Guest guest Posted November 14, 2004 Report Share Posted November 14, 2004 , "jessica_malone1000" > Just like most sanskrit words are dissected Guru into Gu and ru > (Gu is darkness ? and ru is light ??) what are the components of the > word shakti??? This interpretation of the word "guru" is pure speculation and has no grammatical basis. Of course sanskrit words cannot be "dissected" in such a manner. In some rare cases we get definitions of some terms in Scriptures, like for instanse "suratvaM bhogamAtreNa surA chaiva prakIrttitA" or "manuM trAyata iti mantraH" - but that is specific traditional explanation and not a grammatical one. As far as i know there is no such "compact definition" of "shakti". Literally this word has the following meanings: 1. Energy, power, force. 2. Feminine aspect of Divine, immanent and dinamic. 3. Woman; sexual partner; wife. 4. Strength; capacity. 5. A kind of piersing weapon, perhaps identical to tamil "vel". 6. - what else, remind me plz... A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2004 Report Share Posted November 21, 2004 Namste Arjuna, You stated that sanskrit words cannot be dissected. This is certainly untrue. All mantras are composed of bijas, each of which has a (more or less limited) range of what might be called "vibrational intention". The consonants are more fixed in their meaning; but the vowels (especially A and O) have more general implications, which serve to color the associated consonants. Mantras (composed of bijas) were compounded in various patterns to produce the Rg-Veda, and from this first text all subsequent scripture has unfolded. And for any authentic scripture, it is theoretically possible to "dissect" back to its essential vedic components, and further trace these to their bijas, which are the finest sonic/phonic elements available to most mere mortals. Each bija is a sonic approximation to a certain essential meaning, which is not entirely lost through subsequent re-combination; and if the meaning or "signature" of a combination of seed "signs" does not happily correspond with the overall intention of the word, mantra, sloka, etc., then the words are NOT those of God. Essential terms, such as Guru or Shakti, can always be effectively dissected for their inner meanings, which are spiritually more important than mere dictionary definitions of the words. Personally, I have not attempted such analysis of the words in question, but perhaps someone else can help ~ now that the veil of impossibility has been lifted! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 93 , "Sarabhanga Giri" > You stated that sanskrit words cannot be dissected. > This is certainly untrue. Please see the context of what i wrote. Also, as i understand the word "dissection" it means "splitting" as i given case of "gu-ru". I strongly doubt U can do this with "shakti" - that's what i write. Of course, sanskrit words can be traced to their roots, but it isn't called "dissection" . Or i misunderstand this english word then? > All mantras are composed of bijas, each of which has a (more or less > limited) range of what might be called "vibrational intention". Theoretically i would agree with this. Although practically i have not seen any reasonable examples LOL (unlike in Kabbalah, there U really can see how it works). Explanation of bijas that we get from Kamadhenu- and other sourses in most cases seem to be speculative rather than revealed... Though i may be wrong in this. > Essential terms, such as Guru or Shakti, can always be effectively > dissected for their inner meanings, which are spiritually more > important than mere dictionary definitions of the words. I would rather say that these terms were interpreted by adepts AFTER they got their specific meaning . Yes, sometimes literal vocabulary meaning is of little use. But still we have to see what the original meaning was. For instance, the word "tantra" was not formed from "tanuM trAyate"; but after it got certain specific meanings this speculative version was created in order to advocate it's usage. > Personally, I have not attempted such analysis of the words in > question, but perhaps someone else can help ~ now that the veil of > impossibility has been lifted! It would be interesting to see some exanples of this kind of analisis. If someone is able to, he is most welcome. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2004 Report Share Posted November 22, 2004 Sarabhanga Giri: *** All mantras are composed of bijas, each of which has a (more or less limited) range of what might be called "vibrational intention".