Shaktism: Not Anti-Shiva, But Definitely Pro-Devi (and The Goddess in one major Purana)

[Guest guest]

Hello Devi bhakta.

 

You've raised some very interesting and important matters, and I'm glad of

the opportunity to comment on them. I'm going to respond with one message

to two of yours that deal with closely related questions.

>The story you summarize from the Uma Samhita section of the Shiva

>Purana goes back to the Upanishads...I'll gladly dig

>up the details later if they'd be useful to you.

 

I know of the Kena Upanishad's account of how Indra was enlightened by Uma

Haimavati. If you can dig up other accounts I would be very interested to

see them.

>In his seminal work, "Shakti and Shakta," Sir John Woodroffe

>explained: "There is a Vaishnava and Shaiva as well as a Shakta

>[denomination]. … There are certain things common to all. There are

>certain matters wherein they differ. …

 

I'm glad you mentioned this work, and agree very much that it's a seminal

one. I would add only that Indian writers (with some exceptions) have a

tendency to look for the things common to all these schools, whereas

western writers about India tend to be more interested in the differences.

>Without getting into the

>Exclusivity Doctrine and all that, the fact is, the Christians are

>people who have embraced Christ as Supreme. The Shaktas are people

>who've embraced Shakti as Supreme.

 

This isn't quite the way Woodroffe characterizes the Shaktas. He says:

 

"The Shakta doctrine is concerned with those Spiritual Principles which

exist before, and are the origin of, both men and women... Nor does it say

that the 'female principle' is the supreme Divinity. Shiva the 'male' is

co-equal with Shive the 'female,' for both are one and the same... The

characteristic features of Shakta-dharma are thus its Monism; its concept

of the Motherhood of God; its unsectarian spirit and provisions for Shudras

and women, to the latter of whom it renders high honour, recognizing that

they may be even Gurus; and lastly its Sadhana skilfully designed to

realize its teachings." (Shakti and Shakta, Dover edition NY 1978, pp 173

to 174)

 

Woodroffe's interpretation of Shakta-dharma actually fits with the title

you've given this thread -- "Shaktism: Not Anti-Shiva, But Definitely

Pro-Devi".

>If Shiva and Shakti are

>true "equals" in every theological sense, then why are there seperate

>cults of Shaivas and Shaktas? Why have the sages, for thousands of

>years, allied themselves and their writings with one group or the

>other?

 

I'm not sure that they have allied their writings with one group or the other.

 

The division between Shaiva writings and Shakta writings in India is by no

means as clear cut as the division between (for instance) Jewish and

Christian writings in Europe. Yes, there are some writings which glorify

Shiva and can be classified as Shaiva, and others which glorify Shakti and

can be classified as Shakta. There are also writings which glorify both,

and are thus more difficult to classify. One example is the text I quoted

from in my last posting, the Uma Samhita of the Shiva Purana.

>All are merely different rivers

>flowing into the same sea.

>But the thing is, you generally have to pick a specific river in

>order to get to that sea: And so there are Christians, Muslims,

>Shaivaites, Vaishnavas, Shaktas, and so on, by faith and practice.

>Sometimes these rivers cross and intersect, but they are ultimately

>seperate rivers, and it is a fool's errand to try navigating two or

>more at once.

 

In the book _Shakti and Shakta_, Woodroffe quotes an article about Tantra

from an Indian Vedantic journal, the _Prabuddha Bhrarata_. The article

describes "Hindu religious consciousness" as a single great river "like a

mighty Ganges emerging from the Himalayas of Vedic wisdom". It has

tributaries, currents and backwaters, but it is one sacred river all the

same. (page 186)

 

In this view of things, the schools are not ultimately separate rivers, so

it might not be a fool's errand to experience two or more.

 

Having said all this, I should add that I do understand why you may feel

called to focus your attention on one particular vision of the Divine and

on the writings and images in which that vision is expressed. Actually I

have been doing so myself for quite a few years...

