To Sivadancer

[Guest guest]

, "Nora

<ashwini_puralasamy>" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> `Now you must be wondering why on earth did I ask the question .

Lets

> go back to message 4429, what did I asked : "Can you tell me more

> about this dirty being?"

>

> Why am I interested in this dirty being. Over at this part of the

> world, there is a myth about a "pontianak" [ a malay verse ].

> According to the myth these are woman who died during childbirth or

> during their pregnancy. They are supposedly a blood sucking being

who

> target man only. I heard so much about her, that it is my wish that

> perhaps DEVI would allow me to meet this "pontianak'. Are

> they really

> what society perceived them to be or it is just a myth, used to

> disseminate fear amongst the people here. She might just be another

> innocent lost soul, seeking salvation. So I am trying to connect

> these "pontianak" and the Dakini the dirty being that Dakinic

> monk

> mention. From what I gather there is no ritual or sadhana with

> regards to this `pontianak' That is all !

 

Namaskar Nora! I realized after I sent my post that you DID ask for

more information, but not specifically on how to invoke the "filthy

dakini." Here we had sincere members asking dakinic_monk left and

right all about invoking the divine, not the filthy, and it took a lot

for him to disclose anything. And then suddenly he throws out this

dangerous sadhana so nonchalantly, unasked.

 

I absolutely appreciate your fearlessness for the unknown -- I am the

same way. All this talk of ghosts and occult and filthy

beings...sometimes I think the seers included such talk in their

scriptures to scare off those who wouldn't be capable of further

achievement with such fears. On the way to Devi's feet, She will test

our mettle, hammer and refine us until we become like stainless steel

that can withstand Her darshan. I feel that overcoming fear of unknown

beings is further along on the path because at his point, you start to

KNOW that these things are REAL!

 

>

> Now for something serious , I like to bring to your attention to

this

> statement :

>

> "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 is your opinion with regards to this statement as a Shakta?

 

Nora! This is an EXTREMELY HEAVY question that various Hindu and

Buddhist schools of thought have wrangled over for centuries! There is

no right answer; the only "answer" that could come close is when your

brain short circuits after trying to reason it out and then you enter

into the quiet, soft stillness...

 

To help short circuit our brains, I have included an excerpt from Adi

Shankara's "Manasollasa" which is a treatise on Advaita. "Manasollasa"

translates as "that which exhilirates the mind." Indeed, my mind is

not as sharp as I would like it to be, but reading this treatise I

think is meant to pound it away into nothingness! I will post later

the entire piece which came to us c/o Sri Harshanandanatha. Here is

the relevant excerpt:

 

Consider some doubts! If it is averred that this world is

established in Ishwara in the waking state also, just as it was

established in him in the dream state, then: In the deep sleep state,

what appears to whom? In that state, who is the being that is

constant? This is the objection raised by the Sunyavadins, nihilists

among Buddhists. This is funny, but listen to their

views: `Everything is momentary and void. Each and everything is born

in one moment, stays for one moment and is destroyed in the next

moment. Everything is self-comprehending i.e. there is no division of

the knower and the known. The bodies of the beings are assemblages of

the five Skandhas. These Skandhas are: Roopa skandha, Vijnana

skandha, Sanjnaa Skandha, Samskara Skandha and Vedanaa Skandha. The

objects and sense organs are called Roopa skandha since they

are `formed' (Roopa=form) in the mind. Knowledge of the sense-objects

and sense organs is christened as Vijnana skandha. Name, quality,

action, species and knowledge of specialty – this is the fivefold

aspect of the Samjnaa Skandha. For the cows, the `name' is stated to

be `cow'. The `species' is `cowness', which is inherent in all

cows. `Quality' is whiteness etc. `Actions' are referred to when we

say, `It goes' etc. `Knowledge of the specialty is of this

form: `This animal has horns, four legs and a tail'. Thus, the

Samjnaa Skandha is stated to be limited to these five. Attachment, as

also merit and demerit are called Samskara Skandha. Happiness and

misery, as also liberation is named as Vedanaa skandha. Verily, apart

from these five Skandhas, no other Atman exists at all. Nor is there

any creator called Ishwara at all. The world contains in itself all

the excellence. In other words, the various processes in this world,

like creation or regulation, take place all by themselves. The world

is born out the Skandhas and Paramanus, which are of momentary

existence. World of the succeeding moment arises out of the world of

the preceding moment'. This is what the Buddhists propose.

