In Conversation : The Moderators Speak

[Guest guest]

M1: Ok ! Back to Shakti Sadhana business.

 

M2 : What is Shakti Sadhana NOT?

 

M3: What is Shakti Sadhana?

 

M2: It is not a do it yourself guide and NOT an ad page to get

disciples. It is a place to discuss experiences and to exchange

notes. Shakti Sadhana encompasses asana of all shathis but not

paisaachi and kshudra shakthis.

 

M3 : paisaachi and kshudra shakthis?

 

M2 : pauishachi is evil foces of ghosty origin and kshudra is evil

devine forces. Both have nothing in common with shakthi sadhana. It

is not the place to talk of devatas to attain some powers but a place

to discuss how to attain saarupya (looks) and sayujya (merger) with

Adi Paraa Shakthi whose manifestations are lalita etc. All mantras

stotras are welcome but not for material gain alone.

 

M1 : It is a satsangh -- an information exchange, a source of

friendship and communication for like-minded people.

 

M3 : I have this opinion is that Shakti Sadhana have several other

path and Sri Vidya is one of it

 

M2 : Agreed.

 

M3 : What are the other path in Shakti Sadhana beside the Sri Vidya?

 

M2 : There is Durga -Durga and her manifestations, Lashmi, Kali,

Tara, The Dasa maha vidyas in short. Essentially in each path THAT

Mahaa Vidya is treated as supreme and rest as subordinate.

 

M2 : So what is your response to Mary Ann on The goal of Shaktism?

 

M1 : The goal is the same as the goal in any form of Hinduism. It is

a path of engaging the world rather than denying it.

 

M3 : I agree we engage and enjoy life while also seeking divine.

 

M2: Is that the difference between Shaktism and Shaivism.

 

M3 : That is the main difference.

 

M1 : Shaktism = Maya is a Veil; Shavism = Maya is a Trick.

 

M2 : But isn't enjoying life a bad thing all this are illusions

as they say

 

M3 : We make illusions real because we are an illusion ourselves. We

are also part of the illusion. Like we are part of a dream.

 

M1 : Shaktism = Devi produced Shiva out of Herself; Shaivism = Shiva

produced Devi out of Himself.

 

M2 : In the deep, dreamless sleep, one rests with Brahman. In the

waking state, one rests with Brahman only after rising beyond Maya.

All else is illusion whether waking or sleeping. What do you think of

this statement?

 

M3 : When you are in dreamless sleep there is just darkness and no

feelings. THAT cannot be Brahman. Of course it is colorless,

attributeless etc. but not dynamic. The attribute of dynamism does

not exist. So can we call it brahman?

[Guest guest]

, "Nora

<ashwini_puralasamy>" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> M1: Ok ! Back to Shakti Sadhana business.

>

> M2 : What is Shakti Sadhana NOT?

>

> M3: What is Shakti Sadhana?

>

> M2: It is not a do it yourself guide and NOT an ad page to get

> disciples. It is a place to discuss experiences and to exchange

> notes. Shakti Sadhana encompasses asana of all shathis but not

> paisaachi and kshudra shakthis.

>

Great Job!! Very clear and well stated. f

[Guest guest]

>

> M1 : Shaktism = Devi produced Shiva out of Herself;

Shaivism = Shiva produced Devi out of Himself.

>

 

I'm hoping I'm still welcome here after I articulate the following. I

wonder how others feel about this idea of imbalance and

re-balancing:

 

What if neither Shakti nor Shiva produced the other? We can still

revere them as equals and as individuals unto themselves with

much to offer. We can still have groups devoted to them, without

claiming that they produced or contain each other in a way that

denies the full being of each. I am drawn to Shaktism because I

think there has been damage done by the denial of female and

male as equal, and Shaktism can help bring balance by

restoring the female to power. The object is not to create

imbalance in the other direction, however, but to create actual

balance, which our world has not known for thousands of years.

