Celebration and restraint

[Guest guest]

Hello Adi Shakthi.

 

Thank you for your response to my posting. Here's some more information

about the Sahaja path.

 

First, another translated song...

 

"Using one's body

As a medium of prayer

And loving spontaneously

Is the _Sahaja_ love..."

 

(Bhattacharya, Deben (trans); _Love Songs of Chandidas_; George Allen and

Unwin, London, 1967.)

 

Now a description of the sahaja by a modern Indian writer who is both

tantrik initiate and scholarly researcher...

 

"The term _sahaja_ means 'easy' or 'natural' and refers to the fact that

the cult _uses_, and does not _suppress_, the power of the senses... The

_Sahaja_ tradition took up many features of the _Vaishnava_ in blending

with the latter, e.g. the whole Radha-Krishna complex. The _Sahajas_,

however, took literally what the _Vaishnavas_ meant figuratively. For the

former, the union of Radha and Krishna was also to be experienced

_physically_ by the adept, in conjunction with his female partner."

 

(Saran, Prem; _Tantra: Hedonism in Indian Culture_; DK Printworld New

Delhi, 1998)

>btw- the web address you have given is not accessible... pl check it

>and post the correct one!!!

 

I'm pleased that you wanted to have a look at my altar.

 

The address I gave was: www.yogamagik.com/ferment

 

I've just re-tested it, and it worked fine for me. Are you entering the

word 'yogamagik' exactly as shown? Please try this...go to

www.yogamagik.com then scroll down to the Site Index and click on Ferment.

Please let me know if it still doesn't work!

>your altar seems to resemble the altar of KAULA? SMILES...

 

What exactly do you have in mind when you say "the altar of KAULA"? (SMILES

BACK)

 

Love,

 

Colin

[Guest guest]

Greetings colin!

 

first, let me thank you for giving the meaning of 'sahaja' - that is

indeed kind of you...

 

Yes. love for the divine should be 'natural', 'innate. and 'free-

flowing' - this is how a child approaches its mother -in a most

natural way -

 

in fact it is for this reason when tantriks get formally initiated ,

they approach their guru wearing 'nothing' -totally 'naked' to show

that they are approaching their master with the pure love and

innocence of a child- in their birthday suits...

 

Lord dattatreya was one such avadhuta who wandered 'naked' and he had

only 'sky' as his ornament -a 'digambara' sanyasi - a state of total

renunciation- for outward coverings !!

 

in the kumbha mela held last year. such sanyasis attracted a lot of

media civerage from the western press for this very reason-

"wandering naked' in the streets of kasi!!

 

now that you mention about 'sahaja' bhava may i please introduce to

the world of 'bauls ' with this beautiful song?

 

Only a connoisseur of the flavors of love can comprehend the language

of a lover's heart, others have no clue.

The taste of lime rests in the core of the fruit, and even experts

know of no easy way to reach it.

Honey is hidden within the lotus bloom -- but the bee knows it.

Dung beetles nestle in dung, discounting honey.

Submission is the secret of knowledge.

 

 

"The Bauls are called Bauls because they are mad people. The

word "Baul" comes from the Sanskrit root vatul. It means: mad,

affected by wind. The Baul belongs to no religion. He is neither

Hindu nor Mohammedan nor Christian nor Buddhist. He is a simple human

being. His rebellion is total. He does not belong to anybody; he only

belongs to himself. He lives in a no man's land: no country is his,

no religion is his, and no scripture is his.".

 

"Bauls have nothing -- no scripture, not even to burn; no church, no

temple, no mosque -- nothing whatsoever. A BAUL is a man always on

the road. He has no house, no abode. God is his only abode, and the

whole sky is his shelter. He possesses nothing except a poor man's

quilt, a small, hand-made one-stringed instrument called aektara, and

a small drum, a kettledrum. That's all that he possesses. He

possesses only a musical instrument and a drum. He plays with one

hand on the instrument and he goes on beating the drum with the

other. The drum hangs by the side of his body, and he dances. That is

all of his religion. "

 

IN fact, in this sense THEY ARE A STEP AHEAD OF THE TANTRIKS! at

least the 'tantriks' use 'sex' as a means to liberation - not so for

bauls- they 'love' for 'love's sake... i will explain this in another

post...

 

in this context , chandidas was also a 'baul.' - his love for 'rami'

was not just 'love' for a woman - it was the 'love' for the 'deity'

in that woman... that is why it endured all the turbulance and

storms!! in fact, they story goes that they both died in each other's

arms cruhed by a falling building!