 

Om Shantih,

 

Colin.

[Guest guest]

dear colin, your response is addressed to shri devi_bhakta but may i

add some comments, if you would allow me...

 

certainly, one thing is for sure - you two (devi and colin) keep the

message board pulasating with *Devi*ne (divine- smiles- ) vibrations -

never a dull moment in devi's domain! thank you!

 

 

The divine feminine ....

 

what do we mean by divine feminine ? does it refer to the 'female'

form of the deity or her to her 'qualties' of MOTHERHOOD! once this

in understood, then one can understand why hindus or for that matter

anyone like to approach the divine principle as a ****feminine

principle***

 

our sree lalita tripurasundari is described as

 

Sri Sarva-Sakti-Mayi

 

— The Mother of all Powers and Energies such as Mahakali,

Mahlaksmi and Mahasaraswati.

 

Sri Lalita Sahasranama

 

 

"That breast of Thine which is inexhaustible, health-giving,

By which Thou nursest all that is noble,

Containing treasure, bearing wealth, bestowed freely;

Lay that bare, Saraswati [Divine Mother], for our nurture."

 

Rig Veda 1.164.49

 

it is this quality of 'motherhood' we are talking about when we say

the divine feminine.... our noble laurette poet shri rabindranath

tagore also alludes to this 'nurturing' quality of the divine mother

when he says in his poem Gitanjali that the earthly mother nurses the

baby on one breast and the baby falls asleep but as soon as the baby

cries again, the baby finds comfort in the other brreat- such are the

qualities of a mother- she never allows her baby to suffer - if this

is true of the earth;ly mother, how much more true this is of our

cosmic mother? SHE IS THE TREASURE HOUSE OF COMPASSION, KINDNESS,

MERCY , ---- SHE NURTURES, SHE NOURISHES AND SHE PROTECTS...so when

we talk about god as a mother. it is these feminine attributes we are

talking about not the 'form' as such- form is incidental...

 

you said it colin.... it is the concept of the ****motherhodd of

god*** -- and if our beloved penkatali were reading this, he would

support me on this how islam views this "motherhood of god"

 

another point i liked about your quotinfg woodroffe -

 

yes, in tantra shastra women girus are allowed... infact, shri

ramakrisna's first guru was a woman guru (tantrika) named bharavi

brahmani...

 

also, in tantra women and shudras are honored ( like there is no

discrimination and as we all know how in manusmriti women and shudras

are condemned ) this is great news because as we know the caste

system is the most inhumane and in the eyes of god/ess all

are 'equal' ... i liked this a lot, colin- plese keep on posting such

wonderful excerpts...

 

now women as guru.... please read what Mahadeva says to Mahadevi...

 

"there are many teachers, like lamps in house after house, but hard

to find. O Devi, is the teacher who lights up all like the sun.

 

There are many teachers who are proficient in the Vedas [revealed

sacred lore] and the Shastras [textbooks], but hard to find, O Devi,

is the teacher who has attained to the supreme truth.

 

There are many teachers on earth who give what is other than the

[transcendental] Self, but hard to find in all the world, O Devi, is

the teacher who reveals the Self )

 

Many are the teachers who rob the disciple of his wealth, but rare is

the teacher who removes the disciples affliction.

 

He is the [true] teacher by whose very contact there flows the

supreme bliss (ananda). The intelligent man should choose such a one

as his teacher and none other.

 

These stanzas are found in the Kula-Arnava-Tantra (Chapter 13), a

Sanskrit work on Hindu esotericism dating from the eleventh century

C.E. They are spoken by God Shiva, the Lord of yogins, to his divine

spouse, Devi.

 

Georg Feuerstein, Holy Madness

 

so colin and others, where do we go from here?

 

is shiva supreme ?

is shakti supreme?

are they both equal?

 

these are all theoretical questions; answers are also theoretical !