 

Now, remembrance is actually `re-cognition', cognition of

something that has already been cognized. If none existed during the

deep sleep state and it was all void according to the Buddhists, then

who is it that recognizes himself as, `It is I who slept' after

waking up? Devadutta's previous experiences can be remembered or re-

cognized by Devadutta only and not by Brahmadutta who did not undergo

those experiences. So, this proves the existence of a permanent Atman

who endures through all the states of consciousness. If void is the

cause of this world, then the world itself cannot be proved to exist.

If there is none to assemble the Skandhas and the Paramanus, there

will be no assemblage since there is no cause to achieve it. In the

absence of a potter, the mere existence of clay, wheel and stick will

not automatically produce the pot. Similarly, if Ishwara, the

sentient creator is not accepted, then there can be no creation. What

for does the Buddhist, who denies the existence of the Atman keep

religious vows? Since according to him, the `conscious entity' is

constantly changing, the `entities' that perform the religious acts

like fasting are different, so also the `entities' that will reap the

fruits of these acts! If one earns something and another enjoys it,

why should the person take all that trouble?

 

A person engages himself in some action or desists from it,

depending on the previous experience and memories of pleasure or

pain. Actions giving pleasure or pain are repeated, others are given

up. This is possible only if the continuity of the personality is

accepted, which is what Pratyabhijnaa or re-cognition indicates. If

this Pratyabhijnaa is an illusion, then no continuity of activities

is possible in this world.

 

Giving room is an essential act of Akasha (space or ether),

which proves its existence. In the same way, being a doer, knower

etc., are the essential acts that prove the existence of the Atman.

Because the Atman is a conscious independent entity, therefore, he

can think and act. Conversely, because a person can think and act

independently, therefore he is a conscious entity, the Atman. Acts of

thinking and doing proceed from the awareness of oneself first as a

conscious entity. Because the Atman is of the nature of truth,

knowledge and bliss, even at the time of deep sleep, he is recognized

through the statement, `I slept happily'! Being a knower and doer,

based on which the existence of the Atman was proved, is an obvious

fact in the waking state and to a lesser extent, in the dream state

also. But what about the dreamless sleepless state? Since there is

remembrance of the deep sleep experience (Pratyabhijnaa) after waking

up, the existence of consciousness is proved; hence the existence of

the Atman also. Awareness of himself (Jnana) and feeling of joy

(Sukha) even without the existence of and contact with a second

object, prove that he is Satya – Jnana – Sukhatmaka.

Karma is the object of action. Kartru is the agent of the

action. When the effect of the action of an object is upon the agent

itself, the usage is called Karma Kartari Prayoga. For eg., `Rice is

cooked'. Here, in the process of re-cognition, after deep sleep, the

person who recognizes and the person recognized are both the same.

How is this possible? Because, the Atman is self-revealing. When we

say, `I see', `I go' and so on, it is obvious that the rel `I', the

Atman, which is separate from the body, the senses, the mind etc.,

and acting as their Lord, that is doing all this. This fact can be

discovered by Viveka or Vichaara (discrimination) as taught in the

Srutis by the enlightened sages.

 

It is because of the great deluding power of the Lord, Maya,

that the materialists, Buddhists and others, who, though interested

in knowing the truth, could not know it! When this Maya is dispelled

by the grace of their Lord, the Atman who is ever present

automatically shines. It is the Atman who is beyond the three states

of consciousness, namely waking, dream state and the state of deep

sleep. It is he who is free from all defects like attachment,

aversion or delusion. He is the one who can be compared to the seed

of the banyan tree. This seed is extremely small, but produces a

mighty banyan tree. Similarly, the Atman is extremely fine and

subtle, but is capable of manifesting this apparently limitless

universe. The Atman is without parts or modifications. Anything that

has parts or gets modified is liable to destruction. Since the Atman

is eternal, he is partless and without modifications. He is the

unmanifest. He cannot be comprehended by the mind like the other

objects. He is full and all-alone. The Atman inside is the Supreme

Lord of the outside world also.

> Mary Ann question us : What is the goal of Shaktism? We have discuss

> this briefly last night during our conference, but I love to hear

> you comments on this.

 

This one is easy: TO BECOME DEVI!

 

Sri Adi Shankara prays to Lalita Mahatripurasundari in his Saundarya

Lahiri: "Let me be You!" She is all the things that we could want to

be and this is the most sincere prayer that could encapsulate all our

desires in our worship of Devi.