Unfortunately, I feel that imbalance exists in claiming that Shiva

contains Shakti, that Eve came from Adam's rib, that Athena

sprang from Zeus's head, etc., AND exists also in claiming that

Shakti contains Shiva; it may be the imbalance created by that

that brought on the patriarchal takeover.

[Guest guest]

Maryann:

 

Thanks for your thoughts on this matter: "What if neither Shakti nor

Shiva produced the other? We can still revere them as equals and as

individuals unto themselves with much to offer. We can still have

groups devoted to them, without claiming that they produced or

contain each other in a way that denies the full being of each."

 

Well put. These are indeed sectarian questions. If we agree

that "God" or the "Ultimate Divine" encompasses and transcends

everything, then She/He?It is certainly well beyond gender

distinctions and chicken-egg "who came first?" questions. Those

details are largely a matter of the devotee's viewpoint, and of the

doctrines that accompany that viewpoint.

 

Yesterday someone replied to one of your previous posts, saying "why

this obsession with god as a female?"

 

Obsession is a backhanded term for bhakti, I guess. But as for the

rest of the question? It's a little circular in this forum -- like

asking a Christian, "why this obsession with Jesus?" or a

Krishnavite "why this obsession with Krishna?" or a Muslim "why this

obsession with Allah?" It's simply the devotee's chosen approach. If

God as a Female doesn't float your boat, it doesn't mean you're on

the highway to hell, or on the wrong path, or a bad person -- it

simply means you're not a Shakta. No biggie. Go your own way and

blessings to you.

 

*** I am drawn to Shaktism because I think there has been damage done

by the denial of female and male as equal, and Shaktism can help

bring balance by restoring the female to power. The object is not to

create imbalance in the other direction, however, but to create

actual balance, which our world has not known for thousands of years.

***

 

That's probably true. A religion reveals more about itself in its

social manifestations than in its scriptures. You mentioned the

book "Chalice and the Blade," and that certainly makes a strong

social argument for restoring the feminine dimensions of religion.

But that is not Shaktism's ultimate "object" -- it is merely a

desireable and organic side benefit. Do not forget that -- beyond

such temporal boons -- Shakta approaches to worship are valuable in

and of themselves. Quite simply, the feminine approach to the Divine

is an extremely powerful and fulfilling form of spiritual practice.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

db writes...

 

" Shakta approaches to worship are valuable in > and of themselves.

Quite simply, the feminine approach to the Divine > is an extremely

powerful and fulfilling form of spiritual practice."

 

at last" we got a 'mission statement" that makes more sense than

this "gender" stuff!

 

exactly! without " bhavana" (emotion ) how can one approach Brahman?

 

and is that not why our divine mother is called Bhavani? (one whio is

full of bhavana)

 

sree lalita sahasaranama describes "'bhavani" as

 

 

BavaanaI Baavanaagamyaa BavaarNyakuzairka |

Bad`iP`ayaa Bad`maUit- Ba@tsaaOBaagyadaiyanaI ||

Bai@tiP`ayaa Bai@tgamyaa Bai@tvaSyaa Bayaapha |

SaaMBavaI SaardaraQyaa Savaa-NaI Sava-daiyanaI ||

 

 

The purpose of Bhavani (divine mother worship) is to take you to

Brahman and when you achieve Brahmanb, bhaya (fear) goes away. Till

then you have to take refuge in Bhavani - that which has to be

touched by Bhavana. (bhakti) All upasana is based on bhavana only;

but unfortunately most Sadhakas are only bothered by details. If we

don't have bhava then an idol will be just an idol. If we have bhava,

shakti will manifest there. So bhava has to be invoked.

 

 

this is the reason why even an advaitin like adi shankara took refuge

in the worship of the divine mother and composed such beautiful hymns

on Mahalakshmi , saraswati, lalithamBka , kamakshi, meenakshi etc...

