Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 I cant' understand, based on my admittedly limited knowledge of Kali combined with the things Devi says below of the gunas and of Tamas, how a butcher would be more Tamas and worship Kali. What does Kali have to do with slaughtering meat? She fights demons and a cow is not a demon. When one prays to Kali for revenge, Her wrath is a formidable force that threatens to destroy all, and yet when the same one makes him/herself helpless like a little babe, She goes to suckle him. All cows are helpless, so what does Kali have to do with being a butcher? Please forgive me if I am revealing my ignorance here, but what Devi says makes sense to me about just that much. Even the Goddess Kali is a balance of Gunas, and Her purpose, even in destruction, is to bring us closer to the Union of Shiva and Shakti -- only when we resist Her as Time and Change does She become destructive to us. So how is that "more Tamas" Blessings of the Goddess, Cathie In a message dated 10/5/2004 9:57:12 AM Mountain Daylight Time, malyavan_tibet writes: > Dear Devi Bhakta, > > Yes, you are right, Tamas is a guna. But there could be more of that > Guna in some group of people as opposed to another set of people. It > could be their food habits, their profession. Someone who cuts and > sells meat as their profession, a butcher, probably worships Kali more > than saraswati. > > Kula and Varna were very common concepts in ancient India were these > things evolved. And each varna had its own diety. Kiratha murthy is a > form of shiva worshipped by tribals. They probably do not know what > Dakshina murthy stands for. > > > > > > > >* "malyavan_tibet" wrote: *** FYI Kali is not worshipped so commonly > >among the sattwic groups/families" *** > > > >There is no such thing as a "Sattvic Group" or "Sattvic Family." There > >is no such thing as a "Tamasic" group or family either. Everything > >that exists contains all three elements. > > > >If you're making a Divya ~ Vira ~ Pasu distinction, then you should > >use those terms (though here too, the distinction is individual, and > >not group- or family- oriented). If you're making a Samaya ~ Kaula > >distinction, same deal -- just say so. But turning Sanskrit nouns into > >largely meaningless English adjectives, and then misusing those > >adjectives is just silly. > > > >Again, I am not saying this to make anyone feel bad, or to spout about > >how clever I am. I take not credit for any of these knowledge. I did > >not devise it, nor did I comprehend it easily. It was taught to me by > >qualified gurus. I am sharing it only to assist serious members who > >are curious about such matters. Those who are not will not care, nor > >will they -- in all probability -- even read this message. > > > >Thank you > > > >DB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 I realize that people have their own slants on various concepts, but -- in case anyone is interested -- I would just note that the terms Sattva, Rajas and Tamas are being tossed around in ways that make no sense. The below statements are just two of the latest examples. I am not picking on people; I just want to clarify for those who care that the terminology is being misused. * "Ellen McGowen" wrote: *** Kali people would be "tamasic" to you, no? I think in English we might say "counterculture". The word the instructor used was "antinomian", which means "opposed to the norms" .... Uppity woman land. *** Tamas is simply a guna, one of the three natural tendencies of manifest creation. It is not a "bad" guna, or even "low" in any derogatory sense. In the Union of Shakti and Shiva, tamas rests in equal stasis with Sattva and Rajas. I think the problem may be a mindset rooted in Western theology -- you see, there is no exact Hindu counterpart to the Judaic/ Christian/ Mulsim dichotomy of good vs. evil. Tamas certainly doesn't mean "counterculture," nordoes it denote a "land of uppity women." To say that is as bizarre as using nuclear physics as a basis for social criticism: "Protons are domineering men, Electrons are uppity women, Neutrons are patriarchal oppression." I mean, I get the point, but it's a pointless and silly way to illustrate the metaphor. I guess if you want to use the gunas as "symbols," to appropriate for whatever ideological agenda, you are free to do so. But if you choose to do so, it is only you who loses. Because these ideas are real and useful -- they are not symbols or slurs: "I'm Sattvic, so piss off, you Tamasic bastard!" It's just goofy. * "malyavan_tibet" wrote: *** FYI Kali is not worshipped so commonly among the sattwic groups/families" *** There is no such thing as a "Sattvic Group" or "Sattvic Family." There is no such thing as a "Tamasic" group or family either. Everything that exists contains all three elements. If you're making a Divya ~ Vira ~ Pasu distinction, then you should use those terms (though here too, the distinction is individual, and not group- or family- oriented). If you're making a Samaya ~ Kaula distinction, same deal -- just say so. But turning Sanskrit nouns into largely meaningless English adjectives, and then misusing those adjectives is just silly. Again, I am not saying this to make anyone feel bad, or to spout about how clever I am. I take not credit for any of these knowledge. I did not devise it, nor did I comprehend it easily. It was taught to me by qualified gurus. I am sharing it only to assist serious members who are curious about such matters. Those who are not will not care, nor will they -- in all probability -- even read this message. Thank you