 

our own beloved parvati is always meditating on her beloved pati

pareshwera! (shiva)

 

our bholenath shambhu (shiva) is meditating on shri mahavishnu !

 

lord mahavishnu is performing puja to shivalinga in his yoga nidra!

 

then we have shri ramachandra (an incarnation of vishnu) praying to

sree durga mata before his battle with demon ravana..

 

then we have our elephant god circambulating his parents parvati and

shiva as the divine parents of the universe

 

and then we have all the gods/goddesse praying to lord ganesha

as 'omkara' rupa!!!!

 

SO IF GODS AND GODDESSES HAVE NO PROBLEM MEDITATING ON EACH OTHER,

WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT WHO IS EQUAL??????

 

but as great sages say 'there are many paths; but choose one path

most suitable to your temperament and stick with it."

 

in the final analysis, as per tripura rahasaya

 

 

"Second-hand knowledge of the self gathered from books or gurus can

never emancipate a man until its truth is rightly investigated and

applied; only direct realisation will do that. Realise yourself,

turning the mind inward." - Tripura Rahasya

 

that is why it is said, devi is attainable only by "antramukhi"

sadhana- mind turning inward!!!!

 

om shri maharajnayaii namaha!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"

[Guest guest]

Is this question a red herring? That is, I always wonder why the

reverse is not being asked...If an individual perceives Shaktism as

"anti-Shiva" then does that same individual perceive Shaivism as

anti-Devi?

 

I see that bias in the U.S. culturally, appreciating women is seen as

being against men, but the resources focused on appreciating the

accomplishments of men are invisible, because that is the cultural

norm.

 

In my history books in school I could only find two women whose

accomplishments were noted: Betsy Ross and Harriet Tubman. But when I

have advocated for more inclusion of women who have made great

accomplishments, that is seen as radical and somehow anti-male.

 

In my Art history text book there were entire chapters devoted to male

artists, particularly of the Impressionist period and only a single

sentence devoted to my favorite Impressionist artist, Mary Cassatt:

"Mary Cassatt was the greatest American painter of the Impressionist

era."

 

Period.

 

If she was the greatest painter of that era, I asked, why was there

only 1 sentence devoted to her work in my American Art History text

book? Is this anti-woman

 

Ah, I'm such a radical!

 

Why do I ask such questions? Why do I focus so much on including

women? I must hate men. Yes, that's the only explanation.

 

prainbow

[Guest guest]

Greetings Prainbrow

 

Thank you for your note. This bias does not only been seen in US but

globally Prainbrow( this is my believe )Anything pertains to woman

issues are considered as second rated.

 

Being a Shakti devotee, Im often been branded as a feminist and anti

shiva ( even to a person who is married to a shivite ). Some says

trying to concentrate on Shaktism, we are being ignorant and fools.

Are we? And an assumption that Shaktism is not a true form of

hinduism. So that means we are not a true hindu.

 

Now who is a true Hindu then?

 

 

OM ParaShaktiye Namaha

[Guest guest]

here's another subjective view:

anti- and pro- anything are transitional stages in evolution.

Transcendency is inevitable, but slower in some than in others for

want of discipline and practice.

Transit camps will become destinations when anti- and pro- obsessions

are given shelter in the minds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, "nora55_1999" <nora55_1999> wrote:

> Greetings Prainbrow

>

> Thank you for your note. This bias does not only been seen in US

but

> globally Prainbrow( this is my believe )Anything pertains to woman

> issues are considered as second rated.

>

> Being a Shakti devotee, Im often been branded as a feminist and

anti

> shiva ( even to a person who is married to a shivite ). Some says

> trying to concentrate on Shaktism, we are being ignorant and fools.

> Are we? And an assumption that Shaktism is not a true form of

> hinduism. So that means we are not a true hindu.

>

> Now who is a true Hindu then?

>

>

> OM ParaShaktiye Namaha

[Guest guest]

anti- and pro- anything are transitional stages in the voyage of the

soul.

