The yoni-lingam in the Shakta perspective

[Guest guest]

Satyen Rao wrote : The great Sri Ramana Maharishi was asked by

visitor "Master there are so many ways to enlightenment and I feel I

suit every one of them. Which one I should take?". Sri Ramana simply

answered "Go back where you came from".

 

How right you are. That is what I am doing : going back to the point

when this whole discussion begins. To be honest, I have

not "graduated" from the yoni-lingam message as yet. I am

still stuck with it. All these Maithuna discussion is too much for

me.

 

Let me brings you all back to what devi bhakta wrote [ see shakti

sadhana and sacred sexuality] : 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. Guruji Amritananda's teaching about the yoni-lingam,

to which I'd add (from an unpublished conversation) that the image

is rooted in "ancient Sakta fertility cults." According to Amritaji,

the yoni-lingam (he was speaking in particular of the image at the

center of Devipuram's Kamakhya temple, but the interpretation

applies equally to all such images) has an even more esoteric

meaning than the one Lili mentions: "On face value it is the image

of a lingam in union with a yoni, the male principle penetrating the

female." The deeper esoteric (i.e.,initiatory) meaning, however, is

that "the lingam is actually emerging from the yoni. In other words,

what one is viewing from the exoteric perspective as the God and

Goddess in union, is -- from the esoteric perspective -- the

Goddess's own lingam."

 

 

I have spend a lot of time thinking about this. I begin with this

question : why do these two great gurus [ I know some may not agree,

but in my opinion they are ] says those? What do they see that I

don't? That has been my obessesion. Please understand these are

just my personal thoughts. I have reservation about sharing it here.

My two moderators have been very supportive. And here it goes….

 

Yes! what do they see that I don't? All these years I am made to

believe that the lingam is indeed union with a yoni, until now. I

spend the days, analysing the yoni-lingam. Looking at it from all

different angle. When I look from the top view, lajjahGauri image

comes into my mind.

 

"Indeed, Her birth/sexual posture unambiguously denotes fertility

and reproductive power. This is Devi as the Creatress, as Mother of

the Universe, as the Life-Giving Force of Nature, in a bold,

uncompromising display of the Divine Feminine Principle."

http://shaktisadhana.50megs.com/DEVI/lajjahGauri.html

 

Then jokingly says to myself : hey isnt this cool. If I go to Sivan

temple with husband [ who is a shivite] and when both of us sit

infront of the yoni-lingam. He goes Om Nama Shivaaya and he thinks

of Lord shiva, and I goes Om Nama ShivaayA and I think of Devi in

her creative form? Imagine two people seeing the same image but

interprete it differently. If it is really Devi in her creative

form, then the story in Lalitopakhyana VI make sense : Manifestation

of Lalita Devi [204] The Lalita Parameshwari so manifested, created

a male form from within Herself. His name was Kameshwara. [210] She

extended Herself in both male and female forms and continued the

process of creation.

 

How can you visualise "Lalita created a male from within

Herself", If not the image of Yoni-lingam? If the yoni-lingam is

devi in her creative form is correct, I am being asked, when is Devi

*not* in her creative stage?

[Guest guest]

RESPECTED NMADASAMY,

 

Well with my deepest regards to learned members here , would like o

state that even i have many many thoughts , some to extnt of making e

feel is all useless debate om different opcs, esp. by learned ones if

they are REALISED SOULS .(esp. on this topic of maithuna sex etc. )

 

WELL, I HAVE MANY MANY THOUGHTS AND BY MY OPINION MANY DIFFERENT

EVALUATIONS (sorry for caps by mistake) , possibly and guess none is

wrong as neither is NIGHT AND DAY they despite being opposite are

complimentary aswell as supplementary .

 

well, to be short and cutting my useless crap (lol, and definitey am

lazy enough to type alo) , i guess yo might have a brother , a

mother , a fatheretc etc and you is same NMADASAMY but different for

anf by different people!!!!!!

regards

JAI AMBEY MAHAKALI HREE KAAL BHAIRAVAYA NAMAH

rajat

 

, "NMadasamy" <nmadasamy@s...>

wrote:

>

>

>

> Satyen Rao wrote : The great Sri Ramana Maharishi was asked by

> visitor "Master there are so many ways to enlightenment and I feel

I

> suit every one of them. Which one I should take?". Sri Ramana

simply

> answered "Go back where you came from".

