Ganesha : the Elephant Headed God, Art and Mythology

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

This time I have put together a piece on the elephant headed god.

 

===================================================

Ganesha : the Elephant Headed God, Art and Mythology

===================================================

 

The beloved elephant-faced-Deity popularly known as Ganesha has

intrigued thinking men all over the world, all through the ages

even unto the present day. The sacred texts give a variety of

stories narrating the sequence of Ganesha's birth. The most

popular being the one mentioning that Ganesha was created by

Goddess Parvati as a guardian to her privacy:

 

Incensed by the refusal of her husband to respect her privacy, to

the extent of entering her private chambers even while she was

having her bath, Parvati decided to settle matters once and for

all. Before going for her bath the next time, she rubbed off the

sandalwood paste on her body and out of it created the figure of

a young boy. She infused life into the figure and told him he was

her son and should guard the entrance while she bathed.

 

Soon after, Shiva (Lord of destruction and husband of Parvati,)

came to see Parvati but the young boy blocked his way and would

not let him in. Shiva, unaware that this lad was his son, became

furious and in great anger fought with this boy whose head got

severed from his body in the ensuing battle. Parvati, returning

from her bath, saw her headless son and threatened in her rage to

destroy the heavens and the earth, so great was her sorrow.

 

Shiva pacified her and instructed his followers (known as ganas)

to bring the head of the first living being they encounter. The

first creature they encountered was an elephant. They thus cut

off its head and placed it on the body of Parvati's son and

breathed life into him. Thus overjoyed, Parvati embraced her son.

 

Illustration :

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/hindu/hp51.jpg (size : 36 kb)

 

The son of Parvati was given the name Ganesha by Shiva. The word

Ganesha is made up of gana (followers of Shiva) and isha (lord),

thus Shiva appointed him the lord of his ganas.

 

Ganesha is usually depicted either as a pictograph or as an idol

with the body of a man and the head of an elephant, having only

one tusk, the other tusk appearing broken. His unique feature,

besides the elephant head, is the large belly practically falling

over his lower garment. On his chest, across his left shoulder,

is his sacred thread, often in the form of a snake. The vehicle

of Ganesha is the mouse, often seen paying obeisance to his lord.

 

Illustration : http://www.exoticindiaart.com/madhuban/pc10.jpg

(size : 95 kb)

 

According to the strict rules of Hindu iconography, Ganesha

figures with only two hands are taboo. Hence, Ganesha figures are

most commonly seen with four hands which signify their divinity.

Some figures may be seen with six, some with eight, some with

ten, some with twelve and some with fourteen hands, each hand

carrying a symbol which differs from the symbols in other hands,

there being about fifty seven symbols in all, according to the

findings of research scholars.

 

Illustration :

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/brass/zg16.jpg (size : 39 kb)

 

The physical attributes of Ganesha are themselves rich in

symbolism. He is normally shown with one hand in the abhaya pose

of protection and refuge and the second holding a sweet (modaka)

symbolic of the sweetness of the realized inner self. In the two

hands behind him he often holds an ankusha (elephant goad) and a

pasha (noose). The noose is to convey that worldly attachments

and desires are a noose. The goad is to prod man to the path of

righteousness and truth. With this goad Ganesha can both strike

and repel obstacles.

 

Illustration : http://www.exoticindiaart.com/batik/ba15.jpg (size

: 65 kb)

 

His pot belly signifies the bounty of nature and also that

Ganesha swallows the sorrows of the Universe and protects the

world.

 

Illustration : http://www.exoticindiaart.com/marble/mh03.jpg

(size : 101 kb)

 

The image of Ganesha is a composite one. Four animals viz., man,

elephant, the serpent and the mouse have contributed for the

makeup of his figure. All of them individually and collectively

have deep symbolic significance. The image of Ganesha thus

represents man's eternal striving towards integration with

nature. He has to be interpreted taking into consideration the

fact that though millenniums rolled by, man yet remains closer to

animal today than he was ever before.

 

The most striking feature of Ganesha is his elephant head,

symbolic of auspiciousness, strength and intellectual prowess.

All the qualities of the elephant are contained in the form of

Ganpati. The elephant is the largest and strongest of animals of

the forest. Yet he is gentle and, amazingly, a vegetarian, so

that he does not kill to eat. He is very affectionate and loyal

to his keeper and is greatly swayed if love and kindness are

extended to him. Ganesha, though a powerful deity, is similarly

loving and forgiving and moved by the affection of his devotees.

But at the same time the elephant can destroy a whole forest and

is a one-man army when provoked. Ganesha is similarly most

powerful and can be ruthless when containing evil.

 

Again, Ganesha's large head is symbolic of the wisdom of the

elephant. His large ears, like the winnow, sift the bad from the

good. Although they hear everything, they retain only that which

is good; they are attentive to all requests made by the devotees,

be they humble or powerful.