Transcendency is inevitable, though it is quicker in the case of some

and slower in others for want of discipline and practice.

If we are obsessed with anti- and pro- postures , the transit camps

will become destinations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, "nora55_1999" <nora55_1999> wrote:

> Greetings Prainbrow

>

> Thank you for your note. This bias does not only been seen in US

but

> globally Prainbrow( this is my believe )Anything pertains to woman

> issues are considered as second rated.

>

> Being a Shakti devotee, Im often been branded as a feminist and

anti

> shiva ( even to a person who is married to a shivite ). Some says

> trying to concentrate on Shaktism, we are being ignorant and fools.

> Are we? And an assumption that Shaktism is not a true form of

> hinduism. So that means we are not a true hindu.

>

> Now who is a true Hindu then?

>

>

> OM ParaShaktiye Namaha

[Guest guest]

Hi bhavaanidaasan:

 

I think this is an excellent point, and thanks for posting it. It

seems to me that Hinduism (in its purely spiritual, not its political

form) is especially tolerant of the fact that there are countless

"true" paths to the Divine; that the efficacy of the path depends more

on the purity of the believer than the purity of the belief.

 

Religions really are "transit camps," as you put it; means rather than

ends in themselves. To get stuck on any one conceptualization as more

"right" than another is self-defeating. It binds one tightly to the

world; and actually is a coomon technique employed by people bound to

the world.

 

For example: The Ayodhya crisis between Indians and Muslims does not

reflect a true clash of spiritual beliefs, but rather a social and

historical conflict. The same was true of the Muslim-Christian

conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, or the Protestant-Catholic

conflicts in Ireland. Or, for that matter, the Nazi persecution of the

Jews.

 

Pro- and Anti- are properties of Maya. They are not Eternal. This is

true. Shiva and Shakti are One; they are but different temporal

conceptions of Brahman, as are (as I've noted below) Allah, Yahweh,

Jehovah, you name it.

 

My question was, ultimately, this: Granting that Shiva and Shakti are

but different perspectives on the same Ultimate Reality, it is still

important for us who are still on the path to ask -- since the sages

have for centuries distinguished between Saivism and Shaktism -- what

does that distinction mean to everyday practice? to the way we conduct

sadhana?

 

You will admit that even the purist Hindu believer -- infinitely

tolerant and respectful of her Christian and Muslim sisters and

brothers -- nonetheless conducts her worship differently than do her

Christian and Muslim counterparts. And within Hinduism, a difference

of approach is often discernable between, say, devotees of Krishna and

devotees of Shiva.

 

My only question is -- and it is really the subject of this whole

Group -- how does the Shakta approach (yes, to the One and Only

Brahman) differ from other Hindu approaches. It is not a matter or

truth or untruth, of right or wrong. It is a question of practical

approach.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

, "bhavaanidaasan" <bhavaanidaasan>

wrote:

>

>

> anti- and pro- anything are transitional stages in the voyage of the

> soul.

> Transcendency is inevitable, though it is quicker in the case of

some

> and slower in others for want of discipline and practice.

> If we are obsessed with anti- and pro- postures , the transit camps

> will become destinations.

[Guest guest]

Thanks as always, prainbow, for a wonderful post.

 

*** I always wonder why ...If an individual perceives Shaktism as

"anti-Shiva" then does that same individual perceive Shaivism as

anti-Devi? ... Why do I ask such questions? Why do I focus so much on

including women? I must hate men. Yes, that's the only explanation.***

 

Your point is well taken. I tried to elaborate on my feelings in my

post to bhavaanidaasan just now.

