Guest guest Posted December 9, 2001 Report Share Posted December 9, 2001 Jai Maha Maya! I think there is some general confusion between the two 'Maa's - Kali of the Dasa Mahavidyas and Maha Kali. Maha Kali is one of the three main Sakthis- The Triumvirate of the Sakthas. She is Iccha Sakthi. Maha Lakshmi is the Kriya Sakthi. (Here again she is NOT to be confused with Lakshmi, who is Vishnu Patni, the bestower of wealth). Maha Saraswathi is Of course Gnyana Sakthi.- Here again, she is NOT the wife of Brahma, with her Veena and Pusthak! May I expand on these statements? From the primordial Sakthi -Adi Sakthi- who has all three gunas- sattva, rajas and tamas, the three Sakthis, each with a distinct guna, emerged. Maha Saraswathi - Sattva Maha Lakshmi - Rajas Maha Kali - Tamas These three Sakthis produced the three Great Pairs - 'Mithuna Trayam'. Maha Saraswathi created Krishna and Gauri (or Parvati) Maha Lakshmi created Lakshmi and Brahma, Maha Kali created Saraswathi and Siva. You can see now the 'similarities' between each pair of brother and sister! Krishna and Parvati are dark in complexion, Lakshmi and Brahma are seated on a lotus, and Saraswathi and Siva are fair-skinned! Every body knows how these three male and female gods and goddesses joined in Holy matrimony! The above details are from The Devi Mahatmyam. Coming to my original remark on Kali and Maha Kali - Maa Kali of the Dasa mahavidyas is called Dhakshina Kali or simply Kali. Hers is the familiar form astride a supine form of Siva, with her four arms-1: Abhaya Mudra, 2:Varada Mudra, 3:holding a sword, 4:holding a severed head. MAHA Kali's form is like this: She has TEN hands - holding: 1: sword, 2:discus, 3:mace, 4:arrow, 5:bow, 6:iron club, 7:trident, 8;sling, 9:human head, 10:conch. She has THREE eyes. She is bedecked with jewels and ornaments allover. She shines like a blue jewel She has TEN faces. She has TEN feet. My humble request to all Sakthas is to be careful in their use of the prefix 'Maha' when referring to different forms of Maa. You could be referring to a completely different devata or deity! Of course Maa in all Her forms and manifestations IS Maha or GREAT! Jai Maha Maya! Yours in the service of Maa, Matrka7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2001 Report Share Posted December 10, 2001 Namaste Matrka 7, I am confused - Shiva:Parvati, Brahma:Saraswati, Krishna:Lakshmi(Radha), this is the great triad of pairs in Hinduism. Are you speaking then of another system of correspondences, unfamiliar to me? Many thanks, Krishna Das. - matrka7 <matrka7 Sunday, December 09, 2001 4:23 PM Mahakali and Kali > Jai Maha Maya! > > I think there is some general confusion between the two 'Maa's - Kali > of the Dasa Mahavidyas and Maha Kali. > > Maha Kali is one of the three main Sakthis- The Triumvirate of the > Sakthas. She is Iccha Sakthi. Maha Lakshmi is the Kriya Sakthi. (Here > again she is NOT to be confused with Lakshmi, who is Vishnu Patni, > the bestower of wealth). > Maha Saraswathi is Of course Gnyana Sakthi.- Here again, she is NOT > the wife of Brahma, with her Veena and Pusthak! > > May I expand on these statements? > From the primordial Sakthi -Adi Sakthi- who has all three gunas- > sattva, rajas and tamas, the three Sakthis, each with a distinct > guna, emerged. > Maha Saraswathi - Sattva > Maha Lakshmi - Rajas > Maha Kali - Tamas > These three Sakthis produced the three Great Pairs - 'Mithuna Trayam'. > Maha Saraswathi created Krishna and Gauri (or Parvati) > Maha Lakshmi created Lakshmi and Brahma, > Maha Kali created Saraswathi and Siva. > > You can see now the 'similarities' between each pair of brother and > sister! > Krishna and Parvati are dark in complexion, Lakshmi and Brahma are > seated on a lotus, and Saraswathi and Siva are fair-skinned! > Every body knows how these three male and female gods and goddesses > joined in Holy matrimony! The above details are from The Devi > Mahatmyam. > > Coming to my original remark on Kali and Maha Kali - > > Maa Kali of the Dasa mahavidyas is called Dhakshina Kali or simply > Kali. Hers is the familiar form astride a supine form of Siva, with > her four arms-1: Abhaya Mudra, 2:Varada Mudra, 3:holding a sword, > 4:holding a severed head. > > MAHA Kali's form is like this: > She has TEN hands - holding: 1: sword, 2:discus, 3:mace, 4:arrow, > 5:bow, 6:iron club, 7:trident, 8;sling, 9:human head, 10:conch. > She has THREE eyes. > She is bedecked with jewels and ornaments allover. > She shines like a blue jewel > She has TEN faces. > She has TEN feet. > > My humble request to all Sakthas is to be careful in their use of the > prefix 'Maha' when referring to different forms of Maa. You could be > referring to a completely different devata or deity! Of course Maa in > all Her forms and manifestations IS Maha or GREAT! > > Jai Maha Maya! > > Yours in the service of Maa, > > Matrka7 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2001 Report Share Posted December 10, 2001 the said clarifications about maha kali and kali is good. it will definitely clarify all the doubts pervading gerally about the Maha kali in the Saptasati who is the iccha sakthi and evolved from Maha Laksmi the swarupa of Maya ( as been told in Murty traya Sukthas of Saptasati) and to the kali as is referred as Adya, the first Dasa Maha vidya. Oflate, the usage of Maha has cropped up which is being used to convey a meaning of great and more powerful but it will not always serve the same meaning in Sanskrit always. Samvidanandanath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2001 Report Share Posted December 11, 2001 Jai Maha Maaya! Reference matrka7’s enlightening clarifications and Richard Kemp’s subsequent query. I am afraid we are straying in the direction of forms and losing track of the essence. The trichotomy (Please permit this coinage.) of creation is all-pervasive and forms of Mother are just symbolic. The following will clarify this: The pranava sound “Aum” represents this trichotomy. Similarly, the three sections of Devi Maahaathmya (Sapthasathi) – Poorva, Maddhyama and Uththara Charithas - and the three parts of the Manthra “Eim, Hrim, Klim” also substantiate this trichotomy. The three forms of Mother are described in the dhyana slokas that