Guest guest Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Dear all Are we capable of completely deciphering the Devi or the Sutras? If we did, then we would not have had the necessity to have the bhashyas of Acharyal or the various commentaries on the Sutras by eminent and great people. Dear Satish -- why is it incorrect to believe that human emotions do not apply to the Devi? Yes, the Divine Energy (let me term that as energy - because of neutrality in gender) is beyond gender, age, time etc etc etc But for the sake of mere mortals' such as myself, a form / emotion / relatabilty is required to accuire and establish closeness I am not so evolved, as would be millions others who could possibly worship a formless / emotionless energy (again I use the word energy) Without this emotion / form or any other form of human assocation, IMHO, religion would not have passed to mere mortals and would have been the fiefdom of evolved individuals, which I believe is not the intention. Best regards Ranganath --- On Thu, 6/25/09, Satish <satisharigela wrote: Satish <satisharigela Meru Mommy Thursday, June 25, 2009, 10:57 PM @ .com, MSR <abhayambika@ ...> wrote: > 1) You say " few have the capacity *as she should be worshipped* " - >is > there only one way! And will a mother ignore a sincere praise or > offering from her child. Even a mother of this world gets excited >will > go gaga when her little child just learning to speak call her out >with > love - even by any name. Here you are taking about avyAja karuNa >muuRtiH The shAstra speaks of devI as mother because it is the source of this world. This devI is neither strI nor puruSha nor neutral. Another reason for calling it mother maybe for human-relatability. IMHO it is not correct to extend human sentiments prevalent in mom-child or father-child relationships to devI or shiva. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 , Ranganath Gopalan <s_ranga108 wrote: > Dear Satish -- why is it incorrect to believe that human emotions >do not apply to the Devi? > > Yes, the Divine Energy (let me term that as energy - because of >neutrality in gender) is beyond gender, age, time etc etc etc > > But for the sake of mere mortals' such as myself, a form / >emotion / >relatabilty is required to accuire and establish closeness I used a wrong word I think. It is perfectly alright to associate emotions. What would lead to erroneous conclusions is to use inductive logic/reasoning to deduce the nature of devI. Ex: All mother's act in so and so manner. So devI will be like that. The problem with this type of inductive logic is that, even when applied to similar things, it may be invalid**. What to speak of deducing the nature(or the likely behaviour) of something non-human by observing the behaviour of humans? ** " For example, a conclusion that all swans are white is false, but may have been thought true in Europe until the settlement of Australia or New Zealand, when Black Swans were discovered. " - quoted from wikipedia. Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Dear Satish, >What would lead to erroneous conclusions is to use inductive logic/reasoning to deduce the nature of devI. >Ex: All mother's act in so and so manner. So devI will be like that. Is it at least safe and sensible to assume then, based on your statements, Shankara was wrong when saying " mAtha cha pArvathi chaiva pitA dEvO maheshwaraha " ? Or, am i reading you wrong?Do I smell a bit of object oriented programming based interpretion of relationship between Man and Divine/ nature of Divine? If your It and my Brahmam or Divine is One AND Many, then why can't I worship It,Brahmam or Divine with human form, preferably a woman's and attribute to Her all the features of motherhood? If i consider It /Divine/Brahmam to be a child, isn't that kind of worship called as vaatsalyam and approved by the shaastras? Don't your books allow many forms of worship and adoration? Shaastras can tell me to do or not to do certain modes of worship using a chakra or meru or even a tasbeeh or rosary, but can shastraas control how I relate to It/Divine/Brahmam/HER? Isn't your It is there where words, thoughts and sounds fail to reach? Where agni, vayu and waters do not touch? Then, if oe way of adoration is not acceptable then why another way of intellectualizing based on some logic? If It is One and Many, then don't you think in a world where there are no " men " and even its Aadithya is of a " feminine " form, all Many forms of your It will be feminine? Like swami Vivekananda says " gods of ants would be a gigantic all-powerful ant " (not exact words) - isn't it natural for human mind to attribute the cream of luminous and superlative