Google+Search
Searched the web for gyan bhakti. Results 1 - 10 of about 1,010.
Search took 0.05 seconds
Swayamvara
..It is a reminder of how very helpless we truly are when it comes to
brass tacks.
Thus came about the Great Union of Wisdom (Gyan) with Bhakti
(Devotion).
www.dalsabzi.com/Books/Symbolisms_Ramayana/ chapter_three.htm - 18k -
Cached - Similar pages
mhutchinson
mhutchinson
Do you have the complete "poem?" Where is it available? Is there a
translation available. I realize without the guidance of a master it
is obtuse material, but I would still like to get a copy w/
translation.
mhutchinson
Jnana Yoga is closely associated with Advaita Vedanta.
-most politely.. the word is Gyan (pronounced GeeAn).
This word is found spelled both ways
ColdBluICE
> "Everyone believes that their watch alone tells the correct time"
> - Ramakrishna
-Sir MHutchinson, A Very bad analogy, for two reasons:..
1) Sri RamaKrishna Paramahans was a sanyas Bhakta that worhipped Devi
Kali, and expounded only one Path To God- Raganuga Bhakti.
2) Sri Adi Shankar whom was one of the first Acharyas (509-482BC) of
Kali Yuga (which began Mid-Feburary 3102BC) expounded only Bhakti as
the Path To God.
In His very *first work* a commentary on Advaita Marg (or the
practise of Nirakar Brahm-Impersonal God) He outlines the
qualifications for this practise in the very first Sutra. He said-,
"complete renunication was required." And, the second Sutra He said-,
"it was the most difficult path, nearly impossible, and not
advisable".
That is why He advises in His *final work* Prabodh Sudhakar the
Supremacy of Sri Krishna Bhakti.
And, wrote Bhajo Govindam
..Shankaracharya was the descension of God Shiv Who is God of yog and
liberation and also an ardent devotee of Krishn, so Shankaracharya
explained about gyan and yog but he inserted bhakti in the very end of
Aprokchanubhooti and described Krishn devotion in the Prabodh
Sudhakar.
-source-http://jkp.org/path_to_God/sanatan_dharm_the_eternal_religion3.html
..Shankaracharya considered devotion as the best means to attain
self-knowledge. He himself was a great devotee. Many Shlokas also bear
testimony to the fact that he was also an ardent devotee of Lord
Krishna. He had made quotations of many Shlokas connected with Lord
Shiva. He wrote many sacred books like Brahmasutra Bhashya,
Upanishad(Ish , Ken, Katha,Prashna, Mundaka, Mandukya) Bhashya, Gita
Bhashya, Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya, Sanatsujatiya bhashya, Hastamalak
Bhashya, Lalitatrishati Bhashya, Viveka Chudamani, Prabodh Sudhakar,
Updesh Sahashri, Aprokshanubhuti, Satashloki, Dasha shloki, Sabvedant
Siddhantsaar Sangraha, Vakya Sudha, Panchikaran, Prapanchasara, Atma
Bodh, Manishapanchak Anandlahiri, Vividh stotra etc
-source- http://www.urday.com/shankaracharya.htm
..Bhaja Govindam is a musical piece in Sanskrit composed by the great
Michael
Banarsidass
And a beautiful CD-Rom with all verses sung and displayed (+ rituals)
and paintings by Software Frontiers Limited, email: sfl <at> stpg
<dot> soft <dot> net . They also have audio casettes. Enjoy!
hu...@yogaelements.com (mhutchinson) wrote in message news:<9ef6b08e.03051...@posting.google.com>...
Michael
ISBN 81-7120-244-6, by Swami Tapasyananda, Sri Ramakrishna Math,
Mylapore, Madras 600 004, email: info <at> vedanta <dot> org
This one also has a very nice commentary. I just discovered it, looks
like the commentary is great. :-)
han...@telda.net (Michael) wrote in message news:<c4b2aca1.03051...@posting.google.com>...
Michael
http://www.ambaa.org/saundarya/saundarya1.htm
http://acharya.iitm.ac.in/mirrors/vv/literature/sankara/sound.html
han...@telda.net (Michael) wrote in message news:<c4b2aca1.03051...@posting.google.com>...
