Recent Discussion(?)

[Guest guest]

, Gopi <antarurjas wrote:

>

> Dear Sriram, Satish

>

> I am writing these out of my sheer ignorance and to an extent a

>certain amount of frustration about the way both of you seem to be

>hijacking the group to discuss on things that probably dont even

>serve the purpose of this group which is to discuss the glory of HER

>and the dhampathi. ( I read the charter of the group a few minutes

>back.)

 

In the Devi giita .

while mentioning bhakti, devI speaks to himaavaan as follows

 

" matsthaana darshane shraddhaa madbhakta darshane tathaa

macchaastra shravane shraddhaa mantratantradishhu prabho "

 

shlokaa 19 in 6 th chapter

a rough translation goes like this

Taking delight or showing interest in having darshan of Devi at

various shakti peethaas, being interested in hearing various

literature related to shrii maata, and showing interest in various

mantras and tantras related to ambaal are also described as some

types of bhakti towards devI along with many other which were

described in preceding and succeeding shlokaas.

 

The tone may not reflect that but I am sure the driving factor for

everyone is the same but may be in different degrees.

 

 

> It is little puzzling that there are a lot of senior experienced

>members of the group who are ( may be out of compassion) being a

>quiet witness to your vAda-pratiVada. Sometimes makes me wonder if

>there is a moderator to the group.

 

Please see teh last few paars of this post.

 

 

> Questions dont lead to conclusions in your mails ( this feeling

>most brought out in this series of mails) but only to more parallel

>streams of mails which neither add value to the original question

<not bring fresh thots.)

 

For my part I was phrasing questions in a way that would lead to

answers. Some of the answers are inherent in my questions(not all

questions though).

Maybe I should not have assumed people will understand that.

 

 

>Again, my ignorance in understanding what is being discussed ( which

>seem to be very lofty as ideas or concepts- otherwise you would not

>be writing them in the first place) may be is the reason.

 

Lofty: They may or maynot be lofty but a complete understanding as to

why I harp and question certain aspects repeatedly might require an

understanding of many things. Please see the para after point 8 below.

 

I will try to explain what started all this and how it snowballed and

will try not to criticize anyone in this summary but only provide a

map. The reason I am doing this is because I do not want it to appear

like all this discussion was for nothing.

 

1)The recent threads started when I said a newly published(or about

to be) work is not by shankarachArya.

 

2)The response to that was contents are important and not who

authored it.

 

3)That reminded me of teh contents of teh above work and responded

saying that I was not convinced of the quality of the contents for so

and so reasons and a statement was made that

" shrIvidyA is not only for mokSha for for other puruShArtha-s too. "

 

4)The other party thoroughly disagreed with this and it triggered

postings and responses which lead to questions(on both sides with the

intention that they will lead the other party to answers).

 

5)What followed next is quotations from works and snippets of related

info from contacts with learned people etc on both sides.

 

6)During this process focus turned to teh ShoDhasI mantra of

shrIvidyA and points were made on both sides. One may look back at

teh postings for details.

 

7)At the same time there were questions by the group owner on the why

of some opinions on trishatI and LS etc. I gave my reasons and left.

The small parallel thread ended there.

 

8) After this the thread with Re: some of my questions caught fire

 

Most people are probably frustrated by me asking and picking on

seemingly small things like " shrauta shrIvidyA " or repeating

questions like " where in veda do we find sahasrAra and mUladhAra " ,

this is because they do not understand teh background of why those

words are being used. This will require some knowledge regrading the

personalities(mostly 19th century shrIvidyA upAsaka-s in South India

and what they went through and what drove to produce some works on

shrIvidyA)) involved in coining the terms.

 

For my part I think my biggest mistake is that I assumed most people

will be familiar with the many aspects: especially the political,

historical and the psychological ascpects involved. I should have

kept that in mind.

 

Based on some responses of people not involved in this discussion

there is no way I can convince them that the discussion is

meaningful. I have to write several pages explaining the background.

I can only hope they will be able to understand the why of some

things in future. I espceially had the member who has teh

shri.tripura id in mind when I say this.

 

 

> But these exchanges have taught me this - there seem to be so much

>of confusions in the interpretations of the theories. Even a Guru

>doesnt stop you from interpretation, but lets one conclude thru

>one's sadhana.

 

That is indeed teh case. There is lots of confusion about these

aspects.

 

 

>So I thot : why get into theory? take refuge in HER. If SHE feels

>merit in me understanding anything, SHE will reach it to me.

>Otherwise be with the sadhana and flow with the river. To that,

thanks to you again. I mean no sarcasm, truely.

 

:-) Actually this happened to be one of the points in the threads.

But i will say nothing on this now.

 

 

> Back benchers will remain backbenchers. So obviously you need to

continue your discussions for the benefit of the rest of the group.

>

> And to you Satish and Sriram, I seek your forgivance in case I have

>offended you through this mail.

 

There is nothing offensive in your mail :-)

I feel your response shows good maturity which perhaps is a result of

your sAdhana.

 

To others: There is no need to be afraid of or stay away from

arguments as long as they as meaningful. It is true that both me and

our Sriram may have hurled a statement or two against each other

during teh process. But do you see that we kept it to a minimum? If

among teh numerous issues that were discussed in teh recent threads,

only those negative statements caught your attention instead of some

of the finer points discussed... well I will say nothing on that.

Dont want to start something else again...

 

Tip: I neither eat meat nor drink. I mentioned these in teh threads

to arrive at an understanding. Not to justify any personal

habits/preferences.

 

Take a good look at the threads once again. Sometimes a second look

helps.

 

Due to lack of time I left many otehr thinsg that i wanted to explain

about these threads. Hopefully I made some sense atleast this time.

 

De-hijacking the list now.. atleast temporarily :-))

[Guest guest]

My view on this matter is:

 

a) Keep it brief and precise

b) Refer to source texts as much as possible

c) When thoughts branch out, start a new thread

 

In general, if an e-mail crosses two+ screens - you are losing your

audience. For such posts, a well formatted blog page - possibly using

devanaagari fonts would help a lot.

 

 

shriimaatre namaH

Ravi