Shaktism and Advaita

[Guest guest]

shriman ompremji and dearest sesh,

 

please may i add a great commentary given by shri ramana mahrishi on

the subject of MA-ya?

 

"The Vedantins do not say the world is

unreal. That is a misunderstanding. If they did, what

would be the meaning of the Vedantic text: "All this

is Brahman"? They only mean that the world is unreal

as world, but is real as Self. If you regard the world

as not-Self, it is not real. Everything, whether you

call it maya or leela or shakti, must be within the

Self and not apart from It. There can be no shakti

apart from the shakta."

 

HAri Om

[Guest guest]

dear ompremji and sesh,

 

i wish to add some more thoughts to the current discussion om Maya

and Brahman.

 

LORD VISHNU (saguna brahman) is described as

 

naika-mAyah - He of multifarious wonders.

 

om naika-mAyAya namah in vishnu-shasaranama

 

Here MAYA has a totally different meaning!

 

MAyA here refers to knowledge or wonderful truths, and should not be

interpreted as illusion. He is naika-mAya because of His

innumerable and wonderful exploits.

 

mAyA vayunam j~nAnam" - all signify knowledge.

 

In vishNu purANa, there is mention of Lord vishNu destroying the

thousands of mAya-s of SambarAsura with His discus. If mAyA here

refers to illusion, then a discus was not needed to destroy it; so

obviously here mAyA refers to real objects.

 

SrI ADI Sankara gives the interpretation that this nAma refers to

His assuming many forms of illusion.

 

SO THE ONE ASSUMES THE FORMS OF MANY!!! THAT IS WHY THE LORD IS

CALLED MAYESHWERA!!

 

also, shri vAsishTha derives the meaning from the root mA - mAne - to

measure, and gives the interpretation that this nAma means that He has

innumerable dimensions to Him.

 

adi shankara says...

 

" maaya sabalitam bramha ekameva aseet" - meaning at the beginning

bramhan combined with maya existed in the beginning without a

second!!!!!

 

in the upanishads it is said

 

satyam jnanam anantam bramha -

 

 

 

bramhan is different from being asatyam, (untruth) different from

being (ignorance) anddifferent from being antavat( finite thing) .

 

So bramhan is indescribable-nirguna- or beyond gunas - gunatota.

 

that is why in the bhagwat gita shri krishna paramatma says he is

beyond gunas or a gunatita.

 

in the same bhagwat gita,

where maya is described as god's power -- for example

daivee hyeshaaa gunamayee mama mayaa duratyayaa. which means

this divine maya (power) of mine (full of gunas--).

 

also, in a previous post i had said that shakti is described as Maha-

maya....

 

what this means is our divine mother cobcelas herself conceals

herself from those who are not devoted to Her through Her power of

enchantment.

 

in other words, our divine mother is available to only those who seek

her with yeraning and longing... the seeds of desire should be there

for Her to manifest in the lotus of one's heart.

 

our divine mother is also described as VISHNU-MAYA for she appeared

as a child of devaki and vasudeva before baby krishna was born and

disappeared into thin air when demon kamsa tried to slay her!!

 

Hari om tat sat !!!!

[Guest guest]

Adi, I liked Sri Ramana Maharishi's quote -- it points toward the

kind of underlying unity that OmPrem so eloquently expressed a few

posts back -- but I am not sure it is useful as an argument. Sri

Ramana says it's a mistake to say that the Vedantins (meaning, I

assume, adherants of Shankara's Saamkhya Mayavada Vedanta) consider

the world is unreal. But then he proceeds to give a *Shaktivada*

explanation for why this is so (which makes sense -- that was his

school).

 

Serendipitously, after several days of enlightening discussion upon

this issue, I came across a wonderful old essay by (who else?) the

ever-reliable Sir John Woodroffe, entitled: "Maya-Shakti: The Psycho-

Physical Aspect of the Universe," which includes pages of mind-

boggling detail that minutely lay out just Shankara's Advaita says

Maya is unreal, and just why Shaktism says it *is* real.

