MEENAKSHI AMBAAL, some other devis as well

[Guest guest]

Namo devyai!

 

since we are talking of devata murtis and not of nirguna upasana

devatas and their forms become relevant. Each form of ambal has a

certain form of energy associated with her. Well there are various

matanginis and Rajashyamala Devi is certainly the head of those

shaktis. i have not created a hierarchy on my own, but it is the

tantra that has proclaimed so. Please refer to these for details:

Brahmanda purana - lalitaupakyana, Shyamala khanda of rudrayamala,

Jayadrathayamala, Kaulavalinirnaya, Brihadvarahi tantra, Matangi

kalpataru (of raur4ava panchaka) and many more. These clearly detail

the various shaktis and their hierarchies. Ten mahavidyas are indeed

aspects of the same parashakti. no doubt. but certainly their

energies have a marked difference. Well Tantras of the Kali kula

proclaim Kali to be the master shakti. Whereas tantras of srikula,

which are much more in number than kali kula, proclaim sri lalita

tripurasundari as beyond even kali (Dakshinamurthy samhita). Kali

happens to be a avarana samaya devata for mahashodashi. it is foolish

to stick to one scripture and blame the other. The undelying

principle is what is to be understood and not the superficial tatvas.

As per what you say, the smriti even says mahalakshmi is the adya

parashakti. From her kali took origin. and when we speak of sri

lalitambika, she is tripurasundari, beyond these three goddesses. She

is beyond the three gunas, beyond the three limited duties of

lakshmi, kali and tara. It is also not true that people of timid

personality worship sundari. Well, srividya, unlike other mahavidyas,

is avilable only to a person in his last birth after years of

sadhana. Though i myself worship the ten mahavidyas as angabhutas of

sri lalita, i caanot forget to mention that only srividya has the

status of being called a brahmavidya or even a vidya and a mantra.

Shiva shakti ikyatva is not seen in any other mantra other then

srividya. Well i do not want any initiation from you since i am

already a abhishika kali sadhaka. Well kali's place is the kriya

chakra in the body and shodashi is in the sahasrara. Kali is shakti

reigning over shiva whereas lalita is shiva shaktyaikya swaroopini.

What would be the necessity to worship any other forms at all. If one

reads the biography of sri ramakrishna paramahansa, he says "i saw

all the ten mahaviyas, even my favourit kali ma, but shodashi is

certainly rajarajeshwari, the supreme queen of all". The comparison

between trishaktis does not arise at all since she is tripura, the

transcendent fourth, beyond the limiiting faculties and duties of the

three gunas of lakshmi, vani and kali. Kali is kriya shakti, Bhuvana

is iccha and lalita is jnana. Tantras clearly mention that kriya and

iccha are mere offshoots of jnana. Well upasaan of ambal in any form

certainly is fruitful, but the special status of srividya continues

to remain.

 

Jaya Jaya Shankara!

[Guest guest]

Well it does boil up to the same point! What i am trying to point out

is the same what u r trying to say. But since the topic of Minakshi

came, i pointed out that She is Shyamala, who is the queen of the

Matanginis. Brahmanda purana clearly states this. It is true that

they are all Vibhutis of Sridevi...but there is no doubt she is the

queen of the other matangi ganas, and also the name 'Rajamatangi'

indicates just this. And no where in my post is their an impression

that the duty of one mother superior to another. Until there are

duties and forms, where can there be perfection and completion? Since

Rajamatangini is the head of all vidyas, and effects Vishuddhi

chakra, she is said to be more powerful than the other Matanginis. In

any of the tantras you have mentioned, there is no mention of

Srikula. Since Rajashyamala is basically a devata of srikula,

analysis of Srikula Tantra becomes necessary and not of others. I

never mean to say srividya is superior to any other tantra. But the

metaphysics associated with srividya is highly developed and much

more organized that any other kula. This statement should not

certainly create a controversy. When one understands that forms are

but due to Maya, then why does one fail to accept a hierarchial tree

among the gods?

It is like the thought school of the pseudo-secularists we have in

india. Well the comparison is not among the goddesses or their

energies, but their forms. And Please refer to Srikula Tantras so

that this point becomes clearer to you. I cannot and should not

explain the significance and differences of the different matanginis

and why rajashyamala is the heaD, because you are not a srividya

upasaka. And i am an ordinary human being who is still learning and

correcting my mistakes. I can never make the mistake of offering

advice or trying to play a Guru to someone by trying to initiate

someone. I hAVE simply expressed my view points. If i have offended

some one, i seek apology. The main point i was trying to clarify was

that Sri Minakshi is not associated with Kali, but instead with

Matangi.

 

Jaya Jaya Shankara !

[Guest guest]

shrIH

Namaste,

The superiority of Raja Mathangi/Raja Shyamala over other

Maathanga Kanya s should be quite clear by referring to the Brahmanda

Purana.

 

Sage Maathanga did penance and when Raja Mathangi/Raja Shyamala

appeared before him, he requested Her to take birth as his daughter.