emotions and feelings to things they adore and worship? Shaastras can dictate religiosity, your logic and reasoning can determine how to do the interpretations of said and written words - can someone control the experience of Unsaid words? count the Ajapa? Measure the extent of your It/Divine/Brahmam either as One or as Many? Sometimes the attitudes and statements of people discussing here in this lists remind me of devas (as described in some upanishads) drunk with their victory and ignoring the primal cause underlying the success.. Once Uma comes in a luminous form to wake them up and teach them a thing or two. Hopefully She does not come now and make a posting in this list. Being beyond reason and logic, She would only embarass Herself in not able to quote shaastras and logical formulae. No wonder, of all, only She goes unheard in the cacophony ;-)-gopal The problem with this type of inductive logic is that, even when applied to similar things, it may be invalid**. What to speak of deducing the nature(or the likely behaviour) of something non-human by observing the behaviour of humans? ** " For example, a conclusion that all swans are white is false, but may have been thought true in Europe until the settlement of Australia or New Zealand, when Black Swans were discovered. " - quoted from wikipedia. Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Gopal, , Gopal Gopinath <gopal_gopinath wrote: > Is it at least safe and sensible to assume then, based on your >statements, Shankara was wrong when saying " mAtha cha pArvathi >chaiva pitA dEvO maheshwaraha " ? Or, am i reading you wrong? I am sorry that I made you go through this futile exercise of writing this post. This is because, i do not have any disagreement with what you have written here. Your question is unnecessary, because someone may point out a shloka in saundaryalahari and say AchArya says " hari and brahma envy one who worships devI " . Is shankara wrong in saying this? You can repeat this with many numerous examples.. >Shaastras can tell me to do or not to do certain modes of worship >using a chakra or meru or even a tasbeeh or rosary, but can >shastraas control how I relate to It/Divine/Brahmam/HER? As said earlier no disagreement. If you pay close attention to my second post where I was replying to Gopalan, you will see that the objection is not to the following notion: " isn't it natural for human mind to attribute the cream of luminous and superlative emotions and feelings to things they adore and worship? " I even said it is perfectly alright. What I objected to is, trying to deduce the nature of devI by extending this. maybe I am not communicating my intent properly? Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Dear Shri Satish, I cant understand why on one hand you say that it is perfectly alright to attribute human emotions to Devi, Ishwar etc and on the other hand you say that it is not correct to deduce the nature of Devi by those emotions. When we worship Bhagawan in His Saguna swaroop, naturally His gunas ( attibutes) are going to be highlighted and we humans are naturally going understand and relate to His attributes. It is true that the ultimately from the advaitic stand point, Brahman is neuter, has no emotions and no attributes. Needless to add here that??there is no Shiva /?Parvati/ Vishnu etc in advaita. All texts speak only of Brahman.? But till such time we guys reach to that understanding, we have no other choice but to relate to Devi/ Shiva as parents and once this relation ' bhava " is established in the mind , it is natural to deduce that the Parents will have the same emotions towards their children. Regards Rohit ? ________________________________ Satish <satisharigela Friday, 26 June, 2009 12:20:45 AM Re: Meru Mommy Gopal, @ .com, Gopal Gopinath <gopal_gopinath@ ...> wrote: > Is it at least safe and sensible to assume then, based on your >statements, Shankara was wrong when saying " mAtha cha pArvathi >chaiva pitA dEvO maheshwaraha " ?? Or,? am i reading you wrong? I am sorry that I made you go through this futile exercise of writing this post. This is because, i do not have any disagreement with what you have written here. Your question is unnecessary, because someone may point out a shloka in saundaryalahari and say AchArya says " hari and brahma envy one who worships devI " . Is shankara wrong in saying this? You can repeat this with many numerous examples.. >Shaastras can tell me to do or not to do certain modes of worship >using a chakra or meru or even a tasbeeh or rosary, but can >shastraas? control how I relate to It/Divine/Brahmam/ HER?? As said earlier no disagreement. If you pay close attention to my second post where I was replying to Gopalan, you will see that the objection is not to the following notion: " isn't it natural for human mind to attribute the cream of luminous and superlative emotions and feelings to things they adore and worship? " I even said it is perfectly alright. What I objected to is, trying to deduce the nature of devI by extending this. maybe I am not communicating my intent properly? Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 , rohit kumtha <rohitkumtha wrote: > > Dear Shri Satish, > I cant understand why on one hand you say that it is perfectly >alright to attribute human emotions to Devi, Ishwar etc and on the >other hand you say that it is not correct to deduce the nature of >Devi by those emotions. Dear Rohit, Because this attribution of human emotions is made for our conveneince not necessarily because it is the nature of devI. Since it is a convenient temporary assumption on our part, it is all fine looking upon them as mother and father of this world. But where it fails is: In saying since a world mother behaves in such and such way in a certain scenario, devI also is like that. People need to be aware of this distinction is what I am trying to hint at. > But till such time we guys reach to that understanding, we have no >other choice but to relate to Devi/ Shiva as parents and once this >relation ' bhava " is established in the mind , it is natural to >deduce that the Parents will have the same emotions towards their >children. The last part of the above sentence is what I dont get. But I do not wish to spend more time on this one. If anyone understands me, maybe they can put what I am trying to say in a better way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Dear Satish, Your distinction is clear enough . Also it is clear that this assumption and attribution of human emotions is a temperory convienent assumption. To my mind, it will last only upto the point, where the sadhaka starts going beyond the Saguna swaroop. There after there is no need for such an assumption. what I was trying to say is that, this?thought process ( that the Divine Parents will have the same emotions as biological parents towards us ) is normal and natural till the sadhaka is in the Saguna worship level. And theres nothing wrong in that. I am sure that Ambaa wont mind if we?think so. Regards Rohit ________________________________ Satish <satisharigela Friday, 26 June, 2009 1:56:40 PM Re: Meru Mommy @ .com, rohit kumtha <rohitkumtha@ ...> wrote: > > Dear Shri Satish, > I cant understand why on one hand you say that it is perfectly >alright to attribute human emotions to Devi, Ishwar etc and on the >other hand you say that it is not correct to deduce the nature of >Devi by those emotions. Dear Rohit, Because this attribution of human emotions is made for our conveneince not necessarily because it is the nature of devI. Since it is a convenient temporary assumption on our part, it is all fine looking upon them as mother and father of this world. But where it fails is: In saying since a world mother behaves in such and such way in a certain scenario, devI also is like that. People need to be aware of this distinction is what I am trying to hint at. > But till such time we guys reach to that understanding, we have no >other choice but to relate to Devi/ Shiva as parents and once this >relation ' bhava " is established in the mind , it is natural to >deduce that the Parents will have the same emotions towards their >children. The last part of the above sentence is what I dont get. But I do not wish to spend more time on this one. If anyone understands me, maybe they can put what I am trying to say in a better way. Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter http://cricket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Dear rohit, The term Saguna Brahman refers to the principle of Maya-sabala-Brahman associated with Satva, Rajas & Tamo Gunas. And these three Gunas are not qualities or attributes of Brahman. So, Brahman without these 3 is Nirguna. The word " Guna " in vedanta is highly misunderstood term which is not to be equated with " quality " or " attribute " . with regs, sriram , rohit kumtha <rohitkumtha wrote: > > Dear Shri Satish, > I cant understand why on one hand you say that it is perfectly alright to attribute human emotions to Devi, Ishwar etc and on the other hand you say that it is not correct to deduce the nature of Devi by those emotions. > > When we worship Bhagawan in His Saguna swaroop, naturally His gunas ( attibutes) are going to be highlighted and we humans are naturally going understand and relate to His attributes. > > It is true that the ultimately from the advaitic stand point, Brahman is neuter, has no emotions and no attributes. Needless to add here that??there is no Shiva /?Parvati/ Vishnu etc in advaita. All texts speak only of Brahman.? > > But till such time we guys reach to that understanding, we have no other choice but to relate to Devi/ Shiva as parents and once this relation ' bhava " is established in the mind , it is natural to deduce that the Parents will have the same emotions towards their children. > > Regards > Rohit > > ? > > > > ________________________________ > Satish <satisharigela > > Friday, 26 June, 2009 12:20:45 AM > Re: Meru Mommy > > > > > > Gopal, > > @ .com, Gopal Gopinath <gopal_gopinath@ ...