Guest guest Posted September 29, 2006 Report Share Posted September 29, 2006 On 9/28/06, NMadasamy <nmadasamy (AT) nmadasamy (DOT) com> wrote: > > Thank you for your response. Devi, you are welcome.. And off course thanks for your response to. > But im amused with this statement : As a matter of fact, from what I > gatherd, the lover form is for those who are not elevated enough > that they can concentrate on the form of "Devi" in satvaki guna, > also refered to as "pashu pravarati".( I did not make this up, I > actualy read it.. ) > > "Why you are so particular about "Dhoomavathi" sadhana, as it is a > lower state. one should attain the maha nirvana by upasana of > Tripurasundari, which is the supreme most Goddess." Remember this > message? Several of us went berserk when sangar narayanan posted > that remark. We criticize him etc. So how do you reconcile this with > what you've just said? Actually I was hoping that you would say that. The reason I said what I said was, that in the beging of this thread you had mentioned something like the following.. ************************************************************************************ NMadasamy : As far as I am concern, Devi as the lover is the highest form of devotion. Mother and child is second best and simplest because its much easier for simple minded sadhak to related to. But as a child you remain as a separate entity. Only lovers merge to be one, that is the purpose of our Sadhana. To merge with the Divine. ************************************************************************************* If was only after reading this, I though to reply. Had it been "Devi as the lover" is another way just like "Devi as your mother" or "Devi as your child" I would have been fine with it. Off couse claimin its the best, is also the same as saying "Dhoomavati sadhana is not the best".. I hope you got the point. Off couse if nothing is better then other then there is nothing to discuss. Its just a matter of which path a person prefers over the other. Nothing good or bad. Also again I would like to empashise, its not what I said. Its what I read in a shastra. I shall be sending more details about it soon, as I have another question about it. After that there are a lot of posts, in the email, of different members saying that "Devi as a lover is best". Now, Devi, most of the conversations are from people may be bit advanced then me, but still can make errors. Its like as you have said in one your emails in the past "a blind leading a blind". So cant give them any weightage. See I learned in life, that mostly people will go with what is easy, and not necessary what is the best. See I still believe that "Treating a woman like my mother, who is very beautiful, and is in a bikini (just to be polite)", is far more tougher then "Treatring her as my lover". So thats why when you say that looking at Devi as your lover is hard, my logical sense is not buying it. I would assume it to be easy, off course till I have not walked on that path cant be sure of anything. Off course, i also believe, if there are no porblems in your way, you are on a wrong way. I am trying to learn more about Sri Swami Sivananda. That will carry weight. > > I like to quote from DM Chapter 5, verse 120 : > > "He who conquers me in battle, removes my pride and is my match in > strength in the world shall be my husband." Oh boy. This is going to tough. You have absolutely taken it out of context. I will not go into why or under what situations did she said it. But still would like to point that after she said it to "Mahasura Sugreev", in chapter 5, there were a bunch of folks( Shumbha and Nishumaba, with others) , real powerful ones (ones who have taken powers from The Devs), who then went to prove their supremacy over her, in order to her as lover, got their butt kicked and was killed. She can't be conquered. Even Lord Shiva, her husband, dare not stop her, when she as kali was going with the destruction. The only way he could come up was to lay in her path. Just rememberd something. Goddess Dhoomavati, she is a widow. So you can't actually worship her as your lover. However you can worship her as "Mother" for sure. So my only issue was "That being lover is the best way". If its the same as others then off course there are no issues. Please let me know which shastra/manuscripts are there to back it up, that would really help me to understand. Reagrds Dp What do you think DEVI mean by this? Who is her lover.. her husband? > > What do we understand this term: Becoming Siva? > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 On 9/29/06, ganpra <ganpra (AT) rocketmail (DOT) com> wrote: > > Deep, Ganpra sir, glad you joined... There is a subtle difference between "Devi as a Lover" as Nora > stated and "Treating Devi as a lover" (Looking at Devi as a lover) > as you said. > > What Nora did not say is "Devi - treating the practitioner - as a > Lover." > > It is not the "prerogative" of the practitioner to treat Devi as a > Mother or Lover. It is HER "prerogative" as to how to be with the > practitioner. Now this got me thinking. I have typed couple of lines, and then deleted them. ...Very nicely you have morphed this into what devi wants... interesting.. Same with being a mother, child etc. > > Nora said - to paraphrase - to be one with Devi means the > practitioner has to be Shiva. Why? Because, SHE