 

There is much else of value in the essay, but I'll confine myself to

quoting a concluding observation, which I am sure OmPrem and other

thinkers on this issue will heartily endorse:

 

"Both theories, it may be said, in different ways run counter to

logic. All theories ultimately do. The matter is admittedly alogical;

that is, beyond logic -- for it is beyond the mind and its logical

forms of thinking. ... The ultimate proof of authority is Spiritual

Experience, either recorded in Veda [broadly defined to include Veda,

Purana and Tantras] or realized in Samadhi."

 

Woodroffe explains that whether the Sadhaka says "I AM HE, I AM SHE,

[or] I AM IT, matters not to the Shakta, so long as [the seeker]

identifies [her- or] himself with the 'Oversoul' [brahman]." To

further underline this point, he adds: "In its complete form, the

Shakta doctrine is monistic."

 

But Woodroffe immediately qualifies that statement by pointing out

that -- in analyzing the enduring appeal of Shaktism -- it is simply

naive to ignore the powerful, central role of Devi in this unique and

wonderful faith:

 

"To those to whom monism makes no appeal, the Shakta will say that by

adopting its spirit so far as the forms of their belief and worship

allow, they will experience a reflection of the joy and strength of

those who truly live, because they worship Her who is Eternal Life --

the Mother who is seated on the couch of Mahapretas [lit., "Great

Ghosts;" i.e. the bodies of the Male Gods, the Shivas], in the Isle

of Gems [Manidveepa]. in the Ocean of Nectar, which is all Being-

Consciousness and Bliss."

 

As far as I can tell, that still falls within OmPrem's wonderfully

concise and practical "Sadhana Thermometer" set out at Post #1822:

"(1) we recognize that we are each other, (2) we recognize that we

are Brahman, (3) we recognize that all spiritual paths are

essentially similar, and (4) we do not actually disagree with each

other on any topic so far presented."

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM Adi Shakthi

 

"They only mean that the world is unreal as world, but is real as

Self. If you regard the world as not-Self, it is not real."

 

This is exactly what Sesh and I have been saying. To regard the

world as Self is the goal of all Sadhana and, as we all know, it is

no small task. Constant effort and the grace of God or Guru is

required to see the world as Self. Most of the time we see the

world as world.

 

"Everything, whether you call it maya or leela or shakti, must be

within the Self and not apart from It. "

 

This, of course, is obvious from an intellectual point of view but

not so obvious on a day-to-day basis. Usually we take Maya at

face value and do not go past the surface appearance to Self

thus enabling ourselves to see that Maya is within Self.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

, "adi_shakthi16"

<adi_shakthi16> wrote:

> shriman ompremji and dearest sesh,

>

> please may i add a great commentary given by shri ramana

mahrishi on

> the subject of MA-ya?

>

> "The Vedantins do not say the world is

> unreal. That is a misunderstanding. If they did, what

> would be the meaning of the Vedantic text: "All this

> is Brahman"? They only mean that the world is unreal

> as world, but is real as Self. If you regard the world

> as not-Self, it is not real. Everything, whether you

> call it maya or leela or shakti, must be within the

> Self and not apart from It. There can be no shakti

> apart from the shakta."

>

> HAri Om

[Guest guest]

hi db, i knew you would figure out what i was trying to say... in all

these exchanges, there is only samvada (dialogue) no vivadha (

arguments) as my mentor yogaji taught me - so , all friendly

exchanges - adding and enhancing to each other's posts...

 

on a humorous note, would you like to know what our great swami

vivekananda said one time?

 

" what modern South Asia needs is a Vedantic mind in an Islamic

body."

 

i would like to qualify this a little further ...

 

what we all need is a ....

 

1) a vedantic mind

 

2) a vaishnava heart

 

3) a shaktha body

 

4) a sufi approach

 

5) a buddhist attitude of compassion

 

would not that be great? a harmonious blend of all approaches?

imagine the outcome!!!!

 

SMILES!!!

 

LOVE

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

Re: post 1851

 

Logic is Maya. Samadhi is Brahman.

 

Logic can take one up to the threshold of Self-realization. Letting

go of logic takes one across the threshold to Brahman.

 

You quoted, "To those to whom monism makes no appeal, the

Shakta will say that by adopting its spirit so far as the forms of

their belief and worship allow, they will experience a reflection of

the joy and strength of those who truly live, because they

worship Her who is Eternal Life -- "

 

I'm not sure which 'it' is meant by 'its spirit', but would not one be

better off by directly experiencing 'joy and strength of those who

truly live' rather than merely experiencing a reflection of that joy

and strength?

