Guest guest Posted November 18, 2007 Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 From :- krishnarao {SriparasuKanandanAtha) Subject :- Ucchista Ganapati Upasana / Puja Proecedure priya mahASayah, in ambal group >: " subrabalaji " subrabalaji subrabalaji >Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:15 pm (PST) writes-------- >Dear Members - where can I find the Puja and Upasana procedures for >Ucchista Ganapati. I heard from some Sri Vidya Upasakas that the >worship of Ucchista Ganapati is an important aspect. Also I have heard >from some that it is the only way to Moksha. Also I heard that one >gets rare Siddhis with such Upasana and also one has to strictly >adhere to procedures. >Regards >Balaji ========================================== In SrIvidyArNava tantra by Sri vidyAraNya, It is clearly mentioned that the ucciSta gaNapati upAsana will be effective only by the vAmAcAra methods. When any one approaches his guru for the first time, his intention would be in pursuit of the supreme god and mOkSha. The guru who is " swrUpa nirUpaNa hEtuh " is initiating with a mantra of some dEvata or dEva. This is because one should not/can not say any thing about god in an establishing voice. " kaula pratiShTam na kuryAt " Even in the books like " soundarya lahari " , the way to emancipation was nerrated with slOkas like " muKam bindum kritwa " , " naram varSIyamsam " . They appear like mAdana prayOgAs to attract women. Is it the advice of SankarAcarya who himself is a staunch sanyAsi, for a Sishya who approaches him to show him the way for liberation? Instead of trying to understand the inner esteric objective of the guru, he is opting to master the texts, and bring out the materialistic benefits like a mad man gathering all the useless stuff seen on the roadside, thinking it all so precious. My guru was telling " what ever is written in the scripture, even by any great sage, it would be only vAmAcara mehod. It is you to search for the meaning which reminds you about your own 'swarUpa'. All the mantras are the reminders of your own swrUpa. If you take materialistic meaning, even the nArAyaNa mantra or the siva mantra will never save you from the present state of misery, but throws you in to the ditch of samsAra, " SR^iNyEva sitayA viswa carShaNih pASEna pratibadhnAtyabhIkAn | iShuBhih pancaBhir dhanShEna| viddhatyAdiSaktir aruNAca viswajanyA || " I dont understand how can any other god can give any one the 'mOkSha', when there is Siva and nArayaNa who are considered to be the sole distributors of mOkSha? " sahasram vartantE jagati vibudhAh kSudra phaladah na manyE swpnE vA tadanusaraNam tatkR^ita Palam || " Please don't believe any of these gods. They will always be saying nonsensical promises. Trash every thing. -- L.Krishnarao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2007 Report Share Posted November 22, 2007 Dear Sri Lanka KrishnaRao Garu, Please find below a reply given by one of my spiritual friends who requests anonymity and asked me to post nevertheless a fitting reply based on the immidiate context of your message. From my friend: kAraNaparachidrUpAyai namaH vAgvAdinyai namaH **** In SrIvidyArNava tantra by Sri vidyAraNya, It is clearly mentionedthat the ucciSta gaNapati upAsana will be effective only by the vAmAcAramethods. **** Srividyarnava is a compilation attributed to Sri Vidyaranya, like other works such as sadAchAradIpikA etc. Neither is it a Tantra nor a pramANa by itself. It is a compilation from various Tantras and other compilations, believed to be a work of Sri Vidyaranya. Again, not all accept this to be a genuine work of Vidyaranya. Also, in this compilation, Vidyaranya quotes from a certain Tantra [meru if I remember] which says ucchiShTa gaNeshopAsanA is effective only through the mode of vAmAchAra. This, is the opinion of one Tantra. But if that Tantra alsone serves as pramANa universally for every aspect of ucchiShTa gaNeshopAsanA, I am afraid not! There are various Tantras, like trikUTA rahasya, which vehemently declare the futility of srividyopAsanA, when practiced in modes other than uttara kaula. Now, if one were to accept this sole pramANa, daksha/samayAchara-s would need to be `trashed'. Thus, one cannot pick some quote from some Tantra out of context and use that as the `catch-all pramANa' for ucchiShTa gaNeshopAsanA. Moreover, these Tantras, which are vAma-para tantras, by stating that ucchiShTa gaNeshopAsanA is possible only through vAma mArga, are glorifying vAmAchAra and ucchiShTa gaNeshopAsanA and that alone is the intent behind this statement. Literal interpretation in this case, ignoring other pramANa-s, cannot be the right approach here. uDDAmareshwara tantra, in several chapters, describes the special mode of worship of Sri ucchiShTa gaNesha, as taught by Sri Adi Dakshinamurti to Sanaka and others. Also, baDabAnala tantra lists the 37-lettered mantra of ucchiShTa gaNesha as one of the seven mokShaprada mantras while describing the fifteenth AvaraNa of kAdi krama tantra. Apart from scriptures, the AcharaNa of satpuruShas and saints is a valid pramANa as well, as shamkha and likhita point out. We have had the glorious history of H H Sringeri Acharyas, the kAnchi paramAchArya, Sri Tanjore Sundaresha Sharma, Brahmasri Chidanandanatha and others who have practiced this mode of upAsanA and achieved Siddhi, which as clearly stated in uDDamareshwara tantra to be the goal of ucchiShTa gaNeshopAsanA, is swaswarUpa darshana. So, the statement that ucchiShTa gaNeshopAsanA is purely vAmAchAra is baseless. ********** When any one approaches his guru for the first time, his intentionwould be in pursuit of the supreme god and mOkSha.The guru who is "swrUpa nirUpaNa hEtuh" is initiating with a mantra of somedEvata or dEva. This is because one should not/can not say any thing aboutgod in an establishing voice."kaula pratiShTam na kuryAt" ************ The quote, na kaula pratiShThAm kuryAt, from kaulopanishad, simply means this: indescriminate preaching of the kaula doctrine is not permissible. The celebrated commentator bhAskararAya says: yadi kashchinnyAyopanyAsanipuNaH kaulaM sannyAyaireva sthApayituM kShameta so.api nemaM mArgaM pratiShThApayet, pRakaTyabha~NgApatteH | ata eva etat shAstraviShaye granthakArasyApi kaulapratiShThArUpatvena tatrApi niShedhapravR^ittyA sAmpradAyikAnAM katipayAmshAnAM aprakaTanAya gurumukhAdeva j~neyamiti tatra tatra lekhaH sa~NgacChate | The intent of this pharse becomes clear from the above interpretation. So, what is the basis for the interpetation of the above verse as referring to anything regarding paramAtman or Atma swarUpa? ******* I dont understand how can any other god can give any one the'mOkSha', when there is Siva and nArayaNa who are considered to be the soledistributors of mOkSha? Please don't believe any of these gods. They will always be sayingnonsensical promises. Trash every thing. ********** What is the basis for your statement? Are not Aditya, ambikA and gaNesha as much of saguNa mUrtis of the one brahman as shiva and nArAyaNa? Cannot chitta suddhi required for the assimilation of jnAna be obtained by worshipping any one of these forms with devotion? If not, gaNesha, mudgala, pAdma, bhaviShyottara and other purANas, which are explicit pramANas in this regard, are proved false. There seems to be deep confusion regarding the mode of upAsanA and adhikAra bheda. If every tom, dick and harry were eligible for swaswarUpAnusandhAna, then what was the need for saguNa/pratIkopAsanA or Srividya Upasana or bahiryAga upAsanA? Also, when speaking practically, we need to clearly distinguish between Atma vichAra and upAsana, the latter being the sopAna leading to tattva vichAra. jIvamukhyapranalinganneti chet na upasatraividhyat asritatvadiha tadyogat -says bAdarAyaNa in his Sutra (1.1.31). From an understanding of this Sutra and its relevant commentary, it becomes established that upAsanA is a mental process or activity. Every upAsanA, including Srividya or ucchiShTa gaNeshopAsanA, are valid paths of worshipping saguNa