James Duffy
completely different contexts. It is my position that MMY has given
you 10% of the story regarding mantra.That 10% isn't exactly
"wrong"...but the problem is, only knowing 10% of the story leaves
you, Michael and others with a extremely skewed and incomplete
understanding of mantra. As usual, you cannot support your or MMY's
views from within ANY Indian tradition...specifically the
Shankaracharya Tradition, which MMY claims to represent. This claim of
MMY's makes my posts EXTREMELY RELEVANT. They're irrelevant to you
because you have no response other than presupposition after
presupposition....and lame metaphors. You go on and on....but NEVER
answer why or how these mantras are superior to any other
"meaningless" sound. I have asked for your explanation over the years
MANY times. No response. How EXACTLY does the "advanced technique"
cause this "lingering"? I only get regurgitated TM propanganda,
completely devoid of substance, that you've been spoon fed. Stop being
a parrot. You've honestly stated you have no other "mantric"
experience to compare to... plus you cannot say why or how these
mantras are superior to any other "meaningless" sound...then how do
you know they are superior? The bija mantras ARE special...and for
very good reasons...reasons you are utterly unaware of. What really
shocks me is how you can be satisfied with explanations of mantras
that have no more substance than metaphors like "fertilizers" ! This
reflects MMY's depth of knowledge regarding the science of mantra?
Trust me, TM teacher training does nothing to fill in the missing
pieces...and I mean absolutely nothing. Now, the money.... as a friend
recently put it to me..."that's some expensive fertilizer"! If one
receives all seven advanced techniques....that's $17, 500. ...to
basically have two VERY COMMON "devotional" words added repeatedly to
your original bija mantra. I think if someone is a going to drop $17,
500., they are entitled to a better explanation than "fertilizer".
MMY continues his tradition of catering to and ENCOURAGING the common
western idea , that anything be bought....including God. With MMY's
million dollar courses promising enlightenment, for example, MMY's
saying, not only can you buy God, but I'm the only guy who can sell
Him to you. MMY may very well be sincere, but he is sincerely deluded.
Judy..if you look back at my history with amt, I rarely post on any
topic OTHER than mantra related threads...and for good reason...it's a
topic I know well, scripturally and experientially. You don't like me
because I'm very hard on MMY...not because of my "smarminess" as you
called it. It's a "you're with us or against us" fundamentalist
mentality. It speaks volumes that my initial simple response to
someone's request about Srividya has ended like this....arguing about
something so petty...but that's amt's consistent
characteristic...pettiness.
Below I've posted the official word on the advanced techniques...see
if you can find any substance to the explanation in terms of HOW or
WHY they work. I sure didn't.
james
PS: And Judy, please note I don't snip your posts in the manipulative
manner you are so fond of.
From the TM website:
>What Are Advanced Techniques?
>"The purpose of Advanced Techniques is to take the experience to
another,
>higher level. Advanced Techniques are like ferilizers; fertilizers
bring
>better fruit to every tree. To enjoy greater achievement and
fulfillment in
>life, take advantage of this beautiful program of Advanced Techniques
to
>enrich the development of higher states of consciousness."
--Maharishi
>
>ADVANCED TECHNIQUES enhance and enrich the benefits of one's daily
practice
>of the Transcendental Meditation program. Through regular practice of
the
>Transcendental Meditation technique, the mind becomes familiar with
finer
>levels of the thinking process and with the source of thought --
>Transcendental Consciousness -- the home of all the Laws of Nature.
Through
>the Advanced Techniques of the Transcendental Meditation program, the
>totality of Natural Law is more quickly and profoundly integrated in
the
>awareness. As the conscious mind becomes more and more infused with
pure
>consciousness, a powerful influence of integration and bliss is
created.
>Every phase of thought and action spontaneoulsy becomes more
supported by
>the evolutionary power of Natural Law, resulting in greater
fulfillment of
>desires in daily life.
>
>The Advanced Techniques hasten one's growth to enlightenment, to that
level
>of unity consciousness which harnesses the full value of Natural Law
at
>every stroke of activity. With the Advanced Techniques, one naturally
>radiates an influence of fullness and bliss to the environment.