appear in the beginning of each of the above three charithas. Lalithaa Sahasranaama refers to Mother “Ichchaa Sakthi-Jnana Sakthi-Kriyaa Sakthi Svaroopini”. Here again, the stress is on the above trichotomy as rightly pointed out by matrka 7. When Sri Sankara sings “srishti-sthithi-pralaya kelishu samsthithayai” in Kanakadhara Sthothram, this trichotomy reperesented by Mother is praised. The very next line of the sthothram sings “Thasmai Namo Thribhuvanaika Gurostharunyai”. This “thribhuvana” again is the trichotomy of the waking, dream and deep-sleep states where Mother is the Guru (which means these three states have no independent existence apart from Mother). Again in the same sthothra, Sri Sankara refers to Mother as “Hari Vallabha” and “Kamalekshana Jeevanatha”, meaning She is the wife of Lord Vishnu (sthithi lord or sustainer). In the same breath, he also calls her “Sasisekhara Vallabha” – meaning the consort of Lord Siva. She is also praised as “Indeevarekshanasahodari Indira” (Vishnu’s sister Indira). Please remember this is the same Gurudeva who began his invaluable Soundaryalahari with the words “Sivasakthiaayuktho” driving home the truth that without Sakthi (The Universal Mother), the triumvirate of Brahma (Srishti), Vishnu (Sthithi) and Siva (Pralaya) are just incapable of anything – nay – they cannot exist independent of Her. The great intellect that elucidated Advaita cannot be wrong or confused. I believe he wrote Kanakadhhaara Sthothram because he wanted the devotee to go beyond forms in search of the essence. The one Mother who is everything – wife, sister, sustainer, destroyer and what not! Look, how beautifully he presented his advaita philosophy in a hymn! May I, therefore, submit that our aim as Mother’s devotees should be to realize what Sri Sankara envisioned. Look beyond the forms to see the same Universal Mother in everything. I am afraid what stands between us and this goal is our inherent tendency to interpret pralaya as meaning the dissolution of the material universe. Pralaya should include the dissolution of everything including thoughts and ideas not to speak of forms alone. What then will remain is Mother (In fact She is the only One that had ever been there!) – the all-pervading Consciousness without which forms cannot exist. She is Maaya – who projects the creation – this universe of matter, thoughts and ideas which are conditioned by time and space. When I was a teenager, I happened to stumble upon the Malayalam translation of an English book titled “The World We Live In”, in which the author had foreseen a very bleak future for our Earth. He had surmised how the Sun will grow into a red giant and lose its gravitational force, how the earth will stray out of its orbit and wander in the wilderness of space – cold and barren without any life. A bleak scenario, indeed, and in those days it used to worry me much. However, no more worries now thanks to Sri Sankara, for now I know that that scenario has no substance without there being a Consciousness to appreciate (see) it. Let us always know that that Consciousness is the Mother that we worship and we are not apart from Her. Skandha Puraana sings : Yasyaa unmeelithe nethre, jagathethath prakasathe, Nimeelithe thu nichcheshtam namasthasyai namo namaha [in Whose (Mother’s) open eyes this world is lighted up and disappears when the eyes are closed, salutations to Her!] implying the world that is seen cannot be apart from the seeing principle (Consciousness). So, the seen is not different from the seer. Let us, therefore, remember: I see the Sun, the Sun is me (Mother) (What better appreciation can one think of for the great Gaayathri Manthra or the Aadithya Hridayam of Ramayana?!), I hear the music, the music is me (Mother), I feel the pain, the pain is me (Mother), I smell the flower, the flower is me (Mother), I enjoyed the mango, the mango is me (Mother), I have a brain, my awareness of my brain is me (Mother), I do not know chemistry, my knowledge of my ignorance of chemistry is me (Mother), I know chemistry, chemistry lights up as me (Mother). Even Bin Laden and Musharraf are me (Mother). There is nothing there to hate. I love everything because I see me in everything! Then life becomes beautiful, everything is taken care of, we are always on our Mother’s lap. May we not strive for this realization? (As it is still an academic perception with me!) Isn’t it the same vision that Sri Sankara laboured to elucidate and our great preceptor, Sri Ramakrishna, lived and demonstrated!? No doubt, we can have discussions about “forms” – the descriptions of Mother, photographs, the pooja vidhis, interpretation of manthras, scriptural verses, temple information and legends. But we should necessarily devote some time to the “essence” too as that is the real satsang and gateway to self-realization – the ultimate goal of all our ardent endeavours. I feel we should also exchange our experiences as Mother’s devotees. Despite my mundane and personal drawbacks as an individual, I believe Mother’s upasana, however erratic or unguided it may be in my particular case, has at times blessed me with blissful moments. (Some persons, to whom I narrated what has been happening, advised me not to divulge such information as the experiences may cease to repeat. I do not know if they are right.) Although from an advaita point of view, such experiences are not important, I believe they may have an emotional significance to us as one family of Mother’s children. May I, therefore, request all my brothers and sisters to be forthcoming in this respect? I am sure many of us will have a lot of precious information to share with others. Best regards to everyone. Jai Maa! M.R. Nair " Richard Kemp " <kemprichard Re: Mahakali and Kali Mon, 10 Dec 2001 01:12:05 -0000 Namaste Matrka 7, I am confused - Shiva:Parvati, Brahma:Saraswati, Krishna:Lakshmi(Radha), this is the great triad of pairs in Hinduism. Are you speaking then of another system of correspondences, unfamiliar to me? Many thanks, Krishna Das. - matrka7 <matrka7 Sunday, December 09, 2001 4:23 PM Mahakali and Kali > Jai Maha Maya! > > I think there is some general confusion between the two 'Maa's - Kali > of the Dasa Mahavidyas and Maha Kali. > > Maha Kali is one of the three main Sakthis- The Triumvirate of the > Sakthas. She is Iccha Sakthi. Maha Lakshmi is the Kriya Sakthi. (Here > again she is NOT to be confused with Lakshmi, who is Vishnu Patni, > the bestower of wealth). > Maha Saraswathi is Of course Gnyana Sakthi.