brahman, and hence can be called as paths `leading' to mokSha. So, how can forms of saguNa brahman like shrI lalitA or shrI ucchiShTa gaNesha be `trashed'. If the scriptures promise `mokSha' by worship of these forms resulting in chitta shuddhi and eventually by tattva vichAra, why should the claim be doubted? If `these' gods cannot be believed, saguNa/pratIkopAsanA would be meaningless. shAstra clearly states, sAdhakAnAm hitArthAya brahmaNo rUpa kalpanA. Though the limitation of saguNa mUrtis is quite established, during the stage of saguNopAsanA, the bhAva of the upAsaka cannot be: "Ok, this form of God is not really the truth! It is only after I strip him of names and forms [of which I am not really capable now! Or else why would I indulge in any kind of upAsanA at all instead of relying solely on tattva vichAra?] that I can really extract mokSha out of him/her/it". Can any upAsaka progess in his upAsanA without a firm belief in his upAsya devata as being all-powerful and filled with anata kalyANa guNas? And would upAsanA lacking such bhAvanA lead one anywhere? And which shiva and nArAyaNa are we talking of here? By saying shiva AND nArAyaNa, it seems that the reference here is to two `separate' saguNa mUrtis. How are these two particular mUrtis capable of giving jnAna when other mUrtis cannot? ****** The u. gaNesha worship originally has its origins with gANapatya-s.Please see the following note by a acquaintance of mine. Notes inbracket are mine.---"The next great Acharya of the sect(gANapatya sect) was herambasuta,who founded the heterodox vAmAchara cult of gaNapati worship. Theyworship the form of gaNapati termed ucchiShTa gaNapati. He is mediatedin a form, which may be viewed by many uninitiated modern Hindus andothers as being very obscene."--Apparently these are not shrIvidya upAsaka-s but worship u.gaNesha.So where does the shrIvidya requirement come from? ******* Srividya is really a big umbrella. We have shrIvidyA dakShiNAmUrti, we have shrIvidyA rAjagopAla, and we have shrIvidyArupI ucchiShTa gaNesha. Even mahAgaNapati has been adopted in a Srividya-compatible form by Acharyas like Haradutta, who propagated vAnchA kalpalatA mode etc. Like stated earlier, the pramANa for this particular form of upAsanA is uDDAmareshwara Tantra. Yes, whatever is stated [regarding heterodox vAmAchAra etc.] is generally the *popular* way he is worshipped, but is it correct to assume that is the `only' way? ucchiShTa gaNesha, as explained in the phala sruti of ucchiShTa gaNesha mAlA mantra of rudra yAmala is worshipped as a brahmachAri, as with a consort, as one's own self etc., based on the qualification of the upAsaka. Also, he is worshipped as a pischAcha, yakSha, gaNa, rudra, gaNapati and ultimately as prakAsha-vimarsha samarasa swarUpa, again based on the qualification of the upAsaka. The last form, taught secretly from Guru to Shishya in dakShiNAmUrti sampradAya, insists of pUrNAbhiSheka before undertaking this advanced form of upAsanA. The qualification for undertaking this upAsanA is stated as: ramAdiShoDashIyuktaH dwAtrimshanmantrapAragaH. Here, Sri Lalita is visualised as Sri ucchiShTa mahAgaNapati and Sri Kameshwara as Sri Nila Saraswati. Also, the ucchiShTa pAduka peculiar to this form of upAsanA is called mahA mahA pAdukA or dakShiNAmUrti pAdukA. So, there is the gANapatya aspect and there is the Srividya aspect to ucchiShTa gaNeshopAsanA. The requirement is *true* in the case of Srividya aspect, both by shAstra pramANa and sampradAya. ******* If mokSha is what the sAdhaka desires there is no need to go this farand he has better things to do. Ex: Studying the shankara bhAShya-sand doing some serious AtmavichAra.Hence above statements are inaccurate IMHO.One doesn't need to specifically worship u.gaNesha to achieve mokSha. ***** This again takes us back to the basic question of adhikAra bheda. If everyone were capable of tattva vichAra, where was the need for upAsanA at all? And all those who study bAdarAyaNa's sUtra and debate endlessly would get enlighetend. The Acharyas would not insist on upAsanA or bhakti if that were the case. So, sopAna krama is the only asnwer for most. mokSha can be attained by worshipping any form sincerely in the sense that chitta shuddhi, a pre-requisite for tattva vichAra as also the ShaT sampatti can be accomplished through such upAsanA. However, certain upAsanA modes have been found to be *more* effective by AchAryas and hence have recommended those to their disciples. shrIvidyA can be quoted as an example. Apart from `secular', `text book' statements such as `all paths are same', `all lead to the same god' etc., the energies associated, the time required for progress etc. are distinct. Of course, this is assuming that the sAdhakA is hypothetically a sincere one with all the required lakShaNas. Like jaggery can be described only by the one who has eaten it, the differneces between these various modes can only be realised by one who has practically gone through it. Rest can only be hypothetical. By experience, an ucchiShTa gaNapati upAsaka can vouch for how the movement of kuNDalini is rapid, blissful and foceful when compared to what is stimulated by other mantras. Yes, this is not the only way to mokSha but its validness as a tool for mokSha need not be disputed. One should observe that most Tantras describe along with other mantras, this particular set of mantras as kShipra siddhi prada. Though what is `siddhi' is something debatable, uDDAmareshwara Tantra, which discusses the Vedantic aspect of ucchiShTa gaNesha as the only true aspect, calls the entire set of chapters, `kShipra siddhi paTala'. *********** Undoubtedly this is an elevating interpretation. It gives a glimpse ofthe vedAntic(which is really a great thing)mind of the interpreter.I personally like to know if there is any textual basis or atleast atraditional(sAmpradAya) basis for interpreting like above. There seems to be a trend where everything has to be interpreted alongvedAntic lines regardless of whether the texts warrant such aninterpretation or not. There is no need to mix things as there isenough confusion already. **************** Yes, kAdi dakShiNAmUrti krama tantra insists, as detailed in uDDAmareshwara and baDabAnala Tantras, on abheda between Srividya and ucchiShTa gaNeshopAsanA, in many ways. It establishes unity between Srichakra and ucchiShTa gaNesha mantradwaya, abheda between mUrtis of ucchiShTa gaNesha and Sri Lalita, aikya between navachakra – navAvaraNa – mantradwaya – Sridevi – Sriguru and upAsaka. The `avashiShTa' brahma vastu after the nAma and rUpa are dissolved, which is the prakAsha vimarsha samarasa swarUpa called Brahman or Sri Guru, is described as the swarUpa of ucchiShTa gaNesha. Again, the pramANa here is both shAstra and sampradAya. The same is described in guhya sahasranAma as utkR^iShTa shiShTa sadvastu, commented upon by H H Sri Sri Sacchidananda Shivabhinava Nrsimha Bharati Swamigal of Sringeri Sharada Peetham, faithfully recorded not only by Brahmasri Chidanandanatha of Guhananda Mandali, but also by Sri Balaganapati Bhatta, AshthAna vidwAn of Sringeri Sharada Peetham who was initiated into this upAsana by H H Acharya himself. One can also refer to the kriti in kAsIrAmakriyA, ucchiShTa gaNapatau, by Sri Muttuswami dikshitar, where he describes Lord thus: sacChabdavAchAswaRupiNi shabalIkrtabrahmaswarUpiNi chicchaktispUrtiswarUpiNi chidAnandanAthaswarUpiNi [in Venkataramana Iyer's version, it is chidAnandanAda swarUpiNi, also the version adopted by pAtti (DKP)]. Also, I see vedAntic interpretation of upAsanA, while not deviating from it in essence by `trashing' saguNa swarUpa as useless, to be helpful and rather the right approach. It keeps one grounded, enculcates vairAgya and keeps reminding one of the need for AtmAnusandhAna when ready and brahmAvApti as the only goal of upAsanA. ************ Meaning: The modaka or tAmbUla offered to the devata should be eatenand japa done without cleaning the mouth. Trying to fit it in aboveview of uchChiShTa will just get complicated