>
>"The practical program to create Heaven on Earth is to develop bliss
>consciousness, so that no matter where one may be on earth, one will
always
>be in Heaven. To rise quickly in bliss consciousness and prepare the
ground
>for Heaven on Earth, everyone is invited to participate in this
beautiful
>program of Advanced Techniques." --Maharishi
jst...@panix.com (Judy Stein) wrote in message news:<19b3c03e.03051...@posting.google.com>...
mhutchinson
Judy Stein
> completely different contexts.
Yes, so different that you weren't able to address any
of my points. Big surprise.
<snip>
As usual, you cannot support your or MMY's
> views from within ANY Indian tradition...specifically the
> Shankaracharya Tradition, which MMY claims to represent.
As you know, James, MMY also claims Shankara's teaching has
been misunderstood for centuries. It's like claiming Martin
Luther's teaching cannot be found among the doctrines of
the Catholic Church--a non sequitur, a straw man.
> This claim of MMY's makes my posts EXTREMELY RELEVANT.
MMY's claim can't make your posts relevant. Only you can
do that, by addressing MMY's teaching *on its own terms*.
They're irrelevant to you
> because you have no response other than presupposition after
> presupposition....and lame metaphors. You go on and on....but NEVER
> answer why or how these mantras are superior to any other
> "meaningless" sound. I have asked for your explanation over the years
> MANY times. No response.
Oh, James, that's not true, and you know it's not true. I've
answered you every time: I've told you I don't know, but that
it's irrelevant.
How EXACTLY does the "advanced technique"
> cause this "lingering"? I only get regurgitated TM propanganda,
> completely devoid of substance, that you've been spoon fed.
That you don't understand what MMY teaches, James, or don't
want to accept it, doesn't make it devoid of substance.
Stop being
> a parrot. You've honestly stated you have no other "mantric"
> experience to compare to... plus you cannot say why or how these
> mantras are superior to any other "meaningless" sound...then how do
> you know they are superior?
Actually I've never claimed these mantras are superior to any
other meaningless sound. You made that up.
In any case, this is not about what I claim but what MMY
claims, which you have so far been utterly incapable of
addressing.
Your accusation, moreover, that I'm "parroting" is dishonest
in the extreme, for the same reason: the topic of discussion
is what MMY teaches, the topic you keep avoiding.
The bija mantras ARE special...and for
> very good reasons...reasons you are utterly unaware of. What really
> shocks me is how you can be satisfied with explanations of mantras
> that have no more substance than metaphors like "fertilizers" !
As you know, James, having been a TM teacher and no doubt having
several advanced techniques yourself, there is far more to the
explanation of the advanced techniques than the "fertilizer"
metaphor.
And again, your accusation that I am "satisfied" with the metaphor
as an explanation is knowingly dishonest, since I didn't present it
as such; I cited it merely to show that your characterization of
the advanced techniques as "superior" was way off the mark (as you
knew when you proposed it).
This
> reflects MMY's depth of knowledge regarding the science of mantra?
> Trust me, TM teacher training does nothing to fill in the missing
> pieces...and I mean absolutely nothing.
Ah, but the instruction you get when you learn the techiques
does. As you know.
Now, the money.... as a friend
> recently put it to me..."that's some expensive fertilizer"! If one
> receives all seven advanced techniques....that's $17, 500. ...to
> basically have two VERY COMMON "devotional" words added repeatedly to
> your original bija mantra. I think if someone is a going to drop $17,
> 500., they are entitled to a better explanation than "fertilizer".
They sure are, and they get one, as you know. They also, as you
know, get the benefit of the techniques.
> MMY continues his tradition of catering to and ENCOURAGING the common
> western idea , that anything be bought....including God. With MMY's
> million dollar courses promising enlightenment, for example, MMY's
> saying, not only can you buy God, but I'm the only guy who can sell
> Him to you. MMY may very well be sincere, but he is sincerely deluded.
He doesn't say anything remotely like that, as you know.
> Judy..if you look back at my history with amt, I rarely post on any
> topic OTHER than mantra related threads...and for good reason...it's a
> topic I know well, scripturally and experientially. You don't like me
> because I'm very hard on MMY
No, as I've already explained many times, I "don't like" you because
you are dishonest.
...not because of my "smarminess" as you
> called it.
No, as I said, that's incidental.
It's a "you're with us or against us" fundamentalist
> mentality.
No, actually it's a "you're honest or you're dishonest"
mentality. I loathe dishonesty.
<snip>
> Below I've posted the official word on the advanced techniques...see
> if you can find any substance to the explanation in terms of HOW or
> WHY they work. I sure didn't.
Right, that's the promotional blurb, as you know, not the
explanation of how they work.
That's an example of what I mean by your dishonesty.
> PS: And Judy, please note I don't snip your posts in the manipulative
> manner you are so fond of.
And here's another example of it. I never snip anything that's
relevant to the topic at hand. As you know.
And if anyone is interested in seeing more examples of James's
dishonesty, just have a look at my previous post of mine, which
he quoted in full without responding to any of my points--other
than the parenthetical one at the end about his smarminess, which
he deliberately misrepresented.
<snip>
Billy Smith
Hi Everyone,
No matter what anybody says or Thinks, MMY'S TM works - it worked for
me 26 years ago,and it still works today - Better than ever!
Namaste,
Billy
Michael
> completely different contexts. It is my position that MMY has given
> you 10% of the story regarding mantra.That 10% isn't exactly
> "wrong"...but the problem is, only knowing 10% of the story leaves
> you, Michael and others with a extremely skewed and incomplete
> understanding of mantra.
same topic), or simply brushing over them with a "I'am disappointed by
you - read 3,4 volumous books and you will understand I'm right -
sorry I have to leave quickly". It's allright to not answer, but then
one shouldn't keep on cross-referencing, not actually attending to any
of the points I had raised -and then whining at Judy, that we don't go
into the topic of mantra. This IS dishonest to the max. But you were
probably too embarrased by my structural analysis of the Bijas, and
therefore all the self-appointed apostle of mantra-shastra can say is,
that we are simply to ignorant for him even to talk. And of course he
forgets, that he comes from a religious sect - the Kaulas which has
been declared to be antivedic, by all the custodians of tradition,
while at the same time he boldly declares, that all the views of his
branch of tantra are simply what we have to go by. And we hardly ever
hear anything new from him.
But the truth is, that the tantras are NOT vedic. The truth is also,
that the tantric mantras are precisely not vedic, and that's very
crucial, because if they were, we wouldn't be doing them! The reason
we are doing tantric mantras (bijas) is that we, as non Brahmins, non
Indians and Non-sannyasins - the Shankara tradition is a basically
monastic tradition - are simply not eligible to repeat vedic words,
like OM for example. We are not even allowed to do the Gayatri. And
there goes your nama/rupa. Now comes the custodian of kaula tantrism
and declares us, that they have just linked all 50 letters of the
Sanskrit alphabet to special forms of the goddess, and there is no way
we can undo that. IOW tantra, and they had to create a high tantra to
distinguish it from the low tantra, now demands the same status as the
Veda, while at the same time keeping its low people profile (anybody
is eligable to the tantra, no sex- or caste requirements), and finds
inclusion in some of the vedic traditions. To cut the story short,
meditation as described in the Upanishads, the Yoga Sutras, is
(mostly) an impersonal meditation with the syllable OM, which denotes
no specific deity and has no known meaning, and which is used to melt
into the Absolute. That is basically TM, only that the OM (as the most
sacred vedic word) was
subsituted by tantric sylables of similar qualities, the bijas, which
are not names, but are exclusively used for ritual or meditative
purposes, with the advantage of no caste/sex limitation. (As an
interception here, the real distinguishing mark of the Kaulas is that
they prefer worship in outer rituals, while the Samayins are font of
inner worship, i.e. are more meditative, and see Shiva, symbolic for
the impersonal principle, and Shakti, the phenomenon as equal, while
the Kaulas look upon the Shakti, the relative principle as higher.
That already tells us something, doesn't it?)
