Dhyana Slokas

[Guest guest]

Dear Kochu:

 

I will also agree with you and Seshadri on the importance of the rupa

upon which one meditates.

 

However, what to do when a number of conflicting dhyanas exist (as

they do for many of the Dasha Mahavidyas -- i.e. one might say a

certain goddess form is blue in complexion, another says green,

another says black)? Does one simply follow the ishtadevata logic, and

choose that dhyana-rupa that most appeals? Or is it acceptable to

merge several dhyanas into a single meditation image?

 

As Seshadri noted, many of these iconographical differences are

regional. If that is the case with famously pan-Indian goddess forms

such as Saraswati and Lakshmi, how much more so with dealing with the

more obscure goddesses! The dhyanas may differ so much as to hardly

seem the same goddess -- and yet they are.

 

Again assuming that "all are Devi", but that form is important, how

does one establish what *is* the proper form for one's ishtadevi? Just

follow your heart? Or is there a better way to proceeed?

 

Thanks for any and all input!

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

<<

Again assuming that "all are Devi", but that form is important,

howdoes one establish what *is* the proper form for one's ishtadevi?

Justfollow your heart? Or is there a better way to proceeed?>>

My two pence is "Just follow your heart". The mother is there watching

and guiding always. We are never alone at any time. These details are

of importance only if they help. Otherwise form does hardly matter.

But from a childish point of view, its nice to play and raise a

curiosity and throw tantrums meaningfully. This is where forms

matter. But when forms become an obstacle, the fact that she is a

mother is good enough. Nothing else much matters.

 

- Seshadri.

[Guest guest]

Thanks Seshadri.

 

I like your perspective on the line between devotion and serious

"play," since both are important parts of sadhana. Play is a good

word in this sense, and Goddess forms are very good "toys." As the

father of two young kids, I never cease to be amazed at how many

significant and worthwhile things a child can learn from a

play session with a well-designed toy.

 

Good design in our sense is provided by the dhyana. The toy acts as a

something of a sweet flavoring for the very heavy-duty medicine the

Devi is administering. Because if it were too bitter, the child's

first instinct might be to push it away, despite its Mother's

assurances that, "It's good for you!"

 

In the realm of early childhood education, shouting physics lessons at

a little child won't get the teacher anywhere fast. But give that same

child a little toy crane or an erector set, and s/he will very quickly

get a feeling for some of the important basic principles of that

formidable science.

 

Likewise, Devi's dhyanas give our unruly minds a fascinating,

attractive preoccupation while freeing up our spirits receive Her

truth without undue mental resistance. Like the sweet coating that

makes "taking our medicine" (i.e. sadhana) a more pleasant experience.

the dhyana too is an attractive illusion that keeps us coming back for

more.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

This is a good question, and I'm gonna try to give a good answer.

Deities are subject to the seven chakras, that is that they also

exist on many levels. But their physical form is as eternal as

creation. Therefore their forms are seen within manipura chakra upon

contemplation as the many colored jewels or bindus. I once asked well

why are they in manipura if one has to develope sahasrara chakra to

see them and the answer is that one developes the brain centers -

ajna and sahasrara in order to begin seeing them but their bodies =

dhyanas are only manifest at manipura. Beyond manipura they exist as

forces of nature without dhyanas, just as a person can have body and

face and voice but beyond that you can't see what they are thinking.

On the level of human thought the devata exist as specific forces of

nature. We all are composed of various devas. Just as our bodies are

made of cells and things, many not even of our own flesh like viruses,

so also the devata exist as our very flesh. The impulses that they

are exist at very fine levels, and their personal forms exist in

manipura.

I'm freaking you all out. Back to dhyanas. If you accept that devas

do actually exist and many do see them, then you come to understand

that it's not the dhyana but they are pictures telling you who is who

in the devalokas. For instance, perhaps you do not know Bala or

Matangi, well having the picture in the mind helps you identify just

as does the yantra which is a more energetic manifestation and less

personal. I like to think that the devata is the bindu one sees and

the yantra is the immediate enviroment of the devata. These things are

manifested for our use by seers of the devalokas and are telephone

numbers to the deities. However, direct sight of them is much better

because it answers all questions. Moreover, the devas exist the same

for all regardles of whether you see them. Like the oil in the

sesame.

Anyone will tell you that you don't need form if you have direct

insight. But if you can't see who you're calling then you go through

the motions hoping they'll hear you. And why shouldn't they when

you're made of the devata. Humans are infinite expresions of every

level of creation from lowest hells to highest heavens and beyond.