here. Let us also notforget the context of the statement. ************ As stated earlier, the rites and rituals prescribed vary based on the approach of the aspirant. This is what is prescribed in one Tantra, and for that mantra of ucchiShTa gaNesha which is not associated with Srividya. But how can this be the only approach to ucchiShTa gaNeshopAsanA? Moreover, the same Tantra which describes these also states that there are absolutely no rules for ucchiShTa gaNeshopAsanA [in the mantroddhAra chapter of rudrayAmala, which is one of the parishishTas of the pUrva tantra] Finally, while delaing with upAsaka dharma, the Sruti says: lokAnna nindyAt. The Sutra also recommends, sarvadarshanAnindA. upAsaka who does not follow these cannot be called an upAsaka and those who are non-initiates have no authority/adhikAra in discussing modes of upAsanA due to lack of eligibility. ************************************************************************************************************** So, Lanka Garu, hope you and other members have now a right perspective on this matter.I did not want to quote texts and scriptures and you would not leave us till we quoted and engaged in a tarkawAdam! I thank my friend(some of whom might have guessed who that is) who has requested me to post this message in this forum anonymously and relay back Sri Lanka's response.The above is not Sriram Iyer's message(lest there be some confusion). Iam still waiting for his(Sriram Iyer's) response. Everything is done in a very sportif manner to clarify and nothing done to hurt or argue(or argumentum ad hominem) with any anyone in any manner. With due respects and Mudita, Yours Yogically, Shreeram Balijepalli. Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , "krishnarao" <lanka.krishnarao wrote:>> > > > > From :- krishnarao {SriparasuKanandanAtha)> Subject :-> Ucchista Ganapati Upasana / Puja Proecedure> > > priya mahASayah,> > in ambal group> >: "subrabalaji" subrabalaji subrabalaji > >Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:15 pm (PST) writes--------> >Dear Members - where can I find the Puja and Upasana procedures for > >Ucchista Ganapati. I heard from some Sri Vidya Upasakas that the > >worship of Ucchista Ganapati is an important aspect. Also I have > heard > >from some that it is the only way to Moksha. Also I heard that one > >gets rare Siddhis with such Upasana and also one has to strictly > >adhere to procedures.> > >Regards> >Balaji> ==========================================> > In SrIvidyArNava tantra by Sri vidyAraNya, It is clearly > mentioned> that the ucciSta gaNapati upAsana will be effective only by the > vAmAcAra methods.> > When any one approaches his guru for the first time, his > intention would be in pursuit of the supreme god and mOkSha.> The guru who is "swrUpa nirUpaNa hEtuh" is initiating with a mantra > of some dEvata or dEva. This is because one should not/can not say > any thing about god in an establishing voice.> "kaula pratiShTam na kuryAt"> > Even in the books like "soundarya lahari", the way to > emancipation was nerrated with slOkas like "muKam bindum > kritwa", "naram varSIyamsam". They appear like mAdana prayOgAs to > attract women. Is it the advice of SankarAcarya> who himself is a staunch sanyAsi, for a Sishya who approaches him to > show him the way for liberation?> > Instead of trying to understand the inner esteric objective of > the guru,> he is opting to master the texts, and bring out the materialistic > benefits like a mad man gathering all the useless stuff seen on the > roadside, thinking it all so precious. > > My guru was telling "what ever is written in the scripture, > even by any great sage, it would be only vAmAcara mehod.> It is you to search for the meaning which reminds you about your > own 'swarUpa'. All the mantras are the reminders of your own > swrUpa. If you take materialistic meaning, even the nArAyaNa mantra > or the siva mantra will never save you from the present state of > misery, but throws you in to the ditch of samsAra,> > "SR^iNyEva sitayA viswa carShaNih> pASEna pratibadhnAtyabhIkAn | iShuBhih pancaBhir dhanShEna|> viddhatyAdiSaktir aruNAca viswajanyA ||"> > I dont understand how can any other god can give any one > the 'mOkSha', when there is Siva and nArayaNa who are considered to > be the sole distributors of mOkSha?> > "sahasram vartantE jagati vibudhAh kSudra phaladah> na manyE swpnE vA tadanusaraNam tatkR^ita Palam ||"> > Please don't believe any of these gods. They will always be saying > nonsensical promises. Trash every thing. > > -- > L.Krishnarao> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 2007 Report Share Posted November 22, 2007 Shri Gurubhyo Namah: Harih: Om! I have nothing much to say, after the replies of Sri Shreeram Balijepalli Ji and the comments of a very learned and realized person on the same issue. Arguments can be for the sake of a cause, or for the sake of argument. I pray to my beloved Sri Subrahmanya to keep my arguments in the former category - May the scary reptile of my ego never arise in my words [ Shri VaadhaVidhya Gurave Namah:] > In fact I am also a staunch devotee of Ganapathy, > who is deeply established in me in the form of my jij~nyasa. I also > worship subrahmaNya to the core of my heart, who is all the five > elements and my mind. ******************************************************************** Sriram Iyer: Please accept my humble prostrations to the Divinity in you. ******************************************************************** > But I dont believe these gods whether gaNapathi or subrahmaNya > or ranganAtha or NArAyaNa or paramESwara Who ever may be with a > name > and form as the mokSha givers, because no one of these are > permanent. ******************************************************************** Sriram Iyer:This is exactly what I meant. No specific Form can be considered as the authority of granting Moksha. It seems very silly to me. You seemed to suggest only Shiva and Narayana could give Moksha and Sri Ganapathi cannot. There is really nothing to defend for me here! (I was telling the same thing!) ******************************************************************* > After completion of that time > his head has to be included in the garlend of heads worn by the > maHAkAli, and another Sankara has to come to that post. ********************************************************************* Sriram Iyer: If Ganesha, Sankara, Narayana are themselves mere Forms who are put to an end by another form MahaKali, what is the end of MahaKali? Is She not a form too? I hope all friends from America and Afrika know about MahaKali. Saguna worship is a step towards Nirguna Brahman, and not the end. Sri Gaudapada explains that all forms of Upasana should be transcended to reach Nirguna Brahman in his Mandukya Karika. Lord Sri Krishna Paramatma also guarentees that all Devotees of Form, indeed reach the final goal of union with the Formless. The limits of my intellectual capacity do not let me appreciate how the story you narrated is part of your answer. (I'll try my best and read it again) I am mighty confused by your contradictory statements - Did you not say the following? Statement #1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > I dont understand how can any other god can give any one > the 'mOkSha', when there is Siva and nArayaNa who are considered to > be the sole distributors of mOkSha? Statement #2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > But I dont believe these gods whether gaNapathi or subrahmaNya > or ranganAtha or NArAyaNa or paramESwara Who ever may be with a > name and form as the mokSha givers, because no one of these are > permanent. I am astonished to see that you consider Sri Subrahmanya = 5 elements + mind. Please spend some time reading about Siva's sixth face mention in Thirumanthiram by Thirumoolar (Translation from http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/tirumantiram/TantraTwo ..html) ****************************************************************** ------------------------------ 20 DARSHAN OF DOWNWARD-LOOKING FACE 520: Manifestation of Downward-looking Face " Hail our Lord! Our God! Deathly is might of Padmasura Save us, help, oh! " Thus did Celestials to Primal Lord pray!; And the Primal Lord to the Six-faced God Of coral hue beckoned; And said, " Proceed and smite the enemy. " 521: Blue Throat of Downward-looking Face He sports the garland of white skulls, His spreading locks are matted; He supports Universe vast, He fills Space in directions eight, On the throat of His Downward-directed Face Darkness suffuses; They say, " He swallowed poison; " They are ignorant, they know not truth. 