Guest guest Posted July 20, 2001 Report Share Posted July 20, 2001 I think worship of lalitA should be from a vedantic perspective and not from a tantric perspective. For instance, I would base my worship of ambaa on works bahvRchopanishad and not based on tantric works like parasurAma kalpa sUtra-s. Even works like parasurAma kalpa sUtra-s should be looked in the light of vedAnta. Also, saying that one should not eat sugarcane but can eat sugar and jaggery defies logic and common sense. After all the only thing that sugar cane offers is its juice. once that is taken out to make sugar and jaggery, the fiber left out is used only for bagasse boilers (in most sugar industry). If one decides not to eat sugarcane, one has to drop sugar and jaggery also. Tradition should not be based on convenience. Instead one may come out openly and say, O ambaa, I do not know what is correct and what is wrong, and do a complete sharaNaagati to HER. Also what is the sphere of authority of a tantric work, I am sure dharma shAstra-s are not based on it, if at all they come in the order, shruti, smR^iti and purANa. On what basis should one take PKS as an authority on these matters? PKS may be a great work, I know little or nothing about it*. One of the quote in the sashasranAma which I posted refers to ambaaL having 40 different types of ornaments in PKS. Compare that to shankara's interpretation of sarvAbhuShaNabhUShita. You will understand what I mean. Probably we should take up a greater discussion on PKS itself and understand it as a whole. These are my views, needless to say they may be wrong. Please do correct. Ravi AUM shyAmaLaayai vidmahe | rAjamAtangyai dhImahi | tanno shivaa prachodayaat || *. I do plan to read it, as I recently read a nice definition of saaxuShi dIxa from PKS in a commentary on shivAnandalaharI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2001 Report Share Posted July 20, 2001 Worship of shrichakra "is" based on books like PKS. The upanishads : Take the case of bhaavanopanishad - It is useful for people who do antaryAga.(not sure about this) But when is one qualified for antaryAga? Only after one reached a certain stage in Shri vidya by worshipping parameshvari thru bahiryAga. How does one do bahiryAga? The upanishads dont describe bahiryAga(very detailedly.&there is no way one can ignore details in shri chakra worship--we know the reasons.). Only books like PKS give these details. Considering the above, it can be concluded that the PKS is "indispensable" for worship of Parameshvari. And why should not one follow PKS? Many puranas say "shrutiH dvividorprokta vaidikii tantrikii caiva..". SO how can one ignore tantric works. Further more ,the devi gita says that ,those tantras which are not opposed to vedas(veda aviruddhda tantras) can be accepted. > I think worship of lalitA should be from a vedantic > perspective and not from a tantric perspective Yes.It should be in the vedantic perspective.But ,not all details(about external shrii chakra worship) are given in the vedas.we may refer PKS (or works like these) for those details. And fortunately ,the PKS is definitely not opposed to vedas(or to vedantic ideals)(i guess).(I have no right to say this--as i did not read PKS in full). IF it all it contains any portion ,which sounds a bit unvedic, dvijas can leave that part and follow rest of the work. In the above para i used " vedic" and "vedantic" in similar terms ignoring the difference. Bhakti & Sharanaagati : How sincere we are in sharangati? It is true that people like kannappa etc.. never followed all these rules. me(we),definitely is(are)not a kannappa(s).so we have to follow these rules as much as we can. Another thing: It is not that- All philosophical meanings are vedantic and external(literal) meanings are tantric. Both (Vedantic&Tantric) have literal meanings and philosophical interpretations.As we can see in upanishads and works like yogini hridaya,PKS etc.. To sum up:As Shri Ravi pointed out ,worship should be in vedantic perspective,but that is only when one reached a state in Shrividya where there is no use any external worship.And it is not very easy to reach that state.So untill one reaches that stage,one has to do external worship(bahiryAga)using books like PKS etc.(by following the injunctions). But still:Even after reaching the antaryaga state also people generally dont give up external puja.(Ex.s? Chandra shekhara Bharati swamigal,Kanchi paramacharya). owing to my poor knowledge of things, some facts may be wrong in above,but i think people get the meaning. Corrections and comments:Most welcome. Regards , "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <msr@c...