 

Illustration :

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/madhuban/db26.jpg (size : 122 kb)

 

Ganesha's trunk is a symbol of his discrimination (viveka), a

most important quality necessary for spiritual progress. The

elephant uses its trunk to push down a massive tree, carry huge

logs to the river and for other heavy tasks. The same huge trunk

is used to pick up a few blades of grass, to break a small

coconut, remove the hard nut and eat the soft kernel inside. The

biggest and minutest of tasks are within the range of this trunk

which is symbolic of Ganesha's intellect and hiss powers of

discrimination.

 

Illustration :

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/brass/zf68.jpg (size : 31 kb)

 

An intriguing aspect of Ganesha's iconography is his broken tusk,

leading to the appellation Ekdanta, Ek meaning one and danta

meaning teeth. It carries an interesting legend behind it:

 

When Parashurama one of Shiva's favorite disciples, came to visit

him, he found Ganesha guarding Shiva's inner apartments. His

father being asleep, Ganesha opposed Parshurama's entry.

Parashurama nevertheless tried to urge his way, and the parties

came to blows. Ganesha had at first the advantage, seizing

Parashurama in his trunk, and giving him a twirl that left him

sick and senseless; on recovering, Rama threw his axe at Ganesha,

who recognizing it as his father's weapon (Shiva having given it

to Parashurama) received it with all humility upon one of his

tusks, which it immediately severed, and hence Ganesha has but

one tusk.

 

A different legend narrates that Ganesha was asked to scribe down

the epic of Mahabharata, dictated to him by its author, sage

Vyasa. Taking into note the enormity and significance of the

task, Ganesha realized the inadequacy of any ordinary 'pen' to

undertake the task. He thus broke one of his own tusks and made a

pen out of it. The lesson offered here is that no sacrifice is

big enough in the pursuit of knowledge.

 

Illustration :

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/batik/bg27.jpg (size : 37 kb)

 

An ancient Sanskrit drama titled "Shishupalvadha", presents a

different version. Here it is mentioned that Ganesha was deprived

of his tusk by the arrogant Ravana (the villain of

Ramayana), who removed it forcefully in order to make ivory

earrings for the beauties of Lanka!.

 

The little mouse whom Ganesha is supposed to ride upon is another

enigmatic feature in his iconography. At a first glance it seems

strange that the lord of wisdom has been granted a humble

obsequious mouse quite incapable of lifting the bulging belly and

massive head that he possesses. But it implies that wisdom is an

attribute of ugly conglomeration of factors and further that the

wise do not find anything in the world disproportionate or ugly.

 

The mouse is, in every respect, comparable to the intellect. It

is able to slip unobserved or without our knowledge into places

which we would have not thought it possible to penetrate. In

doing this it is hardly concerned whether it is seeking virtue or

vice. The mouse thus represents our wandering, wayward mind,

lured to undesirable or corrupting grounds. By showing the mouse

paying subservience to Lord Ganesha it is implied that the

intellect has been tamed through Ganesha's power of

discrimination.

 

Illustration : http://www.exoticindiaart.com/marble/mh09.jpg

(size : 95 kb)

 

Any attempt to penetrate the depths of the Ganesha phenomenon

must note that he is born from Goddess Parvati alone without the

intervention of her husband Shiva, and as such he shares a very

unique and special relationship with his mother. The sensitive

nature of his relationship with Parvati is made amply clear in

the following tale:

 

As a child, Ganesha teased a cat by pulling its tail, rolling it

over on the ground and causing it great pain, as naughty young

boys are wont to do. After some time, tired of his game, he went

to his mother Parvati. He found her in great pain and covered

with scratches and dust all over. When he questioned her, she put

the blame on him. She explained that she was the cat whom Ganesha

had teased.

 

His total devotion towards his mother is the reason why in the

South Indian tradition Ganesha is represented as single and

celibate. It is said that he felt that his mother, Parvati, was

the most beautiful and perfect woman in the universe. Bring me a

woman as beautiful as she is and I shall marry her, he said. None

could find an equal to the beautiful Uma (Parvati), and so the

legend goes, the search is still on..

 

In variance with the South Indian tradition, in North India

Ganesha is often shown married to the two daughters of Brahma

(the Lord of Creation), namely Buddhi and Siddhi. Metaphorically

Buddhi signifies wisdom and Siddhi achievement. In the sense of

yoga, Buddhi and Siddhi represent the female and male currents in

the human body. In visual arts this aspect of Ganesha is

represented with grace and charm.

 

Illustration : http://www.exoticindiaart.com/hindu/hp45.jpg (size

: 80 kb)

 

In a different, slightly erotic version from Tantric thought,

Ganesha is depicted in a form known as "Shakti Ganpati". Here he

is depicted with four arms, two of them holding symbolic

implements. With the other two arms he fondles his consort, who

is comfortably balanced on his left thigh. The third eye in this

representation, is of course the eye of wisdom, which sees above

and beyond mere physical reality.