*** Arjuna: ***Theoretically i would agree with this. Although practically i have not seen any reasonable examples LOL*** Omprem: Moksha Mantras, by definition, contain Bija Mantras which give them their transformational power. If a 'Mantra' does not contain a Bija it is not a Moksha Mantra. If you are not aware of Mantras containing Bijas,then the Mantras of which you are aware are not Moksha Mantras. I see that you are still using "LOL" whenever you are unsure of your statements. OM Namah Sivaya Omprem -- In , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > 93 > > , "Sarabhanga Giri" > > You stated that sanskrit words cannot be dissected. > > This is certainly untrue. > > Please see the context of what i wrote. Also, as i understand the word > "dissection" it means "splitting" as i given case of "gu-ru". I > strongly doubt U can do this with "shakti" - that's what i write. Of > course, sanskrit words can be traced to their roots, but it isn't > called "dissection" . Or i misunderstand this english word then? > > > All mantras are composed of bijas, each of which has a (more or less > > limited) range of what might be called "vibrational intention". > > Theoretically i would agree with this. Although practically i have not > seen any reasonable examples LOL (unlike in Kabbalah, there U really > can see how it works). Explanation of bijas that we get from > Kamadhenu- and other sourses in most cases seem to be speculative > rather than revealed... Though i may be wrong in this. > > > Essential terms, such as Guru or Shakti, can always be effectively > > dissected for their inner meanings, which are spiritually more > > important than mere dictionary definitions of the words. > > I would rather say that these terms were interpreted by adepts AFTER > they got their specific meaning . Yes, sometimes literal vocabulary > meaning is of little use. But still we have to see what the original > meaning was. For instance, the word "tantra" was not formed from > "tanuM trAyate"; but after it got certain specific meanings this > speculative version was created in order to advocate it's usage. > > > Personally, I have not attempted such analysis of the words in > > question, but perhaps someone else can help ~ now that the veil of > > impossibility has been lifted! > > It would be interesting to see some exanples of this kind of analisis. > If someone is able to, he is most welcome. > > A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > > Moksha Mantras, by definition, contain Bija Mantras which give > them their transformational power. If a 'Mantra' does not contain > a Bija it is not a Moksha Mantra. This is totally wrong. Just two examples to prove: Shiva-panchakshari and Hare Rama mahamantra . If you are not aware of Mantras > containing Bijas,then the Mantras of which you are aware are not > Moksha Mantras. The matter discussed was different - take care plz to read the post before replying . > I see that you are still using "LOL" whenever you are unsure of > your statements. I see that U still try to "correct" every matter eventhough U have no knowledge of it . A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Both the Shiva-panchakshari and the Hare Rama Mahamantra contain Bija mantras. Perhaps it would be a useful idea if you found out what some of the Bija mantras are before talking about them. Omprem \ , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > > > > Moksha Mantras, by definition, contain Bija Mantras which give > > them their transformational power. If a 'Mantra' does not contain > > a Bija it is not a Moksha Mantra. > > This is totally wrong. Just two examples to prove: Shiva-panchakshari > and Hare Rama mahamantra . > > If you are not aware of Mantras > > containing Bijas,then the Mantras of which you are aware are not > > Moksha Mantras. > > The matter discussed was different - take care plz to read the post > before replying . > > > I see that you are still using "LOL" whenever you are unsure of > > your statements. > > I see that U still try to "correct" every matter eventhough U have no > knowledge of it . > > A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 Whilst the mantras of agamas and nigamas, Vedas, and Puranas might contain bijam, nonetheless they would be having very many different mantras for many different things. There really isn't a moksha mantra as moksha is beyond syllables. However, the mantras used in the eight great and one supreme siddhi are called 'shanti' or peaceful mantras to differentiate them from the lesser tantrik mantras like vashikarana and