Is Shiva – Vishnu – Ambaa different ?

[Guest guest]

shrIH

 

, ganapathy = = vijaya

<srividya101> wrote:

> But if one observes despite the non duality of Shiva , Shakthi and

>Vishnu, the LS Uttara Bhaga delares that there can be Nothing

>Equivalent to the Manthra of Sri Manthraram, Devatha equivalent

>Lalitha ji, or any Sahasranama equivalent to LS declaring Ambaa OM

>the Most Superior.

 

Namaste,

 

Thank you so much for the excellent write up. However, all the talk

about superiority of devI over others is only arthavAda i.e

exaggeration. The shaiva and vaiShNava purAna-s keep saying the same

thing about shiva and viShNu. It is just too easy for any shaiva

fanatic if he wants to, to show the superiority of shiva by quoting

scores of scriptures.

 

> It is also said that the Shiva sahasranama is superior to Vishnu

>Sahasranama and more so is LS to Shiva Sahasranam .

 

Even the shiva purANa says above.

> The reasons as to why one is superior than the other and Ambaa Om

>is Most Superior is also found in the meanings of the Shloka in

>uttara Bhaga , which would be the subject of the next mail.

 

It will be nice to see them.

 

All the talk about sharabheshvara and mArtANDa bhairava protecting

the devotees without having to invoke them is just exaggeration.

While it can be read for amusement and entertainment, I think one

should not read too much and derive devata hierarchies from such

shloka-s.

 

parA shAmbhavyai namaH

 

Best regards

[Guest guest]

, "satisharigela" <satisharigela>

wrote:

> All the talk about sharabheshvara and mArtANDa bhairava protecting

> the devotees without having to invoke them is just exaggeration.

> While it can be read for amusement and entertainment, I think one

> should not read too much and derive devata hierarchies from such

> shloka-s.

>

> parA shAmbhavyai namaH

>

> Best regards

 

WHY they(sharabheshvara and mArtANDa bhairava) won't protect you?

.....WHY?

When you offered yourself to her, trusting only HER and praising(stuti

- LSN) her because your innerself is HER indeed.

 

'I' cannot conclude anything like this about my realself, may be my

this body's limited buddhi or manas may 'incline' towards this faulted

conclusion under false guidances for timebeing.

But when you see "unmesha nimisha utpanna vipanna bhuvanaLiH" as your

own self and sharabheshvara and marthAnDa bhairavas are being some

aspects of this self, itself. How the heck one can conclude like when

you chant HER mala mantra, these two aspects(sharabheshvara and

mArtANDa bhairava) still won't protect the body bearing that self.

 

I believe it all depends on how you approach them with your open mind

and intellegence. If you yourself shut doors on them, then how can we

expect them to protect you?

 

In other words, let us DARE NOT reduce/delete the essence of the

things that are told in purva bhaga, LS and vuttara bahaga or anywhere

else in our scriptures until unless you got good experience to prove

it otherwise,And you are sure this experience of yours can only be

attributed to that verse only but not to your prarabda karma phala etc

etc.

 

Om shrI mAtrE namaha Om.

 

Prasada.

[Guest guest]

My humble namaskarams to everybody.

 

The clarity, authority and embodiment of Advaita makes the devi

worship, CONSUMMATE.

Bhavanopanishad,varivasya rahasya,tantra raja tantra, even LSN too and

all other works on Sundari Vidya tell this unanimousely and

un-ambiguousely.

 

Also I felt even though you just start chanting LSN or devi namas-

slowly but strongly this advaita unfolds itself

inside the bhakta, thus bhakta metamorphosed to bhakta+sadhaka then to

self-actualization or becomes goddess herself.

Something like Morse economics principles.

 

But if I take praying Vishnu or other dieties, I sure start acruing

punya,and when this punya becomes 'sufficient enough(sufficience is

the point to argue, I do not have answer)' maybe later in this janma

or in subsequent janma I will get bhakti on the goddess and start

praying her and that inturn start the above devibhakta to

bhakta+sadhaka, Devi path.

 

other way, just look at the colorful SriChakra - HER body, And try

forming imaginatory sentence in the form.

 

--------------- is -------------.

 

 

In the first blank always put the whole srichakra that you

concentrated in it's original shape and size.

 

Second blank try putting one of these word(s) that you feel make

justice to what you found in SriChakra - words like -

beautiful/wonderful/excellent/ my prANam/ this world etc etc.