 

OM Sarvasammohinyai Vidmahe Visvajananjau Dheemahi,

Tannah Shaktih Prachodayat

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

namaskar ompremji,

 

what a co-incidence ! after my evening prayer and meditation, i was

just surfing the net and i came across this article by a shakta named

r.svoboda --- i would like to share the contents of this article with

you all, if i may for it exppresses beautifuly the difference bewteen

**chit-shakti** and **maya shakti** ... please, indulge me!! read

on!!!

 

Chit Shakti and Maya Shakti

 

M"y mentor, the Aghori Vimalananda, explained the relationship

between these two shaktis thus:

 

Chit Shakti (the power of consciousness or subjectivity) identifies

with the Unmanifested Absolute, and Maya Shakti (the power of

unconsciousness or objectivity) identifies with the world, the

manifestation of the Absolute. These two Shaktis cannot exist without

one another. Even in the grossest matter there is a spark of

consciousness -this is why I say that even rocks are alive - and even

in the highest states of consciousness there is a particle of Maya,

as long as there is even the least sense of individuality. Once you

learn the truth of the universe, you forget your own individuality,

and remember your true nature; only then, when you no longer exist,

does Maya no longer exist for you.[2]

 

Unity and duality exist in every human simultaneously, the One

pervading the All and the All defining the One. Intelligence and

sensation arise wherever Chit Shakti predominates, and ignorance and

insensibility lead wherever Maya rules. The more you identify with

your individuality, your microcosm, the more your shakti will

function as your own personal Maya and the less She will reflect

awareness of the macrocosm. As you identify less with your

individuality you free your self-identifying power to reflect more of

the reality of unalloyed consciousness, to increase her awareness of

the One.

 

The human spine and spinal cord extend consciousness from the brain,

the pole of greatest awareness that is called Shiva, to the coccyx,

the pole of greatest density. Each bodily cell expresses its own sort

of consciousness according to its own capacity. So long as your

personal shakti busies itself predominantly with creating and

reinforcing your limited human personality by self-identifying with

your physical and mental attributes we call it Ahamkara (ego).

 

At the base of the subtle spinal cord in the subtle body lies the

residual shakti of individuation, an energy which remains unavailable

to the individual so long as his or her consciousness remains firmly

entrenched in the mundane. This energy is our personal fragment of

the cosmic power of self-identification. When ahamkara begins to

awaken from its 'sleep' of self-delusion it takes on a new name:

Kundalini. Ahamkara connotes Maya Shakti, and Kundalini, Chit Shakti.

Ahamkara and Kundalini are two forms of the same power, manifested in

different directions for opposing purposes.

 

Maya Shakti keeps us awake to the world and asleep to the Absolute,

while Chit Shakti awakens us to Reality and puts us to sleep with

regard to worldly matters. The consciousness of any living being is

conditioned by the matter in which it resides, and the Maya of the

matter that makes up our bodies is some of the greatest Maya that

humans experience. So long as we live the embodied life each one of

us participates in the play of Nature, binding ourselves to the world

by the 'things' we accrete in our personalities. No incarnate being

ever quite becomes wholly spiritual, for some Maya will remain with

you so long as you remain embodied.

 

Those who shout, "Beware of Maya!" malign Maya, for the universe

always gives us what we ask for. When we call on the Goddess to ask

Her for mundane boons, which bind us to limited forms, She appears to

us as Maya; when we pray to Her power and energy She manifests as

Shakti; and to those few who relate to Her maternally she reveals

Herself as Ma, God the Mother. Those who remain stuck in Maya do so

because they fail to redirect their urge to individuation from Maya

to Chit; they are carried along by the current of their karmas, and

the karmic currents of those near and dear to them. "

 

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

 

so, those who look at the icon of kali with the eyes of maya will see

her as a blood-thirsty revngeful goddess out to drink the blood of a

demon called RAKTHABIJA.... but who look upon her as "chit shakthi"

will see in her rolling blood-drinking tongue a 'mudra' !for blood

represents prana or energy and we should also inhale like our mother

kali and fill our lungs with consciousness!!