 

Due to that, an amsha or part of Raja Mathangi/Raja Shyamala took

birth as Laghu Shyamala. The rest of the Maathanginis are born from

Laghu Shyamala. A similar account of Her birth i.e as above is also

given in the Maahatmya Khanda of Tripura Rahasya.

 

And both these works mention that all these Maathanga Kanya s serve

Sri Lalita Maha Tripura Sundari along with Raja Shyamala/Raja

Mathangi.

This work Maahatmya Khanda of Tripura Rahasya, is once published

from Calcutta with a nice Hindi Translation.

 

The Upasana khanda seems to be lost forever. Fortunately we have

many other works for reference, when it comes to upasana.

 

As an aside, there is a very nice Murti/Vigraha of Raja Mathangi/

Raja Shyamala in the Kamakshi Temple in Kanchipuram. It is worth a

visit.

 

Regards.

 

 

, Kalika Putra <dakinic_monk> wrote:

>

> the tantras I mention are:

>

> Brihadnila, tara rahasyam, mahakala samhita, kali tantra, kali

rahasyam, rg veda and yogini tantra.

>

> They all state that the devi's are one and the same, just like our

physical mother has different functions to feed us, clean us, clothe

us and protect us as well as teach us so the devi too has these

functions.

>

> How can one say that one duty is superior to the other?

rajamatangini has an esoteric meaning which I am not going to get

into, but it does not proclaim that she is superior to the other

matanginis for they are all one.

>

> Every tantra will state their diety as being superior since, if you

follow a tantra you are looking at that diety as your ista devata and

in saying so you accept her/him as being the form you want to see the

supreme divinity in.

>

> But look at the yogini tantra, and the kularnava tantra they praise

the devi but also say all her forms are one. If you look at any

shahasranama, hridayam or tantra of a particular deity it simply

means you choose that diety as being your ista devi or devata.

>

> The three devis show the gunas, yes but the three also have been

called nirguna themselves, adya kalika for instance is the

composition of all the dieities and so is devi durga.

>

> It is sheer foolishness to see the goddess as being higher then the

other, mother lalita is no different to mother tara or mother swaha.

Lalita devi aka tripura sundari devi is also known as shodasi one of

the ten mahavidyas, how can you say one vidya is superior to the

other?

>

> Mahadevi, she who is said to be the manifest of all devis, she

comprises of the three divine mothers. You can look at devi in

anyform they are all the same, cant you see that just like we take

brith and rebirth our atma remains the same but our body changes.

That does not mean one of our births is superior to the other. This

is the same with the Devi.

>

> Besides, if one had access to the true meaning of a particular

tantra one would have reached perfection as yet. Remember in the devi

gita devi states that some tantras are misleading in their literal

level and again in the kularnava tantra she says that fools look at

the literal level of tantras. There is a higher meaning to it all.

>

> Lord Dakshinamurti is also said to be the teacher of adi nath aka

Lord Shiva in aghora, that does not mean that there is a hierachy

between the two. Lord Vishnu worshipped lord shiva to attain the

chakra that does not mean shiva is superior!

>

> There is an esoteric meaning behind all this, just as lord shiva

destroyed tripura sura that has nothing to do with the literal world,

but has everything to do with the esoteic world. It shows the fight

in the kundalini, how even then shiva (atma personified) needs the

kundalini shakti to fight the imperfect world.

>

> In such dakini and shakini are all harnessed and beofore the

sadhaka reaches shiva conciousness he/she needs to master the dakini

and shakini powers, the very essence of duality is needed to destroy

it.

>

> In essence there is no form of devi, she has no form the rishis

manifested form so that man can percieve the supreme more

articulately. You can call this supreme divinity what you like, the

output is the same.

>

> So how can you place judgement on one road, when all reach the same

place these forms of the devi can be percieved as these very roads,

some are short but hard while others are long and easy. It depends on

preferance and personality.

>

> There are so many texts that state it be foolish to make

comparison, why do you think hridayamurti swami was established

because stupid fools argued shiva being superior to vishnu and vise

versa.

>

> They just represent the two nadis that are the two major paths of

kundalini, the bhakti and the jnyana. They cannot function properly

without each other.

>

> Uma is the very form of lord Vishnu but percieved as a female and

Lakshmi the form of Shiva. They are so to allow understanding that

without the one another they cannot function.

>

> You cannot have enlightenment without shiva and shakti so there

isnt a heirachy, shakti takes sub forms as to match the sub forms of

shiva. There isnt any difference whatsoever. You can follow as many

tantras as you want but just like you cannot situate yourself on two

boats so you will understand, that these tantras together will become

hazardous.

>

> Devi is beyond logic and plane conciousness, hence she decapitated

herself to show this, cut off your mind and ahamkara to reach her.

Stop comparing!

[Guest guest]

- The problem that comes with hierarchy is -- different puraNa-s

give different accounts of it -- this indicates that there is

nothing absolute about it and it is a mere arthavaada. Why I call

arthavaada is for the following reason: to strengthen the faith of

the devotee in that particular devataa.