 

 

 

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

yes. the reason why called your altar a 'kaula' altar is you have

almost all the five elements of the tantras-

 

1) shiva for shaiva tantra

 

2) kali for shakti tantra

 

3) radha-krishna for vaishanava tantra

 

the ONLY TWO THAT ARE MISSING ARE 1) GANAPATI for ganpati tantra

AND SURYA (the sun god) for saurava tantra...

 

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

 

well, colin, my external altar is very beautiful - i will give a

description later or post a picture -for a picture is worth a

thousand words...

 

but my internal altar is like this..

 

i Have the god's name (naama) dancing on my tongue. the (divine

form) always residing in the pupil of my two eyes , the heart is

always singing the divine glory (mahima) -the anahata chakra - and my

hands are always worshipping the lotus feet of my gurudeva and god

and of course my feet are always cicumabulating the god in the lotus

of my heart! the gods vary with the days of the week ! like mondays

for shiva, tuesdays for hanuman, wednesdays for krishna or buddha ,

thursdays for guru , fridays for sree lalita and saturdays for the

nine planets and sundays for surya deva !

 

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

i have already seen your web page once before! but i will like to

look at it again!

 

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

thanks colin! it is a pleasure as always to read your comments!

 

take care, my friend!

 

love

[Guest guest]

Greetings Adi Shakthi!

 

I appreciated your message about sahajas and bauls.

 

Did you know that the English word "natural" comes from the Latin verb

"nascor" meaning "to be born"? Similar, the Sanskrit "sahaja" comes

from

the verb "jan" whose meaning is exactly the same. Our "nature" or

"sahaja"

is, literally, that which we're born with.

 

All of which fits perfectly with what you wrote about approaching the

divine like a child.

>IN fact, in this sense THEY ARE A STEP AHEAD OF THE TANTRIKS! at

>least the 'tantriks' use 'sex' as a means to liberation - not so for

>bauls- they 'love' for 'love's sake... i will explain this in another

>post...

 

Please do post further on this!

>in this context , chandidas was also a 'baul.' - his love for 'rami'

>was not just 'love' for a woman - it was the 'love' for the 'deity'

>in that woman... that is why it endured all the turbulance and

>storms!! in fact, they story goes that they both died in each other's

>arms cruhed by a falling building!

 

Thank you for sharing this story with us!

>yes. the reason why called your altar a 'kaula' altar is you have

>almost all the five elements of the tantras-

>1) shiva for shaiva tantra

>2) kali for shakti tantra

>3) radha-krishna for vaishanava tantra

 

I haven't had a formal kaula initiation, but have certainly found

inspiration in kaula writings, as well as in the songs of Ramprasad, which

declare that Kali, Krishna and Shiva are one.

 

Thank you very much for telling us about your own internal altar.

>thanks colin! it is a pleasure as always to read your comments!

 

And it's a pleasure to read yours!

 

Love,

 

Colin.

[Guest guest]

hello colin!

 

YES COLIN! -ONCE A DISCIPLE asked shri Ramakrishna whether kali was

different from krishna and our beloved thakore replied that "which

is kali is krishna and that whisch is krishna is also kali as per the

tantras. "

 

HERE IS A POEM TO CELEBRATE THAT SENTIMENT ...

..

 

Strike the Pose of Sweet Krishna

 

Nabai Moyra

 

Strike the bent pose of sweet Krishna

when he dances with the cowherd-girls;

come stand in the shrine

of the heart's temple.

Come show yourself

as the charming crooked one

with Radha at your side.

Take off your skirt of human arms

and put on the yellow dhoti

of the cowherd god.

Put the peacock feather on your head,

and crook one foot over the other.

Abandon your garland of human heads

and put on the garland of forest flowers instead.

Be the Dark Charmer for once,

and not the Black Destroyer.

O woman with heart of stone,

the lotus of my heart blossoms

when it sees the black moon!

Just once, drop the sword

and pick up the bamboo flute!

Fulfill the yearning of the faithful!

 

enjoy!!!

 

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

yes! my gopi heart always pines for krishna's eternal love. (that is

my madurya rasa bhava) -so you know why adore krishna so much!

 

my dancing feet always love to dance to the tune of shiva's drum

beat... and also there is something very attractive about

a 'meditating' yogi!

 

the mother instinct (nurturing tendency) in me loves to take care of

lord ganesha with his big belly signifying big elephant like appetite

and i love to cook and feed people!!