DB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Dear Devi Bhakta, Yes, you are right, Tamas is a guna. But there could be more of that Guna in some group of people as opposed to another set of people. It could be their food habits, their profession. Someone who cuts and sells meat as their profession, a butcher, probably worships Kali more than saraswati. Kula and Varna were very common concepts in ancient India were these things evolved. And each varna had its own diety. Kiratha murthy is a form of shiva worshipped by tribals. They probably do not know what Dakshina murthy stands for. > > * "malyavan_tibet" wrote: *** FYI Kali is not worshipped so commonly > among the sattwic groups/families" *** > > There is no such thing as a "Sattvic Group" or "Sattvic Family." There > is no such thing as a "Tamasic" group or family either. Everything > that exists contains all three elements. > > If you're making a Divya ~ Vira ~ Pasu distinction, then you should > use those terms (though here too, the distinction is individual, and > not group- or family- oriented). If you're making a Samaya ~ Kaula > distinction, same deal -- just say so. But turning Sanskrit nouns into > largely meaningless English adjectives, and then misusing those > adjectives is just silly. > > Again, I am not saying this to make anyone feel bad, or to spout about > how clever I am. I take not credit for any of these knowledge. I did > not devise it, nor did I comprehend it easily. It was taught to me by > qualified gurus. I am sharing it only to assist serious members who > are curious about such matters. Those who are not will not care, nor > will they -- in all probability -- even read this message. > > Thank you > > DB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 Kirata sunu is the diety peculiar to Kerala and they are NOT worshipped by tribals. They are the Ruling diety of the Ruling Families in kerala. I have a rare ashtaka of kirata soonu. Its really effective against enemy action. malyavan_tibet <malyavan_tibet wrote: Dear Devi Bhakta, Yes, you are right, Tamas is a guna. But there could be more of that Guna in some group of people as opposed to another set of people. It could be their food habits, their profession. Someone who cuts and sells meat as their profession, a butcher, probably worships Kali more than saraswati. Kula and Varna were very common concepts in ancient India were these things evolved. And each varna had its own diety. Kiratha murthy is a form of shiva worshipped by tribals. They probably do not know what Dakshina murthy stands for. > > * "malyavan_tibet" wrote: *** FYI Kali is not worshipped so commonly > among the sattwic groups/families" *** > > There is no such thing as a "Sattvic Group" or "Sattvic Family." There > is no such thing as a "Tamasic" group or family either. Everything > that exists contains all three elements. > > If you're making a Divya ~ Vira ~ Pasu distinction, then you should > use those terms (though here too, the distinction is individual, and > not group- or family- oriented). If you're making a Samaya ~ Kaula > distinction, same deal -- just say so. But turning Sanskrit nouns into > largely meaningless English adjectives, and then misusing those > adjectives is just silly. > > Again, I am not saying this to make anyone feel bad, or to spout about > how clever I am. I take not credit for any of these knowledge. I did > not devise it, nor did I comprehend it easily. It was taught to me by > qualified gurus. I am sharing it only to assist serious members who > are curious about such matters. Those who are not will not care, nor > will they -- in all probability -- even read this message. > > Thank you > > DB / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 "There is no such thing as a "Sattvic Group" or "Sattvic Family." There is no such thing as a "Tamasic" group or family either. Everything that exists contains all three elements." Yes, all three elements or gunas are present in everything, but not always in equal proportion. If the Tamas guna tends to prevail over time in an entity, then it is reasonable to term that entity tamasic. A rock is good example of a tamas entity. Similarly with Rajas and Sattva. In the case of religions, Voodoo, Santeria and Obeah could be called Tamasic religions, Sikhism is militaristic and thus could be called Rajasic. As for a Sattvic religion? I'm not sure that one exists because of the very nature of religions to be organized and exclusionary. On the other hand, everyone who has a religion would probably claim that their religion is Sattvic. Spiritual paths are a different matter from religions. And that is why I have been asking questions about the psychology/karmic load of those who practice certain spiritual paths. "Tamas is simply a guna, one of the three natural tendencies of manifest creation. It is not a "bad" guna, or even "low" in any derogatory sense. In the Union of Shakti and Shiva, tamas rests in equal stasis with Sattva and Rajas. I think the problem may be a mindset rooted in Western theology." I think this is not true either. Hindu scripture and sages state that Tamas is to be overcome by Rajas, and Rajas overcome by Sattva. They would be unlikely to be influenced by western theologies. In the union of Shiva and Shakti, Tamas (obstacles to the formation and transmission of Kundlini) is overcome by Rajas (sadhana) and Sattva (devotion). Then as Kundalini (Rajas) moves through the Sushumna and informs the various aspects of the astral body, Rajas gives way eventually to Sattva (nirvikalpa samadhi or the turiya state of consciousness). Om and Prem , "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote: > > I realize that people have their own slants on various concepts, but > -- in case anyone is interested -- I would just note that the terms > Sattva, Rajas and Tamas are being tossed around in ways that make no > sense. The below statements are just two of the latest examples. I am > not picking on people; I just want to clarify for those who care that > the terminology is being misused. > > * "Ellen McGowen" wrote: *** Kali people would be "tamasic" to you, > no? I think in English we might say "counterculture". The word the > instructor used was "antinomian", which means "opposed to the norms" > ... Uppity woman land. *** > > Tamas is simply a guna, one of the three natural tendencies of > manifest creation. It is not a "bad" guna, or even "low" in any > derogatory sense. In the Union of Shakti and Shiva, tamas rests in > equal stasis with Sattva and Rajas. I think the problem may be a > mindset rooted in Western theology -- you see, there is no exact > Hindu counterpart to the Judaic/ Christian/ Mulsim dichotomy of good > vs. evil. > > Tamas certainly doesn't mean "counterculture," nordoes it denote a > "land of uppity women." To say that is as bizarre as using nuclear > physics as a basis for social criticism: "Protons are domineering men, > Electrons are uppity women, Neutrons are patriarchal oppression." I > mean, I get the point, but it's a pointless and silly way to > illustrate the metaphor. > > I guess if you want to use the gunas as "symbols," to appropriate for > whatever ideological agenda, you are free to do so. But if you choose > to do so, it is only you who loses. Because these ideas are real and > useful -- they are not symbols or slurs: "I'm Sattvic, so piss off, > you Tamasic bastard!" It's just goofy. > > * "malyavan_tibet" wrote: *** FYI Kali is not worshipped so commonly > among the sattwic groups/families" *** > > There is no such thing as a "Sattvic Group" or "Sattvic Family." There > is no such thing as a "Tamasic" group or family either. Everything > that exists contains all three elements. > > If you're making a Divya ~ Vira ~ Pasu distinction, then you should > use those terms (though here too, the distinction is individual, and > not group- or family- oriented). If you're making a Samaya ~ Kaula > distinction, same deal -- just say so. But turning Sanskrit nouns into > largely meaningless English adjectives, and then misusing those > adjectives is just silly. > > Again, I am not saying this to make anyone feel bad, or to spout about > how clever I am. I take not credit for any of these knowledge. I did > not devise it, nor did I comprehend it easily. It was taught to me by > qualified gurus. I am sharing it only to assist serious members who > are curious about such matters. Those who are not will not care, nor > will they -- in all probability -- even read this message. > > Thank you > > DB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 As far as i know Sri Kali Devi is not fighting with a cow. She fight with a demon with buffalo head. And buffalo head Symbolize our tamas nature Laziness, egoistic, ignorant and mostly referring to tamas nature. She is master to us for breaking our tamas nature SophiasHeaven wrote: I cant' understand, based on my admittedly limited knowledge of Kali combined with the things Devi says below of the gunas and of Tamas, how a butcher would be more Tamas and worship Kali. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 > Yes, you are right, Tamas is a guna. But there could be more of that Guna in some group of people as opposed to another set of people. It could be their food habits, their profession. Someone who cuts and sells meat as their profession, a butcher, probably worships Kali more > than saraswati. So Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was tamasic? I think it is more appropriate to say that Kali can be worshipped in a tamasic mode but isnt the only mode. > > Kula and Varna were very common concepts in ancient India were >these things evolved. And each varna had its own diety. Kiratha >murthy is a form of shiva worshipped by tribals. They probably do >not know what Dakshina murthy stands for. > Kirata murthy refers to the form of Shiva when he appeared as a Kirata (hunter) in the famous fight with Arjuna; at the time of Arjuna's birth a voice from the skies proclaimed that only Lord Siva would be able to defeat Arjuna and it happens in the famous Kirata incident in the Mahabharata. -yogaman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 I dont know much about ramakrishna apart from little i have read here and there. Worship of kali can be tamasic, rajasic and sattwic. How about that?? :-) So Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was tamasic? I think it is more > appropriate to say that Kali can be worshipped in a tamasic mode but > isnt the only mode. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Small correction - Kali is not over the buffalo's head - it is Devi Durga who kills Mahisasur (Demon in Buffalo form) on last day of Navaratri. Kali is roudra (terrifying) form of Devi, who kills another demon - whose every drop of blood when falls on ground was capable of bringing him back to life, the boon he got. Kali to kill him keeps her tongue out to prevent the blood to fall on the groud. She was so terrifying that even when Lord Shiva came in her way She walked over Him. That's what we see at the feet of Devi Kali. Iyer --- Viva Sun <niit_83 wrote: > As far as i know Sri Kali Devi is not fighting with > a cow. She fight with a > demon with buffalo head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.