We are a very microcosm of eternal wholeness. Richo akshare parame

viomen yasmin deva adivishve , etc, one who sees the veda within

themself gets their help, one who doesn't what can the vedas do for

them. One can have wanted picture but can't find criminal just

because of that. But if one has wanted picture you can identify the

criminal when you see them, otherwise how will you ever catch them

from the millions of people.

I am no expert just an idiot savant. Hope this helps. Thanks again, fun question.

devi_bhakta

Monday, April 22, 2002 11:51 AM

Dhyana Slokas

Dear Kochu:I will also agree with you and Seshadri on the importance

of the rupa upon which one meditates. However, what to do when a

number of conflicting dhyanas exist (as they do for many of the Dasha

Mahavidyas -- i.e. one might say a certain goddess form is blue in

complexion, another says green, another says black)? Does one simply

follow the ishtadevata logic, and choose that dhyana-rupa that most

appeals? Or is it acceptable to merge several dhyanas into a single

meditation image? As Seshadri noted, many of these iconographical

differences are regional. If that is the case with famously

pan-Indian goddess forms such as Saraswati and Lakshmi, how much more

so with dealing with the more obscure goddesses! The dhyanas may

differ so much as to hardly seem the same goddess -- and yet they

are.Again assuming that "all are Devi", but that form is important,

how does one establish what *is* the proper form for one's ishtadevi?

Just follow your heart? Or is there a better way to proceeed?Thanks

for any and all input!Aum Maatangyai NamaheTo from this

group, send an email

to:shakti_sadhnaaYour use of

Groups is subject to the

[Guest guest]

It's hit or miss whether my prplies make it through or not. I'll try

again, I guess. Iffel like the CIA is snooping through each

email for terrorist activity. Not that I particularly care besides it

violating US 2nd 5th amendments regarding improper seach and seizure,

but in typically inept government fashion they can't even get the

letters where they go after. I see George Bush Jr's face on each

email stamp going to the wrong address. Off point but we've killed

more people in Afghanstan "by accident" than by trying.

-

devi_bhakta

Monday, April 22, 2002 2:10 PM

Re: Dhyana Slokas

Thanks Seshadri. I like your perspective on the line between devotion

and serious "play," since both are important parts of sadhana. Play

is a good word in this sense, and Goddess forms are very good "toys."

As the father of two young kids, I never cease to be amazed at how

many significant and worthwhile things a child can learn from a play

session with a well-designed toy.Good design in our sense is provided

by the dhyana. The toy acts as a something of a sweet flavoring for

the very heavy-duty medicine the Devi is administering. Because if it

were too bitter, the child's first instinct might be to push it away,

despite its Mother's assurances that, "It's good for you!"In the

realm of early childhood education, shouting physics lessons at a

little child won't get the teacher anywhere fast. But give that same

child a little toy crane or an erector set, and s/he will very

quickly get a feeling for some of the important basic principles of

that formidable science.Likewise, Devi's dhyanas give our unruly

minds a fascinating, attractive preoccupation while freeing up our

spirits receive Her truth without undue mental resistance. Like the

sweet coating that makes "taking our medicine" (i.e. sadhana) a more

pleasant experience. the dhyana too is an attractive illusion that

keeps us coming back for more.Aum Maatangyai NamaheTo

from this group, send an email

to:shakti_sadhnaaYour use of

Groups is subject to the

[Guest guest]

Thanks Kirk ...

 

Great reply, and I agree, it's an interesting question. I'm wondering

whether your response addresses more the Tantric view ("Deities are

subject to the seven chakras ... their physical form is as eternal as

creation") whereas Seshadri is providing the view of Bhakti ("Just

follow your heart ... The mother is there watching and guiding

always")?

 

*** These things are manifested for our use by seers of the devalokas

and are telephone numbers to the deities. ***

 

Very vivid parallel!

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM devi bhakti

 

There seems to be no difference between Kirk's response on

the physical form of Deities and Seshadri's. It is the same

explanation from different perspectives. Kirk's approach is for

those who like detail, Seshadri's for those who could care less

about the whys and wherefores.

 

I would add that whether the Manipura Chakra of Kirk or the

Anahata Chakra of Seshadri is the activating agent, the nature of

the appearances will also be influenced by the particular mix of

the Gunas at the time of perception. That seems to put me in the

detail camp- no surprise there.

 

Om Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

 

, "devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta>

wrote:

> Thanks Kirk ...