 

hari aum tat sat

[Guest guest]

Maryann:

I am just answering your aprehension

"I'm hoping I'm still welcome here after I articulate the following"

No body will be declared unwelcome for making a point.

 

Kochu

"Mary Ann <maryann" <maryann

wrote:

>

> M1 : Shaktism = Devi produced Shiva out of Herself;

Shaivism = Shiva produced Devi out of Himself.

>

 

I'm hoping I'm still welcome here after I articulate the following. I

wonder how others feel about this idea of imbalance and

re-balancing:

 

What if neither Shakti nor Shiva produced the other? We can still

revere them as equals and as individuals unto themselves with

much to offer. We can still have groups devoted to them, without

claiming that they produced or contain each other in a way that

denies the full being of each. I am drawn to Shaktism because I

think there has been damage done by the denial of female and

male as equal, and Shaktism can help bring balance by

restoring the female to power. The object is not to create

imbalance in the other direction, however, but to create actual

balance, which our world has not known for thousands of years.

Unfortunately, I feel that imbalance exists in claiming that Shiva

contains Shakti, that Eve came from Adam's rib, that Athena

sprang from Zeus's head, etc., AND exists also in claiming that

Shakti contains Shiva; it may be the imbalance created by that

that brought on the patriarchal takeover.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

 

 

[Guest guest]

"I'm hoping I'm still welcome here after I articulate the following"

 

Mary Ann, I have just one word for you : TALK !!!! LOL.

 

 

 

Om ParaShaktiye Namaha

[Guest guest]

OM Nora

 

<<M1 : Shaktism = Maya is a Veil; Shavism = Maya is a Trick.>>

 

Please explain the difference between veil and trick. One

person's veil is another person's trick. The result is the same -

estrangement from Truth.

 

<<M2 : But isn't enjoying life a bad thing all this are illusions

as they say

 

M3 : We make illusions real because we are an illusion

ourselves. We

are also part of the illusion. Like we are part of a dream.>>

 

An illusion is an illusion all the time. It may seem real when we

choose to remain part of the illusion but when through intense

sadhana we step outside of illusion, outside of time and space,

then we can see the illusion as an illusion and our true Self as

outside of it.

 

You can know yourself as human and have a goal of enjoying life

or you can know yourself as Divine and know that the 'enjoyment'

you feel has nothing to do with the world or life and is in fact the

Ananda that accompanies Self-realization.

 

With additional intense sadhana, you might even recognize that

Ananda too is an obstacle to knowing Brahman or knowing

yourself as Brahman.

 

<<M3 : When you are in dreamless sleep there is just darkness

and no feelings. THAT cannot be Brahman. Of course it is

colorless, attributeless etc. but not dynamic. The attribute of

dynamism does not exist. So can we call it brahman?>>

 

 

If one are not Self-realized, how does one know that in deep,

dreamless sleep there is just darkness and no feelings.

 

 

Dynamism, creation and energy are all just aspects of Brahman.

They are not Brahman. Brahman exists independent of

dynamism. Think of the day and night of Brahma: after 1 Day of

Brahma, 1,000 Mahayugas, all forms of life of earth are

destroyed in floods. This is Pralaya. During the Night of Brahma,

also 1,000 Mahayugas, there is no life, no dynamism, all is

submerged. Yet Brahman continues to exist.

 

After 1 life span of Brahma, i.e. 1 full night and day of Brahma X

360 X 100, Maha Pralaya occurs and the universe is dissolves.

but still Brahman exists.

 

The universe awakens as OM vibrates it back into differentiating

and the cycle begins again.

 

A vibrating universe or a universe in dissolution is independent

of Brahman. To focus on vibration is to be mesmerized and

diverted from the Truth.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPrem ji:

 

You referenced a statement from Nora's post:

 

"Shaktism = Maya is a Veil; Shavism = Maya is a Trick."

 

And you asked: "Please explain the difference between veil and

trick. One person's veil is another person's trick. The result is

the same - estrangement from Truth."