 

Illustration : http://www.exoticindiaart.com/hindu/hp28.jpg (size

: 84 kb)

 

No analysis of Lord Ganesha can be concluded without a mention of

the mystical syllable AUM. The sacred AUM is the most powerful

Universal symbol of the divine presence in Hindu thought. It is

further said to be the sound which was generated when the world

first came into being. The written manifestation of this divine

symbol when inverted gives the perfect profile of the god with

the elephant head.

 

Illustration : http://www.exoticindiaart.com/om.jpg (size : 15

kb)

 

Ganesha is thus the ONLY god to be associated in a "physical"

sense with the primordial sacred sound AUM, a telling reminder of

his supreme position in the Hindu pantheon.

 

(Thus ends the newsletter for the month of October)

 

Nitin G.

http://www.exoticindiaart.com

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Yes that is the story. It is an interesting teaching myth, and very

useful to those who need an image to worship outside of themselves.

We are all at different stages on the path, if you believe in devas

then for you there are devas.

 

For those that follow the adwaitic path, these gods are illusion as

are we.

 

Om Namah Sivaya, Tony.

 

 

, sanjulag wrote:

> Hi,

>

> This time I have put together a piece on the elephant headed god.

>

> ===================================================

> Ganesha : the Elephant Headed God, Art and Mythology

> ===================================================

>

> The beloved elephant-faced-Deity popularly known as Ganesha has

> intrigued thinking men all over the world, all through the ages

> even unto the present day. The sacred texts give a variety of

> stories narrating the sequence of Ganesha's birth. The most

> popular being the one mentioning that Ganesha was created by

> Goddess Parvati as a guardian to her privacy:

>

> Incensed by the refusal of her husband to respect her privacy, to

> the extent of entering her private chambers even while she was

> having her bath, Parvati decided to settle matters once and for

> all. Before going for her bath the next time, she rubbed off the

> sandalwood paste on her body and out of it created the figure of

> a young boy. She infused life into the figure and told him he was

> her son and should guard the entrance while she bathed.

>

> Soon after, Shiva (Lord of destruction and husband of Parvati,)

> came to see Parvati but the young boy blocked his way and would

> not let him in. Shiva, unaware that this lad was his son, became

> furious and in great anger fought with this boy whose head got

> severed from his body in the ensuing battle. Parvati, returning

> from her bath, saw her headless son and threatened in her rage to

> destroy the heavens and the earth, so great was her sorrow.

>

> Shiva pacified her and instructed his followers (known as ganas)

> to bring the head of the first living being they encounter. The

> first creature they encountered was an elephant. They thus cut

> off its head and placed it on the body of Parvati's son and

> breathed life into him. Thus overjoyed, Parvati embraced her son.

>

> Illustration :

> http://www.exoticindiaart.com/hindu/hp51.jpg (size : 36 kb)

>

> The son of Parvati was given the name Ganesha by Shiva. The word

> Ganesha is made up of gana (followers of Shiva) and isha (lord),

> thus Shiva appointed him the lord of his ganas.

>

> Ganesha is usually depicted either as a pictograph or as an idol

> with the body of a man and the head of an elephant, having only

> one tusk, the other tusk appearing broken. His unique feature,

> besides the elephant head, is the large belly practically falling

> over his lower garment. On his chest, across his left shoulder,

> is his sacred thread, often in the form of a snake. The vehicle

> of Ganesha is the mouse, often seen paying obeisance to his lord.

>

> Illustration : http://www.exoticindiaart.com/madhuban/pc10.jpg

> (size : 95 kb)

>

> According to the strict rules of Hindu iconography, Ganesha

> figures with only two hands are taboo. Hence, Ganesha figures are

> most commonly seen with four hands which signify their divinity.

> Some figures may be seen with six, some with eight, some with

> ten, some with twelve and some with fourteen hands, each hand

> carrying a symbol which differs from the symbols in other hands,

> there being about fifty seven symbols in all, according to the

> findings of research scholars.

>

> Illustration :

> http://www.exoticindiaart.com/brass/zg16.jpg (size : 39 kb)

>

> The physical attributes of Ganesha are themselves rich in

> symbolism. He is normally shown with one hand in the abhaya pose

> of protection and refuge and the second holding a sweet (modaka)

> symbolic of the sweetness of the realized inner self. In the two

> hands behind him he often holds an ankusha (elephant goad) and a

> pasha (noose). The noose is to convey that worldly attachments

> and desires are a noose. The goad is to prod man to the path of

> righteousness and truth. With this goad Ganesha can both strike

> and repel obstacles.

>

> Illustration : http://www.exoticindiaart.com/batik/ba15.jpg (size

> : 65 kb)

>

> His pot belly signifies the bounty of nature and also that

> Ganesha swallows the sorrows of the Universe and protects the

> world.

>

> Illustration : http://www.exoticindiaart.com/marble/mh03.jpg

> (size : 101 kb)

>

> The image of Ganesha is a composite one. Four animals viz., man,

> elephant, the serpent and the mouse have contributed for the

> makeup of his figure. All of them individually and collectively

> have deep symbolic significance. The image of Ganesha thus

> represents man's eternal striving towards integration with

> nature. He has to be interpreted taking into consideration the

> fact that though millenniums rolled by, man yet remains closer to

> animal today than he was ever before.