>

> Great reply, and I agree, it's an interesting question. I'm

wondering

> whether your response addresses more the Tantric view

("Deities are

> subject to the seven chakras ... their physical form is as eternal

as

> creation") whereas Seshadri is providing the view of Bhakti

("Just

> follow your heart ... The mother is there watching and guiding

> always")?

>

> *** These things are manifested for our use by seers of the

devalokas

> and are telephone numbers to the deities. ***

>

> Very vivid parallel!

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Since perception is in fact colored by three gunas what you sau is a

good point. For instance I have a friend who sees Kali as a golden

sun. I have seen her from afar as a black bindu. My friend is

probably alot more evolved but who can judge these things, my main

point is that depending on your predominant nature deities will seem

good evil, gold black etc to your own degree.

-

omprem

Monday, April 22, 2002 4:42 PM

Re: Dhyana Slokas

OM devi bhaktiThere seems to be no difference between Kirk's response

on the physical form of Deities and Seshadri's. It is the same

explanation from different perspectives. Kirk's approach is for those

who like detail, Seshadri's for those who could care less about the

whys and wherefores. I would add that whether the Manipura Chakra of

Kirk or the Anahata Chakra of Seshadri is the activating agent, the

nature of the appearances will also be influenced by the particular

mix of the Gunas at the time of perception. That seems to put me in

the detail camp- no surprise there.Om Namah SivayaOmprem--- In

, "devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote:> Thanks

Kirk ...> > Great reply, and I agree, it's an interesting question.

I'm wondering > whether your response addresses more the Tantric view

("Deities are > subject to the seven chakras ... their physical form

is as eternal as > creation") whereas Seshadri is providing the view

of Bhakti ("Just > follow your heart ... The mother is there watching

and guiding > always")? > > *** These things are manifested for our

use by seers of the devalokas > and are telephone numbers to the

deities. ***> > Very vivid parallel!> > Aum Maatangyai NamaheTo

from this group, send an email

to:shakti_sadhnaaYour use of

Groups is subject to the

[Guest guest]

Dear All:

I am sorry I did no make myself clear. The where

dhyanabhedas are there, one should follow that which

is given to you by your guru. If you have no guru use

that which appeals to you most.

Please also note that the colors in dhyanabhedas are

dependant on the purpose for which the mantra is to be

utilized. For example Yellow that is used in

Bagalamukhi indicates a mantra to be used in

“Sthambhana”. Black is used in Uchaadana and Maarana;

etc. The Rishis changed the colors to indicate the

purpose for which the mantra is to be utlised. If one

were to merge and create a new form, then you have to

realize it and manifest that Devi. Then you become the

Rishi of that mantra with THAT dhyana.

IMHO you CANNOT change dhyanas.

Kochu

--- devi_bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote:

Dear Kochu:

 

I will also agree with you and Seshadri on the

importance of the rupa upon which one meditates.

 

However, what to do when a number of conflicting

dhyanas exist (as they do for many of the Dasha

Mahavidyas -- i.e. one might say a certain goddess

form is blue in complexion, another says green,

another says black)? Does one simply follow the

ishtadevata logic, and choose that dhyana-rupa that

most appeals? Or is it acceptable to merge several

dhyanas into a single meditation image?

 

As Seshadri noted, many of these iconographical

differences are regional. If that is the case with

famously pan-Indian goddess forms such as Saraswati

and Lakshmi, how much more so with dealing with the

more obscure goddesses! The dhyanas may differ so much

as to hardly seem the same goddess -- and yet they

are.

 

Again assuming that "all are Devi", but that form is

important, how does one establish what *is* the proper

form for one's ishtadevi? Just follow your heart? Or

is there a better way to proceeed?

 

Thanks for any and all input!

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more

http://games./

[Guest guest]

Very well, if this were true...

<<

*** These things are manifested for our use by seers of the

devalokasand are telephone numbers to the deities. ***

>>

How would god be called Sarvantharayaami?

Kidding, what kirk says is true depending on the perspective adopted.

The beeja mantras were revealed to the beeja rishi or mula rishis who

then passed it down to the folks. The explanation from kirk is also

the case with the gnana point of view.

Its also true that lord appears in accordance to the needs of the

individual. This clearly explains the existance of the margas and the

jaathis. Why some regions have such cruel forms and others such nice

peaceful forms. But then again all prayer leads to the same god/lord.

- Seshadri.

-

"devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta >

<>

Monday, April 22, 2002 10:07 PM

Re: Dhyana Slokas

Thanks Kirk ...Great reply, and I agree, it's an interesting question.