sthambana, and so on. When more than one syllable is used it is no longer a bijam mantra but takes on an action or has a direction. So technically the Shiva Panchakshara and Hare Kkrishna Mantra are not Bijam mantras but are action mantras. In neither case are Shakti activated as both examples are masculine action mantras. Shakti mantras and those of the tantras should not be used with Om. Especially when they are used as bijam mantras. Especially the Shakti mantras should be used as bijam and for supreme siddhi in contemplation, and for supreme peace. They are never used with an Om in front or the Shakti beej turns into an action mantra. One will say Om shreem reem klim Mahalakshmiyei namaha with a jaap or mutterance, or fire and swaha, and these are actions. But when one meditates on Shakti Kundalini alone one will choose one beej of Shakti like shreem. this is about Shakti Sadhana now right? Shaktas only do those masculine action mantras as adjuncts to Sri. - omprem Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:59 AM Re: Dissecting "shakti" Both the Shiva-panchakshari and the Hare Rama Mahamantra contain Bija mantras. Perhaps it would be a useful idea if you found out what some of the Bija mantras are before talking about them. Omprem \ , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > > > > Moksha Mantras, by definition, contain Bija Mantras which give > > them their transformational power. If a 'Mantra' does not contain > > a Bija it is not a Moksha Mantra. > > This is totally wrong. Just two examples to prove: Shiva-panchakshari > and Hare Rama mahamantra . > > If you are not aware of Mantras > > containing Bijas,then the Mantras of which you are aware are not > > Moksha Mantras. > > The matter discussed was different - take care plz to read the post > before replying . > > > I see that you are still using "LOL" whenever you are unsure of > > your statements. > > I see that U still try to "correct" every matter eventhough U have no > knowledge of it . > > A. Sponsor Get unlimited calls to U.S./Canada Links / b.. c.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2004 Report Share Posted November 23, 2004 *** There really isn't a moksha mantra as moksha is beyond syllables. *** While it is true that moksha is beyond syllables, it is also true that Moksha Mantras or Shanti Mantras if you prefer, contain Bija Mantras and it is those embedded Bija Mantras that give the Mantra the abilitiy to take one beyond sound. ***When more than one syllable is used it is no longer a bijam mantra but takes on an action or has a direction. So technically the Shiva Panchakshara and Hare Kkrishna Mantra are not Bijam mantras but are action mantras*** These Mantras are not Bija Mantras but contain Bija Mantras. I might add that the Bija Mantras contained in these are other than OM. *** In neither case are Shakti activated as both examples are masculine action mantras.*** In fact, Shakti is activated. The criteria of a Moksha or Shanti Mantra are: 1. It was originally revealed to a sage or saint who achieved Self-realization through using it and passed it on to others. 2. It has a presiding deity. There is a specific representation or aspect of God/Goddess upon which to focus and which will guide the mind to itself. 3. It has a specific meter. The pronunciation and rhythm of the Mantra are important in eliciting the full effect of the Mantra. 4. It possesses a Bija mantra that invests the mantra with a special power. The bija mantra opens the psychic centre whose vibrations bring the meditator to God. 5. It has a dynamic, divine power or shakti. This shakti is the energy or power of the form of the mantra. The sounds of the mantra set up certain vibration-forms and the energy or shakti of thse forms carry the meditator to his or her concept of God. 6. It contains a plug or key that conceals the pure consciousness hidden in the mantra. When that plug is removed by Japa, pure consciousness is revealed and the meditator receives the vision of the presiding deity and eventually moves on to a transcendental state where the name and the form of the deity and your own soul as witness are indistinguishable. The last point is important as one must be fit to withstand kundalini and coming face-to-face, so to speak with the Divine. Those who do not take the time to purify themselves will likely experience severe and possibly permanent psychological and physiological distress. Omprem , "Detective_Mongo_Phd" <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote: > Whilst the mantras of agamas and nigamas, Vedas, and Puranas might