 

and the eternal chilfd in me always wants to rest her head on the lap

of the divine mother PARASHAKTHI !

 

 

colin, there is enough room in the human heart t accomadate all kinds

of love- and bhavas- sakhya (friendship), vatsalya ( love of a mother

towards a child), madhurya ( the love of a beloved ) .... so on and

so forth!! so, really speaking ithere is no conflict in my mind - i

can love them all -krishna, shiva, kali , jesus, allah, etc.... for

they all ar names and forms for one eternal truth!!!!!

 

 

love

[Guest guest]

Dear Adi:

 

Thanks for your comments -- but please do not read

into my comments any sort of criticism of you or your

viewpoints.

 

*** does anybody accuse shaktism of being a feminist

cult? not i! do we equate tantra as sex religion? not

i ... ***

 

On the contrary, your explanations of the subject have

always seemed to me most nuanced and complete ...

 

*** i do not know what is up with devi bhakta these

days... he is the one who is always talking about anti

this and pro that! being a lawyer he is compelled to

argue for and against something ... ***

 

I apologize for having made this impression upon you.

I have often titled posts in that way: "Is Shakta

Anti-Shiva?" or "Sadhana vs. Yoga" and so on. Perhaps

that is where you got the impression that I am

"compelled to argue for and against something" -- and

perhaps the shortcomings of my narrative technique

have given that impression.

 

But it was not my intention. Rather, my goal is always

to get members to really think about these ideas --

their definitions and implications. I never thought of

my legal background as having a role in this, but

perhaps it has subconsciously affected the way I

analyze these questions. The theory being that, if you

allow a full exposition of each "side's" absolute view

of things, it becomes ever more apparent that the

Truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

OmPrem, especially, has repeatedly made the point that

there is but One Reality. What varies in the way in

which we conceive and/or approach that reality. By

discussing these differences of conception, we do not

deny of invalidate the One Reality. On the contrary,

we move toward a fuller understanding.

 

For example: I can truthfully say that I am one

person. But am I really? To my wife, I am a husband.

To the mother, I am a son. To my son, I am a father.

To my sister, I am a brother. To my friend, I'm a

friend. To my co-workers, I'm a colleague. And son and

on. Which of these are the "correct" perception? Well,

they are ALL correct -- but partially. None is a lie,

and yet none is the complete truth.

 

Well, if you can say that of me -- a mere transitory

individual, how much more does it apply to Supreme

Divinity, which is EVERYTHING that is seen and not

seen! Different people see that same Reality in

different ways, according to their culture, upbringing

and personal predispositions. When we speak of This

versus That, we are not denying the underlying Unity

-- we are merely celebrating differences of perception

with fellow human beings -- in this case, Shaktas --

who perceive the Divine in a way similar to own own.

 

*** being a hindu i have no problem in my mind -

loving shakti and shiva or krishna and radha... ***

 

That is certainly a tribute to your ecumenical and

broad-minded nature, Adi! And in fact, I too am

perfectly at ease with any Hindu approach to the

Divine; or with Christian, Muslim or Buddhist

approaches as well, for that matter -- all rivers lead

to the sea, as they say. My celebration of Shaktism is

simply a reflection of my personal approach, and not a

denial of or attack upon any other approach. And I

offer you my sincerest apology, in case I have left

you with that impression.

 

*** he [devi bhakta] is the one who talks about

feminine and masculine all the time ***

 

Again, I apologize for distressing you with my

apparent distinctions. My only explanation is that we

have created this Group as a discussion forum for

Shaktism, the Cult of the Divine Feminine. Since a

Divine Feminine Principle assumes a Divine Masculine

Principle, I must occasionally use these terms.

 

*** he [devi bhakta] quotes shaiva literature when it

suits him and at other times says this is shaivit that

is shakta ... ***

 

Well, as I've often pointed out, Shaivism and Shaktism

are extremely similar in matters of high theology. I

think that perhaps, as I discussed above, I have

created confusion by my posts stressing the fine

distinctions (rather than the obvious similarities)

between the various schools of Hinduism. My primary

scriptural sources are, admittedly, Shakta sources.

However, I am not a sectarian (Shaktism and

sectarianism really don't mix) -- that is why, in

addition to Shakta literature, you'll also find me

quoting Vaishnava, Jewish, Christian and other sources

here.