> wrote: > > > Is it at least safe and sensible to assume then, based on your >statements, Shankara was wrong when saying " mAtha cha pArvathi >chaiva pitA dEvO maheshwaraha " ?? Or,? am i reading you wrong? > > I am sorry that I made you go through this futile exercise of writing this post. This is because, i do not have any disagreement with what you have written here. > > Your question is unnecessary, because someone may point out a shloka in saundaryalahari and say AchArya says " hari and brahma envy one who worships devI " . Is shankara wrong in saying this? You can repeat this with many numerous examples.. > > >Shaastras can tell me to do or not to do certain modes of worship >using a chakra or meru or even a tasbeeh or rosary, but can >shastraas? control how I relate to It/Divine/Brahmam/ HER?? > > As said earlier no disagreement. If you pay close attention to my second post where I was replying to Gopalan, you will see that the objection is not to the following notion: > > " isn't it natural for human mind to attribute the cream of luminous and superlative emotions and feelings to things they adore and worship? " > > I even said it is perfectly alright. > > What I objected to is, trying to deduce the nature of devI by extending this. maybe I am not communicating my intent properly? > > Regards > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Dear rohit, While satish will reply, meanwhile i would also take the liberty of answering your question. Though the devotee has every right to besiege and pester his / her upasya devata with his / her emotions, it is not probably true that the upasya devata would also respond in a similar fashion as ordinary humans do. And that is what Satish's intention is, i presume. Though the devotees' relationship with devatas, though seem illogical and schizophrenic, their world is entirely a different *plane of consciousness* where only the eccentric devotee and his / her *Hero* (devata again) can *comprehend*. We have seen several such devotees and vageyakaras like Saint Tyagaraja, Annamayya, Syama Sastry, Muthuswamy Dikshitar, Ramdas whose kirtanas have this tinge of human relationship. On certain occassions, Ramdas, pleads Sita to persuade Rama to grace on him. The kirtana goes like this " nanu brova mani cheppave sitamma talli....... " The greatest jnani of this century Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi addresses Lord Arunachala as " Father " in his " Akararamanamalai " . The great srividya upasaka Shri Syama Satry pleads the Mother Kamakshi to grace him in his kirtana " brovavamma shri kamakshi..... " The last composition of Shri Dikshitar brings tears in the eyes of sangita rasikas ie., " minakshi me mudam dehi..... " After all, the 1st name of the Lalitha Sahasranama starts with " srimata " . Unless we chant this name with the bhavana aand visualize the same " compassion " , " love " and " grace " of our physical mother, i think our entire parayana of 1000 names is just waste of time and energy. So, ultimately, it is our " bhavana " and hence the Rahasya sahasranama says the Mother as " bhavana gamya " . Just my 2 cents. Counter arguments are welcome. regs, sriram , rohit kumtha <rohitkumtha wrote: > > Dear Satish, > > Your distinction is clear enough . Also it is clear that this assumption and attribution of human emotions is a temperory convienent assumption. To my mind, it will last only upto the point, where the sadhaka starts going beyond the Saguna swaroop. There after there is no need for such an assumption. > > what I was trying to say is that, this?thought process ( that the Divine Parents will have the same emotions as biological parents towards us ) is normal and natural till the sadhaka is in the Saguna worship level. And theres nothing wrong in that. > > I am sure that Ambaa wont mind if we?think so. > > Regards > Rohit ________________________________ > Satish <satisharigela > > Friday, 26 June, 2009 1:56:40 PM > Re: Meru Mommy > > > > > > @ .com, rohit kumtha <rohitkumtha@ ...