contain bijam, nonetheless they would be having very many different mantras for many different things. There really isn't a moksha mantra as moksha is beyond syllables. However, the mantras used in the eight great and one supreme siddhi are called 'shanti' or peaceful mantras to differentiate them from the lesser tantrik mantras like vashikarana and sthambana, and so on. > > When more than one syllable is used it is no longer a bijam mantra but takes on an action or has a direction. So technically the Shiva Panchakshara and Hare Kkrishna Mantra are not Bijam mantras but are action mantras. In neither case are Shakti activated as both examples are masculine action mantras. Shakti mantras and those of the tantras should not be used with Om. Especially when they are used as bijam mantras. Especially the Shakti mantras should be used as bijam and for supreme siddhi in contemplation, and for supreme peace. They are never used with an Om in front or the Shakti beej turns into an action mantra. One will say Om shreem reem klim Mahalakshmiyei namaha with a jaap or mutterance, or fire and swaha, and these are actions. But when one meditates on Shakti Kundalini alone one will choose one beej of Shakti like shreem. this is about Shakti Sadhana now right? > > Shaktas only do those masculine action mantras as adjuncts to Sri. > - > omprem > > Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:59 AM > Re: Dissecting "shakti" > > > > Both the Shiva-panchakshari and the Hare Rama Mahamantra > contain Bija mantras. > > Perhaps it would be a useful idea if you found out what some of > the Bija mantras are before talking about them. > > > Omprem > > > \ > , "Arjuna Taradasa" > <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > > , "omprem" > <omprem> wrote: > > > > > > Moksha Mantras, by definition, contain Bija Mantras which > give > > > them their transformational power. If a 'Mantra' does not > contain > > > a Bija it is not a Moksha Mantra. > > > > This is totally wrong. Just two examples to prove: > Shiva-panchakshari > > and Hare Rama mahamantra . > > > > If you are not aware of Mantras > > > containing Bijas,then the Mantras of which you are aware are > not > > > Moksha Mantras. > > > > The matter discussed was different - take care plz to read the > post > > before replying . > > > > > I see that you are still using "LOL" whenever you are unsure > of > > > your statements. > > > > I see that U still try to "correct" every matter eventhough U have > no > > knowledge of it . > > > > A. > > > > > Sponsor > > Get unlimited calls to > > U.S./Canada > > > > > > Links > > > / > > b.. > > > c.. Terms of Service. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2004 Report Share Posted November 24, 2004 Namaste, The Panca-aksara Mantra IS the Panca-bija Mantra. "Eyes" vs. "Seeds" - I really don't get your argument. If you are claiming that Sri Pancaksara Mantra is not a Moksa Mantra, then I must disagree. If you are claiming that the Pancaksara Pranava does not contain bijas, then I must also disagree. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of basic Saiva Vidya, and particular understandings are lineage specific, so you really should consult your own Guru about this. naM aH saM vaM yaM "I see that U still try to 'correct' every matter even though U have no knowledge of it ." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 Namaste Arjuna Sri Pancakshara exists eternally in pure bija form, and that is how the Rishis originally conceived it, and why it even appears in the Yajur Veda. It is a wonderful coincidence (which similarly applies to all great mantras) that the essential bijas and their attendant "signatures" combine perfectly to create a verbal utterance that exactly repeats the combined "vibrational intention" of the various included bijas. And, once again, just because you have never seen mantras "exposed", "dissected", or "revealed" as a set of bijas, it can not be assumed that such expositions are lacking. These are understandings that naturally reveal themselves in sadhana. If you are not regularly using Pancackshara (which also implies that your Guru has also been using the same mantra, and so too his own Guru, etc., etc.), then it is unlikely that such essential interpretations would easily occur to you. Likewise for Hare Rama, which is simply revealed as haM raM raM; and raM alone is well known as one of the most powerful bijas. The conception of "haM raM" lies in Devanagari (City of the Gods) itself, long before the epics were composed in more earthly realms. Don't concern yourself with the entire