>

> The most striking feature of Ganesha is his elephant head,

> symbolic of auspiciousness, strength and intellectual prowess.

> All the qualities of the elephant are contained in the form of

> Ganpati. The elephant is the largest and strongest of animals of

> the forest. Yet he is gentle and, amazingly, a vegetarian, so

> that he does not kill to eat. He is very affectionate and loyal

> to his keeper and is greatly swayed if love and kindness are

> extended to him. Ganesha, though a powerful deity, is similarly

> loving and forgiving and moved by the affection of his devotees.

> But at the same time the elephant can destroy a whole forest and

> is a one-man army when provoked. Ganesha is similarly most

> powerful and can be ruthless when containing evil.

>

> Again, Ganesha's large head is symbolic of the wisdom of the

> elephant. His large ears, like the winnow, sift the bad from the

> good. Although they hear everything, they retain only that which

> is good; they are attentive to all requests made by the devotees,

> be they humble or powerful.

>

> Illustration :

> http://www.exoticindiaart.com/madhuban/db26.jpg (size : 122 kb)

>

> Ganesha's trunk is a symbol of his discrimination (viveka), a

> most important quality necessary for spiritual progress. The

> elephant uses its trunk to push down a massive tree, carry huge

> logs to the river and for other heavy tasks. The same huge trunk

> is used to pick up a few blades of grass, to break a small

> coconut, remove the hard nut and eat the soft kernel inside. The

> biggest and minutest of tasks are within the range of this trunk

> which is symbolic of Ganesha's intellect and hiss powers of

> discrimination.

>

> Illustration :

> http://www.exoticindiaart.com/brass/zf68.jpg (size : 31 kb)

>

> An intriguing aspect of Ganesha's iconography is his broken tusk,

> leading to the appellation Ekdanta, Ek meaning one and danta

> meaning teeth. It carries an interesting legend behind it:

>

> When Parashurama one of Shiva's favorite disciples, came to visit

> him, he found Ganesha guarding Shiva's inner apartments. His

> father being asleep, Ganesha opposed Parshurama's entry.

> Parashurama nevertheless tried to urge his way, and the parties

> came to blows. Ganesha had at first the advantage, seizing

> Parashurama in his trunk, and giving him a twirl that left him

> sick and senseless; on recovering, Rama threw his axe at Ganesha,

> who recognizing it as his father's weapon (Shiva having given it

> to Parashurama) received it with all humility upon one of his

> tusks, which it immediately severed, and hence Ganesha has but

> one tusk.

>

> A different legend narrates that Ganesha was asked to scribe down

> the epic of Mahabharata, dictated to him by its author, sage

> Vyasa. Taking into note the enormity and significance of the

> task, Ganesha realized the inadequacy of any ordinary 'pen' to

> undertake the task. He thus broke one of his own tusks and made a

> pen out of it. The lesson offered here is that no sacrifice is

> big enough in the pursuit of knowledge.

>

> Illustration :

> http://www.exoticindiaart.com/batik/bg27.jpg (size : 37 kb)

>

> An ancient Sanskrit drama titled "Shishupalvadha", presents a

> different version. Here it is mentioned that Ganesha was deprived

> of his tusk by the arrogant Ravana (the villain of

> Ramayana), who removed it forcefully in order to make ivory

> earrings for the beauties of Lanka!.

>

> The little mouse whom Ganesha is supposed to ride upon is another

> enigmatic feature in his iconography. At a first glance it seems

> strange that the lord of wisdom has been granted a humble

> obsequious mouse quite incapable of lifting the bulging belly and

> massive head that he possesses. But it implies that wisdom is an

> attribute of ugly conglomeration of factors and further that the

> wise do not find anything in the world disproportionate or ugly.

>

> The mouse is, in every respect, comparable to the intellect. It

> is able to slip unobserved or without our knowledge into places

> which we would have not thought it possible to penetrate. In

> doing this it is hardly concerned whether it is seeking virtue or

> vice. The mouse thus represents our wandering, wayward mind,

> lured to undesirable or corrupting grounds. By showing the mouse

> paying subservience to Lord Ganesha it is implied that the

> intellect has been tamed through Ganesha's power of

> discrimination.

>

> Illustration : http://www.exoticindiaart.com/marble/mh09.jpg

> (size : 95 kb)

>

> Any attempt to penetrate the depths of the Ganesha phenomenon

> must note that he is born from Goddess Parvati alone without the

> intervention of her husband Shiva, and as such he shares a very

> unique and special relationship with his mother. The sensitive

> nature of his relationship with Parvati is made amply clear in

> the following tale:

>

> As a child, Ganesha teased a cat by pulling its tail, rolling it

> over on the ground and causing it great pain, as naughty young

> boys are wont to do. After some time, tired of his game, he went

> to his mother Parvati. He found her in great pain and covered

> with scratches and dust all over. When he questioned her, she put

> the blame on him. She explained that she was the cat whom Ganesha

> had teased.