>

> How right you are. That is what I am doing : going back to the

point

> when this whole discussion begins. To be honest, I have

> not "graduated" from the yoni-lingam message as yet. I am

> still stuck with it. All these Maithuna discussion is too much for

> me.

>

> Let me brings you all back to what devi bhakta wrote [ see shakti

> sadhana and sacred sexuality] : 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. Guruji Amritananda's teaching about the yoni-lingam,

> to which I'd add (from an unpublished conversation) that the image

> is rooted in "ancient Sakta fertility cults." According to

Amritaji,

> the yoni-lingam (he was speaking in particular of the image at the

> center of Devipuram's Kamakhya temple, but the interpretation

> applies equally to all such images) has an even more esoteric

> meaning than the one Lili mentions: "On face value it is the image

> of a lingam in union with a yoni, the male principle penetrating

the

> female." The deeper esoteric (i.e.,initiatory) meaning, however, is

> that "the lingam is actually emerging from the yoni. In other

words,

> what one is viewing from the exoteric perspective as the God and

> Goddess in union, is -- from the esoteric perspective -- the

> Goddess's own lingam."

>

>

> I have spend a lot of time thinking about this. I begin with this

> question : why do these two great gurus [ I know some may not

agree,

> but in my opinion they are ] says those? What do they see that I

> don't? That has been my obessesion. Please understand these are

> just my personal thoughts. I have reservation about sharing it

here.

> My two moderators have been very supportive. And here it goes….

>

> Yes! what do they see that I don't? All these years I am made to

> believe that the lingam is indeed union with a yoni, until now. I

> spend the days, analysing the yoni-lingam. Looking at it from all

> different angle. When I look from the top view, lajjahGauri image

> comes into my mind.

>

> "Indeed, Her birth/sexual posture unambiguously denotes fertility

> and reproductive power. This is Devi as the Creatress, as Mother of

> the Universe, as the Life-Giving Force of Nature, in a bold,

> uncompromising display of the Divine Feminine Principle."

> http://shaktisadhana.50megs.com/DEVI/lajjahGauri.html

>

> Then jokingly says to myself : hey isnt this cool. If I go to Sivan

> temple with husband [ who is a shivite] and when both of us sit

> infront of the yoni-lingam. He goes Om Nama Shivaaya and he thinks

> of Lord shiva, and I goes Om Nama ShivaayA and I think of Devi in

> her creative form? Imagine two people seeing the same image but

> interprete it differently. If it is really Devi in her creative

> form, then the story in Lalitopakhyana VI make sense :

Manifestation

> of Lalita Devi [204] The Lalita Parameshwari so manifested, created

> a male form from within Herself. His name was Kameshwara. [210]

She

> extended Herself in both male and female forms and continued the

> process of creation.

>

> How can you visualise "Lalita created a male from within

> Herself", If not the image of Yoni-lingam? If the yoni-lingam is

> devi in her creative form is correct, I am being asked, when is

Devi

> *not* in her creative stage?

[Guest guest]

--- NMadasamy <nmadasamy

wrote:

>

>

> According to Amritaji,

> the yoni-lingam (he was speaking in particular of

> the image at the

> center of Devipuram's Kamakhya temple, but the

> interpretation

> applies equally to all such images) has an even more

> esoteric

> meaning than the one Lili mentions: "On face value

> it is the image

> of a lingam in union with a yoni, the male principle

> penetrating the

> female." The deeper esoteric (i.e.,initiatory)

> meaning, however, is

> that "the lingam is actually emerging from the yoni.

> In other words,

> what one is viewing from the exoteric perspective as

> the God and

> Goddess in union, is -- from the esoteric

> perspective -- the

> Goddess's own lingam."

##################################################

 

The idea of the Goddess with a lingam I have

mentioned before; I spoke of the Ardhanarishvara (The

Lord Who is half Female) who could also be equally

Ardhanarishvari (The Goddess who is half Male. I also

once visualized the form of the Yoni-Lingam as viewed

from the inside..the Lingam power filling the Yoni,

and manifestation radiating from it all around. If we

insist on the order of emanation as conferring

authority, then the Goddess must be regarded as

secondary, since there must be power in order to have

manifestation, but if one sees all this without

getting entangled in the "me first" dynamic, there is

no difference between them. A husband and wife are

supposed to be regarded as one being, it is only here

in the plane of Maya with our false notions of female

impurity and inferiority that makes all this

God-Goddess business so emotionally charged with

illusory baggage. Once one can get past these notions,

which have no validity whatever on the subtle planes,

one can make progress and stop splitting hairs about

this and that. Getting entangled in theological

minutiae is the curse of spiritual progress

everywhere. When it is said "one must become as a

little child" to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, it means

to not clutter up one's psyche with things that have

nothing to do with getting to the goal, but to "keep

it simple". This is why I myself have dropped the

study of nearly all texts, and stick mainly to

devotional methods; it was getting too damn confusing!

