On recent thread

[Guest guest]

shrIH,

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> I think a lot of people pay lip service to the equality of Shakti

>and

> Shiva. But when you push them into a corner -- as Amritananda did

> when he made his assertion about the Lingam belonging to Devi --

>you

> get ... well, you get exactly what I got in response to my post

> citing his teaching:

 

If my response to that remark is to be perceived as mere lip service

(to the Devi=Shiva equation) and sectarian, by the same token it is

nothing but fair to consider your response to my quotes likewise.

Why is that so? Please read on...

> A bunch of scriptural quotations saying that,

> Gee, actually Shiva is the *real* Ultimate.

>Equality goes out the

> window.

 

I suggest you take a good look before you repsond.

Please read this again:

/message/14453

I said your friend's remark is a half sentence, which means it is

half true(which is quite different from saying something or somebody

is wrong) and that I am putting forward the other half of the theory

in the rest of the post.

Apart from that, the very first quote in my post is this.

"It may be said that as it is not possible for **Shiva to create

without Shakti** nor for **Para Shakti without Shiva**, how can She

besaid to be 'the seed.' To meet this it is said that She is the pure

morror in which Shiva experiences Himself."

 

See the asterisks.

 

Second quote:

"ParaShiva is the adored Lord ParamaShiva who is mere Prakasha. The

mass of His rays is the pure Vimarsha mirror. Vimarsha is the Shakti

or movement which is limitless. ***She is here compared to a mirror

because of Her thereby manifesting Herself***."

 

If I want to be sectarian I would have easily withheld the last

sentence(in 3 *s) in the above quote and would have done selective

quoting.

 

Ofcourse my third quote from Kamakalavilasa is pro-Parameshvara, but

it might be remembered that it is not my only quote.

Furthermore, I quoted this too.

"Beyond Shiva. Because the position of Shiva depends

on Shakti. Or to whom Shiva is the supreme. or She reveals Shiva(to

Her devotees)"

 

Above is conveniently ignored. The first line reads beyond Shiva. So

is the second line and both are pro-Parameshvari.

 

It might be remembered that earlier in this list I held the equality

of Devi and Shiva by referencing Saundaryalahari(the five fold

equality between Devi and Shiva) and other works.

> The responder even goes so far as to not-so-subtly downgrade

> the teachings of an authentic and recognized Shakta Guru to "what

>your

> acquaintance thinks is the Shakta view." You see? The Guru is now

>a

> mere "acquaintance" and a wrong-thinking acquaintance at that.

 

See,

/message/14453

--------------------------------

> The Shakta view is quite different, as can be gathered from

> Bhasurananda's remark that Devi is simply Brahman, and "She can

> create another Shiva at Her will." The yoni-lingam, in the Shakta

> perspective, is indeed Devi manifesting another Shiva.

 

Above is not necessarily the Shakta view but it is what your

acquaintance thinks is the Shakta view.

----

 

You yourself said it is Shri Bhasurananda natha's remark.

The acquaintance referred to above is Bhasuranandantha and not

Amritananda Saraswati, your teacher.

As far as I know, Shri Bhasurananda natha is your inernet friend and

hence the usage 'your acquaintance'.

Why dont you look properly before you write?

 

>And

> for what? For the "crime" of disagreeing with the responder's shy

> informant about Sakti's proper place. Very pretty indeed.

 

With whom did he disagree? Certainly not with me, for I dont hold an

opinion of my own(I made this clear a lot of times in this list, I

believe). Perhaps, it would have been more proper if it is said the

disagreement is with my perception of what the ancients said.

 

> But it effectively reveals the fallacy of the lip-service paid to

> equality, as I believe Amritananda intended it to.

 

Was answered above.

> There is no doubt in my mind that Shakti and Shiva are One, or the

> they are two sides of the same coin, so to speak, and ultimately

> Equal. But Equal means Equal.

 

Then why the need for an argument? See explanation of my quotes

above.

> Woodroffe added, "The communitites of so-called 'TAntrik'

>worshippers

> are fivefold according as the cult is of Surya [the Sun], Ganesha,

> Vishnu, Shiva or Shakti. To the Knower, however, the five named

are

> not distinct Divinities, but different aspects of the One Power or

> SHAKTI. An instructed Shakti-worshipper is one of the least

sectarian

> of people. S/He can worship in all temples ...

>

> The Shakta is so called because the chosen Deity of his/her

worship

> [ishta-devata] is SHAKTI, in whose cult, both in doctrine and

> practice, emphasis is laid on THAT ASPECT OF THE ONE in which it

is

> the Source of Change and, in the form of Time and Space and all

> objects therein, Change Itself.

 

Also see post: My response to Kochu's reply.

/message/14462

where I clearly noted,

--------------------------------

Kochu:> In this context if books are looked into there is a tendency

that

>each author extols his/her ishta Devata as the Supreme. We have

>books declaring Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu, Skanda, Subamanya etc.

>as "Supreme". Is it that they are all wrong? Not at all!! It

is a

>style of saying that for that upasaka that particular deity form is

>Brahman that is all.

 

Satish:That is exactly what I am trying to say. Thank you for

elaborating.

---

>far above the utterly sectarian bile that was spouting in

> the previously referenced discussion along this thread.

 

Sectarian bile: If I were to be sectarian I would have chosen a lot

of Shaiva Agamas and Kashmira Shaiva works to quote. Infact I

desisted from quoting a verse from the authoritative Sharada tilaka

(the, saccidAnanda vibhavAt.h sakalAt.h parameshvArAt.h.. quote)

because the commentator refers to Shaiva texts for explaining that.

However, notice that I quoted only the exceedingly sweet LS and

KamaKalaVilasa. I specifically chose Shakta/ShriVidya teachers

instead of Shaiva-s.

 

A pop quiz now

 

Which sounds more sectarian?

 

1)This

>Bhasurananda's remark that Devi is simply Brahman, and "She can

> create another Shiva at Her will." The yoni-lingam, in the Shakta

> perspective, is indeed Devi manifesting another Shiva.

 

or this?

 

Me:"It may be said that as it is not possible for **Shiva to create

without Shakti** nor for **Para Shakti without Shiva**, how can She

besaid to be 'the seed.' To meet this it is said that She is the pure

morror in which Shiva experiences Himself."

 

2)This

>Bhasurananda's remark that Devi is simply Brahman, and "She can

> create another Shiva at Her will." The yoni-lingam, in the Shakta

> perspective, is indeed Devi manifesting another Shiva.

 

or this?

 

Me:There are names where Bhaskararaya gives more importance to Shakti

and names where he gives more importance to Shiva.

One can go on and on(both texts and sayings of shakta-s - actually

scores of references) to show Shiva and Shakti are considered

inseperable and non-different.

 

Nora: Funny parallels. Was a lil amusing, I thought.

>Most of the time I am the

>one who will be doing the housekeeping, SOOOOOOOO I know what Im

>talking about.

>From 2004 sept or oct, I was not looking at archives that much and

hence sent only few mails(yeah. I remembered sending two more 1 to

Rajeshvari iyer and another to DB). So before talking take a close

look at your group activity again.

 

I dont think it is any wiser to get into the silly business of

pshycho-analysing why others post or why they dont. Most of the time

it only reflects the mentality of the analyser than the subject.

Especially given the fact that it takes years to know someone even

when one is living with them. Appropriate articles on such subjects

may be referred to, to get what I am saying.

 

I am going to touch upon the tactics, tricks(oh yes), and raunchy

usages employed by the responders on this topic.

I trust I said enough and am not interested in pursuing this thread

on the list anymore. Responders may have their last word.

 

nArAyaNa.