>

> His total devotion towards his mother is the reason why in the

> South Indian tradition Ganesha is represented as single and

> celibate. It is said that he felt that his mother, Parvati, was

> the most beautiful and perfect woman in the universe. Bring me a

> woman as beautiful as she is and I shall marry her, he said. None

> could find an equal to the beautiful Uma (Parvati), and so the

> legend goes, the search is still on..

>

> In variance with the South Indian tradition, in North India

> Ganesha is often shown married to the two daughters of Brahma

> (the Lord of Creation), namely Buddhi and Siddhi. Metaphorically

> Buddhi signifies wisdom and Siddhi achievement. In the sense of

> yoga, Buddhi and Siddhi represent the female and male currents in

> the human body. In visual arts this aspect of Ganesha is

> represented with grace and charm.

>

> Illustration : http://www.exoticindiaart.com/hindu/hp45.jpg (size

> : 80 kb)

>

> In a different, slightly erotic version from Tantric thought,

> Ganesha is depicted in a form known as "Shakti Ganpati". Here he

> is depicted with four arms, two of them holding symbolic

> implements. With the other two arms he fondles his consort, who

> is comfortably balanced on his left thigh. The third eye in this

> representation, is of course the eye of wisdom, which sees above

> and beyond mere physical reality.

>

> Illustration : http://www.exoticindiaart.com/hindu/hp28.jpg (size

> : 84 kb)

>

> No analysis of Lord Ganesha can be concluded without a mention of

> the mystical syllable AUM. The sacred AUM is the most powerful

> Universal symbol of the divine presence in Hindu thought. It is

> further said to be the sound which was generated when the world

> first came into being. The written manifestation of this divine

> symbol when inverted gives the perfect profile of the god with

> the elephant head.

>

> Illustration : http://www.exoticindiaart.com/om.jpg (size : 15

> kb)

>

> Ganesha is thus the ONLY god to be associated in a "physical"

> sense with the primordial sacred sound AUM, a telling reminder of

> his supreme position in the Hindu pantheon.

>

> (Thus ends the newsletter for the month of October)

>

> Nitin G.

> http://www.exoticindiaart.com

[Guest guest]

Thankyou Nitin I really enjoyed learning so much more about Ganesha

from you. I hope to find more about others at that web site too. I

hope they are there. Durga? Lakshmi? especially since many celebrated

Diwali. Maybe you can point me where to find them written up by you.

 

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery>

wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> Yes that is the story. It is an interesting teaching myth, and very

> useful to those who need an image to worship outside of themselves.

> We are all at different stages on the path, if you believe in devas

> then for you there are devas.

>

> For those that follow the adwaitic path, these gods are illusion as

> are we.

>

> Om Namah Sivaya, Tony.

 

 

 

Hey you just gave obeisance to Lord Shiva. Did you notice that? Is he

illusion too?

 

And what of love? What is illusion to you?

 

How is it that the beloved meets the One? Why is the world come into

Being? Is it to love or to shun?

 

And what of the masculine & feminine forces in the universe? Are they

too 'illusion'?

 

Could 'illusion' be sacred? What Is This creative urge expressed by

Nature/Life? Is it just a huge mistake? Is Nature's creation a

worthless illusion?

 

Just putting it out there.

 

Col

[Guest guest]

Namaste Colette,

 

You must not have read the preamble to this site and what it is

about re Ramana etc. With regard to Siva I use it in the same way

Ramana did. As worshipping one's inner self, Siva meaning Brahman

not the the trinity siva or little siva the god, which is illusion.

 

Yes! is my answer to most of your questions, male female are all

illusions. Love is Maya, an energy projected as an illusion, by

Saguna Brahman/Sakti, another illusion, Nirguna Brahman being the only

reality.

 

Bhakti is a path for those that choose it, but it doesn't become the

ultimate, without the ultimate destroying its own dream so to speak.

 

Om Namah Sivaya, Tony.

 

 

, colette@b... wrote:

> Thankyou Nitin I really enjoyed learning so much more about Ganesha

> from you. I hope to find more about others at that web site too. I

> hope they are there. Durga? Lakshmi? especially since many

celebrated

> Diwali. Maybe you can point me where to find them written up by you.

>

> , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery>

> wrote:

> > Namaste,

> >

> > Yes that is the story. It is an interesting teaching myth, and

very

> > useful to those who need an image to worship outside of

themselves.

> > We are all at different stages on the path, if you believe in

devas

> > then for you there are devas.

> >

> > For those that follow the adwaitic path, these gods are illusion

as

> > are we.

> >

> > Om Namah Sivaya, Tony.

>

>

>

> Hey you just gave obeisance to Lord Shiva. Did you notice that? Is

he

> illusion too?

>

> And what of love? What is illusion to you?

>

> How is it that the beloved meets the One? Why is the world come into

> Being? Is it to love or to shun?

>

> And what of the masculine & feminine forces in the universe? Are

they

> too 'illusion'?