 

That was my statement that Nora quoted. It is imprecise, I agree;

mainly because I spouted it off during an IM chat. Allow me to

clarify.

 

IMHO, the difference is this: Shaktism says the manifest world is

Real. It is the Truth -- just not the whole Truth. It is a portion of

the Divine. It is Mother's body, and the means through which we can

reach Mother's transcendent aspects. But the manifest world does not,

on its surface, show us all we need to see and know. Thus we say it

is veiled -- with the idea of a protective veil. For example, think

of how Mother Earth's atmosphere filters the solar rays that would

kill us, while allowing the rays the nourish and sustain to reach us.

In our finite physical bodies, we need to function (as you once

eloquently put it) in a world of three dimensions that is subject to

the laws of physics, etc. Our senses enable us to survive while our

souls evolve within, absorbing the pleasures, sufferings and lessons

of the flesh. Thus this veil is a gift of the Cosmic Mother.

 

Shaivism, at least in Sankara's Advaita formulation, would say that

the manifest world is not Real. It is a distraction, a diversion from

the true work of of the spirtual aspirant. It is a false, albeit

sometimes alluringly pretty thing, that we must learn to ignore,

overcome, deny -- so that we may at last find the Truth, which is the

Transcendent Brahman alone. In that conception, I think it is fair to

say that Maya is a trick. It is not Truth, or even partial Truth --

whereas the veil assumes that what we see and feel around us *is* at

least a glimpse of the larger Truth.

 

Thus -- and I know that I am painting in very broad strokes here, but

I am simply trying to make a rough distinction -- Shaivism tends

toward a monastic ideal: A retreat from the world; a way of finding

GOD by gradually shedding all of the things that GOD is not, unless

at last we reach the shining core. By contrast, Shaktism -- while

sharing many commonalities with Shaivism at other levels -- tends

toward a worldly ideal: Finding GOD by *engaging* the world rather

than denying it. Attempting to discern the Divine that our beliefs

teach exists in EVERYTHING. Thus we reach GOD by embracing the world -

- and GOD at last reveals Herself as the object of that embrace and

invites us into the transcendence beyond.

 

So you're right to say that we are talking about two roads that both

start and end in the same place -- but the difference in approach is

definitely there. I hope that clarifies what I was attempting to say,

whether it seems right or wrong to whomever may be reading it.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

This discussion on Shaktism vs Shaivism is reminiscent of our

discussion of Tantra, that is, it may turn out to be a distinction

without a difference.

 

You say that Shaktism claims that the manifest world is real, the

truth, but that it is just not the whole truth, that " It is Mother's

body and the means through which we can reach Mother's

transcendent aspects. But the manifest world does not, on its

surface, show us all we need to see and know. Thus we say it is

veiled." But veils can ensnare and trip one up. They can seduce

and mislead. They obscure reality by creating another false

reality.

 