> wrote: > > > > Dear Shri Satish, > > I cant understand why on one hand you say that it is perfectly >alright to attribute human emotions to Devi, Ishwar etc and on the >other hand you say that it is not correct to deduce the nature of >Devi by those emotions. > > Dear Rohit, > > Because this attribution of human emotions is made for our conveneince not necessarily because it is the nature of devI. > > Since it is a convenient temporary assumption on our part, it is all fine looking upon them as mother and father of this world. But where it fails is: In saying since a world mother behaves in such and such way in a certain scenario, devI also is like that. > > People need to be aware of this distinction is what I am trying to hint at. > > > But till such time we guys reach to that understanding, we have no >other choice but to relate to Devi/ Shiva as parents and once this >relation ' bhava " is established in the mind , it is natural to >deduce that the Parents will have the same emotions towards their >children. > > The last part of the above sentence is what I dont get. But I do not wish to spend more time on this one. > > If anyone understands me, maybe they can put what I am trying to say in a better way. > > > > > > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter http://cricket. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 This is exactly what I am trying to say. Without " bhava " all worship is useless. And it is natural to expect Devi to respond to us like a mother. All the great Bhaktas you have mentioned have done it. Now will Ambaa respond or not, in the way desired, is left to Her. We cant control Her will . Going by the experiences of great saints and ordinary people also , I know that She does respond, in Her own way. Regards Rohit ________________________________ sriram <sriram_sapthasathi Friday, 26 June, 2009 3:35:33 PM Re: Meru Mommy Dear rohit, While satish will reply, meanwhile i would also take the liberty of answering your question. Though the devotee has every right to besiege and pester his / her upasya devata with his / her emotions, it is not probably true that the upasya devata would also respond in a similar fashion as ordinary humans do. And that is what Satish's intention is, i presume. Though the devotees' relationship with devatas, though seem illogical and schizophrenic, their world is entirely a different *plane of consciousness* where only the eccentric devotee and his / her *Hero* (devata again) can *comprehend* . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Namaskaram. There is nothing true bhakti cannot accomplish. Bhakti through thoughts, words or songs. As Shri Ramakrishna says, a person who gets tears at the mere mention of Rama, Krishna or another devata, needs no other sadhana. That shows how far one can go along the bhakti line with devataa as: father, mother, child, lover, even friend. On the other hand, tantra oriented ritualistic worship using yantras are precise experiments in the sense that the diagram is drawn to precise specifications, requires so many counts of japas of such and such beejas pronounced perfectly and all other procedures followed to perfection. It is like trying to switch to channel CNN on 200. If you happen to be around 202, you will not get CNN but CNN headline news. So if one wants to go the higher ritualistic worship way, which must be perfect, can there be any compromises? And so, why confuse between the two? This is not to say, you do only Bhakti or only yantra/mantra/tantra When you do bhakti, do you need any yantras? When one totally melts in bhakti and one has a small, although definite, unfilled desire of meru worship, Mommy will bring the Meru and give it yo you. No, she will say you, the human being, is the highest Meru. On the other hand, when you do Meru pooja, can you be not sure of what you are doing? Just my little observations..please forgive any mistakes in my thinking. Saravanan , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > Dear rohit, > > While satish will reply, meanwhile i would also take the liberty of answering your question. > > Though the devotee has every right to besiege and pester his / her upasya devata with his / her emotions, it is not probably true that the upasya devata would also respond in a similar fashion as ordinary humans do. And that is what Satish's intention is, i presume. > > Though the devotees' relationship with devatas, though seem illogical and schizophrenic, their world is entirely a different *plane of consciousness* where only the eccentric devotee and his / her *Hero* (devata again) can *comprehend*. > 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.