 

My point, at the risk of repeating myself, is not

denying Divine Unity. It is celebrating the Shakta

perception of that Unity. And that perception is only

enhanced when the literature of another faith

illuminates a Shakta tenet of belief. It serves to

reaffirm the underlying Unity of the Divine, despite

the many ways we humans have chosen to approach it.

 

*** tantra is not synonymous with sex... tantra means

expanded cosciousness ***

 

I would certainly agree with you! This is precisely

the point I've been arguing for months -- its a major

part of my latest post, to prainbow, in fact .

Certainly, the more people come to understand Tantra

-- and not just the allure of so-called "Tantric Sex,"

etc. -- the more they will come to see the profound,

intensely world-altering truths and experiences that

this approach opens up to us as human beings.

 

*** [colin] - please respond to his [devi bhakta's]

latest post to prainbow and explain this whole paradox

of shiva-sakti once and for all ! i am getting a

little tired of this whole 'defence'! please i am

desperately seeking ur help ***

 

Once again, I must apologize for having apparently

upset you in this way. It was certainly never my

intention to do so. I, too, would welcome the input of

Colin -- or any of our honored members, for that

matter -- in further elucidating the wondrous "paradox

of shiva-sakti," as you so aptly put it. And once

again, I offer my sincerest apologies for having

distressed you with my apparent failures of

explanation and communication. May your frank and

honest post open the channels of debate, so that we

may be assured that no othr members become confused as

to the philosophy and theology of Shaktism, or of this

Group.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

=====

Who Is Devi?

 

"I am Manifest Divinity, Unmanifest Divinity, and Transcendent Divinity. I am

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, as well as Saraswati, Lakshmi and Parvati. I am the

Sun and I am the Stars, and I am also the Moon. I am all animals and birds, and

I am the outcaste as well, and the thief. I am the low person of dreadful deeds,

and the great person of excellent deeds. I am Female, I am Male, and I am

Neuter."

 

(From the Devi Bhagavata Purana)

 

 

 

- Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

I don't know exactly what the issue is here because the initiating

post and the name of its author has been deleted (and rightly

so). I say 'rightly so' because the tone of the few fragments to

which you responded are harsh indeed (and uninformed) and

would only have lowered the tone of the fine group you and Nora

have developed.

 

For what it's worth, to me your posts have always been

balanced, informative and filled with devotion and humility. The

tone has been even-handed and courteous. They have been

fine examples of vairagya and viveka in action. Compared to

other owners of , you are a good example of

egolessness, spending much time and effort not only to provide

this forum but to ensure that those new to Hinduism and

Shaktism understand their concepts and all sides of any

controversies.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

 

, Devi bhakta <devi_bhakta>

wrote:

> Dear Adi:

>

> Thanks for your comments -- but please do not read

> into my comments any sort of criticism of you or your

> viewpoints.

>

> *** does anybody accuse shaktism of being a feminist

> cult? not i! do we equate tantra as sex religion? not

> i ... ***

>

> On the contrary, your explanations of the subject have

> always seemed to me most nuanced and complete ...

>

> *** i do not know what is up with devi bhakta these

> days... he is the one who is always talking about anti

> this and pro that! being a lawyer he is compelled to

> argue for and against something ... ***

>

> I apologize for having made this impression upon you.

> I have often titled posts in that way: "Is Shakta

> Anti-Shiva?" or "Sadhana vs. Yoga" and so on. Perhaps

> that is where you got the impression that I am

> "compelled to argue for and against something" -- and

> perhaps the shortcomings of my narrative technique

> have given that impression.

>

> But it was not my intention. Rather, my goal is always

> to get members to really think about these ideas --

> their definitions and implications. I never thought of

> my legal background as having a role in this, but

> perhaps it has subconsciously affected the way I

> analyze these questions. The theory being that, if you

> allow a full exposition of each "side's" absolute view

> of things, it becomes ever more apparent that the

> Truth lies somewhere in the middle.

>

> OmPrem, especially, has repeatedly made the point that

> there is but One Reality. What varies in the way in

> which we conceive and/or approach that reality. By

> discussing these differences of conception, we do not

> deny of invalidate the One Reality. On the contrary,

> we move toward a fuller understanding.

>

> For example: I can truthfully say that I am one

> person. But am I really? To my wife, I am a husband.

> To the mother, I am a son. To my son, I am a father.

> To my sister, I am a brother. To my friend, I'm a

> friend. To my co-workers, I'm a colleague. And son and

> on. Which of these are the "correct" perception? Well,

> they are ALL correct -- but partially. None is a lie,

> and yet none is the complete truth.