In my meditation classes, I often speak of meditation as the

means by which we remove the veils, one by one, until we arrive,

at last, at the clear, unequivocal truth. You seem to see these

veils as protective, with our senses enabling us to survive while

somehow enabling our souls to "evolve within absorbing the

pleasures, sufferings and lessons of the flesh." But the soul

does not evolve; it does not not need to evolve or to absorb any

experiences or lessons of the flesh; it is already pure, complete

and uncontaminated. It is not the Anandamaya Kosha that needs

to learn from experience of the world. It is the Vijnanamaya

Kosha, i.e. the intellect and the ego, and the Manomaya Kosha,

i.e. mind, chitta (sub-conscious) and Jnana Indriyas or organs of

knowledge that need to learn lessons from experience with the

world. Also, it is the senses, themselves, the methods by which

the Jnana Indriyas operate that need to learn from their

experience of the world. What they need to learn is that they are

inadequate and wholly incapable of delivering sufficient

information of Transcendental Truth. The senses are both

specialized and flawed. Sight, of example, does not inform one

of television or radio waves passing through the room where I

am writing this or the place where you are reading this. The

senses had narrow threshholds and exclude a great amount of

information about the world, about the universe and about

Brahman. In additon, the senses are often flawed - people need

eye glasses, hearing aids, etc. Also, the sensations received by

the senses are misidentified by the mind, intellect, and

sub-conscious. The main message in all of this is that one

should seek other means of acquiring knowlege, not only of the

world but of the transcendental. This different means of

knowledge is contained in the chakras. One accesses that

knowledge by sadhana to purify the mind, intellect,

sub-conscious, body, pranas, and Indriyas.

 

You claim that "our senses enable us to survive" as if mere

survival is a good thing. Just to put survival into perspective allow

me to point out two things: first, Patanjali says that one of the

kleshas that keep us bound to the world without any spiritual

progress is abhinvesah, the fear of death or the attachment to

life; also, in terms of consciousness, the ultimate state of

consciousness or knowlege is Turiya or perpetual samadhi

where the yogi does not perform his duties either through his

own will or that of others with the result that his body is dropped

approximately three days after entering this state.

 

You seem to imply that sensory experiences are useful, while

Patanjali says "Drastr-drsyayoh samyoga heya-hetuh" or "The

cause of future Karma is the identification of the experiencer with

the object that is being experienced."

 

I think it cannot be said that a veil such as that created by the

senses is partial truth or even a portion of the Divine. Yes, the

senses were created by the Divine and yes the world was

created by the Divine, but, only as a test of our perspicacity.

Eventually, we see tha life of the senses and the ego is one of

long periods of dis-ease and estrangement punctuated by short

periods of pleasure. We come to see that something else is

both required and possible. We develop other means of

acquiring knowledge. We ride Kundalini to Brahman and, after

exhausting our karma without acquiring more karma because of

our focus on Brahman, we transcend the cycle of birth, life, death

and rebirth.

 

Your description of Shaivism as espoused by Shankara is clear

and correct, except that it is not a retreat from the world. The

world is seen as it truly is - changeable, inconsequential, a

snare and a delusion. Your description of Shaivism as "a way of

finding GOD by gradually shedding all of the things that GOD is

not, unless at last we reach the shining core" is actually a

description of the Jnana Yoga technique of `Neti, Neti'.

 

Shaivism doesn't so much deny the world as deny that the world

as presented to our senses doesn't exist. Of course, any

physicist would also agree with this because to him or her, there

is no matter or motion or colour, only energy.

Shaivites or Vedantists say there is no matter or motion or colour

or energy, only Brahman.

 

You say that Shaktism claims to find "GOD by *engaging* the

world rather than denying it. Attempting to discern the Divine that

our beliefs teach exists in EVERYTHING." Of course, discerning

the Divine in everything (that appears otherwise to the senses

and the ego) is what Shaivism or Vedanta does as well.

Shaivites engage the world in the sense of doing their duty while

also reminding themselves that the world of the senses is not

real and does not contain truth. Shaivites engage Brahman

whether in the world of the senses or outside of it. The focus is

Brahman, not on the karma-generating pleasures and pains of

the world. The information of the senses is one thing, the

response of the emotions to that information is another. The

Shaivite seeks not to have an emotional attachment to a figment

because to do that separates him/her from Brahman and results

in more karma. Viveka, that is, discrimination between the Real

and the unreal, Truth and fiction or illusion, Self and nonself and

Vairagya, that is, dispassion, mastery over emotion and passion,

and mastery over the gunas are two cardinal virtues for the

Shaivite or Advaita Vedantin.

 

So, my friend, if Shaivism seeks to see God (Brahman) in

everything, all the time, through moving beyond the surface

appearance and the emotions generated by that appearance

and if Shaktism, by your account, seeks to "reach GOD by

embracing the world" in such a way that

"GOD at last reveals Herself as the object of that embrace"

where is the difference?