 

- Clearly, one has to see how the vedic seers have worshipped the

different devata-s such as indra, varuNa, agni etc. Typically

whenever you worship a devata in vedic form, you praise the devata

as the supreme brahman itself.

 

- Very much in this context, see the bahvrichopanishhad verse I

quoted few days back.

 

- Ideal way to think of the differences in terms of functionality

than hierarchy. And any devata when worshipped should be worshipped

with abheda bhaavam (soham bhaavena pujayet) and as the supreme.

 

-Harsha, mInAxi and madhurai is associated with sahasrAra and not

vishuddhi. This is traditionally accepted view in TN, and madhurai

is also known as dvadashaantapuri. For reference see agastya kRta

yoga miinakshi stotram.

 

Om SrimAtre namaH

 

Ravi

[Guest guest]

shrIH

 

, "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii>

wrote:

> - The problem that comes with hierarchy is -- different puraNa-s

> give different accounts of it -- this indicates that there is

> nothing absolute about it and it is a mere arthavaada. Why I call

> arthavaada is for the following reason: to strengthen the faith of

> the devotee in that particular devataa.

 

In a translation of Bhaskara Raya swamin's Saubhagya Bhaaskara,

there was a quotation saying that Arthavaada is only in Vedas and not

in Puranas. To this effect there was also a verse quoted from Brihat

Naradiya Purana. I remember that in a private discussion you

commented that, that statement itself i.e the quotation from Br Nrd

Purana, is an Arthavaada. While that may be true, we may need to see

see what may be Arthavaada and what is not. An account or

descriptions of birth and origins may not be arthavaada. Statements

like "reciting this stotra will give moxa etc " may be arthavaada i.e

exaggeration. And most of the time they are.

 

The different accounts or the differences in stories is

attributed to the same happenings in different Manvantaras, with some

variations. I dont recall where I came across the preceding statement.

 

regards.

 

 

 

>

> - Clearly, one has to see how the vedic seers have worshipped the

> different devata-s such as indra, varuNa, agni etc. Typically

> whenever you worship a devata in vedic form, you praise the devata

> as the supreme brahman itself.

>

> - Very much in this context, see the bahvrichopanishhad verse I

> quoted few days back.

>

> - Ideal way to think of the differences in terms of functionality

> than hierarchy. And any devata when worshipped should be worshipped

> with abheda bhaavam (soham bhaavena pujayet) and as the supreme.

>

> -Harsha, mInAxi and madhurai is associated with sahasrAra and not

> vishuddhi. This is traditionally accepted view in TN, and madhurai

> is also known as dvadashaantapuri. For reference see agastya kRta

> yoga miinakshi stotram.

>

> Om SrimAtre namaH

>

> Ravi

[Guest guest]

shrIH

 

, Kalika Putra <dakinic_monk> wrote:

>

>

> How would come about kaula tantra to make a judgement that sri

>vidya is more organised in terms of metaphysics? I mean no hostility

>nor offense but i would presume that you do not practice kaulic

>tantra.

 

 

Am neither a pratitioner nor authority on Srividya but looking at

the various aspects of Srividya one does get the impression that it

is more organised compared to any other form of sadhana.

 

Further more it may be of interest to note Srividya is just not a

couple of mantras on Lalita Maha Tripura Sundari.

 

Srividya comprises 7 crore i.e 70 Million mantras. These 7 crore

include Vaishnava mantras, Saura, Shaiva, *Shakta*, Ganapatya mantras

and many Uurdhvaamnaaya mantras.

 

I may add that the Vedas mention that "that mantra which contains

four Im s is greatest" And the mantra of Lalita/Raja Rajeshvari does

have four Im s which also proves the greatness of Srividya.

 

You Wrote:

> The mantra mahodadhi continues to state that one should relish all

>these forms of the devi and have intercourse with all their

>sadhanas, so that one realises the multiple attributes that the devi

>posses.

 

Please see above. As you said it is true that it may be good to

relaise the multiple attributes. That is exactly what Srividya does.

Makes you realise those multiple attributes. It is a common feature

that most Srividya teachers have Shakta, Shaiva, Vaishnava, Saura ,

Ganapatya mantras.

 

>

> Mind you Dasha Mahavidya tantra incorperates sri vidya and I have

>the texts to prove so, the worship of bala or mother lalita is

>mportant in calling the dasha maha vidyas since she is one herself.

>They are all regarded to be forms of the very goddess Parvati but

>take her personality to multiple extreme dimensions.

 

On the other hand, Srividya not only comprises Dasha Maha

Vidyas but much much more. By looking at the above statement it is

clear that by Srividya you seem to mean the mantra of Bala or

Llaita . I explained above on that issue.

 

Shri Kalika Putra,

I have one question: If you are saying Srividya is part of your

version of Dasha Maha Vidya, please tell us which mantra of

Lalita/Raja Rajeshvari does your text mention.

 

Please do refer to archives on Srividya . You can find a wealth of

information.

 

regards