522: The Truth of Lord's Blue-Throat Ye men!, Who in this sea-girt globe live In falsehood and flattery! Why His throat gleams dark, He knows who made it so; When you realize the truth He will make, Celestial beings bow to you. 523: The Downward-Looking Face is of Sadasiva Inside Primal Fire that is Siva Nandi rises in the centre, gleaming He pervads worlds all, His hue is of the twilight sun Who the world in glory ambulates, He is the Lord of the Downward-looking Face-- Athomukha. 524: The Face Creates All The Ancient One of Athomukha Created Universe vast here below; In Athomukha He animates all life; He is Lord of Athomukha Sakti of lotus eye; He is Lord of Aeons' End. 5253*6It Blossomed Into a Hundred Worlds and Impregnated Them With Energy Hearken to this, How Athomukha blossomed into a Gigantic Flower Then, it transformed itself into a hundred worlds; And into Limitless Energy Animating them; And then as Athomukha, The Lord remained as their Support as well. ---------------------------- During my initial stages of devotion, I used to be confused between praying to Sri Siva and Sri Subrahmanya. When the confusion reached is peak, Father, due to His Infinite Grace, condescended to explain me, in no ambiguous terms that Sri Siva with the sixth face (downward facing Atho Mukham) is indeed Sri Subrahmanya. (Details of how this happened are very personal - And are best kept that way! I have no plan to share it, unless Father wants me to do so in future). So, praying to either form is same - Especially, in deepest states of Meditation, greatest Seers and Rishis see the Five Faced Siva with the Sixth Face, as Sri Shanmukha, Sri Subrahmanya. I read about the downward facing 6th face much later, as a documented evidence to my experience only later. Have you wondered if Brahman is Nirguna, and the ultimate achievement, what could Su (Good, Pure) Brahman be? It is Sri Subrahmanya - For me, Sri Subrahmanya is a state beyond the purest form of Brahman. Countless people have been saved by the Lord - Sri Mahavatar Babaji and Sri Arutprakasa Vallalar in recent times. Uruvaai Aruvaai, Ulathaai Ilathaai (With Form and Without Form, One Who Is and Is Not) Maruvaai Malaraai, Maniyaai Oliyaai (As the Bud and the Flower, Gem and the Light) Karuvaai Uyiraai, Kadhiyaai Vidhiyaai (As Seed and the Life, Path and Fate) Guruvaai Varuvaai, Arulvaai Guhane (Please appear as My Guru and Shower me Grace, Oh Guha, The Secret One) I was wondering why Sri Subrahmanya was called Guha, the Secret One (who resides in the Cave of the Heart) - Alas! Now I realize, not everyone know His Glory. Some even compare Him to things as trivial as the 5 elements and the mind. Sri Shiva Subrahmanya Swamine Namah: Sri Sri Subrahmanya Rakshitoham, Sriram V Iyer ************************************************************ Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " krishnarao " <lanka.krishnarao wrote: > > mAnanIya SrIramji, > > I am very much impressed you are attempting to protray(?) > ganapathy`s glory. In fact I am also a staunch devotee of Ganapathy, > who is deeply established in me in the form of my jij~nyasa. I also > worship subrahmaNya to the core of my heart, who is all the five > elements and my mind. > > But I dont believe these gods whether gaNapathi or subrahmaNya > or ranganAtha or NArAyaNa or paramESwara Who ever may be with a name > and form as the mokSha givers, because no one of these are permanent. > After all these gods are all the products of SrIguru i.e., > father,mother, forefathers, relatives, teachers, friends and society > at large. If gaNapathy is the only mokSha giver, what would be the > fate of the living beings in foreign contries like Afrika, Amerika, > Arab contries, china and Japan etc.? because they dont know about > this GaNapthi or " gaNAnAm pathi " . > > Every one of these gods will have limitations of their > longivity/existence. Even the so-called mR^ityunjaya Sankara will > have a limitation for his life time. After completion of that time > his head has to be included in the garlend of heads worn by the > maHAkAli, and another Sankara has to come to that post. After > completion of these gods what would be my fate? " punarapi jananam? " > > Perhaps you did not notice the word " other gods " in my message. > It means that he who remains after rejecting every one saying > " nEti, nEti " (the rejector). > " BhraSyad dEvagaNam, trasan munigaNm,naSyat prapncam > paSyan nirBhara Eka Eva viharatyAnanda sAndrO BhavAn }|| " > He is not your gaNApati or your subrahmaNya. Perhaps your Bhattarsab > also should have to correct his statement. > > I would like to tell you another story-- > One man went to one of his friend`s house. That friend asked him a > GKquestion. " There is a photo in my house. His son is your friend now > standing before you. Who is he in that photo? " The man said " I dont > know. Who is he? " The friend replied " It is my father. " Both of > them laughed. > That man went to his house. He went to another friend and he asked > that friend a question. " I saw a photo in my friend`s house. His > son is your friend now standing before you. Who is he in that photo? " > That friend said " I dont know. Who is he? " Instantly that man said > " It is my father " . > > I am going to send another message very shortly. Please read it. > > Yours always in tne service of the mother. > krishnarao (SrIparasuKAnandanAtha) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Pranams Learned ones, I think the whole debate about prayer to any godly form for moksha is spiritually childish. This statement been made let me introduce myself. I am Anand Srinivas Raman, (Sanatana Introduction:Srivatsa gotra Aapasthambha sutra Yajur shaakaa adhyahi Satya Sharma nama). I have been an upasak of Ganesha since 12, doing japa of what is known in some parts of India ass Ganapathy Atharvashirsha and in other as Ganapathy Upanishad , Both being the same thing. As I write I am 32 yrs old. I practice mantra as a part of my daily life.I am soon to be initiated into Sri vidya by my maternal grandfather. I practice Sumuhki mantra japa. This is what I think about moksha: God is shiva and shakti being Intelligence and energy. The two combine to create. That creation is Maya, as real as our thoughts and as illusionary as our imagination. Moksha itself may be release of the soul from Maya the illusion, or from the cycle of birth and death, or from ignorance having been set onto the path of gyana and bhakti. I personnaly define Moksha as the ascension of Kundalini shakthi to Sahasrara and its retention there in this life and body, for i believe such ascension and retention releases the soul from bondage of physical body by giving absolute control over the physical existence namely Maya and there from transforming man from mortal to the true immortal for such a soul takes full control of its actions knowing fully the consequences of such actions. Such a soul is also released from the cycle of birth and death and such a soul also knows the ultimate truth that we define as GOD. I heard a rather interesting expansion of GOD - Generator Operator Destroyer. And if you analyse man's life you will find we are all doing the same thing with every breath we take. Regards Anand Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " Sriram V Iyer " <sriramv_iyer wrote: > > Shri Gurubhyo Namah: > Harih: Om! > > I