 

As I stated at the outset, Shaktism vs. Shaivism is a case of

distinction without a difference. Once again, we agree with each

other completely. Paths are many, but Truth is One.

 

Om Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPrem ji!

 

*** This discussion on Shaktism vs Shaivism is reminiscent of our

discussion of Tantra; that is, it may turn out to be a distinction

without a difference. ***

 

This is true, of course, in the ultimate sense. The Vedanta Society

is a good example of an organization that – in following the teaching

of Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, etc. – promulgates this idea: That all

of the schools of Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and

Paganism eventually bring you to the same place. They quote a

Sanskrit hymn: "As different streams in different places all mingle

their water in the sea, so the different paths which people take,

through various tendencies, various though they appear crooked or

straight, all lead to Thee."

 

As Paul Simon once sang, "Who am I to blow against the wind?"

 

Your post argued clearly and eloquently about the unreliability of

the physical senses and the eternal purity of the Soul. And you

concluded that in Shaivism, "The world is seen as it truly is –

changeable, inconsequential, a snare and a delusion. … Shaivism

doesn't so much deny the world as deny that the world as presented to

our senses doesn't [sic] exist."

 

Well, that simply reflects your Shaiva leanings, just as my

presentation reflected my Shakta leanings. And viva la difference!

Because what I am talking about is not ultimate goals, but rather the

individual paths to that goal. Even if we agree (and I'm sure we do)

that the various Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and Muslim sects all lead

to the same place, surely we will nonetheless also agree that they

are very distinct paths. Each with its own uniquely beautiful

scriptures and traditions, mythologies and rituals, belief systems,

music, poetry, hymns, art … and so on. The Shaiva and Shakta paths

are similar, but not the same, particularly at the more "mundane"

level where most of us exist for now. As a friend recently wrote to

me, "It seems pointless to philosophize about it, because the paths

are different, and people definitely have their preferences."

 

Which also goes to another statement in your response, that "any

physicist would also agree [that] there is no matter or motion or

colour, only energy."

 

But that again gets into the Shaiva/Shakta distinction – whether it's

a distinction without a difference or not. Physicists don't deny

matter, motion and color – they simply see it as a partial truth –

like Shaktas. Newton's physical laws are still very much applicable

to almost every calculation useful in our actual lives. That brick

that just smashed into your toe is real – even though both brick and

toe are ultimately indistinguishable parts of the same energy

continuum. And the continuum doesn't make it safe for kids to play in

traffic. Matter, motion, color and energy will very quickly give you

a most painful relativity lesson unless you are a highly trained

adept. Einstein's theories merely showed that the Newtoniam laws are

relative – that they become less and less applicable at a cosmic

level. The laws are still real – but they become but partial

manifestations of the larger movement of the cosmos.

 

*** Shaivites or Vedantists say there is no matter or motion or

colour or energy, only Brahman. ***

 

Shaktas, again, like the physicists, say it's all energy (or in

Sanskrit, Shakti!) and that Shakti is but the manifest (and real) tip

of the larger iceberg, which is Her reality as the manifest, non-

manifest, and transcendent Brahman. But hey – now I'm getting into

that pointless philosophical stuff again. Better stop now, or we'll

be going in circles forever. ;-)

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

thank you for these beautiful thought stream -- the part about

the different streams is very nice especially

 

peace, love and poetic license,

cathie

, "Devi Bhakta

<devi_bhakta>" <devi_bhakta> wrote:

The Vedanta Society

> is a good example of an organization that – in following the

teaching

> of Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, etc. – promulgates this idea: That all

> of the schools of Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and

> Paganism eventually bring you to the same place. They quote a

> Sanskrit hymn: "As different streams in different places all mingle

> their water in the sea, so the different paths which people take,

> through various tendencies, various though they appear crooked or

> straight, all lead to Thee."

>

> As Paul Simon once sang, "Who am I to blow against the wind?"

