RE: Dasa Avathara of Maha Vishnu and Dasa Maha Vidyas

[Guest guest]

> I guess Ravi did not like the Mathangi-Buddha comparison.

>

> Rgds

> Satish.

>

Not specifically. But I think that tantra is unreliable and false, just by

looking at that posted content. Since I am heavily biased against most

works that go by the name tantra, I requested an expert opinion on this

matter.

 

shriimatre namaH

 

Ravi

[Guest guest]

I did not say all "tantras" are false. tantra means that which it extends

(tanoti) a theoretical knowledge into practice and protects (traayati) its

adherent. Hence, the word tantra by itself is not bad. There are lot of

things that go by the name tantra, which may not be a genuine tantra, but a

later spurious human addition. In fact this happens to texts that go by the

name upanishads also.

 

For instance, I can write 10 lines and add "iishvara uvaacha" and call it

xyz tantra and put it on ambaa-site claiming it is an ancient tantric text

that was found in kashmir. Assuming 200 years from now, somebody gets it and

how does he or she know it is not a tantra? And how does he or she know that

it was not iishvara who said it? Just because something is known for more

than 300 or 400 years does not make it genuine and correct. I have this

basic suspicion. This is why I am biased against it. Hence, I think the

content of the tantra should be critically studied in the back drop shruti,

smriti, and puraNa. If it does not add value by extending that knowledge in

the big three into practice, then you can safely put the text in the

nearest recycle bin. You will be only deluded by it.

 

 

I should have been more clear. The "that" in the "that tantra" sentence

(which I wrote and you have quoted) meant only "munda mala tantra". I may

be wrong. But I think, this "munda maala tantra" is not be genuine. Hence, I

said I think it is false. You show me a quote from sringeri or kanchi

sankaracharya from this text, I will reverse my opinion.

 

Hope I am clear now, even if I am wrong in principle :-)).

 

Ravi

 

 

 

 

>

> Satish Arigela [satisharigela]

> Tuesday, February 17, 2004 3:05 PM

>

> Re: Dasa Avathara of Maha Vishnu and Dasa Maha Vidyas

>

>

> , "M. S. Ravisankar" <ravi@a...> wrote:

>

> > Not specifically. But I think that tantra is unreliable and false,

> just by

> > looking at that posted content. Since I am heavily biased against

> most

> > works that go by the name tantra, I requested an expert opinion on

> this

> > matter.

>

>

> LS: 206 - sarvatantrarUpA - She is the spirit of all tantras.

> Ls: 290 - sakalAgama sandohashutkisaMpuTamauktikA

> Ls: 724 - sarvatantreshI

>

> Since She is real, tantras are not false.

>

> Rgds

>

>

> >

> > shriimatre namaH

> >

> > Ravi

>

>

>

>

> --

> pradiipajvaalaabhirdivasakaraniiraajanavidhiH

> sudhaasuuteshcandropalajalalavairarghyaracanaa .

> svakiiyairambhobhiH salilanidhisauhityakaraNaM

> tvadiiyaabhirvaagbhistava janani vaacaaM stutiriyam.h

>

> www : http://www.ambaa.org/

> Contact: help

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I havent read the entire Srividyarnava (even if I read it, I wont

> understand a thing from it anyway :-)), but the preface of the book I

> have, lists all pramana granthas which are probably quoted in the

> text. Munda Mala tantra is listed as one of them. It is well known

> that Swami Vidyaranya is the author of this text and also the

> Shankaracharya of Sringeri.

>

> May be there are interpolations in tantras eventhough it is a

> little difficult compared to making up a whole new tantra.

 

Satish:

 

Thanks for the info. I take back my comments (for now) about the

authenticity of the text (MMT). It will be nice to know what was quoted from

the text (MMT) and in what context.

 

Ravi

[Guest guest]

Pranams.

 

The Aforesaid information is from the Book " Dasa Maha Vidya Rahasyam "

published during the Navarathri of 1985 by Shree Gyna Baskara Sangam and

authored by

Pujya Shree Goda Venkateshwara Sastrygal who has obtained a title from Sringeri

Mutt as " AN OCEAN OF KNOWLEDGE ".

 

This relationship between Dasa Avathra of Maha Vishnu and Devi's Dasa Maha Vidya

has not been given in any context but in a simple and clear manner as indicated

in the mail.

 

The Sri Vidya tradition and sadhana has been given to us and prescribed -- by

way of Guru ParamparA -- so that the way may be known to us and the goal is

reached by the sadhak by the same means including the understanding of Tantras

as putforth by the Guru, and through the same companionship with the Divine

Mother's manifest Vibuhuthis as the revealers of the light.

 

Jai Munda Mala Tantra

 

ganapathy

 

 

"M. S. Ravisankar" <ravi wrote:

> I guess Ravi did not like the Mathangi-Buddha comparison.

>

> Rgds

> Satish.

>

Not specifically. But I think that tantra is unreliable and false, just by

looking at that posted content. Since I am heavily biased against most

works that go by the name tantra, I requested an expert opinion on this

matter.