corpus of available mantra until you are well grounded in the mantra received from your own Guru. Have determined patience and all will be revealed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Sharabhanga!! I read your post with much interest. You have alluded to Devanagari (the sanskrit script) as the "City of Gods"; I have never thought of it in this light but it makes perfect sense. Very interesting but note that Devanagari itself came much later; in fact much of the earliest Vedic literature (SamhitA's, AranyakA's) were written down in "GranthA lIpi"(of which there are different versions). Could you also elaborate on the Panchakshara mantra as being constituted of Sim Vam Yam.. etc(Is there any reference where this is stated). I have never heard of it being in ths manner. Initially the basic panchakshara is given as initiation, higher versions of the mantra (sukshma panchaksara, atisukshma panchakshara) etc are later on given on. Sometimes beejas are also added (eg HrIm, Haum). There are visualizations/meditations for the panchakshara where the consonents are focused on certain chakras with certain visualizations (as secretly encoded in the Tirumantiram). But NEVER have I heard of the mantra broken down into consonents with the bindu(Vam etc). IMO you cannot breakdown panchakshara into Sim Vam etc; if this were so even "Bullshit" could be a mantra (constituted of Bam Lam etc) LOL. Also note the delineation between AksharA(letters of the sanksrit alphabet) and BIja; even in Matrika nyasa where the aksharas are chanted, they are not referred to as Bijas. Some aksharas are also BIjas eg(Ram) but not generally so. Could you provide a reference where it says aksharas are beejas as well?? -yogaman , "Sarabhanga Giri" <sarabhanga> wrote: > > Namaste Arjuna > Sri Pancakshara exists eternally in pure bija form, and that is how > the Rishis originally conceived it, and why it even appears in the > Yajur Veda. It is a wonderful coincidence (which similarly applies > to all great mantras) that the essential bijas and their > attendant "signatures" combine perfectly to create a verbal utterance > that exactly repeats the combined "vibrational intention" of the > various included bijas. > And, once again, just because you have never seen > mantras "exposed", "dissected", or "revealed" as a set of bijas, it > can not be assumed that such expositions are lacking. These are > understandings that naturally reveal themselves in sadhana. If you > are not regularly using Pancackshara (which also implies that your > Guru has also been using the same mantra, and so too his own Guru, > etc., etc.), then it is unlikely that such essential interpretations > would easily occur to you. Likewise for Hare Rama, which is simply > revealed as haM raM raM; and raM alone is well known as one of the > most powerful bijas. The conception of "haM raM" lies in Devanagari > (City of the Gods) itself, long before the epics were composed in > more earthly realms. > Don't concern yourself with the entire corpus of available mantra > until you are well grounded in the mantra received from your own > Guru. Have determined patience and all will be revealed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Namaste Yogiman Devanagari the written script is a recent innovation; a useful human approximation to Devanagari itself, which is eternal. There is a paragraph in Svami Shivananda's book on Japa that mentions the bijas of Pancakshara, and probably others. But I really can't understand the surprise shown by others that mantra is comprised of bijas. It would not be exceptional to suggest that D-O-G spells DOG! Any pure vowel sound is eternal, so that if a "dissected" mantra were left with its parts unstopped (as it were) by the addition of bindu ligation, its flow would be endless and humanly unspeakable. A competent mantric surgeon knows how to successfully complete his autopsy and breathe new life into the flayed corpse of any mantra. Any utterance might be construed as a mantra, but I would suggest that some mantras are more useful than others. The sonic ingredients of "Bullshit" are certainly open for investigation, although this, and other mantra that has not PROVEN its worth in Salvation, is not worth the effort. Once again, I do not rely on books to understand that the "A to Ksha" or "A to Z", the Alpha-Beta or the A-B-C, provides the all of the "Seeds" of language and understanding; and the Seeds of All Truth ~ Bijas. Bija and Aksha may have particular precise definitions in the jargon of Mantra, but these words have more fundamental