 

But I wanted to reply to you separately, because your post approaches

the "why" of my question. I've been trying to get to the heart of the

Shiva-Shakti Unity. Things like the fact that Ardhanareeshwara -- the

combined male (right half) and female (left half) form of the Divine

-- (theologically) considered a form of Shiva, but not Shakti: Why is

that? The author of the book "Women, Androgynes & Other Mythical

Beasts" (a great study of gender in Hindu mythology; it's on my Amazon

list [see "Bookmarks"]) notes that most interpretations of

Shiva-Shakti equality are "lopsidedly male."

 

So I'm basically doing some "fishing" on that question: If Shiva and

Shakta are the same, then what is the difference between Shaivism and

Shaktism? I think Colin had the right idea when he said Hindus

tend to look for commonalities whereas Westerners tend to try

finessing the differences. But the fact is, so much of Hinduism --

when you really examine it closely -- vests "Power" in the Divine

Feminine but "Authority" (i.e. the force that controls and directs the

flow of Power) in the Divine Masculine.

 

That's fine. As we've discussed, these are all just human

conceptualizations anyway. But the fact is, for now all of us must

live in the human world, and many human conceptions -- money,

politics, gender roles, real estate, etc. -- play a life-and-death

role for the vast majority of souls embodied and living upon this

Earth.

 

So what I'm getting at (to repeat what I just posted to

bhavaanidaasan), what makes the Shakta approach different? You may

have read "Restoring the Goddess" by Barbara G. Walker (if not, yup,

it's also on the Amazon list). Walker isn't talking specifically

about Hinduism, but she is very concerned about what it *means* --

socially and psychologically and practically -- to focus one's worship

on a Feminine rather than masculine conception of the Supreme Divine.

 

And so that's what I'm wondering about. In the Devi Mahatmyam, we have

Sri Durga, who appears to be both "Power" and "Authority" in their

ultimate form. She has no consort -- i.e. no Masculine Priciple

directing the flow of Her power. Well ... what does that mean? In the

case of Kali, she has a consort, Shiva, who -- in some conceptions --

lies powerless what She runs rampant -- uncontrolled Energy. What does

*that* mean?

 

And what does it mean to choose Shakti as one's approach to the Divine

Unity? In approaching a Shiva linga, can one choose to focus worship

on the Yoni, against tradition? the In approaching Ardhanareeshwara,

can one choose to worship the Left rather than the Right side, against

tradition?

 

The late Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, a Shaivite leader of

tremendous repute and vast erudition, wrote, "Shaktas worship Shakti

as the Supreme Being exclusively, as the dynamic aspect of Divinity,

while Siva is considered solely transcendent and is not worshiped."

 

So the question isn't one of Shaktism being "Anti-Shiva," as I said.

It's more a matter of emphasis. And again I will ask: So what does

that *mean*?

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Hi Colin:

 

Thanks for your clarifications and contributions to this important

topic. I think I may have clarified my position a bit more in my

previous two posts, but I'd like to specifically reply to a couple of

points you made.

 

*** I know of the Kena Upanishad's account of how Indra was

enlightened by Uma Haimavati. If you can dig up other accounts I would

be very interested to see them.***

 

Well, it's an interesting "trail of evidence" that I was referring to.

I hope it's not too far off the mark.

 

As you mention, the tale begins in the Kena Upanishad, in which a

"yaksha" (forest spirit) suddenly appears in a strange floating cloud,

in order to teach the gods a lesson -- that their apparently infinite

divine powers ultimately come from another source, without which they

are nothing. When the other gods are duly humbled, Indra finally

approaches the cloud formation to find that a luminous goddess called

Uma Haimavati has replaced the yaksha. She reveals to Indra that the

yaksha was actually Brahman Itself.

 

This tale is revisited in the 12th Skanda of the Devi Bhagavata

Purana, which states that Uma Haimavati was not a mere emissary of

Brahman, but Brahman Itself (like the Yaksha). Uma Haimavati being a

form of Devi, the DBP concludes that Devi = Brahman.

 

The Shiva Purana (V.49) tells the same version of the tale, again

explicitly identifying Uma (Devi) with Brahman.