 

LET OUR DAILY BREATH BE kali's name!!!

 

maya without consciousness is LOGIC and maya with consciousness leads

one to SAMADHI!

 

JAI MAHAKALI!

 

JAI GURUDEVA!!

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPremji:

 

I think you are expressing precisely the same idea as Woodroffe --

it's just that his late-Victorian English prose style can make him a

bit hard to follow for the modern reader.

 

Allow me to paraphrase: Woodroffe states, with you, that Logic is

within Maya, and that Brahman transcends Maya -- therefore, he

concludes, Logic cannot take one to Brahman; it can only point the

direction.

 

Woodroffe's final concern was to point out the Shaktism, while

embracing a kind of Advaitic Monism at its highest level, also

provides a religion of comfort and inspiration to those jivas who are

still a life or two away from experiencing this Oneness.

 

Those Shaktas who are not yet ready or able to realize Brahman, he

says, will still find in the worship of Devi "a reflection of the joy

and strength of those who truly live" -- i.e. those who *are* Self-

Realized.

 

And so when you ask, "would not one be better off by directly

experiencing [brahman]rather than merely experiencing a reflection of

that joy and strength?" I would have to say yes -- and that is

Woodroffe's point:

 

By approaching a Shakti with form and attributes, the devotee will

not find Brahman, but s/he will find a tantalizing taste of it. And

in a world where only a handful of people achieve Moksha in any given

life, that's a pretty significant perk.

 

And so, again, I do not believe that Woodroffe is disagreeing with

you at all as matter of theology. He's simply saying Shaktism offers

something for devotees at *every* level of spiritual progress. I

think that's an important point.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Ompremji,

I will reply to your message later. Hope this is alright.

Regards,

Seshadri.

- omprem

Saturday, May 04, 2002 3:36 PM

Re: Shaktism and Advaita

OM Seshadri"We can treat Maya as a piece of Brahman only after having

our minds fixed on Brahman."A key piece of information to omit.