>

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

You said, "That brick that just smashed into your toe is real –

even though both brick and toe are ultimately indistinguishable

parts of the same energy continuum... Matter, motion, color and

energy will very quickly give you a most painful relativity lesson

unless you are a highly trained adept. Einstein's theories merely

showed that the Newtoniam laws are relative – that they become

less and less applicable at a cosmic level."

 

We are all adepts in the making. It is not the case that are adepts

and then are the rest of us. What keeps each of us from being an

adept and therefore able to operate beyond the physical laws is

our willingness to cling to the information provided by the

senses as real and so identify ourselves with that reality. We

short-change ourselves and deny our true Self by choosing to

believe the world of the senses is a reality.

 

The spiritual practices of any path, Shaktism or Shaivism, for

example, are intended to purify the understanding of the

adherent so that he/she increasingly realizes that the world of

the sense is an illusion, a waystop on the road to

Satchidananda. The adherent realizes that purpose of the

spiritual practices of a particular path is provide him/her with the

ability to move beyond the world of the senses. The adherent

performs the spiritual practices of a given path and moves

beyond the limits of the sensory information into the akasha and

beyond to Brahman.

 

Every spiritual path is a process of purification and

deconstruction. Its practices lift the veils that obscure Reality,

remove the filters of conditioning by family, school, peers,

community, workplace, country, religion, karmic influences and

the senses so that, at last, one is not only aware of their True

Self but also identifies with that limitless Self just as the wave

eventually merges back into the ocean.

 

As Patanjali says in the Raja Yoga Sutras (1. 2-4)

 

Yogas chitta-vrtti-nirodhad

Yoga is restraining the activities of the mind.

 

Tada drastah svarupe 'vasthanam

At that time (when the thought waves are stilled), the perceiver

rests in his own true nature.

 

Vrtti-sarupyam itaratra

When the mind is not concentrated, the perceiver identifies with

its modifications.

 

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Re:

> *** This discussion on Shaktism vs Shaivism is reminiscent of

our

> discussion of Tantra; that is, it may turn out to be a distinction

> without a difference. ***

>

The topics addressed in the e-forum have caused me to revisit

Omprem's first message to Devi Bhakta about Shaivism not

ultimately leading to a different place than Shakta. I can't locate

Omprem's first message, but part of it is addressed in this one

by Devi Bhakta. Omprem's message struck me as missing

important points of Shakta, and also made me realize why I'm

not a Shaivite. Emotions are not something to get stuck in.

Neither do we want to get stuck in the grooves of mind chatter.

Yet, emotions are streams that lead to the sea, just as thoughts

are streams that lead to the sea. I prefer to frolic in the streams

on my way to the sea, rather than to keep pointing at each

stream and saying: "That's not the sea! That's not the sea!" I

don't care that it's not the sea: I love it for what it is. I love it in an

attached way, and I love it in a detached way. I like to emphasize

the "Mmmm" in Om

[Guest guest]

"emotions are streams that lead to the sea, just as thoughts

> are streams that lead to the sea."

 

Wanted to add: "emotions are streams that lead to and from the

sea, just as thoughts are streams that lead to and from the sea."

[Guest guest]

OM Mary Ann

 

You have brought up an important misconception about vairagya

or the practice of renouncing, rejecting, abandoning passion as

one of the main ways of attaining to the Divine.

 

One gives up attachment to passion and emotions because one

is connected with the Divine and filled Compassion instead. The

difference is this: emotion is associated with the senses and a

belief the phenomenal world is real. Compassion or Cosmic

Love is not emotion: it is simply Ananda, the effect of super

consciousness or direct experience of everything being

connected and One.

 

The Compassionate person is sharing God's viewpoint of

humanity, i.e. seeing people scurrying around to satisfy their ego

and desire and all the while not realizing that the one desire that

is driving them is the desire to be united with God. Those with

Compassion have sympathy for the plight of humanity and also

knowledge that eventuallty all and each will be reunited with God

as they come to recognize their true nature and the false or

illusory nature of the phenomenal world.