- Here again, she is NOT > the wife of Brahma, with her Veena and Pusthak! > > May I expand on these statements? > From the primordial Sakthi -Adi Sakthi- who has all three gunas- > sattva, rajas and tamas, the three Sakthis, each with a distinct > guna, emerged. > Maha Saraswathi - Sattva > Maha Lakshmi - Rajas > Maha Kali - Tamas > These three Sakthis produced the three Great Pairs - 'Mithuna Trayam'. > Maha Saraswathi created Krishna and Gauri (or Parvati) > Maha Lakshmi created Lakshmi and Brahma, > Maha Kali created Saraswathi and Siva. > > You can see now the 'similarities' between each pair of brother and > sister! > Krishna and Parvati are dark in complexion, Lakshmi and Brahma are > seated on a lotus, and Saraswathi and Siva are fair-skinned! > Every body knows how these three male and female gods and goddesses > joined in Holy matrimony! The above details are from The Devi > Mahatmyam. > > Coming to my original remark on Kali and Maha Kali - > > Maa Kali of the Dasa mahavidyas is called Dhakshina Kali or simply > Kali. Hers is the familiar form astride a supine form of Siva, with > her four arms-1: Abhaya Mudra, 2:Varada Mudra, 3:holding a sword, > 4:holding a severed head. > > MAHA Kali's form is like this: > She has TEN hands - holding: 1: sword, 2:discus, 3:mace, 4:arrow, > 5:bow, 6:iron club, 7:trident, 8;sling, 9:human head, 10:conch. > She has THREE eyes. > She is bedecked with jewels and ornaments allover. > She shines like a blue jewel > She has TEN faces. > She has TEN feet. > > My humble request to all Sakthas is to be careful in their use of the > prefix 'Maha' when referring to different forms of Maa. You could be > referring to a completely different devata or deity! Of course Maa in > all Her forms and manifestations IS Maha or GREAT! > > Jai Maha Maya! > > Yours in the service of Maa, > > Matrka7 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2001 Report Share Posted December 11, 2001 Jai Maha Maya! Thank you dear Richard, Saravanakumar and Madathil Nair for your responses. Nair has expanded on the principle of the trichotomy or the three main Sakthis who make up all the worlds, perceived or unperceived. Here I shall try to explain what I have said earlier, and hope that Richard 's doubt is cleared Brahma-Sarasvathy, Vishnu-Lakshmi, and Siva-Parvathy, - there is no confusion regarding these three divine pairs. Now they are the Male- Female aspects of the three different Sakthis.The three principles of creation, preservation, and dissolution. Before these three pairs came into existence, in the very beginning, there was only ONE Sakthi, the primordial Godhead, who is called Maha Lakshmi. She is described as having four arms, and She is the main Sakthi from whom emanated all other Sakthis and manifestations of God. This Mahalakshmi, being The Sakthi, has all three gunas-Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. She has in Herself the Male and the Female principles -Yoni and Linga. In her first step to create the universe, She created the three Sakthis out of Herself. The ten-armed Mahakali, who is the embodiment of Tamas. The eighteen-armed Mahalakshmi who is all Rajas. The eight-armed Mahasarasvaty who is the embodiment of Sattva. Then, the three Sakthis produced a pair of twins each. Mahalakshmi produced a male and a female seated on the lotus, both beautiful. She called the male Brahma and the female Lakshmi. Mahakali produced Siva with three eyes and matted hair. The female she produced is Sarasvathy, who is Knowledge, Language, the threeVedas, etc. Mahasarasvathy produced Vishnu, who is called Krishna- the Dark One. In my original post I had said Krishna, which is a mistake. Here I should have said Vishnu. He is called Krishna the 'dark one' but is not the avatar purusha Krishna. The female She produced is Uma or Parvathy. It is after this stage in Creation that Brahma and Sarasvathy, Vishnu and Lakshmi, and Siva and Uma are paired off to do the jobs of creation, sustenance and dissolution. These are the triad of pairs you are familiar with, Richard. I hope I have been able to explain this to your satisfaction. Jai Maha Maya! Sarvam Devi mayam jagat. Yours in Maa, Sapta Matrka. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 dearest sapta matrika, Success to Sri Mata, its really a joy to see the entire Viyakritika Rahasya and the Murthy Rahasya being explained so easily. yes, dearest saktha, Sapta matrika, the evolvement of the entire trinity and their accomplices from Mahalakshmi is no doubt confusing and complex and infact the entire sakthaadvaitha is like that. i am happy to see such forum being maintained among us. i would also look for some more excellent discussions in future in this forum, always at the lotus feet of Furu, Samvidanda nath (Saravana Kumar) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2001 Report Share Posted December 13, 2001 dear Mr. Nair, Sree Mathre Namah as you have rightly said, Pralaya or the destruction is not with words alone but the dissollution of all our prarabhda, ie Sanchita, and also agami, ie, the result of our karma or our deeds of past karma and also of the cfoming one. until everybody and everything in this world of 74 lakh living beings get completely nullified then does occur what is called Pralaya. you have rightly put that this world will remain in that mother and shall continue to do so. i have been associated with an ashram in visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India, which is Maha Shakta Asramam for the past 18 years and i have lot of experiences to share with everybody so that i can engage myself in the propogation of the Nama or Name of Sree Matha or The Mother. We belong to the Mahashakta Sampradaya which has its central Ashram in the Valley of Brahmaputra river, Northern Assam. i have seen couple of the contemporaries of my Gurju H.H. Ananta Sri Vibhushita Sivayati Saktananda Paramahamsa, Sri Bhairavananda Mahaswamy who are more than 150 years old and are devotees of Maha