Having one's mind fixed on Brahman changes the way one perceives

their surroundings. When the surroundings are no longer perceived

(literally, not just intellectually) as unconnected but are seen as

waves in the ocean, one can truly say that Maya and Brahman are the

same.Eventually, one must transcend even the Sattvic Guna in order to

assume their true identity as Brahman." I have learnt to grow a

healthy respect for Maya itself. To me, its positively guiding the

essence of brahman and itself towards its blissful conscious self

state. :-)"You have my congratulations and highest regard. It is a

rare person who realizes that the works of Maya are all designed to

guide the Sadhaka toward Satchidananda. Whenever contemplating

anything in time and space it is best to ask how it guides us to

Brahman. In this way, we discover the various Koshas, Prana, the

Gunas, and the Atman. We discover connection and interdependence

rather than disconnection, estrangement and war. We discover the

currents of Prana instead of the obstacles to the flow of Prana. We

see that each 'thing' is a microcosm of the universe and that the

universe is a microsm of Brahman.OM Namah SivayaOmprem--- In

, "Seshadri" <dksesh@h...> wrote:> Namaskara

Ompremji,> I agree with you completely. I forgot to add one piece

of information in my previous post. We can treat Maya as a piece of

Brahman only after having our minds fixed on Brahman. If everything

reminds us of the lord, then, by the same application, even Maya

reminds us of the lords.> Most of the "obstacles" are the result

of karmas and experiments. Ideally, Maya takes us through an

experience to show that what is brahman and how to reach it. This is

the same for a thief and a monk, only that the plane they operate is

on different levels because of karma.> Initially, I used to think

others. That Maya is something to be oversome and conquered to reach

Brahman. There is even a statement from Ramakrishna on Vivekananda

saying that Maya will not come within 4 feel of Vivekananda. She

stays away. > But then, the more I contemplate, the more it becomes

obvious that Maya and Brahman have no intrinsic difference. If the

lord is omnipresent, then the lord is maya too. If nothing moves

without the permission of the lord, then the activity of the maya

must have the permission too, which means that to really understand

Maya, one has to fix onself in Brahman and Maya does help the person

by guiding actively. Which is why Lalitha is also called Maya and

Yoga Maaya. A more better comparison is the gunas, the lord is the

three gunas, yet she is always satwik. In the same way, the lord,

although is everything, is always above the illusion. This illusion

helps somehow. > To me this sounds like a leela, a non-illusion

part of the brahman and the illusion part of the brahman. The

question is why is all this necessary. I read somewhere that there

is no conclusive answer and some suggested that leela is a habit of

the lord which looks like a limitation being imposed on the lord. I

guess on the consciousness is also merged in the brahman, things will

be clear or much even before that. But somehow, I think so long we are

good and score above average marks in Karma Yoga and Bhakthi Yoga, we

qualify for education in Gnana and other sathwik yogic forms of

progress. :-)> I have learnt to grow a healthy respect for Maya

itself. To me, its positively guiding the essence of brahman and

itself twords its blissful conscious self state. :-)> > Regards,>

Sesahdri.> > > > > > > - > omprem >

> Friday, May 03, 2002 3:18 PM>

Re: Shaktism and Advaita> > > OM Sheshadri>

> Could I comment on your statement, "The way I see it is, if >

brahman is one without a second, then what is maya? It must > also be

brahman? Right? Then what is this difference between > maya and

brahman. IF vidya is brahman then adaidya is also > brahman, the same

mother."?> > The difference between Maya and Brahman lies how the two

are > known to us. Maya is known directly through the senses being >

directed outwardly. The mind is engaged with the effects of the >

senses and mistakenly believes that there is a world of separate > of

entities each of which has a finite existence and who are in >

competition with one another. Brahman is known when the > senses are

drawn inside and the mind is stilled. That stillness > of mind allows

our consciousness to assume its true nature, > that of Brahman. As

such, we cease to have a separate, finite > identity. We do not even

have an identity because 'identity' > implies a knower and a known.

We simply are. We are beyond > space and time, we are all space and

time. > > We can see Maya but we cannot 'see' Brahman. We can only be

> Brahman. That is all we need.> > Related to this is the question of

whether Brahman has a sense > of the Brahmanic cycles and lilas. If

those actions are Maya and > part of Brahman, then Brahman must be

self-aware. But if > Brahman is self-aware, then there must be

something else > against which to judge those qualities. This, of

course, cannot > be. So, it would seem Brahman is not self-aware.

But, what then > of Satchitananda - Absolute Existence, Perfect

Knowledge, and > Bliss - all of which exist without reference to

particular > phenomena. Brahman is Pure Being, Pure Consciousness and

> Pure Bliss without reference to specifics, even though all of >

those specifics are actions of Brahman. Pure Consciousness is > a

state of being. Pure Bliss is a state of being. Brahman can Be > but

to have self-awareness Brahman must act. Self-awareness, > then, is

not awareness of Self but rather awareness of the > actions of the

Self.> > Just as your Self and even your lower self are different

from your > thoughts, emotions, and koshas, so too Brahman is

different > from the actions of Brahman or Maya. Yes, giving proper >

attention to Maya can lead one back to an understanding of and > an

identification of Brahman. The danger of attempting to focus > on

Maya and celebrating Maya as an aspect of Brahman is that > one can

be tricked all too easily (as each of us non salt dolls is >

repeatedly) into emphasizing the effects of Maya on the senses >

which keeps the mind too busy to 'see' Brahman rather than >

emphasizing the effects of Maya as actions of Brahman which > quiets

the mind and leads us back to Brahman. It is difficult to > keep

one's spiritual perspective when experiencing Maya. That is > why

many other paths try to circumvent the distractions of Maya > by

turning inward. Of course, they then have to face the > distractions

of Maya manifesting as internal phenomena.> > No matter what the

path, the obstacles are same, the > methodology for overcoming the

obstacles is the same, and the > goal is the same.> > Jaya Guru> >

Omprem> > > , "Seshadri" <dksesh@h...>

wrote:> > Namaskara Devi Bhaktha...> > My comments -> > <<> > as

OmPrem pointed out, can border on sacrilege.> > >>> > Sometimes the

argument can be completely innocent and out > of love for their path

and lord. Its ignorance that makes them > think that others are not

up mto their mark and a guenine > concern for the others prompts the

persons to advocate their > path rather aggrssively. Its not

sacriledge unless the > comparision and attempts to seed the

inferiority complex is > delibrate.> > > > I guess best idea is to

observe, take what is best and what > helps us and leave the rest.