> wrote: > I think worship of lalitA should be from a vedantic perspective and not > from a tantric perspective. For instance, I would base my worship of > ambaa on works bahvRchopanishad and not based on tantric works like > parasurAma kalpa sUtra-s. Even works like parasurAma kalpa sUtra-s > should be looked in the light of vedAnta. > > Also, saying that one should not eat sugarcane but can eat sugar and > jaggery defies logic and common sense. After all the only thing that > sugar cane offers is its juice. once that is taken out to make sugar and > jaggery, the fiber left out is used only for bagasse boilers (in most > sugar industry). If one decides not to eat sugarcane, one has to drop > sugar and jaggery also. Tradition should not be based on convenience. > Instead one may come out openly and say, O ambaa, I do not know what is > correct and what is wrong, and do a complete sharaNaagati to HER. > > Also what is the sphere of authority of a tantric work, I am sure dharma > shAstra-s are not based on it, if at all they come in the order, shruti, > smR^iti and purANa. On what basis should one take PKS as an authority on > these matters? > > > PKS may be a great work, I know little or nothing about it*. One of > the quote in the sashasranAma which I posted refers to ambaaL having 40 > different types of ornaments in PKS. Compare that to shankara's > interpretation of sarvAbhuShaNabhUShita. You will understand what I > mean. Probably we should take up a greater discussion on PKS itself and > understand it as a whole. > > These are my views, needless to say they may be wrong. Please do > correct. > > > Ravi > > AUM shyAmaLaayai vidmahe | rAjamAtangyai dhImahi | tanno shivaa > prachodayaat || > > *. I do plan to read it, as I recently read a nice definition of > saaxuShi dIxa from PKS in a commentary on shivAnandalaharI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2001 Report Share Posted July 20, 2001 PKS contains a portion which is vamachara. But that should be no reason for thinking of the text as a whole, as vamachara.This vamachara is for non dvijas. Vedantic interpretation os PKS: i had no idea regarding this.Vedantic interpretation can be definitely done.But how much vedanta should we read into a particular sutra?,how much should be taken as literal? etc., depend on the context where the sutra appears etc.. i am not against any vedantic interpretation.But where and when it is appropriate to interpret should be considered.For example say, a sutra is interpreted acording to vedanta.That does not mean that one should avoid the literal meaning.May be they can follow both or one (of those interpretations) according to what their sampradaya teaches. The above is just my speculation and can be totally wrong .I request somebody to correct this. The language:I am typing these very fast becoz of the place ,so please pardon me if any of my postings seem a bit rude or impolite. best regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2001 Report Share Posted July 20, 2001 >Also, saying that one should not eat sugarcane but can eat sugar and > jaggery defies logic and common sense. After all the only thing that > sugar cane offers is its juice. once that is taken out to make sugar and > jaggery, the fiber left out is used only for bagasse boilers (in most > sugar industry). If one decides not to eat sugarcane, one has to drop > sugar and jaggery also. Tradition should not be based on convenience. True,we need to be logical.In cases where logic and tradition seem to differ,on my part , i prefer tradition. There is a commentary on PKS.i dont remember the name of commentator,who says that, Jaggery can be eaten, in the commentary for this sutra.Some things in tradition seem to put things in a different way, from what "we" perceive as commn sense.(many examples) so... > Also what is the sphere of authority of a tantric work, I am sure dharma > shAstra-s are not based on it, if at all they come in the order, shruti, > smR^iti and purANa. On what basis should one take PKS as an authority on > these matters? What does bahvruca upanishad say about shri chakra worship in Lalita krama,Sundarii krama,Shri krama etc..?? Definitely ,it does not say not to follow these kramas. > These are my views, needless to say they may be wrong. Please do > correct. same with me. just some thoughts.corrections are most welcome. regards > Ravi satish. > > AUM shyAmaLaayai vidmahe | rAjamAtangyai dhImahi | tanno shivaa > prachodayaat || > > *. I do plan to read it, as I recently read a nice definition of > saaxuShi dIxa from PKS in a commentary on shivAnandalaharI. 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.