 

It is possible to be intensely engaged with the world and with

God at the same time. But one needs to constantly remember

that it is always God with which one is engaged: there is no

world without God being present, no action without God being

present. Just because others do not recognize God in their lives

or in all of their actions, one has to resist being pulled into that

mistake, that inappropriate mindset. Staying connected to God,

results in a Compassionate overview of the world and people's

actions. You value the people more, because you recognize their

divinity and have a long term karmic view of their eventual

resolution of their psychic misalignment and their

misidentification with the events of the sense.

 

To feel emotion, whether joy or sorrow, is to move a little away

from God and a little toward believing that the world is as the

senses presents it, i.e. a collection of separate objects vying for

access to scarce resources. With this sensory view of the world,

life consists of short periods of happiness or pleasurable

feelings interspersed between long periods of unhappiness,

estrangement, and conflict. To view all with Compassion is to

stay connected with God and with the people in your life as

Divine beings, true manifestations of the Divine.

 

In Yoga terms, one strives for four things :

(a) vidya: wisdom and spiritual knowledge, the end of avidya or

ignorance of the true nature of oneself and the world;

(b) viveka: recognition of the distinction between the Real (the

Divine) and the unreal (the mundane), the transcendental Self

(your true Divine nature) and the nonself or self (the phenomenal

self of the senses, ego, mind, intellect);

© abhyasa or the practical application of the various techniques

for raising consciousness that are associated with any spiritual

path;

(d) vairagya or dispassion, the practice of renunciation, the

rejection/abandonment of, or refusal to identify with passion and

emotion and the embracing of a Divine, Cosmic overview

instead.

 

 

Also, you said , "I like to emphasize the "Mmmm" in Om :)".

 

When repeating OM, I like to concentrate on the silence after

each OM: that transcendental silence is created by OM and is the

reason why one repeats OM.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

 

 

 

, "Mary Ann

<maryann@m...>" <maryann@m...> wrote:

> Re:

> > *** This discussion on Shaktism vs Shaivism is reminiscent

of

> our

> > discussion of Tantra; that is, it may turn out to be a distinction

> > without a difference. ***

> >

> The topics addressed in the e-forum have caused me to revisit

> Omprem's first message to Devi Bhakta about Shaivism not

> ultimately leading to a different place than Shakta. I can't locate

> Omprem's first message, but part of it is addressed in this one

> by Devi Bhakta. Omprem's message struck me as missing

> important points of Shakta, and also made me realize why I'm

> not a Shaivite. Emotions are not something to get stuck in.

> Neither do we want to get stuck in the grooves of mind chatter.

> Yet, emotions are streams that lead to the sea, just as

thoughts

> are streams that lead to the sea. I prefer to frolic in the streams

> on my way to the sea, rather than to keep pointing at each

> stream and saying: "That's not the sea! That's not the sea!" I

> don't care that it's not the sea: I love it for what it is. I love it in an

> attached way, and I love it in a detached way. I like to

emphasize

> the "Mmmm" in Om

[Guest guest]

"emotion is associated with the senses and a

> belief the phenomenal world is real."

 

Not necessarily: it simply means you are experiencing the

feelings that come with being embodied.

>

" To feel emotion, whether joy or sorrow, is to move a little away

> from God"

 

Disagree.

 

"To view all with Compassion is to

> stay connected with God and with the people in your life as

> Divine beings, true manifestations of the Divine."

 

Agree.

>

 

"When repeating OM, I like to concentrate on the silence after

> each OM: that transcendental silence is created by OM and is

the

> reason why one repeats OM."

 

This may be your reason, and the reason of a lot of people, but it

is not the only reason for "one" to say or repeat OM. There is

healing in the sound vibration itself, not only in the silent space.

OM is vast.