> > <<> > And what is the use of choosing a path if we are not

allowed to > > explore these distinctions? You note that, "if the

person is > under > > the influence of the ego, then they try and

compare."> > >>> > Under the influence of ego, the mind tends to

compare from a > superiority and "I" and/or "mine" point of view. If

not under the > influence of ego, ignorance or more aptly lack of

information > makes them look at the difference. My opinion is that

one should > be careful here. Otherwise, no matter what the path is,

one > always see the lord. This is comparable to Sri Ramakrishna, he

> always saw the same god no matter what religion he practiced > or

what being he look upon at. When lord(devi) is the goal, > details

hardly matters, unless its a necessity in some cases. > Blissfull

state of japa in the mother/father/lord is all one needs > and that

itself is ananda very satisfying. But looking at details can > be a

little mischevious and child like way on the path. In this way > yes

sometimes comparision helps.> > > > <<> > Well, I am assuming that

there are very few "salt dolls" among > us -- > > very few sadhaks

who have completely left all traces of their > ego > > behind and

toally merged into the One. There seem to be > people who > > are

very advanced, as well as those who are only beginning > the > >

journey -- and very many who are somewhere in the middle.> > >>> >

:-).> > <<> > For the Shakti Sadhak, the Divine Mother is their

chosen guide > for > > this most important of journeys. So let us

celebrate Her a little! > We > > need not denigrate other Gods or

other Religions; but why not > enjoy > > the act of extolling one's

Ishtadevata? Devi is as legitimate as > any > > other, and -- for the

travelers who has chosen (or been chosen > by) > > Her -- She is the

most wonderful thing of all. In fact, She *is* > all.> > >>> > True.

She is the Brahman herself. Brahman itself is a name. >

Shankaracharya says that names of the lord are "created ones" > and

so one day must go. > > Devi herself is the sat chit ananda

swaroopini. > > <<> > > > Without ever forgetting the Brahamn is

beyond all forms and > > attributes, we can still enjoy and immerse

ourselves in the > exquisite > > teachings of Shaktism and discuss

our various experiences of > Shakti > > Sadhana!> > >>> > The way I

see it is, if brahman is one without a second, then > what is maya?

It must also be brahman? Right? Then what is > this difference

between maya and brahman. IF vidya is brahman > then adaidya is also

brahman, the same mother. Having known > this much, we see that

everything is our beloved mother who > tends to guide us twords

herself in the path best suited to us. > She is all around and

everywhere, the things we use, the > thoughts we think, the dreams we

dream, friends we relish, > family we adore. What adds value is a

constant reminder of the > lord everysecond by additional stimulus

like satsangha. I have > even d to some christian lists

because they keep > sending prayers praising the lord and they are so

sweet....> > I would love to be part of satsanghas if it can always

remind of > the mother and contribute in keeping the mind in the japa

state > always.> > That way this group has been immensely useful.

Thanks Devi > Bhaktha for the opportunity.> > I agree with you.> > >

> Apologies for mistakes if any.> > > > Regards,> > Seshadri.> > > >

Sponsor > > >

> > > >

shakti_sadhnaa-> > > > Your use of is

subject to the To from this

group, send an email

to:shakti_sadhnaaYour use of

Groups is subject to the

[Guest guest]

OM Adi Shakthi

 

In the article you posted, the Shakta reports his mentor as

saying, "The human spine and spinal cord extend

consciousness from the brain, the pole of greatest awareness

that is called Shiva, to the coccyx, the pole of greatest density.

Each bodily cell expresses its own sort of consciousness

according to its own capacity. So long as your personal shakti

busies itself predominantly with creating and reinforcing your

limited human personality by self-identifying with your physical

and mental attributes we call it Ahamkara (ego). "

 

He goes on to say, "At the base of the subtle spinal cord in the

subtle body lies the residual shakti of individuation, an energy

which remains unavailable to the individual so long as his or her

consciousness remains firmly entrenched in the mundane."