Now these selfdeclared mantraexperts tell us that this is basicaly
wrong and incomplete, if you do it the Upanishadic way, while we find
in all books of the Saundarya Lahari strange rituals for every verse,
to accomplish things like "the power to hypnotise all" (verse 51), or
the "power to captivate women, animals, demons and rulers" (verse 19),
using the very same mantras as we use in meditation! That's of course
not vedic, but its tantric! That's all right you see, TM though, using
the same sound for melting with the Absolute, is wrong and not vedic.
And please make no mention, that the tantra might have anything to do
with magic!
Basically the story is, that after the times of the Upanishads,
Hinduism got into a phase of increasd deification of everything. That
you can see in the Puranas, where all principles of nature are
immediately personified, and even to a more extreme extent in Tantra.
While this whole concept of deification is certainly based on the
immanent nature of God, pervading all of creation, an overitualization
has equally taken place. It is certainly a very good concept to
worship God in everything, and that's exactly what tantra stands for,
but at least in your case, James, that has led to a rigidity which is
totally contraproductive to tantras original goals. When I actually
her expressed views, that form the very basis of Tantra, that God is
everywhere, the SAME, I am accused of "boomerities" (a word I simply
don't know enough as a foreigner, and it therefore has not much
meaning to throw it at me all the time).
Then comes the argument of incompetence. Everyone who doesn't agree
that bijas have meaning, or finds arguments against it, is simply
incompetent, or has an "extremly incomplete" knowledge of things. If
you thus define the end result of the discussion, its simply
unecessary to discuss! We are constanly thrown sentences like this on
our heads: "Did you learn nyasa? When and where? Have you been
initiated into some other mantra shastra?" There is always this "I
know more than you, and therefore you have to listen to me" attitude.
Well, I
aways thought, that spiritual life is about humility, living a simple
life etc. And certainly, James, you have a problem with any view lying
outside your given religious framework. But to question religious
beliefs, at least at this newsgroup, is totally legitimate. E.g a
botanist may find a certain plant, which is used by a certain tribe
only within a religious context, medically valueable. Which doesn't
mean that the reason for the plant power will be the explation the
shaman is giving. In most cases it will be just NOT that reason.
Similarly, for the power of mantra. We don't have to assume that the
explanation the tantrics give will be the true one. It's not a given.
Nor is it a given that meanings tantrics give is in the category of
the Vedic nama-rupa (which is of course a belief in itself). You have
a problem to abstrahate a view from within a religious system, to one
lying outside this system (and compare them). You also have a problem
to abstrahate meaning from sound, quality from form. Tantra makes all
these connections voluntarily, intentionally, which is completely
legitimate. To the simple minded people, who have problems with
abstrahations, we will say: "this is the deities name, this is it's
form, this is its triangle." But God is not closed in a triangle! He
is everywhere. Get out of this box. If tantrics would really believe
it was so, they wouldn't need to do any pranaprathisthas (lifegiving
ceremonies). There are three major world religions, who are based on
the idea, that God cannot be enclosed in a limited form. No form be
given to God, and if you do it, know it is only a symbol. But with all
your exclusive relating to your own religious context, you come across
as an as fanatic sectarian as the Petrock or Coldblue. And thats where
I am disappointed: You don't recogniye the true and are addiicted to
the shell
As usual, you cannot support your or MMY's
> views from within ANY Indian tradition...specifically the
> Shankaracharya Tradition, which MMY claims to represent. This claim of
> MMY's makes my posts EXTREMELY RELEVANT. They're irrelevant to you
> because you have no response other than presupposition after
> presupposition....and lame metaphors. You go on and on....but NEVER
> answer why or how these mantras are superior to any other
> "meaningless" sound. I have asked for your explanation over the years
> MANY times. No response. How EXACTLY does the "advanced
Judy Stein
<snip>
When I actually
> her expressed views, that form the very basis of Tantra, that God is
> everywhere, the SAME, I am accused of "boomerities" (a word I simply
> don't know enough as a foreigner, and it therefore has not much
> meaning to throw it at me all the time).