 

I found that no single word or any combination of words do justice to

SriChakra, I can only put a smaller iconized SriChakra in the second

blank. "SriChakra is SriChakra.". Though we minimize the size the

essence never gets altered to any extent. You can never give any

'upamAna' to it, thus SriChakra never takes the place of 'Upameya'.

there never can be any word(s) in any language that can qualify

SriChakra as image as in above sentence.

 

If this is the case with HER yantra as an image, then think about the

mahAshayAs that are experiencing themselves as SriChakra. And Devi

worship is what showed them this path. And when they become one with

HER, then they go for Nirguna Brahma, so this brahma not just loosing

form , he/she/it/or beyond these do not have ANY NAME, not HAVE any

VASANA etc.

'THAT' is what we should destine(either through Vishnu, Shiva or in

the form of any God in any religions) for and via devi worship we go

through this 'anAkalita sAdrisya' SriChakra.

 

I believe Vishnu, Shiva and other paths though they also boast

themselves as they lead us to Nirguna brahma, they lack this

consummate tool to feel and become - I may be wrong here - I do not

have any insight into other purANAs.So their path may be

round-about.OR like I said above their path may be a connecting path

to Devi path - remember "When you acrued sufficient puNya". So all in

all, I got only a lifetime at a time at my hand, and can meet death at

any time, so I obviousely like to

see and feel my innerself in it's own form - i.e SriYantra. and Devi

worship what showed, cajoled me, nourished me, and plays with me

too.All -in all very lively act to know your realself.

 

"Is Shiva – Vishnu – Ambaa different?" though it looks like

a single

question outward, it arises multiple secondary questions with in

itself. - like the characters vishnu, shiva and Ambaa those come in

puranas are different? (answer - yes they are different - puranas are

storyed-form-of-imparting knowledge to common man)

 

If you take their different namas(sahasranamas) and meanings you will

find whole lot of similarities and confusion arise are they same -

these are all pointing to nirguna brahma only. but the moment we give

name like shiva, ambaa etc we are seeing only that part of nirguna

brahma there.

The main difference I see is their deciples' path.

This question is what interests me - "Which path out of - Shiva path,

Vishnu path or Ambaa -path to self-realization is more straight

forward? "

This is the question I have seen within your question and answered

what I felt and what I experienced a little bit.

 

I am very grateful to your kind corrections to any of my mistakes

here.

 

Om ShrI mAtrE namaha Om

 

Prasada.

[Guest guest]

, "Prasada Reddy" <prasada.reddy@g...>

wrote:

> > All the talk about sharabheshvara and mArtANDa bhairava

>>protecting

> > the devotees without having to invoke them is just exaggeration.

> WHY they(sharabheshvara and mArtANDa bhairava) won't protect you?

> ....WHY?

 

There is a some difference between the above two statments. The

difference will be clear if you look at the context in which I wrote

that. So read the two messages again till you understand.

> How the heck one can conclude like when

> you chant HER mala mantra, these two aspects(sharabheshvara and

> mArtANDa bhairava) still won't protect the body bearing that self.

 

Ever wondered why there are elaborate manuals and pUja paddhati-s to

invoke sharabeshvara, pratya~Ngira and bhairava?

 

Why do you think shrividya upAsaka-s receive mantras of

sharabheshvara and pratya~Ngira differently and use those mantras

for various purposes?

 

Why are bhaktas not using LS to invoke them? Do you intend to say

that all of these upAsaka-s have been fools till now?

> In other words, let us DARE NOT reduce/delete the essence of the

> things that are told in purva bhaga, LS and vuttara bahaga or

>anywhere

> else in our scriptures until unless you got good experience to

prove

> it otherwise,And you are sure this experience of yours can only be

> attributed to that verse only but not to your prarabda karma phala

etc

> etc.

 

? Read Above & below.

> But if I take praying Vishnu or other dieties, I sure start acruing

> punya,and when this punya becomes 'sufficient enough(sufficience

>is

> the point to argue, I do not have answer)' maybe later in this

janma

> or in subsequent janma I will get bhakti on the goddess and start

> praying her and that inturn start the above devibhakta to

> bhakta+sadhaka, Devi path.

 

Try saying that before some vaiShNava-s. They will come up with more

quotes than you can imagine to prove their view. viShNu and devI are

one and the same. The parashurAma kalpa sUtra-s and others confirm

this.