implications that are regularly and generally applied. Aksha is Alphabet, and Akshara are Letters. Aksha is Letter, the Bija or Seed of Mantra. Aksha is an Eye which, just as the Alphabet, encompasses the whole of Reality. Aksha or Bija; Eye or Seed ~ I cannot see the argument. As a mundane example, is not the so-called "eye" of a potato not also the so-called "seed" for a new elaboration on the potato theme? And before anyone objects, with something like: "But the eye of a potato is an asexual vegetative apparatus, while a seed contains zygotic nuclei resulting from the sexual fusion of haploid gametes" ~ the big picture sometimes needs a big brush, so please take a broader view. If the intention is clearly expressed, there is no need to quibble about such definitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Aksha , this is interesting. In bharatha, Nala is taught Aksha hridaya by which he wins gambling. So does that mean he is granted some sort of visual faculty which can see from any direction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 Bija mantras are imbedded as integral parts the Panchakshara mantra. They are in plain view, are pronounced and are "not visualizations/meditations for the panchakshara where the consonents are focused on certain chakras with certain visualizations". Therefore, your 'bullshit' theory does not apply here. lam vam ram yam ham om Omprem , "childofdevi" <childofdevi> wrote: > > Sharabhanga!! > > I read your post with much interest. You have alluded to Devanagari > (the sanskrit script) as the "City of Gods"; I have never thought of > it in this light but it makes perfect sense. Very interesting but > note that Devanagari itself came much later; in fact much of the > earliest Vedic literature (SamhitA's, AranyakA's) were written down > in "GranthA lIpi"(of which there are different versions). > > Could you also elaborate on the Panchakshara mantra as being > constituted of Sim Vam Yam.. etc(Is there any reference where this is > stated). I have never heard of it being in ths manner. Initially the > basic panchakshara is given as initiation, higher versions of the > mantra (sukshma panchaksara, atisukshma panchakshara) etc are later > on given on. Sometimes beejas are also added (eg HrIm, Haum). There > are visualizations/meditations for the panchakshara where the > consonents are focused on certain chakras with certain visualizations > (as secretly encoded in the Tirumantiram). But NEVER have I heard of > the mantra broken down into consonents with the bindu(Vam etc). IMO > you cannot breakdown panchakshara into Sim Vam etc; if this were so > even "Bullshit" could be a mantra (constituted of Bam Lam etc) LOL. > > Also note the delineation between AksharA(letters of the sanksrit > alphabet) and BIja; even in Matrika nyasa where the aksharas are > chanted, they are not referred to as Bijas. Some aksharas are also > BIjas eg(Ram) but not generally so. Could you provide a reference > where it says aksharas are beejas as well?? > > -yogaman > > > > , "Sarabhanga Giri" > <sarabhanga> wrote: > > > > Namaste Arjuna > > Sri Pancakshara exists eternally in pure bija form, and that is how > > the Rishis originally conceived it, and why it even appears in the > > Yajur Veda. It is a wonderful coincidence (which similarly applies > > to all great mantras) that the essential bijas and their > > attendant "signatures" combine perfectly to create a verbal > utterance > > that exactly repeats the combined "vibrational intention" of the > > various included bijas. > > And, once again, just because you have never seen > > mantras "exposed", "dissected", or "revealed" as a set of bijas, it > > can not be assumed that such expositions are lacking. These are > > understandings that naturally reveal themselves in sadhana. If you > > are not regularly using Pancackshara (which also implies that your > > Guru has also been using the same mantra, and so too his own Guru, > > etc., etc.), then it is unlikely that such essential > interpretations > > would easily occur to you. Likewise for Hare Rama, which is simply > > revealed as haM raM raM; and raM alone is well known as one of the > > most powerful bijas. The conception of "haM raM" lies in > Devanagari > > (City of the Gods) itself, long before the epics were composed in > > more earthly realms. > > Don't concern yourself with the entire corpus of available mantra > > until you are well grounded in the mantra received from your own > > Guru. Have determined patience and all will be revealed. 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.