 

There are several sources or theological bases for this claim. The

"Harivamsha" contains a hymn to Nidra -- a goddess of yogic sleep --

which calls her the "foremost Yakshi among Yakshas" (app. I.1, lines

24-25) who "expounds Brahman." The commentary to this section notes

that Nidra is the very same Uma Haimavati of the Kena Upanishad.

 

The "Mahabharata," in its famous "Durga Stotra," praises Devi as "the

knowledge of Brahman" (Brahmavidya), referring to her in the same line

as "Maha-Nidra."

 

Also, Swami Vimalananda's commentary on the 10th Patala of the "Yogini

Tantra" identifies Devi -- here called Maha-Kali -- as having proved

Herself to be no less than Brahman by appearing to Indra as Uma

Haimavati. Vimalananda also notes that Devi's form as Uma Haimavati is

identical to Her form as Aniruddha-Saraswati, but -- beyond the

general idea that every goddess is a manifestation of Devi -- I don't

know what story or scripture that name refers to.

 

*** I would add only that Indian writers (with some exceptions) have a

tendency to look for the things common to all these schools, whereas

western writers about India tend to be more interested in the

differences. ***

 

That's a useful idea; it certainly seems to be true.

 

Now. I should really clarify a statement I made that may have been

misleading. I wrote, "Without getting into the Exclusivity Doctrine

and all that, the fact is, the Christians are people who have embraced

Christ as Supreme. The Shaktas are people who've embraced Shakti as

Supreme." You replied, "This isn't quite the way Woodroffe

characterizes the Shaktas."

 

At that point, I was not attempting to paraphrase Woodroffe; I was

simply shooting off my own mouth, and I fear I may have planted the

seeds of misunderstanding by doing so. I am certainly not saying that

anything like the "Exclusivity Doctrine" (i.e. Christianity's

insistence that you either find the Divine through Christ's teachings

or you're damned into hell) exists in Hinduism. I simply meant -- and

I still think it's true -- that Shaktas are those who worship the

Supreme Divine via a form of Devi, just as Christians worship the

Supreme Divine via Christ.

 

You quoted Woodroffe as saying, "The Shakta doctrine is concerned with

those Spiritual Principles which exist before, and are the origin of,

both men and women ... Nor does it say that the 'female principle' is

the supreme Divinity. Shiva the 'male' is co-equal with Shive the

'female,' for both are one and the same ..."

 

Okay, this is getting into the theme of my previous two posts, so I'll

simply refer you to those and not repeat all of that. Suffice it to

say, yes, I agree, Shaktism recognizes Shiva, although -- as the Uma

Haimavati episode indicates, there *is* a Shakta tendency to insist

upon Devi as the "Supreme Divinity," just as there is a tendency to

insist upon Siva or Krishna, etc., as Supreme in other Hindu sects.

Woodroffe, remember, was writing from the Tantric perspective in

"Shakti and Shakta," whereas more sectarian documents like the Devi

Bhagavata Purana (while including much Tantric philosophy) focus also

on Advaita and Bhakti approaches.

 

That distinction probably also explains why Woodroffe's position seems

to stand in direct opposition to that of Satguru Sivaya

Subramuniyaswami (quoted in my reply to prainbow) that "Shaktas

worship Shakti as the Supreme Being exclusively, as the dynamic aspect

of Divinity, while Siva is considered solely transcendent and is not

worshiped."

 

On the practical front, as you note, Woodroffe writes: "The

characteristic features of Shakta-dharma are thus its Monism; its

concept of the Motherhood of God; its unsectarian spirit and

provisions for Shudras and women, to the latter of whom it renders

high honour, recognizing that they may be even Gurus; and lastly its

Sadhana skilfully designed to realize its teachings." (Shakti and

Shakta, Dover edition NY 1978, pp 173 to 174).