> I believe Vishnu, Shiva and other paths though they also boast

> themselves as they lead us to Nirguna brahma, they lack this

> consummate tool to feel and become-I may be wrong here

 

That is not true. nArAyaNAShTAkShari mahA mantra and other mantras

of shrIman nArAyaNa are considered mokSha mantra-s

 

Also read commentary on LS -- shivaGYAna pradAyini and other names

 

Probably you want to focus only on devI which is fine, there is no

need to look upon and paint other devata-s as inferior. All your

advaitic talk is useless and self deluding if you cant get rid of

that mentality. Rather than looking upon other devata-s as somehow

inferior, try looking upon them as Her forms. That will be better.

[Guest guest]

I appreciate ocean of your kind clarifications and thoughts.

 

I pray you to let us not give and not to make bhaktAs to read

sentences like "Do you intend to say

that all of these upAsaka-s have been fools till now?" under any

context... Any context.

Here even though our inherent and strong and only bhavam that we are

communicating

here is Upasaka-s are wisest persons and got rid of any

foolishnesses/ignorances that might this ajnana implies.

BUT yet for a second or half second or flah of time this sentence

makes to see upasa-s and foolishness/fools side by side

and to delete foolish very next flah of time and onwards and to

appreciate upAsakAs their upAsana and their upAsya, becoming all being

one.So are not you saying(eventually) is the GOD/nirguNa brahma that

they seek is 'something else' than that parA brahma by saying this? do

we ever get into any situation to compare them like this?

 

That first flah of uncomfortable time on me-like some persons with

little knowledge, that is what I like to avoid

by not mentioning these kind of sentences ever. I am foolish enough to

request this request.Let us see whether we are

all generous and kind enough to follow it.

 

Having invocation matra's on 'various gods' does say that that is the

'ONLY WAY' to invoke to them?

I say it is NOT. 'various gods' bhava itself is kind of still ajnAna

according you also, I believe.

Then we are talking about invoking those various god aspects.Either

with jnana, or ajnana, You see see mother as

EVERYTHING and doing her LSN which itself is MANTRA. it is a mAlA

mantra. Tantra rAja tantra in some later chapters tells

that mantrAs exceeding some 20 (not sure about exact numeric value)

aksharAs are called mAlA mantrAs.

 

So if you believe that you ALWAYS NEED a mantra to invoke various

gods(including martAnDa bhairava and sharbhEshvara)

, here you have a mantra - the great LSN itself. MUST requirement of

mantra to invoke gods itself is questionable/debatable - I believe.Yet

"japo jalpah shilpam", shlokam, deeds of jIvan muktas and Some black

majic power invoked by a tAmasi against Adi shankarAcharya being went

on reverse and killing invoker itself - like these tell that you may

not need matra to invoke them all the time, other acts/upAsanAs itself

are sufficient to get that god's grace.

 

So here you indeed have a mantra , what a mantra, have the mantra LSN

because it is mantra for the embodiment of all shaktis - brAhmi,

mAheshvari, nArAyaNi etc as devi bhAgavata tells in one place, and

combined tejas of all gods as the same bhagavatha tells at other

place. When you are invoking that GODDESS, how you still can SEE that

you still need to do something else to sharabhEshvara and martAnda

bhairavas to come and protect you?

 

You yourself say that all gods are one and unless I see them so as

ONE, I won't be doing even a slightest justice

to my advaita talk - This is what greatest insight/light from your

talk that I took.I am very greatful to

sharing your kind thought here.I see your, ambA's and Guru-paramparA's

kripa behind the sharing of that thought, and must be

all these kripas are one and same accourding that very thought.Om ShrI

mAtrE namaha Om.

 

Prasada.

[Guest guest]

Dear bhaktAs,

PraNAmyaham.

 

My question not just related to Lord MArtAnDa bhairava or

sharabhEshvara or any other god inlcuding srI mAtA, but to any god ...

 

Do we always NEED to INVOKE the gods in order to get protected by them?

 

Om shrI mAtrE namha Om.

 

Prasada.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

> we have been through the following topics umpteen

> number of times in one form or the other

> 1. qualifications for chanting LS

 

The dakShiNAmUrti saMhita, I was told clearly acknowledges that one

should have atleast bAlA mantra to be able to chant LS.

 

shloka 15 and 16 of pUrva pIThika clearly say that LS is to be given

for someone with the following qualities.

devoted, has knowledge of pa~ncadashI mantra, to that worshipper who

is pure.

 

I dont see why it is open ended when it the rules are so clearly

laid in two different unrelated texts.

 

bAlA *is* the qualification for LS.

 

Is there a text which says otherwise? If not then it is closed.