>

> Could 'illusion' be sacred? What Is This creative urge expressed by

> Nature/Life? Is it just a huge mistake? Is Nature's creation a

> worthless illusion?

>

> Just putting it out there.

>

> Col

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery>

wrote:

> Namaste Colette,

>

> You must not have read the preamble to this site and what it is

> about re Ramana etc. With regard to Siva I use it in the same way

> Ramana did. As worshipping one's inner self, Siva meaning Brahman

> not the the trinity siva or little siva the god, which is illusion.

>

> Yes! is my answer to most of your questions, male female are all

> illusions. Love is Maya, an energy projected as an illusion, by

> Saguna Brahman/Sakti, another illusion, Nirguna Brahman being the

only

> reality.

>

> Bhakti is a path for those that choose it, but it doesn't become the

> ultimate, without the ultimate destroying its own dream so to speak.

>

> Om Namah Sivaya, Tony.

>

 

Thanks for sharing Tony. Now I wish to ask does nirguna love saguna?

Where does saguna arise from & why?

 

:-)

 

Col

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

Glad you enjoyed it. I intend to put together a piece

on Goddess Lakshmi soon. Meanwhile my prvious writeups

(including one on Goddess Kali) are at the following

URL:

 

http://www.exoticindiaart.com/.php3

 

Warmly,

 

Nitin G.

http://www.exoticindiaart.com

 

 

--- colette wrote:

> Thankyou Nitin I really enjoyed learning so much

> more about Ganesha

> from you. I hope to find more about others at that

> web site too. I

> hope they are there. Durga? Lakshmi? especially

> since many celebrated

> Diwali. Maybe you can point me where to find them

> written up by you.

>

> , "Tony O'Clery"

> <aoclery>

> wrote:

> > Namaste,

> >

> > Yes that is the story. It is an interesting

> teaching myth, and very

> > useful to those who need an image to worship

> outside of themselves.

> > We are all at different stages on the path, if you

> believe in devas

> > then for you there are devas.

> >

> > For those that follow the adwaitic path, these

> gods are illusion as

> > are we.

> >

> > Om Namah Sivaya, Tony.

>

>

>

> Hey you just gave obeisance to Lord Shiva. Did you

> notice that? Is he

> illusion too?

>

> And what of love? What is illusion to you?

>

> How is it that the beloved meets the One? Why is the

> world come into

> Being? Is it to love or to shun?

>

> And what of the masculine & feminine forces in the

> universe? Are they

> too 'illusion'?

>

> Could 'illusion' be sacred? What Is This creative

> urge expressed by

> Nature/Life? Is it just a huge mistake? Is Nature's

> creation a

> worthless illusion?

>

> Just putting it out there.

>

> Col

>

>

 

 

 

 

Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.

http://im./

[Guest guest]

On 10/29/00 at 12:49 AM colette wrote:

 

º , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery>

ºwrote:

º> Namaste Colette,

º>

º> You must not have read the preamble to this site and what it is

º> about re Ramana etc. With regard to Siva I use it in the same way

º> Ramana did. As worshipping one's inner self, Siva meaning Brahman

º> not the the trinity siva or little siva the god, which is illusion.

º>

º> Yes! is my answer to most of your questions, male female are all

º> illusions. Love is Maya, an energy projected as an illusion, by

º> Saguna Brahman/Sakti, another illusion, Nirguna Brahman being the

ºonly

º> reality.

º>

º> Bhakti is a path for those that choose it, but it doesn't become the

º> ultimate, without the ultimate destroying its own dream so to speak.

º>

º> Om Namah Sivaya, Tony.

º>

º

ºThanks for sharing Tony. Now I wish to ask does nirguna love saguna?

ºWhere does saguna arise from & why?

º

º:-)

º

ºCol

 

Thanks for the laugh Colette - if nirguna and saguna would be mutually

exclusive, "liberation in a living body" would be impossible. All scriptures

were written (and later commented) from "personal" experience and in the course

of events those expressions became more and more refined. Sometimes an entirely

new mode of expression was chosen when it was considered the existing one had

become ineffective. The distinction between nirguna and saguna arises through

the "experience" of nirvikalpa samadhis but this distinction will be dissolved

when sahaja samadhi has been "attained". So this distinction is just for the

sake of argument, as "Reality" cannot be expressed in words.

 

In a certain sense this is an answer to your question "Where does saguna arise

from & why?" as well: it is impossible to denote either beginning or end to

manifestation. Now that constancy of the speed of light no longer is the "holy

grail of physics", the insight is growing that the big bang is just one event in

an infinite series - the infinity of the "real nature" reflected in

manifestation. So there isn't a "why": it will only point to a next "why", ad

infinitum.

 

Love,

Jan

[Guest guest]

Greetings Tony:

I must say that I have never heard the term "little siva the god". If

one accepts Brahman how can any aspect of Brahman be illusion? The

illusion comes into play when one believes the "aspect" to be the

"total" reality.