The Master Vimalananda said "When people ask what sect

I belong to I tell them "I do not believe in

"sampradaya" (sect); I believe in "sampradaha"

(incineration). Burn down whatever is getting in the

way of your inner perceptions!"

Lilith M.

>

If the

> yoni-lingam is

> devi in her creative form is correct, I am being

> asked, when is Devi

> *not* in her creative stage?

################################################

 

 

When She is in Her Destructive stage!!!

 

"The flames of Thy mouths devour all the worlds. Thy

glory fills the whole universe. But how terrible Thy

splendours burn!

B-G, Ch. 11, v.30

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

The all-new My - Get yours free!

 

[Guest guest]

I don't understand this - are you saying that the female/feminine

has no power unto itself? So, the male has to come first, because

male is power? Or are you saying that that is how male/female

symbolism is commonly understood? This is why I think that it's

pointless to genderize creative energy, and human qualities. I agree

with your saying the Ard. can be half God/half woman and half

Goddess/half man. In fact, even if it was half woman, half Goddess,

or half man/half God, since Woman and Goddess contain Man and God,

and vice versa, each pairing would still represent a whole, which is

why traditional ideas of marriage, or pairing, being only between a

man and a woman, fail. If all qualities reside within all people

there is no necessity to put oeople in male-female couples all the

time. The couple is within each person. And the fact that we do

still ascribe certain power(s) or qualities to one or the other

gender is what does a disservice to the whole of each of us. Because

after the Ardhanareshwari is reached comes full realization, free of

gender and quality-typing. For me, Shakti Sadhana helps to re-

balance these energies rather than reinforcing the stereotyping of

qualities.

 

, Lili Masamura

<sephirah5> wrote:

> If we

> insist on the order of emanation as conferring

> authority, then the Goddess must be regarded as

> secondary, since there must be power in order to have

> manifestation...

[Guest guest]

A shy correspondence sent me this.

 

"It seems your contemplation of the yoni lingam is ultimately a

recognition of the creative principle permeating all."

 

It is my personal believe that creativity itself is Divine in nature.

Where does creativity comes from in the first place? Any act of

creation is Divine in nature.

 

 

"Also, that you have experienced the difference of the two views

(Shaivite and Shakta) while accompanying your husband to his

temple."

 

But isn't this natural. Yes! We are husband and wife, but we are two

separate individuals each with their own likes and dislikes. To say

that we don't, I think we are not being practical. What I experiences

is nothing new. You have the same image [ not necessarily the yoni-

lingam ] and you take 2 people both of the same belief, and they too

will give you two different interpretation. So who is right and who

is wrong? Spiritual experience is something very personal.

 

"This may be too personal, but are you two able to be united

ultimately in your spiritual understandings,or are you divided by

your different ways of seeing the same image(s)? And does it matter?

And if it does matter, in what way(s) does it matter?"

 

 

I think eventually we are united in our spiritual understandings.

Also what do you understand by spiritual understanding. Both accepts

the other as we are and we try not to impose our beliefs on each

other. Because I am shakta that doesn't mean I should not go to a

shivite temple and the same goes for him. There should not be any

barrier. In fact sometimes we remind each other of our religious

obligations. Isn't that what it should be?. When I told my husband

that this is what I see, he just smile and say : "is that so? How

amusing. I never look at the yoni-lingam from that perspective, this

is new to me." And we both laugh.

 

And I say hey! This is not something our guruji Amritananda and

Bhasurananda Natha imagine from thin air or at their whims and fancy.

There are scriptures evidence since people here are so obsess with

scriptures quotation. What I am doing is to point out : yes! They are

there. And yes! Yes! There are so many more out there that we know

not of. We should just brush new ideas away and say: they are utterly

nonsense.

 

That is precisely I did when I am being told about this yoni-lingam.

I started my journey by asking : What did these two gurus see that I

don't? Everything begins with a question and with the desire to find

the answers that will eventually brings us to the truth.