is a pathivratha > (SAdhvyai). Only when SHE decides that the practitioner > is "qualified" (for a lack of a better word) to have the amsa of > Shiva, SHE encourages/guides/demands such a sadhana (of being a > Lover). > > But, does that mean that HER being a Mother or HER being a child is > somewhat less? May be not. There is KshethrabAla (not KshetrapAla), > where Shiva is an infant and breast fed by Devi. And of > course, "KAmeswara mukaloka kalpitha Sri Ganeswara" (verse 30 of > Lalitha Sahasranama) - where Lord Ganesh was created by a mere > looking at Shiva's face by Devi. > > By implication, being a child of Devi (hmmm, no posts from the > member Child of Devi for a looooooong time), also means being a part > of HER and Shiva. > > There is only one difference between the above mentioned sadhana. > Either you do what SHE says or you do what SHE says. ;-) Thats where I began from, as I have made evident in my earlier post too. If both are considered equal then off course there is nothing to talk about... Then I would have never posted a reply to this thread.. >From the perspective of shakthi sadhana, yes, one first is initiated > Maha Ganapathy manthra, then Bala, then Panchadasi...Mahashodashi > etc - from being HER son to HER lil self then HER (consort)..... Where can I find confirmation to this. I would really like to read/know more about it. But, why should we care about that while it is HER who decides what > (path) we are (taking)? Heck no. I don't care. She has always figured out for me, and I know that she will do it in future too.. However its an important quality of a seeker to contemplate on himself/herself. Thats what I was doing. G > PS: Shastras and manuscripts say several different things depending > on to which SHE had led the person to. Dp PS:Please do read my other post in which I have quoted from Rudryamla Tantra and Sakti Sangama Tantra. :)Still if you can post some names I would really love to read more. I am a vigro, knowledge is something that I cherish a lot.. I am already kind of familiar with yoni tantra, if thats what you would like to point me to.. > -- Thanks Dp [The force is feminine in nature] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2006 Report Share Posted October 1, 2006 Ganpra, So net net is there is no shastra that you can quite... right? Just to be on the same page, All that has been prensented by you and other folks (except for DB) are just their view point.. thats easy for me to understand.. You can say it in one line too and I will get it.. See I dont know how to play with words.. Har Har Mahadev... Dp On 9/30/06, ganpra <ganpra (AT) rocketmail (DOT) com> wrote: > > Deep, > > No, I did not morph anything...rather a different perspective to > what is happening. > > Where you can find a confirmation of Sri Vidya upasana....check out > Nora's previous post, where she quoted [bN]. There are certain > people whose words one can take as Veda and other's not. Perhaps DB > or any other well read and amply informed members here can guide you > to certain books if you prefer to take written words of confirmation. > > It is important for the seeker to make an attempt to understand. > Sometimes the questions need not be asked explicitly - only SHE > knows the question and the answer will be given, as it had been. > > On Rudra Yamala etc....I (as "G") would not know the difference > between "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" and Rudra Yamala or anything > of that sort. > > Heck, I once was listening to Phil Collins.... > > "When I'm feeling blue > All I have to do > Take a look at you > Then I'm not so blue > > When I'm in your arms > Nothing seems to matter........" > > Felt the same as chanting LSN. > > G > PS: I was about to reply to your initial query (message 24104) but > waited for your second posting so your initial feelings of your > current practice being "sort of invalidated" by someone you respect > highly, subside a bit. As I mentioned before perspectives are > different for every practitioner. Everything is correct as per HER. > When your Guru says, "SHE is your Mother," that is what SHE had > defined it for you. > > > , "Dhirendra Pal Singh" > <dpal.singh wrote: > > > Now this got me thinking. I have typed couple of lines, and then > deleted them. ...Very nicely you have morphed this into what devi > wants... interesting.. > > > Thats where I began from, as I have made evident in my earlier post > too. If both are considered equal then off course there is nothing > to talk about... Then I would have never posted a reply to this > thread.. > > Where can I find confirmation to this. I would really like to > ead/know more about it. > > > Heck no. I don't care. She has always figured out for me, and I > know that she will do it in future too.. However its an important > quality of a seeker to contemplate on himself/herself. Thats what I > was doing. > > Dp > PS:Please do read my other post in which I have quoted from > Rudryamla Tantra and Sakti Sangama Tantra. :)Still if you can post > some names I would really love to read more. I am a vigro, knowledge > is something that I cherish a lot.. I am already kind of familiar > with yoni tantra, if thats what you would like to point me to.. > > > Thanks > Dp > [The force is feminine in nature] > > > > > > > > > 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.