Love,

Linda

>Namaste Colette,>You must not have read the preamble to this site and

what it is >about re Ramana etc. With regard to Siva I use it in the

same way >Ramana did. As worshipping one's inner self, Siva meaning

Brahman >not the the trinity siva or little siva the god, which is

illusion.>Om Namah Sivaya, Tony.> > Hey you just gave obeisance to

Lord Shiva. Did you notice that? Is he > illusion too?>

Hi Col:

What a wonderful thought....the entire play of maya as sacred...there

are many meanings for Sanskrit words one for maya is to break it down

to two seeds 'ma' as magic and 'ya' as the way to Brahman in other

words going through the magic of the play is a way to Brahman.

Love,

Linda> > Could 'illusion' be sacred? What Is This creative urge

expressed by > Nature/Life? Is it just a huge mistake? Is Nature's

creation a > worthless illusion?> > Just putting it out there.> >

Col// All paths go

somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions,

and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back

into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than

the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of

Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It

is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the

Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of

Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self.

Welcome all to a.To from this list, go to

the ONElist web site, at www., and

select the User Center link from the menu bar on

the left. This menu will also let you change your subscription

between digest and normal mode.

[Guest guest]

I for one, would be much interested in the Indian system of Tara. Only

have met her from the Tibetan Buddhist side.

 

maitri,

 

--janpa

[Guest guest]

, "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote:

> On 10/29/00 at 12:49 AM colette@b... wrote:

>

>

> ºWhere does saguna arise from & why?

> º

> º:-)

> º

> ºCol

>

> Thanks for the laugh Colette - if nirguna and saguna would be

mutually exclusive,

 

You sound like you're really enjoying yourself.

>"liberation in a living body" would be impossible.

 

That's what I just said. they aren't exclusive. They are the same One.

Tony was saying they are exclusive.

>All scriptures were written (and later commented) from "personal"

experience and in the course of events those expressions became more

>and more refined.

 

Yes because the impersonal is having a romance with the personal.

>Sometimes an entirely new mode of expression was

chosen when it was considered the existing one had become ineffective.

>The distinction between nirguna and saguna arises through the

"experience" of nirvikalpa samadhis but this distinction will be

dissolved when sahaja samadhi has been "attained". So this distinction

>is just for the sake of argument, as "Reality" cannot be expressed in

words.

 

Yep. Reality can't, but the relationship between the two as one can.

It is only in relationship where anything can be tasted. Even Ramana

had Arunachula to adore:-)

>

> In a certain sense this is an answer to your question "Where does

saguna arise from & why?" as well: it is impossible to denote either

beginning or end to manifestation.

 

There is no Source (everywhere All at once)? No fountainhead? No Veda?

No unified Field of consciousness/awareness? No manifestation? No

creative intelligence? No creation?

>Now that constancy of the speed of

light no longer is the "holy grail of physics", the insight is growing

>that the big bang is just one event in an infinite series - the

infinity of the "real nature" reflected in manifestation. So there

>isn't a "why": it will only point to a next "why", ad infinitum.

 

I like Michael's answer. Just because It Is.

 

Peace,

 

Col

>

> Love,

> Jan

[Guest guest]

On 10/29/00 at 8:09 PM colette wrote:

 

º , "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote:

º> On 10/29/00 at 12:49 AM colette@b... wrote:

º>

º

º>

º> ºWhere does saguna arise from & why?

º> º

º> º:-)

º> º

º> ºCol

º>

º> Thanks for the laugh Colette - if nirguna and saguna would be

ºmutually exclusive,

º

ºYou sound like you're really enjoying yourself.

 

Exactly

º

º>"liberation in a living body" would be impossible.

º

ºThat's what I just said. they aren't exclusive. They are the same One.

ºTony was saying they are exclusive.

º

º>All scriptures were written (and later commented) from "personal"

ºexperience and in the course of events those expressions became more

º>and more refined.

º

ºYes because the impersonal is having a romance with the personal.

 

Aren't romances always personal? One can only be in love with Love...

º

º>Sometimes an entirely new mode of expression was

ºchosen when it was considered the existing one had become ineffective.

º>The distinction between nirguna and saguna arises through the

º"experience" of nirvikalpa samadhis but this distinction will be

ºdissolved when sahaja samadhi has been "attained". So this distinction

º>is just for the sake of argument, as "Reality" cannot be expressed in

ºwords.

º

ºYep. Reality can't, but the relationship between the two as one can.

ºIt is only in relationship where anything can be tasted. Even Ramana

ºhad Arunachula to adore:-)

 

If I remember well, Heinrich Zimmer, in his book "der Weg zum Selbst", noted

that most of his life, Ramana was rational. He went on to say that every mystic

has a period or phase that is devotional - for Sankara this goes too.

º

º>

º> In a certain sense this is an answer to your question "Where does

ºsaguna arise from & why?" as well: it is impossible to denote either

ºbeginning or end to manifestation.

º

ºThere is no Source (everywhere All at once)? No fountainhead? No Veda?

ºNo unified Field of consciousness/awareness? No manifestation? No

ºcreative intelligence? No creation?