"Boomeritis" is a word coined by philosopher Ken Wilber referring
to a misunderstanding of "mysticism" he says is characteristic of
"boomers," which is short for "baby-boomers," or the huge wave of
children born shortly after World War II. (It's also the title of
Wilber's first and only novel, which deals with the issue. If the
long excerpt I read on his Web site is representative, he should be
prohibited by law from trying to write another novel under pain of
capital punishment. It's the most appallingly, horrendously,
excruciatingly painfully bad writing I've ever seen in my life.)
"Boomeritis" is similar in meaning to an earlier term, "dharma
bums," which referred to the same tendency among the '60s
generation.
The ultimate horrible example of this misunderstanding is
mass murderer Charles Manson's assertion, "If all is One,
nothing can be wrong."
So you can see now how James is applying that term to you. He
is, of course, utterly wrong to do so.
mhutchinson
> > mhutchinson wrote:
> > "Everyone believes that their watch alone tells the correct time"
> > - Ramakrishna
>
> -Sir MHutchinson, A Very bad analogy, for two reasons:..
> 1) Sri RamaKrishna Paramahans was a sanyas Bhakta that worhipped Devi
> Kali, and expounded only one Path To God- Raganuga Bhakti.
>
Ramakrishna last year. It awakened bhakti in me, a development that
truly thrilled me - I'm so fed-up with intellectually floundering
around, trying to get to truth with my measly intellect.
Ramakrishna first realized God through "Ma Kali", then felt complelled
to realize God through the sadhana of gyana, jnana, advaitic reasoning
through the tuteledge of a monk named "totapuri", he gained nirvakalpa
samadhi through this sadhana and could experience it at any time -
when he experienced Brahman (consciousness) this way he was mute and
in samadhi, but when he came out of it, (back into world of duality)
he was a devotee of God. He would oscillate between non-dual
knowledge of Brahman, and the dualistic state of being God's (as Kali)
devotee.
He came in contact with many devotees of God from many sundry
different traditions and unstintingly encouraged them all to "go
further" until they'd reached the goal. They, in - turn, would claim
him as their own as the exemplar or fruit of their sole path - as you
are trying to do vis a vis "Raganuga Bhakti"
It's made abundantly clear by everyone who knew him that he simply
loved, loved, and again loved - God, and enjoyed sharing company with
any and all sincere devotees.
But - it truly pained him, when out of this devotional zeal
people would disdain and criticize other peoples paths or devotions to
God. I.E. The Shiva worshipper will acknowledge the greatness of
Krishna, but only up to "Krishna was Shiva's greatest disciple" or the
Krishna worshipper "Shiva was Krishna's greatest disciple" - you get
the idea...
But I agree that I think it is correct that bhakti is probably the
best path for most people, with the exceptions scattered about amongst
us - the occaisional jnani or gyani yogi. But what do I know?
Michael
> <snip>
> When I actually
> > her expressed views, that form the very basis of Tantra, that God is
> > everywhere, the SAME, I am accused of "boomerities" (a word I simply
> > don't know enough as a foreigner, and it therefore has not much
> > meaning to throw it at me all the time).
>
> "Boomeritis" is a word coined by philosopher Ken Wilber referring
> to a misunderstanding of "mysticism" he says is characteristic of
> "boomers," which is short for "baby-boomers," or the huge wave of
> children born shortly after World War II. (It's also the title of
> Wilber's first and only novel, which deals with the issue. If the
> long excerpt I read on his Web site is representative, he should be
> prohibited by law from trying to write another novel under pain of
> capital punishment. It's the most appallingly, horrendously,
> excruciatingly painfully bad writing I've ever seen in my life.)
>
> "Boomeritis" is similar in meaning to an earlier term, "dharma
> bums," which referred to the same tendency among the '60s
> generation
Thanks Judy for the explanation. The term is certainly more malicious
than I thought - thank you James! I missed being of this generation
though by short, the 60's I only experienced as an infant. I was too
young to become a hippie!.
mhutchinson
> > mass murderer Charles Manson's assertion, "If all is One,
> > nothing can be wrong."
> >
> > So you can see now how James is applying that term to you. He
> > is, of course, utterly wrong to do so.
Second opinion; I don't think James was really trying to compare
Michael to Charles Manson. Tread a little lighter on the hyperbole.