> 2. Siva-Visnu-Ambaa different or not

 

That they are one has been clarified by Adi Shankara himself.

I was told that it was also amply demonstrated by Appaya Dikshita in

his ratna traya parIkSha.

ratna traya the three gems: devI, shiva and viShNu.

 

Note from Ambaa-l group homepage

-

The principal goal of this discussion group is to study the

devotional works on ***shrImAtA and Lord shiva*** thereby enabling

the members to worship ***them (shivAbhyAm)*** better.

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

 

I request devotees to keep above in mind even while focusing on LS.

I will say no more on this.

> 3. Requirement for a Guru

 

Is there any text which says a Guru is not required?

 

I find the advice of shri Vaidyanathan appropriate and I will post

no more on this topic.

[Guest guest]

I think what Satish meant when he said 'artha vAda' was a little

misunderstood.

 

upakrama - upasamhAra, abhyAsa, apUrvatA, phalam, arthavada and

upappati are six components that are employed to determine the

meaning or intent of scriptural texts.

 

arthavAda is a very useful and essential tool used by the shAstra to

emphasize an idea. The intention is to impress the importance of a

concept. When it is said, LS is superior to other sahasranamas the

intention is to establish the importance of LS. It does not mean

that other sahasranamas are inferior. In technical language it is

called 'virodavat Abhasa'. For example a nAyaka and nAyaki are

enjoying the reflection of the full moon near a pond; nAyaka

says 'When your face that defeats the brilliance of the moon is so

close to me why would I feel the need for this moon.' The intention

here is not Chandra nindA but to establish the beauty if his love's

face. shAstra takes a similar approach while praising a deity or a

devotional work. This technique is also called 'stuti vAda'.

 

One of my friends read the Trishati pUrva bhAga and concluded that

LS is incomplete and insufficient for sAdanA. Such observations are

plain shAstra nindA.

 

 

I initially thought of starting a thread on 'how to interpret LS',

but then retreated for some reason. Now I see some worth in doing

this.

 

VyAsa Acharya who gave us the shastra-s has also given us tools to

interpret and understand them. We see an increasing trend where

people think the ability to read Sanskrit or a mere translation is

sufficient to interpret scriptural statements. Sadly this is not

true.

 

(Just an aside observation, the greatest strength that we see in

Shankara Acharya is his emphasis on mImAmsA, while other Acharyas

have laid emphasis on vyAkaraNa, tarka etc to interpret Vedic

passages. That is one of the prime reasons why his interpretations

have stood the test of time.)

 

Even a simple stotra like LS that does have any mind boggling

conundrums needs to be looked only though shastra samata

interpretations.

 

shrI mAtre namaH

 

Aravind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, "satisharigela" <satisharigela>

wrote:

>

> , ganapathy = = vijaya

> <srividya101> wrote:

> > But if one observes despite the non duality of Shiva , Shakthi

and

> >Vishnu, the LS Uttara Bhaga delares that there can be Nothing

> >Equivalent to the Manthra of Sri Manthraram, Devatha equivalent

> >Lalitha ji, or any Sahasranama equivalent to LS declaring Ambaa

OM

>

 

Thank you so much for the excellent write up. However, all the talk

> about superiority of devI over others is only arthavAda i.e

> exaggeration. The shaiva and vaiShNava purAna-s keep saying the

same

> thing about shiva and viShNu. It is just too easy for any shaiva

> fanatic if he wants to, to show the superiority of shiva by

quoting

> scores of scriptures.

>

[Guest guest]

pUjanIya srI krishna murthy varyA,

 

Ananya bhaktyA, tava parama pUjya charaNa padma yugaLAm,

vinamra shirasA, mukuLita hastairpraNAmyaham.

 

This is a long overdue reply to you.

I always was aware that I am going to reply you in gratittude for the

comments posted by you and also to Satish Arigela for giving insights.

WHY this took so long?. You sensed right the way/cause of my bhakti on

HER, but I got second thoughts on the extent/depth of bhakti you told

me in that mail.So I took a break, start inter-examining myself and

now I satisfied that yes, Now MOTHER can lead me the right path to

take me where you are talking about.Hence I am replying you.I can't

say how grateful I am to you, and the kindness of HER thorugh you, in

giving me a space/vision to recollect myself and refocus on HER.

 

KritajnOsmi, DhanyOsmi.

 

Om shrImAtrE namaha Om.

PrasAda.

 

, krishna murthy <sukapriya2000> wrote:

>

> Namasthe

>

> Hats off for your deep faith in Mother. You are correct.In this

connection I