 

This brings up the interesting topic of the separate natures of the

Annamaya, Pranamaya, Manomaya, Vijnanamaya, and

Anandamaya Koshas but also their interconnections with each

other. While each of these 'bodies' have a structure and their

own functions, they do interact with each other. Prana activates

each of these 'bodies' and their interactions.

 

It is somewhat misleading and unnecessary to speak about a

'subtle spinal cord' because it implies that the sushumna and

the physical spinal cord or spinal column are identical.

 

While I quibble with words and phrases such as 'residual shakti

of individuation' , and 'personal fragment of the cosmic power of

self-identification' and 'personal shakti', I do agree with '[if] they

fail to redirect their urge to individuation from Maya to Chit; they

are carried along by the current of their karmas, and the karmic

currents of those near and dear to them' as well as ' Once you

learn the truth of the universe, you forget your own individuality,

and remember your true nature; only then, when you no longer

exist, does Maya no longer exist for you'.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Namaskar ompremji, you were gone for two days and it seemed like

an 'eternity' - well, nice to have you back. i kind of knew that

post (from robert svoboda) will catch your attention -

 

yes, you are absolutely correct in order to fully understand

any 'sadhana' be it 'tantric' or otherwise, one needs to understand

the functioning of all the five sheaths or pancha kosas and their

inter-relatedness. .

 

you state " Annamaya, Pranamaya, Manomaya, Vijnanamaya, and

Anandamaya Koshas but also their interconnections with each

other. While each of these 'bodies' have a structure and their

own functions, they do interact with each other. Prana activates

each of these 'bodies' and their interactions."

 

in fact, it would be a good idea (great idea) to elaborate on these

five kosas in detail so readers here can understand and appreciate

their functioning in the pursuit of any sadhana be it 'shakti' or

otherwise. then you will not hear people saying that this 'body is

made of urine , excreta , bile and wastes.' for in both tantra and

hatha yoga, preservation of the body plays an integral role in

reaching the higher goal of enlightemnent -the body is the vehicle -

this annamaya kosa.how a 'sattwic' diet can lead to a sound body that

houses the all pervading 'soul.' even gautama buddha realized that

when you starve the body you are in a way starving the soul and it wa

only after a kind budda bhikshini gave him some food was Buddha able

to reach a state of nirvana!!!

 

similarly, the manonmaya kosa and vignanamaya kosas are alo equally

important- the causal mind and the subtle mind...

 

after all, it is the vignanamaya kosa that helps us to

practice 'viveka' or discrimination as to distinguish between what

is permanent and what is illusory or transcient. this kosa also helps

us to develop 'vairagya' - vairagya does not mean running away from

worldly objects and retiring in a cave in the himalyas but

being 'unattached to worldly objects' or to view bith 'pleasure and

pain ' with equanimity.

 

then of course my most favorite kosa- or the mother of all kosas-

'anandmaya' or 'hiranmaya' kosas- 'a state of awareness where you

experience the oneness of self.' -

 

it is here that patanjali's astanga yoga comes into play- the yama,

niyama, pranayama, pratyahara, dharana and dhyana... in fact,

ompremji, the yoga expert that you are.. i would like you to

elaborate on these for the benefit of the members here...

 

OMpremji, as you have rightly mentioned it is 'prana' (the vital

breath) that is the missing ink...

 

Also, something else that you mentioned that caught my eye!

 

"the interactions between the kosas' - what a fascinating subject by

itself.

 

this is where the role of a sadguru is all important- through the

medium of a sadguru , one can experience the blissful state of

anandamaya kosa-

 

thank you ompremji for your interesting ccommentary and i would like

you to elaborate more on the relationship between kosas...

 

 

hari om!

 

love

[Guest guest]

OM Adi Shakthi

 

Please do not refer to me as `yoga expert that you are'. It sounds

pretentious. I am just a fellow traveller who has had a few facts

stick in his mind. These facts are, of course, an obstacle to

Self-Realization.

 

You wanted an elaboration on the Koshas and their

interrelationship.

 

A human has three bodies and five sheaths. The physical body

is known as the Annamaya Kosha or the Stula Sarira. It is

composed of the five elements (earth, water, fire, air and

ether)and has the grossest vibration.