 

You comment that Woodroffe's interpretation of Shakta-dharma "actually

fits with the title you've given this thread -- "Shaktism: Not

Anti-Shiva, But Definitely Pro-Devi." Thank you for noticing. You also

note that "the division between Shaiva writings and Shakta writings in

India is by no means … clear cut." I agree. And I would say that the

whole point of my question was to make people think about what that

division may be and what it means. Because, as prainbow's post

suggests, Woodroffe's definition of Shakta as "rendering high honour

to women" does not always play out in the actual lives of those who

call themselves Shaktas, nor do we always see an "unsectarian spirit."

 

 

As for Shaktism's "Sadhana skilfully designed to realize its

teachings," well, that's precisely why I'm asking these questions. How

do we translate the ideals of Shaktism into a practical discipline

that will lead us to realize its high social and religious ideals?

What does it mean to choose the Shakta path that is *different* from

choosing, say, the Shaivite or Krishavite path?

 

I think you're definitely approaching the crux of the matter when you

say, "the schools are not ultimately separate rivers, so it might not

be a fool's errand to experience two or more." That may be the "right"

big-picture answer, if there is one. But I am extremely glad to see

that you understand my "small-picture" query as well, my specific

interest in exploring what exactly makes Shaktism unique -- and what

those unique features ultimately "mean" in practice and in the way

one's spiritual nature opens and unfolds.

 

You note that you have been pursuing these same issues for years, and

I can only thank you once again for choosing to honor this Group with

your findings.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

namaskaram yogaji, you rarely write but when you write only 'pearls'

come out of your wonderful pen! you have taken me under your wings

for the last three years -you never cease to amaze me with your

infinite wisdom...i always look up to you!

 

being a devotee of mother bhavani, you have no problem singing the

glories of lord shiva ! being a vaishnavite, you have no problem

singing the glories of lord shiva ! in fact , it is devotees like you

who lead by example that -all roads lead to ROME -that of god-

realization...

 

in fact, i have still preserved a beautiful post you wrote in one of

the leading hinduism clubs and i would like to share it with the

readers here, if i may.... that says it all about how hinduism is

really a 'sanatana' dharma- with tolerance towards all and malice

towards none but it is fanactis who 'spoil' it for the rest of us...

the recent riots on the ayodhya issue is a case in point...

 

shri bhavaanidasan's beautiful post... pl read...

 

In Raghuvamsam,Kalidas has stated the invocation

to Parvati Parameshwar in the first slok as

follows:

 

VAAGARTHAAVIVA SAMPRKTAU VAAGARTHA PRATIPATTAYE<br>JAGATAH

PITARAU VANDE PAARVATI PARAMESHWARAU.

 

The conventional meaning of Paarvati Parameshwarau is Parvati and

Parameshwar, the first Father and Mother of the

Universe...

 

However, my grandfather used to narrate a humorous

story.In his college days, he had a classmate, an

Iyengar(Srivaishnava)who would never utter Siva's name and so when he

recited the first verse from Raghuvamsam, their Professor

asked this vaishnava boy to explain how come he uttered

the name of Parameshwara, that is Siva.To which this

Iyengar seems to have replied "Yes, I have thought about

it and I am interpreting it differently.

 

Parvatipa Rameshwar;Ramaa +Eashwar is actually

Vishnu. shall give another one which I learnt as a

child.This is an advice in Tamil.It states:

 

ARIYUM SIVANUM ONNU ARIYAADAVAN VAAYILE

MANNU.>meaning>Hari and Siva are one;put sand in the mouth of one who

does not know this.hope it was not a big digression

 

**********************************************************************

 

i remember you posted this in response to a post by a hare krishna

devotee who branded adi shankara 'mayavadi' and criticized his

advaita philosophy -and said how krishna was the only supreme godhead

and preached dualism!

 

**********************************************************************

 

well, please keep on posting your beautiful thoughts one day the

stone will 'melt' !

 

love to a bhakta (devi, shiva and a vaushnava) and a parama-jnani!