> Om Pa

[Guest guest]

--- "sivadancer" wrote:

<snip>

> Similarly, if Ishwara, the sentient creator is not accepted,

> then there can be no creation. What for does the Buddhist,

> who denies the existence of the Atman keep religious vows?

 

Apologies for disturbing your beautifully intellectual duet with

Nora, but I just want to point out that Buddhism, like Hinduism, is

NOT a monolithic faith where all of its adherents stick to the exact

same metaphysical outlook. There is actually a revered text, whose

authenticity is recognized, in esoteric Buddhism in which Buddha

admits the existence of the atman and *painstakingly* qualified why

he did not openly preach it in his earliest sermons. (nb: Buddha's

conception of the atman is quite different from the hindu's

perspective, though)

 

Take my word for it. My maternal relations are all staunchly

Buddhist, and even run a Buddhist association. I have seen that

scripture.

 

So, just as an outsider cannot say that all Hindus are Advaita

Vedantists (the ISKCON Hare Krsnas will BURN him alive! And eat his

carcass too if they weren't vegetarians, LOL), so too, he can't say

that all Buddhists are outright denyers of the atman. For

historical/conventional sake though, "mainstream" Buddhism does

differentiate itself from Hinduism by its rejection of the

atman theory.

 

 

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammasambuddhassa

 

Aum Namah Sivaya

[Guest guest]

Thank you Gene! Of course, you are right. LOL, I hope I didn't offend

your maternal relations! Is it possible to find out the name of this

text?

 

AUM

 

, "gene-is-in

<shanaisharaya>" <shanaisharaya> wrote:

> --- "sivadancer" wrote:

> <snip>

> > Similarly, if Ishwara, the sentient creator is not accepted,

> > then there can be no creation. What for does the Buddhist,

> > who denies the existence of the Atman keep religious vows?

>

> Apologies for disturbing your beautifully intellectual duet with

> Nora, but I just want to point out that Buddhism, like Hinduism, is

> NOT a monolithic faith where all of its adherents stick to the exact

> same metaphysical outlook. There is actually a revered text, whose

> authenticity is recognized, in esoteric Buddhism in which Buddha

> admits the existence of the atman and *painstakingly* qualified why

> he did not openly preach it in his earliest sermons. (nb: Buddha's

> conception of the atman is quite different from the hindu's

> perspective, though)

>

> Take my word for it. My maternal relations are all staunchly

> Buddhist, and even run a Buddhist association. I have seen that

> scripture.

>

> So, just as an outsider cannot say that all Hindus are Advaita

> Vedantists (the ISKCON Hare Krsnas will BURN him alive! And eat his

> carcass too if they weren't vegetarians, LOL), so too, he can't say

> that all Buddhists are outright denyers of the atman. For

> historical/conventional sake though, "mainstream" Buddhism does

> differentiate itself from Hinduism by its rejection of the

> atman theory.

>

>

> Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammasambuddhassa

>

> Aum Namah Sivay

[Guest guest]

--- "sivadancer" wrote:

> Thank you Gene! Of course, you are right. LOL,

> I hope I didn't offend your maternal relations!

> Is it possible to find out the name of this

> text?

>

> AUM

 

 

The Great Nirvana Sutra: the third of the 3 Crown Jewels of Mahayana

Buddhism (the other two being the Avatamsaka & the Lotus). Its

authenticity is not accepted by Theravadan Buddhists who strongly

reject the atman theory. However, it is a very sacred scripture for

Mahayana Buddhists - particularly in the classical Zen or

Dhyana/Yogacara tradition.

 

Personally, I think that the "atma-affirmative" message of this text

validates the spiritual efforts of the buddhist sadhaka. Like you'd

rightly questioned, why should a sadhaka bother to practice and

acquire merits if there is no constant, unchanging entity/atma in the

deepest core of his being to dedicate these efforts to?

 

"I am THAT I am."

Aum namah Sivaya

 

 

 

ps: I wouldn't worry about offending my buddhist maternal relations.

They're sweet and harmless, LOL. Wait till you hear about those

METHODIST paternal relations of mine. AAAHHHHHH!!! ARRRGGHHHHHH!!!!

SAVE ME, DEVI!!! What wouldn't I give to have my relations all be

uniformly Hindu or Buddhist? <sigh>