 

Exactly. No source, no creation - who created the creator? This question leads

to infinite recursion Manifest and unmanifest are inseparable.

º

º >Now that constancy of the speed of

ºlight no longer is the "holy grail of physics", the insight is growing

º>that the big bang is just one event in an infinite series - the

ºinfinity of the "real nature" reflected in manifestation. So there

º>isn't a "why": it will only point to a next "why", ad infinitum.

º

ºI like Michael's answer. Just because It Is.

º

ºPeace,

º

ºCol

 

 

The above scientific discovery which is still in its infancy, indicates there is

neither beginning nor an end to what is referred to as "creation". Hence, there

is no creation, unless creation is thought to begin where two parallel lines

will meet So the impact on "creationist" religion can be serious...

º>

º> Love,

º> Jan

º

º

º

º//

º

ºAll paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back

into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean,

all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does

not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is.

Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee

relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into

It Self. Welcome all to a.

º

ºTo from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at

º www., and select the User Center link from the

menu bar

º on the left. This menu will also let you change your

subscription

º between digest and normal mode.

[Guest guest]

, "LC" <jyotish@w...> wrote:

> Greetings Tony:

>

> I must say that I have never heard the term "little siva the god".

If one accepts Brahman how can any aspect of Brahman be illusion? The

illusion comes into play when one believes the "aspect" to be the

"total" reality.

 

Nice point. The many, provide the richness of the play.

The play is the thing. Otherwise why would it Be?

:-)

 

Col

>

> Love,

 

Linda

[Guest guest]

, "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote:

>

> On 10/29/00 at 8:09 PM colette@b... wrote:

>

> º , "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote:

> º> On 10/29/00 at 12:49 AM colette@b... wrote:

> º> ºWhere does saguna arise from & why?

> º> º

> º> º:-)

> º> º

> º> ºCol

> º>

> º> Thanks for the laugh Colette - if nirguna and saguna would be

> ºmutually exclusive,

> º

> ºYou sound like you're really enjoying yourself.

>

> Exactly

 

:-)

> º

> º>"liberation in a living body" would be impossible.

> º

> ºThat's what I just said. they aren't exclusive. They are the same

One.

> ºTony was saying they are exclusive.

> º

> º>All scriptures were written (and later commented) from "personal"

> ºexperience and in the course of events those expressions became

more

> º>and more refined.

> º

> ºYes because the impersonal is having a romance with the personal.

>

> Aren't romances always personal? One can only be in love with

Love...

 

Shiva Is Love. Nothingness Is. Nothingness plays to experience ItSelf

(Love). No seeming other (Shakti) no form, no experience. Love likes

to see Itself.

 

> º

> º>Sometimes an entirely new mode of expression was

> ºchosen when it was considered the existing one had become

ineffective.

> º>The distinction between nirguna and saguna arises through the

> º"experience" of nirvikalpa samadhis but this distinction will be

> ºdissolved when sahaja samadhi has been "attained". So this

distinction

> º>is just for the sake of argument, as "Reality" cannot be expressed

in

> ºwords.

> º

> ºYep. Reality can't, but the relationship between the two as one

can.

> ºIt is only in relationship where anything can be tasted. Even

Ramana

> ºhad Arunachula to adore:-)

>

> If I remember well, Heinrich Zimmer, in his book "der Weg zum

Selbst", noted that most of his life, Ramana was rational. He went on

to say that every mystic has a period or phase that is devotional -

for Sankara this goes too.

 

Hmm. :-)

> º

> º>

> º> In a certain sense this is an answer to your question "Where does

> ºsaguna arise from & why?" as well: it is impossible to denote

either

> ºbeginning or end to manifestation.

> º

> ºThere is no Source (everywhere All at once)? No fountainhead? No

Veda?

> ºNo unified Field of consciousness/awareness? No manifestation? No

> ºcreative intelligence? No creation?

>

> Exactly. No source, no creation - who created the creator? This

question leads to infinite recursion Manifest and unmanifest are

inseparable.

 

So you mean that the manifest is just as responsible for the

unmanifest as the unmanifest Is for the manifest? Hmm. Nice tango.

 

:-)

 

> º

> º >Now that constancy of the speed of

> ºlight no longer is the "holy grail of physics", the insight is

growing

> º>that the big bang is just one event in an infinite series - the

> ºinfinity of the "real nature" reflected in manifestation. So there

> º>isn't a "why": it will only point to a next "why", ad infinitum.

> º

> ºI like Michael's answer. Just because It Is.

> º

> ºPeace,

> º

> ºCol

>

>

> The above scientific discovery which is still in its infancy,

indicates there is neither beginning nor an end to what is referred to

as "creation". Hence, there is no creation, unless creation is thought

to begin where two parallel lines will meet So the impact on

"creationist" religion can be serious...

 

Nice one (((Jan))). Thanks.

 

Catch ya later. I'm off to work. I'm trying to get my good friend

Frank to join us on this discussion. He loves this topic.

 

Byee!

 

Col