Maya, Laya Karini Sri Raja Rajeswari who are adepts of Saktha Yoga. Our Guruji goes there once every year on the Maha Shivrathri Day ( Phalguna Bahula Chathurdhi). i would welcome these discussions as this will bring about the greatness of the Vidya which we all are studying. similar to the great Vidya Saptasati, i have come across the Book Tripura Rahasya which also aims at thie very own point of Saktha Advaita which Saptasati is dealing. on the point of arguement, we could always argue that why did Mahalakshmi, so powerful, with both the Linga and the Yoni, and who created the trinity and their consorts thereafter, why at all did she create them. At first there is Maha Lakshmi then evolved Maha Saraswati and Maha Kali but then why did they were consorted? why were they coupled? what is the greatness in the couple of Maithuna or the Yoga which is the joining or merger of two? the same intricacy is dealth in Tripura Rahasya also. the Greatness of Saktha Advaitha, well,if One Power or Chaitanya so great is present why then it has to be consorted. this is the root i believe that the root to the entire tree of Koula or Saktha Yoga. always at the feet of Guru and the Mother. Samvidananda (Saravana Kumar) -- On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:35:24 madathil nair wrote: >Jai Maha Maaya! > >Reference matrka7’s enlightening clarifications and Richard Kemp’s >subsequent query. > >I am afraid we are straying in the direction of forms and losing track of >the essence. > >The trichotomy (Please permit this coinage.) of creation is all-pervasive >and forms of Mother are just symbolic. The following will clarify this: > >The pranava sound “Aum” represents this trichotomy. > >Similarly, the three sections of Devi Maahaathmya (Sapthasathi) – Poorva, >Maddhyama and Uththara Charithas - and the three parts of the Manthra “Eim, >Hrim, Klim” also substantiate this trichotomy. The three forms of Mother are >described in the dhyana slokas that appear in the beginning of each of the >above three charithas. > >Lalithaa Sahasranaama refers to Mother “Ichchaa Sakthi-Jnana Sakthi-Kriyaa >Sakthi Svaroopini”. Here again, the stress is on the above trichotomy as >rightly pointed out by matrka 7. > >When Sri Sankara sings “srishti-sthithi-pralaya kelishu samsthithayai” in >Kanakadhara Sthothram, this trichotomy reperesented by Mother is praised. > >The very next line of the sthothram sings “Thasmai Namo Thribhuvanaika >Gurostharunyai”. This “thribhuvana” again is the trichotomy of the waking, >dream and deep-sleep states where Mother is the Guru (which means these >three states have no independent existence apart from Mother). > >Again in the same sthothra, Sri Sankara refers to Mother as “Hari Vallabha” >and “Kamalekshana Jeevanatha”, meaning She is the wife of Lord Vishnu >(sthithi lord or sustainer). In the same breath, he also calls her >“Sasisekhara Vallabha” – meaning the consort of Lord Siva. She is also >praised as “Indeevarekshanasahodari Indira” (Vishnu’s sister Indira). Please >remember this is the same Gurudeva who began his invaluable Soundaryalahari >with the words “Sivasakthiaayuktho” driving home the truth that without >Sakthi (The Universal Mother), the triumvirate of Brahma (Srishti), Vishnu >(Sthithi) and Siva (Pralaya) are just incapable of anything – nay – they >cannot exist independent of Her. The great intellect that elucidated Advaita >cannot be wrong or confused. I believe he wrote Kanakadhhaara Sthothram >because he wanted the devotee to go beyond forms in search of the essence. >The one Mother who is everything – wife, sister, sustainer, destroyer and >what not! Look, how beautifully he presented his advaita philosophy in a >hymn! > >May I, therefore, submit that our aim as Mother’s devotees should be to >realize what Sri Sankara envisioned. Look beyond the forms to see the same >Universal Mother in everything. > >I am afraid what stands between us and this goal is our inherent tendency >to interpret pralaya as meaning the dissolution of the material universe. >Pralaya should include the dissolution of everything including thoughts and >ideas not to speak of forms alone. What then will remain is Mother (In fact >She is the only One that had ever been there!) – the all-pervading >Consciousness without which forms cannot exist. She is Maaya – who projects >the creation – this universe of matter, thoughts and ideas which are >conditioned by time and space. > >When I was a teenager, I happened to stumble upon the Malayalam translation >of an English book titled “The World We Live In”, in which the author had >foreseen a very bleak future for our Earth. He had surmised how the Sun >will grow into a red giant and lose its gravitational force, how the earth >will stray out of its orbit and wander in the wilderness of space – cold and >barren without any life. A bleak scenario, indeed, and in those days it >used to worry me much. However, no more worries now thanks to Sri Sankara, >for now I know that that scenario has no substance without there being a >Consciousness to appreciate (see) it. > >Let us always know that that Consciousness is the Mother that we worship and >we are not apart from Her. Skandha Puraana sings : Yasyaa unmeelithe >nethre, jagathethath prakasathe, Nimeelithe thu nichcheshtam namasthasyai >namo namaha [in Whose (Mother’s) open eyes this world is lighted up and >disappears when the eyes are closed, salutations to Her!] implying the >world that is seen cannot be apart from the seeing principle >(Consciousness). So, the seen is not different from the seer. Let us, >therefore, remember: I see the Sun, the Sun is me (Mother) (What better >appreciation can one think of for the great Gaayathri Manthra or the >Aadithya Hridayam of Ramayana?!), I hear the music, the music is me >(Mother), I feel the pain, the pain is me (Mother), I smell the flower, the >flower is me (Mother), I enjoyed the mango, the mango is me (Mother), I have >a brain, my awareness of my brain is me (Mother), I do not know chemistry, >my knowledge of my ignorance of chemistry is me (Mother), I know chemistry, >chemistry lights up as me (Mother). Even Bin Laden and Musharraf are me >(Mother). There is nothing there to hate. I love everything because I see >me in everything! Then life becomes beautiful, everything is taken care of, >we are always on our Mother’s lap. May we not strive for this realization? >(As it is still an academic perception with me!) Isn’t it the same vision >that Sri Sankara laboured to elucidate and our great preceptor, Sri >Ramakrishna, lived and demonstrated!? > >No doubt, we can have discussions about “forms” – the descriptions of >Mother, photographs, the pooja vidhis, interpretation of manthras, >scriptural verses, temple information and legends. But we should >necessarily devote some time to the “essence” too as that is the real >satsang and gateway to self-realization – the ultimate goal of all our >ardent endeavours. > >I feel we should also exchange our experiences as Mother’s devotees. >Despite my mundane and personal drawbacks as an individual, I believe >Mother’s upasana, however erratic or unguided it may be in my particular >case, has at times blessed me with blissful moments. (Some persons, to whom >I narrated what has been happening, advised me not to divulge such >information as the experiences may cease to repeat. I do not know if they >are right.) Although from an advaita point of view, such experiences are >not important, I believe they may have an emotional significance to us as >one family of Mother’s children. May I, therefore, request all my brothers >and sisters to be forthcoming in this respect? I am sure many of us will >have a lot of precious information to share with others. > >Best regards to everyone. > >Jai Maa! > >M.R. Nair > > > > " Richard Kemp " <kemprichard > > >Re: Mahakali and Kali >Mon, 10 Dec 2001 01:12:05 -0000 > >Namaste Matrka 7, > >I am confused - > >Shiva:Parvati, Brahma:Saraswati, Krishna:Lakshmi(Radha), this is the great >triad of pairs in Hinduism. > >Are you speaking then of another system of correspondences, unfamiliar to >me? > >Many thanks, > >Krishna Das. > > >- >matrka7 <matrka7 > >Sunday, December 09, 2001 4:23 PM > Mahakali and Kali > > > > Jai Maha Maya! > > > > I think there is some general confusion between the two 'Maa's - Kali > > of the Dasa Mahavidyas and Maha Kali. > > > > Maha Kali is one of the three main Sakthis- The Triumvirate of the > > Sakthas. She is Iccha Sakthi. Maha Lakshmi is the Kriya Sakthi. (Here > > again she is NOT to be confused with Lakshmi, who is Vishnu Patni, > > the bestower of wealth). > > Maha Saraswathi is Of course Gnyana Sakthi.- Here again, she is NOT > > the wife of Brahma, with her Veena and Pusthak! > > > > May I expand on these statements? > > From the primordial Sakthi -Adi Sakthi- who has all three gunas- > > sattva, rajas and tamas, the three Sakthis, each with a distinct > > guna, emerged. > > Maha Saraswathi - Sattva > > Maha Lakshmi - Rajas > > Maha Kali - Tamas > > These three Sakthis produced the three Great Pairs - 'Mithuna Trayam'. > > Maha Saraswathi created Krishna and Gauri (or Parvati) > > Maha Lakshmi created Lakshmi and Brahma, > > Maha Kali created Saraswathi and Siva. > > > > You can see now the 'similarities' between each pair of brother and > > sister! > > Krishna and Parvati are dark in complexion, Lakshmi and Brahma are > > seated on a lotus, and Saraswathi and Siva are fair-skinned! > > Every body knows how these three male and female gods and goddesses > > joined in Holy matrimony! The above details are from The Devi > > Mahatmyam. > > > > Coming to my original remark on Kali and Maha Kali - > > > > Maa Kali of the Dasa mahavidyas is called Dhakshina Kali or simply > > Kali. Hers is the familiar form astride a supine form of Siva, with > > her four arms-1: Abhaya Mudra, 2:Varada Mudra, 3:holding a sword, > > 4:holding a severed head. > > > > MAHA Kali's form is like this: > > She has TEN hands - holding: 1: sword, 2:discus, 3:mace, 4:arrow, > > 5:bow, 6:iron club, 7:trident, 8;sling, 9:human head, 10:conch. > > She has THREE eyes. > > She is bedecked with jewels and ornaments allover. > > She shines like a blue jewel > > She has TEN faces. > > She has TEN feet. > > > > My humble request to all Sakthas is to be careful in their use of the > > prefix 'Maha' when referring to different forms of Maa. You could be > > referring to a completely different devata or deity! Of course Maa in > > all Her forms and manifestations IS Maha or GREAT! > > > > Jai Maha Maya! > > > > Yours in the service of Maa, > > > > Matrka7 > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 Poojya Samvidanandaji! Thank you for your wonderful exposition. We have questions and doubts because we take things too literally. If one has a comprehensive vedantic vision that stands the test of logic, I repeat, that stands the test of logic, then one has the key to the fantastic symbolism encountered in our great scriptures and epics. Such a vision enables a person to see the essence through the maze of words and symbols, nay, such a person remains rooted on the essence inspite of the countless words and symbols. It is like what the song says: " Anganaa, Angana, Antare Madhava " . There are gopikas and gopikas dancing, but the devotee sees only Madhava at the centre inspite of the dancing gopis. Isn't this what happens in meditation - there are thoughts and thoughts dancing and scintillating, but, inspite of them, the meditator sees only " that one " (the Madhava) that illumines the thoughts? Please let us have more information about yourself, your experiences, your Poojya Guruji and his great preceptors. I felt wonderful reading about them. As for me, I am an ordinary grihastha, aged 55, working in Kuwait. Our exposure here to spiritual company is very sporadic limited to occasions when some great swami visits the place. Of course, there are some spiritual circles here and invariably all of them owe allegiance to some mission, ashram, or preceptor in India. When young, I used to read the upanishads and various commentaries thereto, particularly those by Swami Chinmayandaji. However, all that reading went over my head until in 1989 or thereabout a disciple of Swami Dayanada Saraswathi put me on what I " know " (I don't want to use the word " believe " ) is the right track for me. At around that same time, I also had an opportunity to meet Swami Dayanada Saraswathi and detail to him what I was doing and how I was feeling. I sought his advice on what I should next. Swamiji smiled and answered: " You don't have to do anything, Nair! Just, contemplate. That is all. " . I was totally disappointed for I had expected him to give me some serious advice and a manthra too. And look, this guy is asking me to " contemplate " . He was probably pulling my legs, I thought. His advice, therefore, was completely lost on me, the idiot, until another great " preceptor " came my way. You will be surprised to know who he is. He is none other than our great Saddam Hussein! See, there are gurus and gurus. They come in many forms. They can even be dictators. We should not ignore them. On the morning of 2nd August 1990, Saddam invaded Kuwait and his army took me captive from my place of work. I was imprisoned in Baghdad for about a month. My wife and two little daughters remained in Kuwait. What could I do about the situation? Absolutely nothing. I did not break down, however. I spent my trying time in captivity continuously chanting Hanuman Chaalisa. I have an emotional affinity to Hanumanji from my early childhood. I slept on the dirty prison floor with about one thousand other prisoners of different nationalities. It was some sort of a camp where we were herded together. We had hardly anything to eat. There were no sanitation facilities and water was very hard to come by. It was during this time that I " observed " two things: (a) the captivity and hardship did not bother me as much as it did my fellow-captives, and (b) I had only sympathy for my captor, Mr. Saddam Hussein, for I realized that I could sleep and snore on the dirty floor(I snore heavily and that used to bother the other prisoners very much.)but, look, here is a powerful dictator who cannot even bat an eyelid amidst all the comforts of his presidential palace, for he is a worried man, afraid of the Americans, absolutely untrustful of his own men, wives and children because they may assassinate him if he is off guard even for a second! Whose life is better, Mr. Hussein’s or mine!? I was having a cosmic vision - the tide of Consciousness full of names and forms, with Saddam Hussein at its crest and Senior Bush hunting after him, the war-cries, wails and moans of suffering humanity, a topsy-turvy world coming crashing down! Where is this scene projected and who is projecting it - I asked my self. I sat up with that question, for I suddenly realized something that I had all along been failing to notice. I had spontaneously begun to contemplate on the Truth without my knowing it. Swamiji was afterall right. One should contemplate. From then, till today, I have done this contemplation inspite of my several personal drawbacks and handicaps. In fact, this contemplation is the mainstay of my meditation and prayers and it has granted me insights that no books or gurus could have imparted. How I became a devi-bhaktha and the rest of it, I will keep for another message. If I have indulged, kindly pardon me. Namaskar. Jai Maa. M.R. Nair " saravana kumar " <saravana.kumar Re: Mahakali and Kali Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:17:55 +0530 dear Mr. Nair, Sree Mathre Namah as you have rightly said, Pralaya or the destruction is not with words alone but the dissollution of all our prarabhda, ie Sanchita, and also agami, ie, the result of our karma or our deeds of past karma and also of the cfoming one. until everybody and everything in this world of 74 lakh living beings get completely nullified then does occur what is called Pralaya. you have rightly put that this world will remain in that mother and shall continue to do so. i have been associated with an ashram in visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India, which is Maha Shakta Asramam for the past 18 years and i have lot of experiences to share with everybody so that i can engage myself in the propogation of the Nama or Name of Sree Matha or The Mother. We belong to the Mahashakta Sampradaya which has its central Ashram in the Valley of Brahmaputra river, Northern Assam. i have seen couple of the contemporaries of my Gurju H.H. Ananta Sri Vibhushita Sivayati Saktananda Paramahamsa, Sri Bhairavananda Mahaswamy who are more than 150 years old and are devotees of Maha Maya, Laya Karini Sri Raja Rajeswari who are adepts of Saktha Yoga. Our Guruji goes there once every year on the Maha Shivrathri Day ( Phalguna Bahula Chathurdhi). i would welcome these discussions as this will bring about the greatness of the Vidya which we all are studying. similar to the great Vidya Saptasati, i have come across the Book Tripura Rahasya which also aims at thie very own point of Saktha Advaita which Saptasati is dealing. on the point of arguement, we could always argue that why did Mahalakshmi, so powerful, with both the Linga and the Yoni, and who created the trinity and their consorts thereafter, why at all did she create them. At first there is Maha Lakshmi then evolved Maha Saraswati and Maha Kali but then why did they were consorted? why were they coupled? what is the greatness in the couple of Maithuna or the Yoga which is the joining or merger of two? the same intricacy is dealth in Tripura Rahasya also. the Greatness of Saktha Advaitha, well,if One Power or Chaitanya so great is present why then it has to be consorted. this is the root i believe that the root to the entire tree of Koula or Saktha Yoga. always at the feet of Guru and the Mother. Samvidananda (Saravana Kumar) -- On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:35:24 madathil nair wrote: >Jai Maha Maaya! > >Reference matrka7’s enlightening clarifications and Richard Kemp’s >subsequent query. > >I am afraid we are straying in the direction of forms and losing track of >the essence. > >The trichotomy (Please permit this coinage.) of creation is all-pervasive >and forms of Mother are just symbolic. The following will clarify this: > >The pranava sound “Aum” represents this trichotomy. > >Similarly, the three sections of Devi Maahaathmya (Sapthasathi) – Poorva, >Maddhyama and Uththara Charithas - and the three parts of the Manthra “Eim, >Hrim, Klim” also substantiate this trichotomy. The three forms of Mother are >described in the dhyana slokas that appear in the beginning of each of the >above three charithas. > >Lalithaa Sahasranaama refers to Mother “Ichchaa Sakthi-Jnana Sakthi-Kriyaa >Sakthi Svaroopini”. Here again, the stress is on the above trichotomy as >rightly pointed out by matrka 7. > >When Sri Sankara sings “srishti-sthithi-pralaya kelishu samsthithayai” in >Kanakadhara Sthothram, this trichotomy reperesented by Mother is praised. > >The very next line of the sthothram sings “Thasmai Namo Thribhuvanaika >Gurostharunyai”. This “thribhuvana” again is the trichotomy of the waking, >dream and deep-sleep states where Mother is the Guru (which means these >three states have no independent existence apart from Mother). > >Again in the same sthothra, Sri Sankara refers to Mother as “Hari Vallabha” >and “Kamalekshana Jeevanatha”, meaning She is the wife of Lord Vishnu >(sthithi lord or sustainer). In the same breath, he also calls her >“Sasisekhara Vallabha” – meaning the consort of Lord Siva. She is also >praised as “Indeevarekshanasahodari Indira” (Vishnu’s sister Indira). Please >remember this is the same Gurudeva who began his invaluable Soundaryalahari >with the words “Sivasakthiaayuktho” driving home the truth that without >Sakthi (The Universal Mother), the triumvirate of Brahma (Srishti), Vishnu >(Sthithi) and Siva (Pralaya) are just incapable of anything – nay – they >cannot exist independent of Her. The great intellect that elucidated Advaita >cannot be wrong or confused. I believe he wrote Kanakadhhaara Sthothram >because he wanted the devotee to go beyond forms in search of the essence. >The one Mother who is everything – wife, sister, sustainer, destroyer and >what not! Look, how beautifully he presented his advaita philosophy in a >hymn! > >May I, therefore, submit that our aim as Mother’s devotees should be to >realize what Sri Sankara envisioned. Look beyond the forms to see the same >Universal Mother in everything. > >I am afraid what stands between us and this goal is our inherent tendency >to interpret pralaya as meaning the dissolution of the material universe. >Pralaya should include the dissolution of everything including thoughts and >ideas not to speak of forms alone. What then will remain is Mother (In fact >She is the only One that had ever been there!) – the all-pervading >Consciousness without which forms cannot exist. She is Maaya – who projects >the creation – this universe of matter, thoughts and ideas which are >conditioned by time and space. > >When I was a teenager, I happened to stumble upon the Malayalam translation >of an English book titled “The World We Live In”, in which the author had >foreseen a very bleak future for our Earth. He had surmised how the Sun >will grow into a red giant and lose its gravitational force, how the earth >will stray out of its orbit and wander in the wilderness of space – cold and >barren without any life. A bleak scenario, indeed, and in those days it >used to worry me much. However, no more worries now thanks to Sri Sankara, >for now I know that that scenario has no substance without there being a >Consciousness to appreciate (see) it. > >Let us always know that that Consciousness is the Mother that we worship and >we are not apart from Her. Skandha Puraana sings : Yasyaa unmeelithe >nethre, jagathethath prakasathe, Nimeelithe thu nichcheshtam namasthasyai >namo namaha [in Whose (Mother’s) open eyes this world is lighted up and >disappears when the eyes are closed, salutations to Her!] implying the >world that is seen cannot be apart from the seeing principle >(Consciousness). So, the seen is not different from the seer. Let us, >therefore, remember: I see the Sun, the Sun is me (Mother) (What better >appreciation can one think of for the great Gaayathri Manthra or the >Aadithya Hridayam of Ramayana?!), I hear the music, the music is me >(Mother), I feel the pain, the pain is me (Mother), I smell the flower, the >flower is me (Mother), I enjoyed the mango, the mango is me (Mother), I have >a brain, my awareness of my brain is me (Mother), I do not know chemistry, >my knowledge of my ignorance of chemistry is me (Mother), I know chemistry, >chemistry lights up as me (Mother). Even Bin Laden and Musharraf are me >(Mother). There is nothing there to hate. I love everything because I see >me in everything! Then life becomes beautiful, everything is taken care of, >we are always on our Mother’s lap. May we not strive for this realization? >(As it is still an academic perception with me!) Isn’t it the same vision >that Sri Sankara laboured to elucidate and our great preceptor, Sri >Ramakrishna, lived and demonstrated!? > >No doubt, we can have discussions about “forms” – the descriptions of >Mother, photographs, the pooja vidhis, interpretation of manthras, >scriptural verses, temple information and legends. But we should >necessarily devote some time to the “essence” too as that is the real >satsang and gateway to self-realization – the ultimate goal of all our >ardent endeavours. > >I feel we should also exchange our experiences as Mother’s devotees. >Despite my mundane and personal drawbacks as an individual, I believe >Mother’s upasana, however erratic or unguided it may be in my particular >case, has at times blessed me with blissful moments. (Some persons, to whom >I narrated what has been happening, advised me not to divulge such >information as the experiences may cease to repeat. I do not know if they >are right.) Although from an advaita point of view, such experiences are >not important, I believe they may have an emotional significance to us as >one family of Mother’s children. May I, therefore, request all my brothers >and sisters to be forthcoming in this respect? I am sure many of us will >have a lot of precious information to share with others. > >Best regards to everyone. > >Jai Maa! > >M.R. Nair > > > > " Richard Kemp " <kemprichard > > >Re: Mahakali and Kali >Mon, 10 Dec 2001 01:12:05 -0000 > >Namaste Matrka 7, > >I am confused - > >Shiva:Parvati, Brahma:Saraswati, Krishna:Lakshmi(Radha), this is the great >triad of pairs in Hinduism. > >Are you speaking then of another system of correspondences, unfamiliar to >me? > >Many thanks, > >Krishna Das. > > >- >matrka7 <matrka7 > >Sunday, December 09, 2001 4:23 PM > Mahakali and Kali > > > > Jai Maha Maya! > > > > I think there is some general confusion between the two 'Maa's - Kali > > of the Dasa Mahavidyas and Maha Kali. > > > > Maha Kali is one of the three main Sakthis- The Triumvirate of the > > Sakthas. She is Iccha Sakthi. Maha Lakshmi is the Kriya Sakthi. (Here > > again she is NOT to be confused with Lakshmi, who is Vishnu Patni, > > the bestower of wealth). > > Maha Saraswathi is Of course Gnyana Sakthi.- Here again, she is NOT > > the wife of Brahma, with her Veena and Pusthak! > > > > May I expand on these statements? > > From the primordial Sakthi -Adi Sakthi- who has all three gunas- > > sattva, rajas and tamas, the three Sakthis, each with a distinct > > guna, emerged. > > Maha Saraswathi - Sattva > > Maha Lakshmi - Rajas > > Maha Kali - Tamas > > These three Sakthis produced the three Great Pairs - 'Mithuna Trayam'. > > Maha Saraswathi created Krishna and Gauri (or Parvati) > > Maha Lakshmi created Lakshmi and Brahma, > > Maha Kali created Saraswathi and Siva. > > > > You can see now the 'similarities' between each pair of brother and > > sister! > > Krishna and Parvati are dark in complexion, Lakshmi and Brahma are > > seated on a lotus, and Saraswathi and Siva are fair-skinned! > > Every body knows how these three male and female gods and goddesses > > joined in Holy matrimony! The above details are from The Devi > > Mahatmyam. > > > > Coming to my original remark on Kali and Maha Kali - > > > > Maa Kali of the Dasa mahavidyas is called Dhakshina Kali or simply > > Kali. Hers is the familiar form astride a supine form of Siva, with > > her four arms-1: Abhaya Mudra, 2:Varada Mudra, 3:holding a sword, > > 4:holding a severed head. > > > > MAHA Kali's form is like this: > > She has TEN hands - holding: 1: sword, 2:discus, 3:mace, 4:arrow, > > 5:bow, 6:iron club, 7:trident, 8;sling, 9:human head, 10:conch. > > She has THREE eyes. > > She is bedecked with jewels and ornaments allover. > > She shines like a blue jewel > > She has TEN faces. > > She has TEN feet. > > > > My humble request to all Sakthas is to be careful in their use of the > > prefix 'Maha' when referring to different forms of Maa. You could be > > referring to a completely different devata or deity! Of course Maa in > > all Her forms and manifestations IS Maha or GREAT! > > > > Jai Maha Maya! > > > > Yours in the service of Maa, > > > > Matrka7 > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2001 Report Share Posted December 14, 2001 Thank you Nairji, You have opened up a very interesting avenue for exploration. Sri Samvidananda nathji, you have also got us thinking. As the queries raised by you are more mind-boggling, I have to think long and hard, and wait for some inspiration and enlightenment. Yes Sir! We must proceed towards the Essence and not get stuck with the form(s). But it is a slow process, this progress or advancement. For most people, it is easier to begin with some form to concentrate upon, and with time, as the Divine Grace descends, and transforms us, we begin to realize that which is the Essence, That which IS everything. How nice it will be to be able to share our experiences! But I personally believe that if you 'tell', it may cease to happen. I think that Sri Ramakrishna Deva says so. This has always kept me tongue-tied. The state you are referring to, how wonderful it would be if we could attain that! I think the first step will be the realization that ' She ' and ' I ' are one. To feel Her presence with us, and within us. This will extend to everything, to the whole of creation. For this, intense Upasana is needed, and for doing Upasana, Her Grace is required. Here I would like to tell you about a friend of mine. She is a bit older than me, and been doing Upasana for many years. She is not a saktha. Her Ishta is Krishna. One day she asked me, " How is Your Devi? " I replied, without any pre-meditation " Oh! She is within me and with me " . After I had uttered those words, I have always felt this to be true, that it is indeed so. This question of my friend suddenly made me realize this. Regarding this same friend, I have this very interesting thing to say. She asked me once, " don't you want to 'see' your Devi? " I said no, She is not limited to a 'form' and seeing is limited to the sense of sight only, I want to 'realize' Her, for with all the senses and all that is beyond the senses, She pervades everything, She is everything, and I want to 'realize' Her and not just 'see' Her. But she, who has been an Upasika for so long, firmly said she wants to 'see' Krishna with her eyes. He has a form, she said, and I want to see That form. What I am trying to convey is that, each Upasaka has a different frame of mind. This friend always talks Advaita philosophy, but wants to see her Ishta in his assumed form only. Many people have advised her and tried to push her from the 'form' to the ' formless ', but she will not budge! Would you say she has not progressed to a higher stage? May be after 'seeing' Krishna with form, He will lead her on to advaitic realization? Yes, dissolution is not the dissolution of the manifest world only. I think it is the dissolution of the ego also. When that is destroyed then, only She remains. Only when that is destroyed can She be realized. Mantraanaam matrkaa devi Sabdaanaam gyana roopini. Gyanaanaam chinmayateetha, Soonyanaam soonya saakshini. You (Devi) reside in mantras as the letter, in all words as the meaning and Wisdom. In Wisdom you reside as consciousness and in The Great Void, you remain as the only witness. soonyanaam soonya saakshini - When this manifest world is destroyed, She still remains as Saakshi to this soonya. When the ego, this feeling of separateness goes, in that state of emptiness, we can realize that She alone Is. Theoretically I know Bhootaani Durga, Bhuvanaani Durga, Sthriyo naraschaapi pasuscha Durga, Yad yad drishyam khalu saiva Durga, Durga swaroopaad aparam na kinchit. The pancha Bhootas, the whole universe, male and female forms, all animals and creatures, every thing that is seen is verily Her form indeed. Through Her Grace I hope that this intellectual concept will become a realized truth. Pl. excuse mistakes in transliteration Sarvam Devimayam Jagat. Jai Maha Maya! Sapta Matrka. 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.