 

The astral body has a finer vibration and is called the Sukshma

Sharira to reflect this. It is composed of 19 elements:

- the five karma indriyas or organs of action (mouth, hands, feet,

and the organs of evacuation and generation), - the five jnana

idriyas or organs of knowledge (eyes-sight, ears-sound,

nose-smell, tongue-taste and skin-touch),

-the five pranas (prana, apana, samana, udana, and vyana), - the

four aspects of the antahkarana (mind, intellect, subconscious

and ego).

 

The astral body consists of three sheaths:

- the pranamaya kosha: the 5 pranas and the 5 karma indriyas,

- the manomaya kosha: 5 jnana indriyas plus manas (mind) and

chitta (subconscious),

- the vijanamaya kosha: 5 organs of knowledge plus buddhi

(intellect) and ahamkara (ego)

 

The causal body has the finest vibration and is called Karana

Sharira or Anandamaya Kosha. It is the cause of the gross and

subtle bodies and is the seat of the soul.

 

It is interesting that the `inner instrument', the antahkarana, is

composed of four parts that are located in two of the sheaths of

the sukshma sharira - the mind and subconscious from the

manamaya kosha and the intellect and ego of the vijnanamaya

kosha. Here, we see a prime example of the interconnection and

interdependence of the various sheaths and bodies.

 

When something is sensed through the jnana indriyas of the

manomaya kosha, those sensations are carried through the

physical body (annamaya kosha) to the brain. The annamaya

kosha contacts the manomaya kosha again and the mind

begins its task of thinking and doubting as to whether the object

is.. But in order to reach a conclusion, further analysis is

required so the intellect from the vijnanmaya kosha becomes

involved. The intellect needs the help of the subconscious

(manamaya kosha). When a decision is reached, the ego

(vijnanamaya kosha) asserts `I know'. A decision on possible

action is similarly made and perhaps the karma indriyas and the

pranas of the pranamaya kosha react and the physical body

(annamaya kosha) moves. The atman in the ananadamaya

kosha is aware of this process but does not interact with it.

 

You have already mentioned how a sattvic diet can make the

physical body healthy and unstressed thus allowing the astral

body to be quieter and eventually to become aware of the causal

body and the atman. First attaining quiet in the astral body can

also lead to changes in diet so that the sattvic diet is followed

and the physical body becomes healthier.

 

Similarly, positive or negative thoughts can calm or disrupt the

functioning of the rest of the astral body and of the physical body.

 

Performing sadhana, say practicing hatha yoga, can also can

contribute to the development of vairagya (dispassion) and

viveka (discrimination) as well as developing a healthy body.

 

So, you see anyone who says that a person's 'body is made of

urine , excreta , bile and wastes'is quite wrong and is, in fact,

only refering to a part of the pranamaya kosha (and a fairly

insignificant part at that)and part of the annamaya kosha.

Moreover, this person is ignoring one of the most wonderous

aspects of the human body - the ability to produce life and so

create a vehicle for other astral and causal bodies to continue

their journey.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

dear ompremji, i apologize for the "poor choice of words." what i

meant was you are knowledgeble in the fielf of hatha yoga - that's

all! sorry!!!

 

thanks for elaborating on all the koshas in detail and their

interconnectedness.

 

love

[Guest guest]

shriman ompremji,

 

i particularly liked this last sentence in your post...

 

*this person is ignoring one of the most wonderous

aspects of the human body - the ability to produce life and so

create a vehicle for other astral and causal bodies to continue

their journey.*

 

in bhagwat gita shri krishna himself says...

 

mama yonir mahad brahma

tasmin garbham dadhamy aham

sambhavah sarva-bhutanam

tato bhavati bharata

 

 

The total material substance, called Brahma, is the source of birth,

and it is that Brahma that I impregnate, making possible the births

of all living beings, O son of Bharata.

 

FURTHERMORE SHRI KRISHNA SAYS,

 

 

sarva-yonisu kaunteya

murtayah sambhavanti yah

tasam brahma mahad yonir

aham bija-pradah pita

 

 

It should be understood that all species of life, O son of Kunti, are

made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the

seed-giving father.

 

so it is only natural we should honr the body which gives birth to

Life.

 

thanx ompremji, for this wonderful explanation.

 

love