have nothing much to say, after the replies of Sri Shreeram > Balijepalli Ji and the comments of a very learned and realized person > on the same issue. > > Arguments can be for the sake of a cause, or for the sake of > argument. I pray to my beloved Sri Subrahmanya to keep my arguments > in the former category - May the scary reptile of my ego never arise > in my words [ Shri VaadhaVidhya Gurave Namah:] > > > > In fact I am also a staunch devotee of Ganapathy, > > who is deeply established in me in the form of my jij~nyasa. I also > > worship subrahmaNya to the core of my heart, who is all the five > > elements and my mind. > ******************************************************************** > > Sriram Iyer: Please accept my humble prostrations to the Divinity in you. > > ******************************************************************** > > > But I dont believe these gods whether gaNapathi or subrahmaNya > > or ranganAtha or NArAyaNa or paramESwara Who ever may be with a > > name > > and form as the mokSha givers, because no one of these are > > permanent. > ******************************************************************** > > Sriram Iyer:This is exactly what I meant. No specific Form can be considered as the authority of granting Moksha. It seems very silly to me. You seemed to suggest only Shiva and Narayana could give Moksha and Sri Ganapathi cannot. There is really nothing to defend for me here! (I was telling the same thing!) > > ******************************************************************* > > > After completion of that time > > his head has to be included in the garlend of heads worn by the > > maHAkAli, and another Sankara has to come to that post. > > ********************************************************************* > > Sriram Iyer: > If Ganesha, Sankara, Narayana are themselves mere Forms who are put > to an end by another form MahaKali, what is the end of MahaKali? Is > She not a form too? I hope all friends from America and Afrika know > about MahaKali. > > Saguna worship is a step towards Nirguna Brahman, and not the end. > Sri Gaudapada explains that all forms of Upasana should be > transcended to reach Nirguna Brahman in his Mandukya Karika. Lord Sri > Krishna Paramatma also guarentees that all Devotees of Form, indeed > reach the final goal of union with the Formless. > > The limits of my intellectual capacity do not let me appreciate how > the story you narrated is part of your answer. (I'll try my best and > read it again) > > I am mighty confused by your contradictory statements - Did you not > say the following? > > Statement #1 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I dont understand how can any other god can give any one > > the 'mOkSha', when there is Siva and nArayaNa who are considered to > > be the sole distributors of mOkSha? > > Statement #2 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > But I dont believe these gods whether gaNapathi or subrahmaNya > > or ranganAtha or NArAyaNa or paramESwara Who ever may be with a > > name and form as the mokSha givers, because no one of these are > > permanent. > > > I am astonished to see that you consider Sri Subrahmanya = 5 elements > + mind. Please spend some time reading about Siva's sixth face > mention in Thirumanthiram by Thirumoolar (Translation from > http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/tirumantiram/TantraTwo > .html) > > ****************************************************************** > > ------------------------------ > 20 DARSHAN OF DOWNWARD-LOOKING FACE > > 520: Manifestation of Downward-looking Face > > " Hail our Lord! Our God! > Deathly is might of Padmasura > Save us, help, oh! " > Thus did Celestials to Primal Lord pray!; > And the Primal Lord to the Six-faced God > Of coral hue beckoned; > And said, " Proceed and smite the enemy. " > > 521: Blue Throat of Downward-looking Face > > He sports the garland of white skulls, > His spreading locks are matted; > He supports Universe vast, > He fills Space in directions eight, > On the throat of His Downward-directed Face > Darkness suffuses; > They say, " He swallowed poison; " > They are ignorant, they know not truth. > > 522: The Truth of Lord's Blue-Throat > > Ye men!, > Who in this sea-girt globe live > In falsehood and flattery! > Why His throat gleams dark, > He knows who made it so; > When you realize the truth > He will make, > Celestial beings bow to you. > > 523: The Downward-Looking Face is of Sadasiva > > Inside Primal Fire that is Siva > Nandi rises in the centre, gleaming > He pervads worlds all, > His hue is of the twilight sun > Who the world in glory ambulates, > He is the Lord of the Downward-looking Face-- > Athomukha. > > 524: The Face Creates All > > The Ancient One of Athomukha > Created Universe vast here below; > In Athomukha He animates all life; > He is Lord of Athomukha Sakti of lotus eye; > He is Lord of Aeons' End. > > 5253*6It Blossomed Into a Hundred Worlds and Impregnated Them With > Energy > > Hearken to this, > How Athomukha blossomed into a Gigantic Flower > Then, it transformed itself into a hundred worlds; > And into Limitless Energy > Animating them; > And then as Athomukha, > The Lord remained as their Support as well. > > ---------------------------- > > During my initial stages of devotion, I used to be confused between > praying to Sri Siva and Sri Subrahmanya. When the confusion reached > is peak, Father, due to His Infinite Grace, condescended to explain > me, in no ambiguous terms that Sri Siva with the sixth face (downward > facing Atho Mukham) is indeed Sri Subrahmanya. (Details of how this > happened are very personal - And are best kept that way! I have no > plan to share it, unless Father wants me to do so in future). So, > praying to either form is same - Especially, in deepest states of > Meditation, greatest Seers and Rishis see the Five Faced Siva with > the Sixth Face, as Sri Shanmukha, Sri Subrahmanya. I read about the > downward facing 6th face much later, as a documented evidence to my > experience only later. > > Have you wondered if Brahman is Nirguna, and the ultimate > achievement, what could Su (Good, Pure) Brahman be? It is Sri > Subrahmanya - For me, Sri Subrahmanya is a state beyond the purest > form of Brahman. Countless people have been saved by the Lord - Sri > Mahavatar Babaji and Sri Arutprakasa Vallalar in recent times. > > Uruvaai Aruvaai, Ulathaai Ilathaai > (With Form and Without Form, One Who Is and Is Not) > > Maruvaai Malaraai, Maniyaai Oliyaai > (As the Bud and the Flower, Gem and the Light) > > Karuvaai Uyiraai, Kadhiyaai Vidhiyaai > (As Seed and the Life, Path and Fate) > > Guruvaai Varuvaai, Arulvaai Guhane > (Please appear as My Guru and Shower me Grace, Oh Guha, The Secret > One) > > I was wondering why Sri Subrahmanya was called Guha, the Secret One > (who resides in the Cave of the Heart) - Alas! Now I realize, not > everyone know His Glory. Some even compare Him to things as trivial > as the 5 elements and the mind. > > Sri Shiva Subrahmanya Swamine Namah: > Sri Sri Subrahmanya Rakshitoham, > Sriram V Iyer > > ************************************************************ > > > Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " krishnarao " > <lanka.krishnarao@> wrote: > > > > mAnanIya SrIramji, > > > > I am very much impressed you are attempting to protray(?) > > ganapathy`s glory. In fact I am also a staunch devotee of > Ganapathy, > > who is deeply established in me in the form of my jij~nyasa. I also > > worship subrahmaNya to the core of my heart, who is all the five > > elements and my mind. > > > > But I dont believe these gods whether gaNapathi or > subrahmaNya > > or ranganAtha or NArAyaNa or paramESwara Who ever may be with a > name > > and form as the mokSha givers, because no one of these are > permanent. > > After all these gods are all the products of SrIguru i.e., > > father,mother, forefathers, relatives, teachers, friends and > society > > at large. If gaNapathy is the only mokSha giver, what would be the > > fate of the living beings in foreign contries like Afrika, Amerika, > > Arab contries, china and Japan etc.? because they dont know about > > this GaNapthi or " gaNAnAm pathi " . > > > > Every one of these gods will have limitations of their > > longivity/existence. Even the so-called mR^ityunjaya Sankara will > > have a limitation for his life time. After completion of that time > > his head has to be included in the garlend of heads worn by the > > maHAkAli, and another Sankara has to come to that post. After > > completion of these gods what would be my fate? " punarapi jananam? " > > > > Perhaps you did not notice the word " other gods " in my > message. > > It means that he who remains after rejecting every one saying > > " nEti, nEti " (the rejector). > > " BhraSyad dEvagaNam, trasan munigaNm,naSyat prapncam > > paSyan nirBhara Eka Eva viharatyAnanda sAndrO BhavAn }|| " > > He is not your gaNApati or your subrahmaNya. Perhaps your > Bhattarsab > > also should have to correct his statement. > > > > I would like to tell you another story-- > > One man went to one of his friend`s house. That friend asked him a > > GKquestion. " There is a photo in my house. His son is your friend > now > > standing before you. Who is he in that photo? " The man said " I > dont > > know. Who is he? " The friend replied " It is my father. " Both of > > them laughed. > > That man went to his house. He went to another friend and he asked > > that friend a question. " I saw a photo in my friend`s house. His > > son is your friend now standing before you. Who is he in that > photo? " > > That friend said " I dont know. Who is he? " Instantly that man said > > " It is my father " . > > > > I am going to send another message very shortly. Please read > it. > > > > Yours always in tne service of the mother. > > krishnarao (SrIparasuKAnandanAtha) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Reply in four parts... (There was no debate,just a clarification. " I may not agree with what you say but I will fight till my last breath for your right to say so " ) FIRST PART: If prayers to a Godly form is " spiritually childish " , then I feel that one must first learn to be a child and then maybe we might try to worship in a formlessway (I will never dare to say before Amba, " Amba I will pray you as an adult, Bye...now let me go to formless " .) These type of trends/concepts/precepts started with the Britishers trying to enforce Chrisitianity into our nation by converting all and sundry ritualistic modes into vedantist explanations and we having a slavist tendency(with a formidable propensity to bootlick anything said by the white-man) to regard such words as something really great. This does not mean Nirguna,swaswarUpAnusandhAna,Antar-yagna modes of worship,etc do not exist(Has it happened to me? If I define then maybe it has not happened. So let me remain mum here) SECOND PART: Moksha,hmm... Well, if one has known how one gets it then one exists no more to explain it.This is my take on it. What we lean on to explain this concept is what people and scriptures have said. Moksha maybe real death and thus can someone who is dead be alive to explain it?It is a total annihilation. On the Peaked Mountain is a Summit High, Beyond the Summit blows a Gusty Wind; There blossomed a Flower that its fragrance spread Within that Flower, a Bee its Nectar imbibed, -- How is this? Quite " childish " huh? It is interesting to explore the teasing character of a Siddha(the above verse by Thirumoolar) language that strives very hard to set up a situation where they try not to tell you something…Why? Because, " Kandavar Vindilaar, Vindavar Kandilaar " (Those who have seen, do not/cannot tell, those who speak do not know/seen) Ok, the meaning: The gusty wind of the controlled breath spreads the fragrance of the Sahasraara lotus at the crown of the head in which the Lord as a tiny bumble bee sits, lapping up the nectar of immortality. The image of the mountain, usually infers the body seated in meditation or the central naadii Shashumna through which the kundalini shakti flows. We can see this same kind of imagery in later Sanskrit works, like the Shat Chakra Niroopana, where Shushumna is called the Meru-danda. THIRD PART: Even Srividya Upasana which you are taking has a " form " . It has the form of mantras.Isn't it? Why do you need the crutch of mantras to gain moksha? To define form as just a pictorial or idolatory form alone is being childish. Any concept has a form. Can you be truly conceptless? On the otherhand, any mantra creates a form, a mantric matrix, can you escape this embededness? Reading a few intellectual books on Srividya does do good on an intellectual level. It creates an interest, it ignites something but then something else is necessary to fan the flames. Books are tinder, your reading is the igniting,but what about fanning the flames to sustain the fire? Focusing on this would be better than thinking of the final product of this fire--which is nothing but ashes!(your ego burnt completely)-- THE STATE OF MOKSHA. GOD = Go on deriving....keep deriving from the platform derivative. Experiencing, doing something creative, something that fires the aspiration.Even this expansion of GOD was derived by my creativity spontaneously as I type..i know it sounds stupid for some beautiful for some but it is better than to copy someone who defines it as Generator, Operator & destroyer...on the basis of Triune gods of Brahma,Vishnu and Brahma,which again is a " form " . We all keep deriving with every breath. Every moment we change, were you the same say, two days ago? where you the same as when you were say 31 years ago when you were just 1 year old? Iam just a year or two younger to you. Dont you feel that we were better when we simply folded our hands and prayed to Divine mother when we were both 1 year old? With full faith that She might come from the idol and drink the milk? I used to wait like that when my father used to say " Dattatreya will come and drink the coconut water " I dint understand when he said something about " Etheric shareera of Datta coming and drinking the coconut water " nor did I understand the advanced explanations of a Swaswaroopanusandhaka regarding the Athmic samyogana of offering cocnut water. All I did was to offer the Lord and wait...Maybe if my father had kept quite Datta would have come.Maybe I did not wait enough as a child. Keep these " fathers " (who come in the form of Books,articles,advices of Psuedo-vedantists) silent or run away from them and do the upasana of divine mother which you are taking soon, in silence. This is your 1 year old friend saying not a " Srividya aquaintance " confabulating with you. FOURTH PART: I remain silent as Iam a child and ignorant as to ways of God, Goddess or Moksha.So if I have yakked above forgive it as an empty rambling by some wayfarer. Jaya Kapalini! Jaya Vijrumbhini! Shreeram Balijepalli Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " anandsrinivasraman " <anaraman wrote: > > Pranams Learned ones, > I think the whole debate about prayer to any godly form for moksha is > spiritually childish. This statement been made let me introduce > myself. I am Anand Srinivas Raman, (Sanatana Introduction:Srivatsa > gotra Aapasthambha sutra Yajur shaakaa adhyahi Satya Sharma nama). I > have been an upasak of Ganesha since 12, doing japa of what is known > in some parts of India ass Ganapathy Atharvashirsha and in other as > Ganapathy Upanishad , Both being the same thing. As I write I am 32 > yrs old. I practice mantra as a part of my daily life.I am soon to be > initiated into Sri vidya by my maternal grandfather. I practice > Sumuhki mantra japa. > This is what I think about moksha: > God is shiva and shakti being Intelligence and energy. The two > combine to create. That creation is Maya, as real as our thoughts and > as illusionary as our imagination. Moksha itself may be release of > the soul from Maya the illusion, or from the cycle of birth and > death, or from ignorance having been set onto the path of gyana and > bhakti. I personnaly define Moksha as the ascension of Kundalini > shakthi to Sahasrara and its retention there in this life and body, > for i believe such ascension and retention releases the soul from > bondage of physical body by giving absolute control over the physical > existence namely Maya and there from transforming man from mortal to > the true immortal for such a soul takes full control of its actions > knowing fully the consequences of such actions. Such a soul is also > released from the cycle of birth and death and such a soul also knows > the ultimate truth that we define as GOD. > I heard a rather interesting expansion of GOD - Generator Operator > Destroyer. And if you analyse man's life you will find we are all > doing the same thing with every breath we take. > > Regards > Anand > > Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " Sriram V Iyer " > <sriramv_iyer@> wrote: > > > > Shri Gurubhyo Namah: > > Harih: Om! > > > > I have nothing much to say, after the replies of Sri Shreeram > > Balijepalli Ji and the comments of a very learned and realized > person > > on the same issue. > > > > Arguments can be for the sake of a cause, or for the sake of > > argument. I pray to my beloved Sri Subrahmanya to keep my arguments > > in the former category - May the scary reptile of my ego never arise > > in my words [ Shri VaadhaVidhya Gurave Namah:] > > > > > > > In fact I am also a staunch devotee of Ganapathy, > > > who is deeply established in me in the form of my jij~nyasa. I > also > > > worship subrahmaNya to the core of my heart, who is all the five > > > elements and my mind. > > ******************************************************************** > > > > Sriram Iyer: Please accept my humble prostrations to the Divinity > in you. > > > > ******************************************************************** > > > > > But I dont believe these gods whether gaNapathi or subrahmaNya > > > or ranganAtha or NArAyaNa or paramESwara Who ever may be with a > > > name > > > and form as the mokSha givers, because no one of these are > > > permanent. > > ******************************************************************** > > > > Sriram Iyer:This is exactly what I meant. No specific Form can be > considered as the authority of granting Moksha. It seems very silly > to me. You seemed to suggest only Shiva and Narayana could give > Moksha and Sri Ganapathi cannot. There is really nothing to defend > for me here! (I was telling the same thing!) > > > > ******************************************************************* > > > > > After completion of that time > > > his head has to be included in the garlend of heads worn by the > > > maHAkAli, and another Sankara has to come to that post. > > > > > ********************************************************************* > > > > Sriram Iyer: > > If Ganesha, Sankara, Narayana are themselves mere Forms who are put > > to an end by another form MahaKali, what is the end of MahaKali? Is > > She not a form too? I hope all friends from America and Afrika know > > about MahaKali. > > > > Saguna worship is a step towards Nirguna Brahman, and not the end. > > Sri Gaudapada explains that all forms of Upasana should be > > transcended to reach Nirguna Brahman in his Mandukya Karika. Lord > Sri > > Krishna Paramatma also guarentees that all Devotees of Form, indeed > > reach the final goal of union with the Formless. > > > > The limits of my intellectual capacity do not let me appreciate how > > the story you narrated is part of your answer. (I'll try my best and > > read it again) > > > > I am mighty confused by your contradictory statements - Did you not > > say the following? > > > > Statement #1 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > I dont understand how can any other god can give any one > > > the 'mOkSha', when there is Siva and nArayaNa who are considered > to > > > be the sole distributors of mOkSha? > > > > Statement #2 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > But I dont believe these gods whether gaNapathi or subrahmaNya > > > or ranganAtha or NArAyaNa or paramESwara Who ever may be with a > > > name and form as the mokSha givers, because no one of these are > > > permanent. > > > > > > I am astonished to see that you consider Sri Subrahmanya = 5 > elements > > + mind. Please spend some time reading about Siva's sixth face > > mention in Thirumanthiram by Thirumoolar (Translation from > > > http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/tirumantiram/TantraTwo > > .html) > > > > ****************************************************************** > > > > ------------------------------ > > 20 DARSHAN OF DOWNWARD-LOOKING FACE > > > > 520: Manifestation of Downward-looking Face > > > > " Hail our Lord! Our God! > > Deathly is might of Padmasura > > Save us, help, oh! " > > Thus did Celestials to Primal Lord pray!; > > And the Primal Lord to the Six-faced God > > Of coral hue beckoned; > > And said, " Proceed and smite the enemy. " > > > > 521: Blue Throat of Downward-looking Face > > > > He sports the garland of white skulls, > > His spreading locks are matted; > > He supports Universe vast, > > He fills Space in directions eight, > > On the throat of His Downward-directed Face > > Darkness suffuses; > > They say, " He swallowed poison; " > > They are ignorant, they know not truth. > > > > 522: The Truth of Lord's Blue-Throat > > > > Ye men!, > > Who in this sea-girt globe live > > In falsehood and flattery! > > Why His throat gleams dark, > > He knows who made it so; > > When you realize the truth > > He will make, > > Celestial beings bow to you. > > > > 523: The Downward-Looking Face is of Sadasiva > > > > Inside Primal Fire that is Siva > > Nandi rises in the centre, gleaming > > He pervads worlds all, > > His hue is of the twilight sun > > Who the world in glory ambulates, > > He is the Lord of the Downward-looking Face-- > > Athomukha. > > > > 524: The Face Creates All > > > > The Ancient One of Athomukha > > Created Universe vast here below; > > In Athomukha He animates all life; > > He is Lord of Athomukha Sakti of lotus eye; > > He is Lord of Aeons' End. > > > > 5253*6It Blossomed Into a Hundred Worlds and Impregnated Them With > > Energy > > > > Hearken to this, > > How Athomukha blossomed into a Gigantic Flower > > Then, it transformed itself into a hundred worlds; > > And into Limitless Energy > > Animating them; > > And then as Athomukha, > > The Lord remained as their Support as well. > > > > ---------------------------- > > > > During my initial stages of devotion, I used to be confused between > > praying to Sri Siva and Sri Subrahmanya. When the confusion reached > > is peak, Father, due to His Infinite Grace, condescended to explain > > me, in no ambiguous terms that Sri Siva with the sixth face > (downward > > facing Atho Mukham) is indeed Sri Subrahmanya. (Details of how this > > happened are very personal - And are best kept that way! I have no > > plan to share it, unless Father wants me to do so in future). So, > > praying to either form is same - Especially, in deepest states of > > Meditation, greatest Seers and Rishis see the Five Faced Siva with > > the Sixth Face, as Sri Shanmukha, Sri Subrahmanya. I read about the > > downward facing 6th face much later, as a documented evidence to my > > experience only later. > > > > Have you wondered if Brahman is Nirguna, and the ultimate > > achievement, what could Su (Good, Pure) Brahman be? It is Sri > > Subrahmanya - For me, Sri Subrahmanya is a state beyond the purest > > form of Brahman. Countless people have been saved by the Lord - Sri > > Mahavatar Babaji and Sri Arutprakasa Vallalar in recent times. > > > > Uruvaai Aruvaai, Ulathaai Ilathaai > > (With Form and Without Form, One Who Is and Is Not) > > > > Maruvaai Malaraai, Maniyaai Oliyaai > > (As the Bud and the Flower, Gem and the Light) > > > > Karuvaai Uyiraai, Kadhiyaai Vidhiyaai > > (As Seed and the Life, Path and Fate) > > > > Guruvaai Varuvaai, Arulvaai Guhane > > (Please appear as My Guru and Shower me Grace, Oh Guha, The Secret > > One) > > > > I was wondering why Sri Subrahmanya was called Guha, the Secret One > > (who resides in the Cave of the Heart) - Alas! Now I realize, not > > everyone know His Glory. Some even compare Him to things as trivial > > as the 5 elements and the mind. > > > > Sri Shiva Subrahmanya Swamine Namah: > > Sri Sri Subrahmanya Rakshitoham, > > Sriram V Iyer > > > > ************************************************************ > > > > > > Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " krishnarao " > > <lanka.krishnarao@> wrote: > > > > > > mAnanIya SrIramji, > > > > > > I am very much impressed you are attempting to protray(?) > > > ganapathy`s glory. In fact I am also a staunch devotee of > > Ganapathy, > > > who is deeply established in me in the form of my jij~nyasa. I > also > > > worship subrahmaNya to the core of my heart, who is all the five > > > elements and my mind. > > > > > > But I dont believe these gods whether gaNapathi or > > subrahmaNya > > > or ranganAtha or NArAyaNa or paramESwara Who ever may be with a > > name > > > and form as the mokSha givers, because no one of these are > > permanent. > > > After all these gods are all the products of SrIguru i.e., > > > father,mother, forefathers, relatives, teachers, friends and > > society > > > at large. If gaNapathy is the only mokSha giver, what would be > the > > > fate of the living beings in foreign contries like Afrika, > Amerika, > > > Arab contries, china and Japan etc.? because they dont know about > > > this GaNapthi or " gaNAnAm pathi " . > > > > > > Every one of these gods will have limitations of their > > > longivity/existence. Even the so-called mR^ityunjaya Sankara will > > > have a limitation for his life time. After completion of that > time > > > his head has to be included in the garlend of heads worn by the > > > maHAkAli, and another Sankara has to come to that post. After > > > completion of these gods what would be my fate? " punarapi > jananam? " > > > > > > Perhaps you did not notice the word " other gods " in my > > message. > > > It means that he who remains after rejecting every one saying > > > " nEti, nEti " (the rejector). > > > " BhraSyad dEvagaNam, trasan munigaNm,naSyat prapncam > > > paSyan nirBhara Eka Eva viharatyAnanda sAndrO BhavAn }|| " > > > He is not your gaNApati or your subrahmaNya. Perhaps your > > Bhattarsab > > > also should have to correct his statement. > > > > > > I would like to tell you another story-- > > > One man went to one of his friend`s house. That friend asked him > a > > > GKquestion. " There is a photo in my house. His son is your friend > > now > > > standing before you. Who is he in that photo? " The man said " I > > dont > > > know. Who is he? " The friend replied " It is my father. " Both of > > > them laughed. > > > That man went to his house. He went to another friend and he > asked > > > that friend a question. " I saw a photo in my friend`s house. His > > > son is your friend now standing before you. Who is he in that > > photo? " > > > That friend said " I dont know. Who is he? " Instantly that man > said > > > " It is my father " . > > > > > > I am going to send another message very shortly. Please read > > it. > > > > > > Yours always in tne service of the mother. > > > krishnarao (SrIparasuKAnandanAtha) > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2007 Report Share Posted November 25, 2007 Many Namaskarams to All! How I wish I remain always childish! Yesterday night I was feeling overwhelmed by the Grace of Father - Sequences of words and thoughts were spiralling in my head - When they cleared, I felt Peace and in the lap of the Father. Whenever I am not childish, the body is occupied by the Ego - Sri Ramana cried: " Aimbulak kalvar agathinil pugugum pothu agatthil nee illayo? Arunachala! " - 'When the thieves of five senses entered my Self, were you not in there? Oh Arunachala' Father takes Forms, creates Forms - If He doesnt have a Form, is it not a blemish on Him? That He lacks something? How can we define Father? As His unworthy son, I can only look up to Him - I never hope I'll even try defining Him. What an audacity to capture Him in words? Is it possible? A few vowels, and consonants created by human vocal chord and a mind that connects them and assigns superficial labels to things around are an insult to an instrument to define Him. So, how do we reach Him? How do I get Moksha? I dont need anything from Father. I like being with Him. Thats all. I once pored over tons of literature, trying to understand mystic literature, mantras, tantras, yantras and what not! I tried learning Sanskrit, spent time reading Upanishads. Nothing gives pleasure or satisfaction. One just needs to still one's mind to listen to Father - Whenever I need help, He reassures his presense by a gentle breeze, a simple shower of rain, or a lightning, or in the smile of a stranger. Father never deserts any one. It is we who turn away from Him. Friends, Brothers and Sisters - Dont worry about chakras, Kundalini raising from Muladhara and reaching Sahasrara. It is a mechanism through which realization happens. Father, the Creator will raise your Kundalini if He desires you to experience Him. Or that is not the only way Father showers love. He will Merge into You. My finest moments I cherish is when I circumambulate Arunachala, when I am alone with Father (I avoid Poornima days, since due to my limitations, I am unable to filter out other people's chatter) - I still remember moments when time stands still before Sri Ranganatha Swamy, Sri Rangam, midnight chanting of Rudram Chamakam in Jambugeswarar temple in Thiruvanaikaval and singing Akhilandeswari (Dwijavanti) to Mother Akhilandeshwari one early morning, when even the Pujari suddenly walked away, just leaving me and Mother. I am always a child to Mother and Father. How I wish it would stay that way... " With Words and Logic, you get Nothing " - Sri Bhoganathar Sri Subrahmanya Rakshitoham Sriram V Iyer Rajarajeshwari_Kalpataru , " anandsrinivasraman " <anaraman wrote: > > Pranams Learned ones, > I think the whole debate about prayer to any godly form for moksha is > spiritually childish. This statement been made let me introduce > myself. I am Anand Srinivas Raman, (Sanatana Introduction:Srivatsa > gotra Aapasthambha sutra Yajur shaakaa adhyahi Satya Sharma nama). I > have been an upasak of Ganesha since 12, doing japa of what is known > in some parts of India ass Ganapathy Atharvashirsha and in other as > Ganapathy Upanishad , Both being the same thing. As I write I am 32 > yrs old. I practice mantra as a part of my daily life.I am soon to be > initiated into Sri vidya by my maternal grandfather. I practice > Sumuhki mantra japa. > This is what I think about moksha: > God is shiva and shakti being Intelligence and energy. The two > combine to create. That creation is Maya, as real as our thoughts and > as illusionary as our imagination. Moksha itself may be release of > the soul from Maya the illusion, or from the cycle of birth and > death, or from ignorance having been set onto the path of gyana and > bhakti. I personnaly define Moksha as the ascension of Kundalini > shakthi to Sahasrara and its retention there in this life and body, > for i believe such ascension and retention releases the soul from > bondage of physical body by giving absolute control over the physical > existence namely Maya and there from transforming man from mortal to > the true immortal for such a soul takes full control of its actions > knowing fully the consequences of such actions. Such a soul is also > released from the cycle of birth and death and such a soul also knows > the ultimate truth that we define as GOD. > I heard a rather interesting expansion of GOD - Generator Operator > Destroyer. And if you analyse man's life you will find we are all > doing the same thing with every breath we take. > > Regards > Anand 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.