 

shriimatre namaH

 

Ravi

 

 

 

--

pradiipajvaalaabhirdivasakaraniiraajanavidhiH

sudhaasuuteshcandropalajalalavairarghyaracanaa .

svakiiyairambhobhiH salilanidhisauhityakaraNaM

tvadiiyaabhirvaagbhistava janani vaacaaM stutiriyam.h

 

www : http://www.ambaa.org/

Contact: help

 

 

Sponsor

Click Here

 

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ganapathy --- Vijaya

 

" Jai Bhavani " - - - - " Jai Sri Lalitha Maha Maha Tripura Sundari "

 

" Sarvam Shakti Mayam Jagath "

 

 

 

 

Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.

 

 

[Guest guest]

namaste:

 

That table you posted has few issues.

 

a) Incompleteness

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

Not all entries are complete. Some are missing.

 

b) Inconsistency

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

 

i) In assigning chakra-s to different entries, in one entry instead of a

chakra, the table refers to a state (samaadhi state), which is an avastha.

It cannot be sahasrara for the choice of vidya there conflicts with

shiva-shakti saamarasyam in sahasraara. It is like saying sthoola, svapna,

and kaaraNa; first and last are sharira-s -- but the middle one is an

avastha. A more contrasting example would be the list: Madras, Bombay,

Calcutta, and Cold.

 

ii) svaadishhTaana is missing and anahaata repeats itself.

 

iii) A non standard name "shankinii" in the list of chakra-s. If at all it

must be a name of a naaDi (I dont know much about it). Then where is iDa,

pingaLa, and sushumna (the big three).

 

 

 

c) Possible errors

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

 

Buddha is not one of the dashavataras. Yes, buddha is one of the avataras of

vishhNu, but not in the list of 10. It is balaraama (even though he is

largely a amsha of aadisheshha). This is a debated topic. According to

vishhNu puraaNa, this buddha avatara had a purpose of misleading asura-s and

it is not same as gautama buddha. Hence its inclusion is in poor taste and

shows that this works is a later addition. In retrospect, I think the

comparison with maatangi is even more in a poor taste. If at all (logically

speaking) buddha should be compared to dhuumavati.

 

 

d) Support

-----------

 

Do you have anything to support this text from a puraaNa or shruti or

smriti? What is the basis for comparing dhuumavati with vAmana? Why is

nR^isimha in muulaadhaara? If at all considering his rudra nature, he should

be in aaj~naa? Can you give me a support for these comparisons from shruti,

smriti or puraaNa? Without such a support, I think it is only fair to

question the authenticity.

 

e) Purpose

-----------

 

If you want to meditate on chakra-s, sahasranaama gives adequate details of

chakra-s. If you want to believe that naarayaaNa and ambaa are same, again

you can go to sahasranaama, trishatii, devi maahatmyam, and even in works

like shivaanandalaharii. I see by itself no value in the table. Except that

it makes one question the reliability of the text(MMT) itself.

 

--

 

Now I even doubt the authorship of shriividyaarNava, for it is known from

other works of Swami VidyaaraNya that he rarely gets into tantra and that

too vaamachaara. Consider the trishatii bhaashhya attributed to shankara,

there is NOT a single quote from tantra to establish any name.

 

My view one has to look at each instance and see whether it is in line with

shruti. smriti and puraaNa. It is quite important to do this check if the

work claims itself to be a tantra.

 

I also mean no disrespect to you or to that book. Hope we will agree to

disagree. If I have offended you in anyway, my apologies.

 

 

Ravi

 

 

 

 

>

> ganapathy = = vijaya [srividya101]

> Friday, February 20, 2004 10:28 AM

>

> RE: Re: Dasa Avathara of Maha Vishnu and Dasa Maha

> Vidyas

>

>

>

> Pranams.

>

> The Aforesaid information is from the Book " Dasa Maha Vidya

> Rahasyam " published during the Navarathri of 1985 by Shree Gyna

> Baskara Sangam and authored by

> Pujya Shree Goda Venkateshwara Sastrygal who has obtained a title

> from Sringeri Mutt as " AN OCEAN OF KNOWLEDGE ".

>

> This relationship between Dasa Avathra of Maha Vishnu and Devi's

> Dasa Maha Vidya has not been given in any context but in a simple

> and clear manner as indicated in the mail.

>

> The Sri Vidya tradition and sadhana has been given to us and

> prescribed -- by way of Guru ParamparA -- so that the way may be

> known to us and the goal is reached by the sadhak by the same

> means including the understanding of Tantras as putforth by the

> Guru, and through the same companionship with the Divine Mother's

> manifest Vibuhuthis as the revealers of the light.

>

>

> Ganapathy --- Vijaya

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I think it is inappropriate to understand the comparison as one to

> one like Tripurasundari = Kalki, that does not do justice to the

> original shloka from the Tantra or other puranic and tantric

> literature. It is clearly stated in Brahmanda purana that the ten

> incarnations of Vishnu manifested from the ten finger nails of Lalita

> Devi, counting this we can not say Tripurasundari 'incarnated' as

> Kalki. (Varahi(bhagala) for Varaha, Matangi for Rama, Narasimhi for

> Narasimha, Kali/Tripurasundari for Krishna and so on are more a

> direct equal)

 

Aravind:

 

Thanks for your valuable post. I like the way you interpreted the verses in

the MMT.

 

The reference to 10 incarnations from the toe nails do not refer to the

actual 10 incarnations, but the one that was generated in the battle field

(on the fly) to counter the 10 corresponding asura-s created by bhaNDa. That

is my understanding based on Ra. gaNapathy's translation of

lalitopaakhyaanam. Needless to say I may be wrong.

 

 

 

Ravi