>

> Well, if you can say that of me -- a mere transitory

> individual, how much more does it apply to Supreme

> Divinity, which is EVERYTHING that is seen and not

> seen! Different people see that same Reality in

> different ways, according to their culture, upbringing

> and personal predispositions. When we speak of This

> versus That, we are not denying the underlying Unity

> -- we are merely celebrating differences of perception

> with fellow human beings -- in this case, Shaktas --

> who perceive the Divine in a way similar to own own.

>

> *** being a hindu i have no problem in my mind -

> loving shakti and shiva or krishna and radha... ***

>

> That is certainly a tribute to your ecumenical and

> broad-minded nature, Adi! And in fact, I too am

> perfectly at ease with any Hindu approach to the

> Divine; or with Christian, Muslim or Buddhist

> approaches as well, for that matter -- all rivers lead

> to the sea, as they say. My celebration of Shaktism is

> simply a reflection of my personal approach, and not a

> denial of or attack upon any other approach. And I

> offer you my sincerest apology, in case I have left

> you with that impression.

>

> *** he [devi bhakta] is the one who talks about

> feminine and masculine all the time ***

>

> Again, I apologize for distressing you with my

> apparent distinctions. My only explanation is that we

> have created this Group as a discussion forum for

> Shaktism, the Cult of the Divine Feminine. Since a

> Divine Feminine Principle assumes a Divine Masculine

> Principle, I must occasionally use these terms.

>

> *** he [devi bhakta] quotes shaiva literature when it

> suits him and at other times says this is shaivit that

> is shakta ... ***

>

> Well, as I've often pointed out, Shaivism and Shaktism

> are extremely similar in matters of high theology. I

> think that perhaps, as I discussed above, I have

> created confusion by my posts stressing the fine

> distinctions (rather than the obvious similarities)

> between the various schools of Hinduism. My primary

> scriptural sources are, admittedly, Shakta sources.

> However, I am not a sectarian (Shaktism and

> sectarianism really don't mix) -- that is why, in

> addition to Shakta literature, you'll also find me

> quoting Vaishnava, Jewish, Christian and other sources

> here.

>

> My point, at the risk of repeating myself, is not

> denying Divine Unity. It is celebrating the Shakta

> perception of that Unity. And that perception is only

> enhanced when the literature of another faith

> illuminates a Shakta tenet of belief. It serves to

> reaffirm the underlying Unity of the Divine, despite

> the many ways we humans have chosen to approach it.

>

> *** tantra is not synonymous with sex... tantra means

> expanded cosciousness ***

>

> I would certainly agree with you! This is precisely

> the point I've been arguing for months -- its a major

> part of my latest post, to prainbow, in fact .

> Certainly, the more people come to understand Tantra

> -- and not just the allure of so-called "Tantric Sex,"

> etc. -- the more they will come to see the profound,

> intensely world-altering truths and experiences that

> this approach opens up to us as human beings.

>

> *** [colin] - please respond to his [devi bhakta's]

> latest post to prainbow and explain this whole paradox

> of shiva-sakti once and for all ! i am getting a

> little tired of this whole 'defence'! please i am

> desperately seeking ur help ***

>

> Once again, I must apologize for having apparently

> upset you in this way. It was certainly never my

> intention to do so. I, too, would welcome the input of

> Colin -- or any of our honored members, for that

> matter -- in further elucidating the wondrous "paradox

> of shiva-sakti," as you so aptly put it. And once

> again, I offer my sincerest apologies for having

> distressed you with my apparent failures of

> explanation and communication. May your frank and

> honest post open the channels of debate, so that we

> may be assured that no othr members become confused as

> to the philosophy and theology of Shaktism, or of this

> Group.

>

> Aum Maatangyai Namahe

>

> =====

> Who Is Devi?

>

> "I am Manifest Divinity, Unmanifest Divinity, and Transcendent

Divinity. I am Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, as well as Saraswati,

Lakshmi and Parvati. I am the Sun and I am the Stars, and I am

also the Moon. I am all animals and birds, and I am the outcaste

as well, and the thief. I am the low person of dreadful deeds, and

the great person of excellent deeds. I am Female, I am Male, and

I am Neuter."

>

> (From the Devi Bhagavata Purana)

>

>

>

> - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

> http://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPrem:

 

I did wish to thank you for your kind words. They were noticed and

much appreciated.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

OM Namah Shivaya