I'm wonderingwhether your response addresses more the Tantric view

("Deities aresubject to the seven chakras ... their physical form is

as eternal ascreation") whereas Seshadri is providing the view of

Bhakti ("Justfollow your heart ... The mother is there watching and

guidingalways")?*** These things are manifested for our use by seers

of the devalokasand are telephone numbers to the deities. ***Very

vivid parallel!Aum Maatangyai Namahe------------------------

Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->Buy Stock for $4and no

minimums.FREE Money

2002.http://us.click./orkH0C/n97DAA/ySSFAA/XUWolB/TM---~->To

from this group, send an email

to:shakti_sadhnaaYour use of

Groups is subject to

[Guest guest]

Ompremji, you are right on that count.

I wouldnt care less or more on things that do not keep my mind on god

always. Its first reach the destination and then take the luxury of

looking into detail. Detail becomes important to me only if it adds

fuel and propels, otherwise to me its a waste of time, like food

without food value.

 

There is a beautiful narration whichI read in the book Living with Himalayan masters by Swami Raama.

 

Take a zero and add any number of zeros, it still has no value. But if

we add a single one before a zero, the number takes an entirely

differently meaning. Zeros are the things of the world that do not

keep my mind on the lord and one is th lord. If one comes first, then

after one, any number of zeros will make things more beautiful, be it

money, nature, animals, fame etc. Otherwise, its a zero and nothing

but it.

It provides a wonderful essence to set priorities and perspective right.

My two pence.

 

Regards,

Seshadri.

 

 

 

-

"omprem" <omprem >

<>

Monday, April 22, 2002 10:42 PM

Re: Dhyana Slokas

OM devi bhaktiThere seems to be no difference between Kirk's response

onthe physical form of Deities and Seshadri's. It is the

sameexplanation from different perspectives. Kirk's approach is

forthose who like detail, Seshadri's for those who could care

lessabout the whys and wherefores.I would add that whether the

Manipura Chakra of Kirk or theAnahata Chakra of Seshadri is the

activating agent, the nature ofthe appearances will also be

influenced by the particular mix ofthe Gunas at the time of

perception. That seems to put me in thedetail camp- no surprise

there.Om Namah SivayaOmprem, "devi_bhakta"

<devi_bhakta>wrote:> Thanks Kirk ...>> Great reply, and I agree,

it's an interesting question. I'mwondering> whether your response

addresses more the Tantric view("Deities are> subject to the seven

chakras ... their physical form is as eternalas> creation") whereas

Seshadri is providing the view of Bhakti("Just> follow your heart ...

The mother is there watching and guiding> always")?>> *** These things

are manifested for our use by seers of thedevalokas> and are telephone

numbers to the deities. ***>> Very vivid parallel!>> Aum Maatangyai

Namahe------------------------ Sponsor

---------------------~-->Buy Stock for $4and no minimums.FREE Money

2002.http://us.click./orkH0C/n97DAA/ySSFAA/XUWolB/TM---~->To

from this group, send an email

to:shakti_sadhnaaYour use of

Groups is subject to

[Guest guest]

AUM HRIM Omprem!

 

Thank you for your insightful message comparing the content of Kirk's

and Seshadri's respective posts on rupa and dhyana. I reread both in

light of your comments and could not agree more.

 

May I add that it is a continuing pleasure to find your profound and

practical thoughts and contributions gracing our Group. I for one am

extremely grateful that you are a member of the "detail camp"! BTW, I

must apologize for the brevity of some of my recent posts; as I've

noted ad nauseum there have been a host of offline obligations

claiming my time. I can finally see the light at the end of the

tunnel, I'm happy to say.

 

Thanks again for your thoughts on this important (and as Kirk

noted, "fun") topic!

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kochu:

 

You note, "If one were to merge and create a new form, then you have

to realize it and manifest that Devi. Then you become the Rishi of

that mantra with THAT dhyana."

 

This seems a fascinating subject. Could you expand upon it at all? If

for instance, what if a painter or sculptor were to create her/his

own image of their Ishta -- be She a well-known deity such as

Lakshmi, or a lesser-known dity like Dhoomavati -- using descriptions

taken from several dhyanas and their own intuition? You know, rather

than buying the usual calendar print or icon?

 

Does that artist suddenly find her/himself a rishi? And what are

their responsibilities to themselves and to the deity at that point?

Thanks for your input -- hope other members will take a crack at this

one as well!

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe