Presentation

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Karolina!

 

Welcome to the Group, and thank you for your excellent and detailed

post. I'd like to respond to a couple of your thoughts.

 

*** The reason that I have not written anything, is that I am

initiated Vaisnava, and as far as I am told, Vaisnavas and Shaktas

are enemies and have opposite viewpoints. I am not so sure anymore

that is so, though. ***

 

I don't think it is so at all. Certainly, in this Group, we would

consider a Radha Bhakta just another form of Shakta.

 

*** I am a Radha bhakta. Which I think requires some explanation. I

see Radha, not (only) as the girlfriend of the cowheard Krishna, but

as the supreme female power of everything, as Shakti, and as non-

different from all the other Shakti manifestations. ***

 

This is most certainly correct, in my opinion. Although I've

occasionally been accused of being anti-Vaishnava, I will say that

Radha claims a place of honor in my study -- I've hada large painting

of the famous Kishangarh "Bani Thani" Radha looking over my shoulder

for years.

 

*** So my interest and bhakti goes directly into the Shakti realm. So

I see Durga, Kali and the other manifestations as the same person as

Radha. It is just different forms for different purposes. For me

there is no difference. ***

 

Again, I absolutely agree. In fact, your post inspires me to suggest

that we honor Radha as next week's Goddess of the Week here, and

devote some time to a serious discussion of Her place as the

main "mediator" between Shakta and Vaishnava forms of Hinduism. Would

any other members care to weigh in on this idea?

 

 

*** Chaitanya Vaisnavism, as far as I understand, is in core actually

quite female-oriented, but as time has passed, for some reason, the

male (Krishna/Visnu) aspect has been more and more come in the

foreground, and the female element (Radha) has been put more and more

in the background. When the female element becomes forgotten, with it

goes the philosophy about it, which changes the shape of the whole

philosophy to something else. ***

 

Although I am not at all well-versed in the intricacies of Vaishnava

theology, this is my sense as well. In fact, I was trying to make a

similar point in the posts I wrote that led some to suppose I

was "anti-Vaishnava." You have stated the essence of that sense much

more clearly than I was able to.

 

**********

 

May I add that the story of your Guru's breaking with tradition, and

your movement toward Radha is incredibly beautiful. Thank you so much

for sharing all of this.

 

*** I never want to step on anyones toes, so if I do by mistake, it

is not intentional. ***

 

Don't worry about that here. Just post what you feel.

 

Again, welcome to the Group. I hope you'll post much more on your

amaing journey with Radha Devi.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Yes, please let Shri Radha be next week's Goddess, devi_bhakta. The

discussions about her significance from both Vaishnavite and Shakta

perspectives could be most illuminating.

 

 

Hari Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

I insist that Shri Radha be our next week Goddess of the week !!

 

Ps. Sorry i cant reply anything more than this, my head full of html

codes.

 

Om ParaShakti

[Guest guest]

måndagen den 12 augusti 2002 16.34 skrev devi_bhakta:

> I don't think it is so at all. Certainly, in this Group, we would

> consider a Radha Bhakta just another form of Shakta.

 

That is nice. I am trying to learn a little bit of the Shakta picture of

reality, to avoid the biggest pitfalls. Some things I take for granted might

be not at all acceptable. For example, the matter about the jiva. So I am

just trying to choose my words carefully.

> This is most certainly correct, in my opinion. Although I've

> occasionally been accused of being anti-Vaishnava, I will say that

> Radha claims a place of honor in my study -- I've hada large painting

> of the famous Kishangarh "Bani Thani" Radha looking over my shoulder

> for years.

 

It is easy to be accused of being anti-Vaisnava. Some are interested in

maintaining strict walls between different sections of the Vedic philosophy.

For neophytes that might make sense, since it all can be so confusing

otherwise, but as one learn more and more, I think the walls need to be

broken down and the understanding expanded.

 

> Again, welcome to the Group. I hope you'll post much more on your

> amaing journey with Radha Devi.

 

Thank you. Yes, I am on a kind of journey. I know only some few details about

the past to know that it is a journey. But the future is unwritten, and kind

of interesting. It is a journey that for sure goes beyond this life, into the

next, so I see it quite seriously. I am quite thrilled with finding all the

stories about the different Godesses. I recently read the description about

the Maha Vidyas, and it appears to confirm by suspicion that a lot of the

Indian philosophy is quite tainted by the women-oppressing Indian social

system. And therefore the reason for suppressing the female from Vaisnavism,

in favour of a wide spreading in the Indian social sphere. Now we kind of see

the same thing happening in the west. The spreading of only the

male-dominated indian philosophy, and relegating the female oriented to

something bad like "black magic" or similar. I think the female oriented

philosophy is incredible important, and the most imporant religious and

philosophic direction today and a very important heritage from anicent India.

 

-- Prisni

[Guest guest]

My $0.02:

 

Let us not confuse contemporary social mores and ills with philosopshy, ritual

and worshipful practice as they descended through the centuries and not draw

general broadbased conclusions without exhaustive research, study, travel,

observation and practice! The roles of men and women in a society evolve through

the generations based on a variety of environmental, evolutionary, life style,

economic, genetic and other complex factors and not necessarily based on a

philosophic text or doctrine.

 

Gender is an attribute of the physical body. Soul is gender neutral.

 

Two of the greatest Indian intellectuals India produced, worshipped the Mother

and produced several eloquent works in her praise:

 

Sankara wrote Saundarya Lahari, the one hundred love poems for the mother which

to this day is used as mantras for the worship of the mother.

 

Abhinavagupta wrote the Tantra Loka and Tantrasara which are monumental classics

on the Tantras and talks practically nothing but the female as the power behind

Shiva, the consciousness principle.

 

Vedanta does not negate the feminine - it negates all temporal attributes (Naham

Deham; Koham soham)in favor of the eternal Brahman.

 

Sankhya does not negate the feminine.

 

Bhagavad Gita does not negate the feminine.

 

Vedic injunctions put the feminine before everything else (Mathru Devo Bhava! .

.. . . . . . . )

 

Based on the status of women in the American society prior to the seventies, can

one condemn Christianity or Baptist theology or the Catholic theology?

 

Based on the current status of women in the Germanic countries, can one condemn

Lutherism or Calvinism?

 

Perhaps it would be useful to present some concrete examples before painting the

whole Indian philosophical system with a tar brush!

 

Cheers

Mukti

 

-

Karolina Lindqvist

Wednesday, August 14, 2002 6:23 AM

Re: Re: Presentation

 

 

måndagen den 12 augusti 2002 16.34 skrev devi_bhakta:

> I don't think it is so at all. Certainly, in this Group, we would

> consider a Radha Bhakta just another form of Shakta.

 

That is nice. I am trying to learn a little bit of the Shakta picture of

reality, to avoid the biggest pitfalls. Some things I take for granted might

be not at all acceptable. For example, the matter about the jiva. So I am

just trying to choose my words carefully.

> This is most certainly correct, in my opinion. Although I've

> occasionally been accused of being anti-Vaishnava, I will say that

> Radha claims a place of honor in my study -- I've hada large painting

> of the famous Kishangarh "Bani Thani" Radha looking over my shoulder

> for years.

 

It is easy to be accused of being anti-Vaisnava. Some are interested in

maintaining strict walls between different sections of the Vedic philosophy.

For neophytes that might make sense, since it all can be so confusing

otherwise, but as one learn more and more, I think the walls need to be

broken down and the understanding expanded.

 

> Again, welcome to the Group. I hope you'll post much more on your

> amaing journey with Radha Devi.

 

Thank you. Yes, I am on a kind of journey. I know only some few details about

the past to know that it is a journey. But the future is unwritten, and kind

of interesting. It is a journey that for sure goes beyond this life, into the

next, so I see it quite seriously. I am quite thrilled with finding all the

stories about the different Godesses. I recently read the description about

the Maha Vidyas, and it appears to confirm by suspicion that a lot of the

Indian philosophy is quite tainted by the women-oppressing Indian social

system. And therefore the reason for suppressing the female from Vaisnavism,

in favour of a wide spreading in the Indian social sphere. Now we kind of see

the same thing happening in the west. The spreading of only the

male-dominated indian philosophy, and relegating the female oriented to

something bad like "black magic" or similar. I think the female oriented

philosophy is incredible important, and the most imporant religious and

philosophic direction today and a very important heritage from anicent India.

 

-- Prisni

 

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

shakti_sadhnaa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prisni!

 

*** I am trying to learn a little bit of the Shakta picture of

reality, to avoid the biggest pitfalls. Some things I take for

granted might be not at all acceptable. For example, the matter about

the jiva. ***

 

Well, I am no authority, but I will answer any questions you may have

to the best of my understanding. More valuable is the fact that there

are among our members some extremely high-octane sadhaks who may be

able to help you very much. Nora and I are in the process of going

back through the archives, and translating some possibly useful

articles into html format -- go to the new homepage and click on

Articles to see what we have so far. And check back frequently,

because it will be growing fast.

 

*** It is easy to be accused of being anti-Vaisnava. Some are

interested in maintaining strict walls between different sections of

the Vedic philosophy. ***

 

I've been accused of that, too! ;-D My feeling, put very simply is

this: While all rivers of religion ultimately lead to the same Divine

Sea, it is -- for most people -- adviseable to choose an established

path and stick to it. Shaktism, with its focus on the Goddess,

definitely resonates throughout all of Hinduism -- but it *is* a path

all its own, and we try to focus on useful information regarding the

following of that path.

 

A broad declaration that "All religions are one!" is lovely to hear,

and it is true in the highest sense -- but on a practical level, it's

just a bunch of pretty words until the sadhak experientially

discovers that truth for her-/himself.

 

There is a tendency today for seekers to "pick and choose" favorite

bits from many spiritual traditions: A bit of Buddhism here, a dash

of Shaivism there, throw in some Gnosticism, garnish with Sufism, and

sprinkle with Native American spirituality before serving. The danger

in approach this is threefold:

 

(1) "Spiritual Tourist Syndrome," i.e. too much breadth without

sufficient spiritual depth -- also, as in life, every time you switch

boats, you lose time and you have to go back cover a lot of the same

distance all over again;

 

(2) "Pioneer Syndrome," i.e. when you choose to blaze your own trail

rather than following a proven route to your goal, you're choosing a

very hard route indeed, and you'll never know if it's any good until

you either do or don't reach your destination; and

 

(3) "Too-Many-Cooks Syndrome," i.e. when you toss in ingredients from

too many different recipes, a lovely broth might easily become

inedible swill.

 

*** as one learn more and more, I think the walls need to be broken

down and the understanding expanded. ***

 

Right. The key words being "as one learns more and one" -- again,

once you understand Radha as the Great Mother wiuthin the context of

Hinduism, you can lean toward a more Shakta approach to Vaishnavism

without running into the problems listed above. Because it is merely

an organic change of one's point of view within an established

religious system -- it is not a patchwork or a muddle of world

beliefs taken out of context.

 

*** a lot of the Indian philosophy is quite tainted by the women-

oppressing Indian social system ***

 

A lot of every religious system of earth is tainted to varying

degrees with misogyny. Of course there is a philosophical difference

between the Divine Feminine and the Divine Masculine, versus the

human female and the human male. For example, the author(s) of the

Devi Bhagavata Purana -- which extols the Divine Feminine like no

other non-Tantric scripture in Hinduism -- contains passages that are

absolutely disdainful of human women. Pure Shaktism is an especially

demanding discipline in that it forces us to confront these

contradictions head on. Unlike many forms of Hinduism, Shaktism

posits that the material world is not an illusion, veiling the Divine

Reality -- rather, it is simply a material manifestation of that

Reality, as holy as any other aspect of the Divine Unity. Therefore,

it holds, every woman -- however tamasic in character she may appear

-- is in somewise a manifestation of the Goddess. In effect, this

forces the sadhak to try a little harder to practice what s/he

preaches. It's a complicated issue; too much to go into here -- but

it lies at the heart of Shaktism, and must be faced by every sadhak

in her/his own time and manner.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

onsdagen den 14 augusti 2002 16.39 skrev devi_bhakta:

> A broad declaration that "All religions are one!" is lovely to hear,

> and it is true in the highest sense -- but on a practical level, it's

> just a bunch of pretty words until the sadhak experientially

> discovers that truth for her-/himself.

 

I am not good in stating what I think. I am not particularly in favour of a

"all religions are one"-approach, but I am interesting in being able to

understand reality in a kind of unified way, meaning that there is a

reasonable explanation for most things. I am not interested to get into a

dark corner with "my" religion and just "believe".

> There is a tendency today for seekers to "pick and choose" favorite

> bits from many spiritual traditions: A bit of Buddhism here, a dash

> of Shaivism there, throw in some Gnosticism, garnish with Sufism, and

> sprinkle with Native American spirituality before serving. The danger

> in approach this is threefold:

 

I don't like that. As I see it, you first have to learn the basics and

graduate in ONE path/tradition. When you have come so far, then you can look

at other things, and expand on your knowledge. But there is a need for a

solid foundation somwhere. Then I don't think that if you have such a

foundation, that it matters so much where.

> (1) "Spiritual Tourist Syndrome,"

> (2) "Pioneer Syndrome,"

> (3) "Too-Many-Cooks Syndrome,

 

I agree with everything.

> Unlike many forms of Hinduism, Shaktism

> posits that the material world is not an illusion, veiling the Divine

> Reality -- rather, it is simply a material manifestation of that

> Reality, as holy as any other aspect of the Divine Unity.

 

I have been thinking a little about this statement, which I have seen in some

other text here also. The standpoint I know is that the world is real, but we

perceive it in an illusory way. Meaning that we don't see the reality of it.

That is the illusion of Maya. Not seeing what it really is. Not that it does

not exist.

> Therefore,

> it holds, every woman -- however tamasic in character she may appear

> -- is in somewise a manifestation of the Goddess.

 

I agree. And it is not a faulty "vaisnava"-understanding either, there are

scriptural quotes to back that up. It is just not popular. I think it is a

very beautiful understanding. Looking around you in the world, you can see it

everywhere.

 

As I see it post-Caitanya Vaishnavism have quite some shakta elements. Maybe

there was a kind of combining of different faiths at that time in India?

Something for historians (with an open mind) to dig out.

 

-- Prisni

[Guest guest]

onsdagen den 14 augusti 2002 16.24 skrev MP:

> Gender is an attribute of the physical body. Soul is gender neutral.

 

As from the Shakti Sadhana home page: "In philosophy and practice, Shaktism

greatly resembles Saivism,"

so it appears that what I am speaking about is a version of Shaktism (for lack

of a better name) that resembles Vaisnavism. The philosophical conclusions

are more like (a version of) Vaisnava conclusions rather than Saivism

conclusions.

 

It is really not that I chose this path, this path chose me.

 

As a path of devotion the the female (half) of the supreme (brahman), it has

many similarities with Shakti Sadhana. There are just some philosophical

differences when you come the level of Atman, jiva and so on.

 

I can write a lot about it, but I don't think this is the time and place for

it.

 

-- Prisni

[Guest guest]

My $0.02:

 

Actually my comments were a response to a general condemnation of Indian

philosophy as male-dominated!

 

Cheers

Mukti

-

Karolina Lindqvist

Saturday, August 17, 2002 3:01 AM

Re: Re: Presentation

 

 

onsdagen den 14 augusti 2002 16.24 skrev MP:

> Gender is an attribute of the physical body. Soul is gender neutral.

 

As from the Shakti Sadhana home page: "In philosophy and practice, Shaktism

greatly resembles Saivism,"

so it appears that what I am speaking about is a version of Shaktism (for lack

of a better name) that resembles Vaisnavism. The philosophical conclusions

are more like (a version of) Vaisnava conclusions rather than Saivism

conclusions.

 

It is really not that I chose this path, this path chose me.

 

As a path of devotion the the female (half) of the supreme (brahman), it has

many similarities with Shakti Sadhana. There are just some philosophical

differences when you come the level of Atman, jiva and so on.

 

I can write a lot about it, but I don't think this is the time and place for

it.

 

-- Prisni

 

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

shakti_sadhnaa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

OM Karolina Lindqvist

 

You say, "I am not good in stating what I think."

 

But then you continue, adding "As I see it, you first have to learn

the basics and graduate in ONE path/tradition. When you have

come so far, then you can look at other things, and expand on

your knowledge. But there is a need for a solid foundation

somewhere."

 

There is no sage or swami that has said it any better. The only

caveat I would add is to put quotation marks around "graduate"

because the only time one "graduates" from their chosen path is

when they become an ascended master and are permanently

with Brahman and therefore are not with the world figuratively or

literally (unless they are an avatar - and there aren't many of

those around).

 

Your most perceptive comment is, "The standpoint I know is that

the world is real, but we perceive it in an illusory way. Meaning

that we don't see the reality of it. That is the illusion of Maya. Not

seeing what it really is. Not that it does not exist."

 

This is exactly what the problem is. Again, no one has said it

better. There is no use arguing about whether the world is real or

illusion. Unless one clearly knows (viscerally, intuitively and not

just intellectually) that God, Goddess or Brahman is present in

and the creator of all things including one's body, mind, intellect

and senses and even ego, then they have not understood what

they are looking at or who they truly are and, in that sense, are

playing with a false notion, or, as some say, are under the spell

of Maya. One is either with the Divine all the time or one is not

seeing the reality of the world.

 

As the Gita puts it, "The unreal hath no being; there is no

non-being in the Real; the truth about both has been seen by the

knowers of the Truth (or the seers of the Essence). II.16

 

 

You are somewhat mistaken, however, in arguing for the

unimportance and negativity of belief. Belief or faith is the

cornerstone of a spiritual practice. Very few of us arrive on earth

with a permanent consciousness of the Divine either within us or

outside. One requires faith in one's instinctive appreciation that

there is a Divine in order to have the discipline to follow the

requirements of the chosen spiritual path as well as to have the

discipline to not confuse the surface image of reality with reality

itself.

 

Faith, belief or Sraddha is part of the Four Means of Salvation or

Sadhana Chatushtaya. I have posted the Four Means before but

these can always stand to be reread:

 

Sadhana Chatushtaya

 

1. Viveka or Discrimination between Nitya and Anitya (eternal and

non-eternal), Sat and Asat (real and unreal), Tattwa and Atattwa

(element and non-element).

 

2. Vairagya or Dispassion, detachment, indifference to sensual

enjoyment. The opposite of Raga or attachment.

 

3. Shadsampat (Six-fold Virtues)

 

(a.) Shama or Serenity of mind through the constant

eradication of Vasanas or desires. Don't fulfil desires, reject

them through discrimination, right enquiry and dispassion. The

mind thins out and is checked from wandering. The mind is

detached from the sense-objects by continuously observing their

defects and is fixed on Brahman. The five Jnana Indriyas, the

sense organs or organs of knowledge-ear, skin, eye, tongue and

nose-are controlled through Shama.

 

(b.) Dama. Restraint of the external or motor organs (the

organs or action or the five Karma Indriyas-speech, hands, feet,

genitals and the anus-the external instruments. Corresponds to

the the Raja Yoga practice of pratyahara. Indriyas are withdrawn

by calming or restraining the mind. Raja Yogis withdraw indriyas

by restraining prana. Withdrawal most effective by withdrawing

both the mind and the prana.

 

(c.) Uparati. Self-withdrawal, extreme abstention, the turning of

the mind from objects of enjoyment.. The mind-function ceases

to act by means of external objects. No agitation or attraction

when one sees a beautiful object due to the strength of mind

developed by the practice of viveka, vairagya, shama and dama.

Cessation from wrong or unnecessary action.

 

(d.) Titiksha. Power of endurance. The ability to bear pain,

insult, heat and cold and other extremes free from anxiety or

distraction, without care to redress them and without lament.

Patience and equanimity during suffering.

 

(e.) Sraddha Unshakable faith in the existence of Brahman, in

the teachings of the Guru and scriptures, and faith in own's own

self.

 

(f.) Samadhana One-pointedness or collectedness. Samadhi

 

 

4. Mumukshutwa

Strong yearning for Liberation or Emancipation or Release

 

This is what the Gita has to say about having faith in the

scriptures of one's path:

 

"Therefore, let the scripture be the authority in determining what

ought to be done and what ought not to be done. Having known

what is said in the ordinance of the scriptures, thou should act

here in the world" XVI. 24.

 

This, of course, brings up the question of how one knows what

the scriptures say and, more importantly, what the scriptures

mean.

 

The interpretation will be according to one's nature. Or, if one

has a Guru, the Guru will be according to one's nature.

 

As the Gita says:

 

"The Blessed Lord said: 'Threefold is the faith of the embodied,

which is inherent in their nature - the sattvic (pure), the rajasic

(passionate) and the tamasic (dark)..." XVII. 2.

 

"The faith of each is in accordance with his nature, O Arjuna. The

man consists of his faith; as a man's faith is, so is he." XVII. 3

 

"The sattvic or pure worship the gods; the rajasic or passionate

worship the Yakshas and Rakshasas; the others (the tamasic or

the deluded) worship the ghosts and hosts of nature-spirits."

XVII.4

 

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

 

, Karolina Lindqvist

<pgd-karolinali@a...> wrote:

> onsdagen den 14 augusti 2002 16.39 skrev devi_bhakta:

>

> > A broad declaration that "All religions are one!" is lovely to

hear,

> > and it is true in the highest sense -- but on a practical level,

it's

> > just a bunch of pretty words until the sadhak experientially

> > discovers that truth for her-/himself.

>

> I am not good in stating what I think. I am not particularly in

favour of a

> "all religions are one"-approach, but I am interesting in being

able to

> understand reality in a kind of unified way, meaning that there

is a

> reasonable explanation for most things. I am not interested to

get into a

> dark corner with "my" religion and just "believe".

>

> > There is a tendency today for seekers to "pick and choose"

favorite

> > bits from many spiritual traditions: A bit of Buddhism here, a

dash

> > of Shaivism there, throw in some Gnosticism, garnish with

Sufism, and

> > sprinkle with Native American spirituality before serving. The

danger

> > in approach this is threefold:

>

> I don't like that. As I see it, you first have to learn the basics and

> graduate in ONE path/tradition. When you have come so far,

then you can look

> at other things, and expand on your knowledge. But there is a

need for a

> solid foundation somwhere. Then I don't think that if you have

such a

> foundation, that it matters so much where.

>

> > (1) "Spiritual Tourist Syndrome,"

> > (2) "Pioneer Syndrome,"

> > (3) "Too-Many-Cooks Syndrome,

>

> I agree with everything.

>

> > Unlike many forms of Hinduism, Shaktism

> > posits that the material world is not an illusion, veiling the

Divine

> > Reality -- rather, it is simply a material manifestation of that

> > Reality, as holy as any other aspect of the Divine Unity.

>

> I have been thinking a little about this statement, which I have

seen in some

> other text here also. The standpoint I know is that the world is

real, but we

> perceive it in an illusory way. Meaning that we don't see the

reality of it.

> That is the illusion of Maya. Not seeing what it really is. Not that

it does

> not exist.

>

> > Therefore,

> > it holds, every woman -- however tamasic in character she

may appear

> > -- is in somewise a manifestation of the Goddess.

>

> I agree. And it is not a faulty "vaisnava"-understanding either,

there are

> scriptural quotes to back that up. It is just not popular. I think it

is a

> very beautiful understanding. Looking around you in the world,

you can see it

> everywhere.

>

> As I see it post-Caitanya Vaishnavism have quite some shakta

elements. Maybe

> there was a kind of combining of different faiths at that time in

India?

> Something for historians (with an open mind) to dig out.

>

> -- Prisni

[Guest guest]

OM Karolina Linqvist

 

<<As a path of devotion the the female (half) of the supreme

(brahman), ...>>

 

Brahman has no parts, no gender, no characteristics at all.

 

You seem to be speaking of the female half of Brahma, i.e.

Saraswati; or of Vishnu, i.e. Lakshmi; or of Siva, i.e. Parvati. Or,

pehaps Mother Durga, which represents the motherhood aspect

of Brahman and the shakti through which Brahman manifests.

Durga is also the united chaitanya or pure consciousness of

Brahma, Vishnu AND Siva. Or, pehaps Kali, the female

counterpart of Siva. Kali is the transformative power of Divinity

that dissolves the individual into Cosmic Union through the

violent destruction and eradication of negative qualities.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

OM Mukti

 

<< Actually my comments were a response to a general

condemnation of Indian philosophy as male-dominated!>>

 

 

"Resting in Brahman, with steady intellect, and undeluded, the

knower of Brahman neither rejpoiceth on obtaining what is

pleasant nor grieveth on obtaining what is unpleasant."

Gita.V.20.

 

"With the Self unattached to external contacts, he discovers

happiness in the Self; with the self engaged in the meditation of

Brahman, he attains to the endless happiness" Gita. V.21.

 

"Let no wise man unsettle the minds of ignorant people who are

attached to action; he should engage them in all actions, himself

fulfilling them with devotion." Gita.III.26.

 

In other words, do not argue but set the example of performing

duties with diligence and without attachment so that when the

ignorant are receptive the seed of selfless service can be

implanted.

 

As Swami Sivananda said, "Reform yourself, and let the rest of

the world reform itself."

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Mukti is not the one arguing!

 

"You are somewhat mistaken, however, in arguing for the

unimportance and negativity of belief. Belief or faith is the

cornerstone of a spiritual practice. "

 

"Brahman has no parts, no gender, no characteristics at all.

 

You seem to be speaking of the female half of Brahma, i.e.

Saraswati; or of Vishnu, i.e. Lakshmi; or of Siva, i.e. Parvati."

 

"In other words, do not argue but set the example of performing

duties with diligence and without attachment so that when the

ignorant are receptive the seed of selfless service can be

implanted."

 

 

 

-

omprem

Saturday, August 17, 2002 12:33 PM

Re: Presentation

 

 

OM Mukti

 

<< Actually my comments were a response to a general

condemnation of Indian philosophy as male-dominated!>>

 

 

"Resting in Brahman, with steady intellect, and undeluded, the

knower of Brahman neither rejpoiceth on obtaining what is

pleasant nor grieveth on obtaining what is unpleasant."

Gita.V.20.

 

"With the Self unattached to external contacts, he discovers

happiness in the Self; with the self engaged in the meditation of

Brahman, he attains to the endless happiness" Gita. V.21.

 

"Let no wise man unsettle the minds of ignorant people who are

attached to action; he should engage them in all actions, himself

fulfilling them with devotion." Gita.III.26.

 

In other words, do not argue but set the example of performing

duties with diligence and without attachment so that when the

ignorant are receptive the seed of selfless service can be

implanted.

 

As Swami Sivananda said, "Reform yourself, and let the rest of

the world reform itself."

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

shakti_sadhnaa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

My humble request: Shall we put aside all these please !

 

 

Om ParaShaktiye Namaha

[Guest guest]

, "thegoddessisinme2002"

<ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

>

>

> My humble request: Shall we put aside all these please !

>

>

> Om ParaShaktiye Namaha

 

 

No, we SHALL NOT!!! We are in the Kali Yuga, a.k.a. Age of Quarrel.

Men are constantly at one another's throats; there is never any

peace; helpless animals have become food in man's cooking pots; every

nation's leaders are self-serving; the common man is exploited;

global weather is getting freakier; lawyers are reproducing faster

than humans; the most beautiful shakti (i.e woman) never wins the

beauty peageant, etc...

 

(sorry for the lame jokes

 

I am a passive reader of several separate forums on , and what I

have noticed is that at certain times of the season, these forums

simultaneously witness an out-of-the-blue wave of disagreeableness

and irritability amongst members; who in normal conditions maintain

friendly or cordial ties. And this is happening now in some of the

groups I am d to.

 

I tend to see this condition as an effect of the prevailing

discordant astrological alignments. This is not so far-fetched.

Sages, like Bhagavan Krishnananda of the Divine Life Society for

example, have pointed out that every single existent

sensual/constitutive principle in a jiva's body/sheath can be traced

to their respective ruling principle in a Deva or planetary body of

the cosmos (e.g. the eyes and sight to Sri Surya the Sun). Should all

of these constitutive principles be subtracted from a Jiva, all that

is left is the impartial, unmoving, witnessing Atmic Consciousness.

 

What this implies is that sometimes, at particularly darker planetary

configurations, the prevailing cosmological forces draw out latent,

sinister traits in the collective body of jivas on our planet; hence

the rise in the disagreeablesness amongst men (& women . Shakta

astronomers would have it that the next period where the Light from

the Central Sun irradiates more fully on our Solar System; occurs on

Navaratri.

 

Until then, we are in a free-for-all situation, I think.

 

But nevertheless, the opportunity for practice is always there even

in contentious times. Instead of wrongly viewing the person who

quarrels with us as an idiot, a stupid infidel; a person who has a

separate existence from us, the right perspective would be to view

him (and oneself) as a collection of shaktis which are temporarily

operating in a wayward manner; influenced too by the prevailing

divine cosmological forces. God as Krishna said that he controls all

jivas like puppets on a string. He does everything, not us. We have

no independent existence from Him.

 

So maybe Divine Mother herself had gotten bored of the recent lovey-

dovey pace on Shakti Sadhnaa and decided to stir up the nest

Herself?

 

A jiva never really possesses independent will (svatantrya shakti),

only God does. Every power a jiva arrogantly thinks of as his own is

eminently returnable/reducible to a higher devic or cosmological

principle. The cosmos truly exerts more influence on us than we

recognize.

 

Okay, I'm off my soap-box now.

Don't anyone kill me for this lengthy ramble!

 

 

Hari Om Tat Sat

 

OM Shanti Shanti Shanti

[Guest guest]

OM Mukti

 

<<Mukti is not the one arguing!>>

 

Mukti is most certainly one of the ones arguing. Mukti may not

have started the thread but Mukti has kept it going by coming to

the defense of what Mukti perceives as "a general

condemnation of Indian philosophy as male-dominated!"

 

Also, please do not confuse what I posted as a response to

Karolina as a response to yourself.

 

I repeat my advice to you:

 

"Resting in Brahman, with steady intellect, and undeluded, the

knower of Brahman neither rejoiceth on obtaining what is

pleasant nor grieveth on obtaining what is unpleasant."

Gita.V.20.

 

"Let no wise man unsettle the minds of ignorant people who are

attached to action; he should engage them in all actions,

himself fulfilling them with devotion." Gita.III.26.

 

Let those who confuse Indian philosophy as male-dominated

cling to their error, if they do not listen to the truth of the matter.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

OM Nora

 

We are having a discussion. If you are not interested, you do not

have to read them much less comment on them.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem