Guest guest Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 Namaste: I guess I'm having a crisis in faith again. I am truly wondering out loud if I am a Shakta or a Jain. Main aggravations lately have been: I find myself put off by animal sacrifices, animal slaughter, etc. I find myself truly believing that the only goddess/ god resides within, and most people are far too literal. I find myself believing in absolute equality of all beings. The caste system bothers me, the oligarchy in the US bothers me. I get put off by various individuals attempting to convert others whether covertly or overtly, and I feel this is an act of aggression. I've always been one to meditate silently rather than chant and border on a Jain/Buddhist outlook. What should I do? Thank you for any advice. Starla (Shankari) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 do not worry, all paths lead to the same goal ! signed : Roger (practising Tibetan Buddhist gelugpa tradition since 1977 ----- Forwarded Message ---- Shankari Kali <shankari_kali Namaste: I guess I'm having a crisis in faith again. I am truly wondering out loud if I am a Shakta or a Jain. [....] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 yes religions are man made m.namasivayam --- On Thu, 20/8/09, Roger Garin-Michaud <wangchuk59 wrote: Roger Garin-Michaud <wangchuk59 Fw: Am I a Jain or a Shakta? Thursday, 20 August, 2009, 1:18 AM do not worry, all paths lead to the same goal ! signed : Roger (practising Tibetan Buddhist gelugpa tradition since 1977 ----- Forwarded Message ---- Shankari Kali <shankari_kali@ > Namaste: I guess I'm having a crisis in faith again. I am truly wondering out loud if I am a Shakta or a Jain. [....] Love Cricket? Check out live scores, photos, video highlights and more. Click here http://cricket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Thanks Roger. I guess it's okay to simply be and not name my faith for a time or maybe never. In peace, Shankari http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1235552912 --- On Wed, 8/19/09, Roger Garin-Michaud <wangchuk59 wrote: Roger Garin-Michaud <wangchuk59 Fw: Am I a Jain or a Shakta? Wednesday, August 19, 2009, 12:48 PM do not worry, all paths lead to the same goal ! signed : Roger (practising Tibetan Buddhist gelugpa tradition since 1977 ----- Forwarded Message ---- Shankari Kali <shankari_kali@ > Namaste: I guess I'm having a crisis in faith again. I am truly wondering out loud if I am a Shakta or a Jain. [....] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 I agree with the other posts. There is no need to squeeze yourself into an -ism. These things you mention are thoughtful, legitimate socio-ethical matters that could well trouble some people of any religious system while bothering others in that system not at all. However, the question " am I Jain or Shakta? " does not logically or necessarily flow from any of these premises. So my advice would be: be what you are, and don't suffer too much over finding a proper label for it. If you need a label, what's wrong with Starlism? ;-) , " Shankari Kali " <shankari_kali wrote: > > Namaste: > > I guess I'm having a crisis in faith again. I am truly wondering out loud if I am a Shakta or a Jain. > > Main aggravations lately have been: I find myself put off by animal sacrifices, animal slaughter, etc. > > I find myself truly believing that the only goddess/ god resides within, and most people are far too literal. > > I find myself believing in absolute equality of all beings. The caste system bothers me, the oligarchy in the US bothers me. > > I get put off by various individuals attempting to convert others whether covertly or overtly, and I feel this is an act of aggression. > > I've always been one to meditate silently rather than chant and border on a Jain/Buddhist outlook. > > What should I do? > > Thank you for any advice. > > Starla (Shankari) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 /*Hi Shankari, */ Shankari Kali wrote: > > > Namaste: > > I guess I'm having a crisis in faith again. I am truly wondering out > loud if I am a Shakta or a Jain. > > Main aggravations lately have been: I find myself put off by animal > sacrifices, animal slaughter, etc. > > I find myself truly believing that the only goddess/ god resides within, > /*Including for the animal sacrificer and the animal slaughterer?*/ > and most people are far too literal. > > I find myself believing in absolute equality of all beings. The caste > system bothers me, the oligarchy in the US bothers me. > > I get put off by various individuals attempting to convert others > whether covertly or overtly, and I feel this is an act of aggression. > > I've always been one to meditate silently rather than chant and border > on a Jain/Buddhist outlook. > /*An outlook is always coloured. Jainish, Buddhish, Islamish, Hinduish, Christish ......colours...... An inlook happens when all colourings have got washed away.*/ > > What should I do? > /*Maybe, look to whom does that very question arise to. Who is it........ that took delivery of the question " What should I do? " . For whom is the question of doing.......of relevance? */ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 jai gurudev dear shankari, i think u have not studied hinduism properly. there r atelast 4 ways to worship the divine. tamaik,rajasik,sattwic and samya path. samya path was adopted by NATH YOGIS, siddhas,like gurudev dutt,guru gorakshnathji etc, and we are followers of same path and jains have copied the same.nothing wrong with it though. samya path means internal worship of the god,where the god,mantra,yantra and self is considered as one and the worshipper worships the divine inside,not outside in external idols.and finally over time the worshipper realise that he or she is same same as the god,and attains jeevan mukti = salvation when still alive,the real step towards attaining true salvation after death. one who attains jeevanmukti is a true buddha.and its not difficult to get.pls read videha geeta,or janak geeta in srimad devi bhagwat puran. the kundalini yog and worship of mother adi shakti mahatripura sudnari is the best example of samya worship pls also read : SRIMAD DEVI BHAGWAT GEETA here mother clearly tells lord himalaya that one shud leave casteism and all labels,incl the labels of male female etc and traet all equally and see all of creation as part of her divinity to be able to realise her. pls explore hindu darma properly.all answers r available u shud look properly. if u wud like to know more,surely we will help. om shakti gopal On 8/19/09, Shankari Kali <shankari_kali wrote: > > > > Namaste: > > I guess I'm having a crisis in faith again. I am truly wondering out loud > if I am a Shakta or a Jain. > > Main aggravations lately have been: I find myself put off by animal > sacrifices, animal slaughter, etc. > > I find myself truly believing that the only goddess/ god resides within, > and most people are far too literal. > > I find myself believing in absolute equality of all beings. The caste > system bothers me, the oligarchy in the US bothers me. > > I get put off by various individuals attempting to convert others whether > covertly or overtly, and I feel this is an act of aggression. > > I've always been one to meditate silently rather than chant and border on a > Jain/Buddhist outlook. > > What should I do? > > Thank you for any advice. > > Starla (Shankari) > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Dear Shankari firstly, most sincere seekers go through this type of phases in their spiritual life more than once or at least once in thie initial stages. though it may seem to you outwardly as a lack of proper grounding and a sign of confusion, you should not look at it that way and feel that you are directionless and suffering a " crisis in faith " . almost all sincere seekers, practitioners, almost all of those who are thinking and feeling and questioning persons instead of just dumb blind followers of dogma or creed, will have such questions arise in themselves. Even great spiritual, and intellectual personalities, great sadhakas and saints and mystics, have gone through this phase once or twice in their formative years. It is the way by which the individual mind, intellect and conscience verifies its chosen path, it is the way by which it seeks the foundation upon which it will in future sink its roots deep. when you find yourself put off by animal sacrifice, you have to look in to yourself at that moment and " see " how your mind responds, and why it responds the way it does. you have to learn how to map your own cognition of the animal sacrifice. externally, you have to understand the different approaches to animal sacrifice in different cultures and traditions, and how one differs from the other in symbolism and significance. you have to see for yourself within you, whrther or not you are consciously or unconsciously mapping the approach of the judeo-christian animal sacrifice and its understanding in your own modern western society on to that of the Hindu/ Shakta way of sacrifice. You also have to understand (by the self-understanding) of animal sacrifice as is practised in Shakta tradition. when you understand that, you will not need anymore to associate that with " cruelty " -- the same value with which contemporary society associates animal sacrifices. you will see that the question of cruelty or kindness does not arise. the important thing is to understand what a true shakta understands sacrifice as, how he approaches it, how he sees himself (his own place) in the entire process, what are the mutual relations between the sacrificer, the sacrificed and the one to whom the sacrifice is being offered. then only you will find that scrifice is just a symbolic enactment of an eternal and inviolable truth. you will see that there is absolutely no need to feel any guilt, or to sense cruelty, or to abide by any superficial, vain, egocentric " moral " notions or yardsticks. the true meaning of spiritual progress, and the true meaning of the shakta dhrma is to shed artificial and superficial notions of what constitutes " cruelty " , or " morality " etc. the shakta approach to life is not to have any " for " or " against " stand towards anything, not to " fear " or to " like " anything, but to UNDERSTAND the jist of everything. the shaksta approach is to recognize the naked truth -- as naked as the Mother herself -- by removing the artificial constructs and values that society tries to impose. I feel that is what you should do -- to understand, to get into the heart of things. On the other hand, one does not necessarily become a " jain " just because he/she has an aversion to animal sacrifice. and neither is it necessary that just because the jains are fanatically opposed to animal sacrifice, therefore they are very " moral " or holier-than-thou vis-a-vis the rest of us. true morality is what comes from within, out of understanding and realization, out of an unfettred and unconditioned ego -- what is called in tantra as " svechhachara " -- to do what thou wilt. true morality is not what one is " bound " to follow because one is born into this or that tradition or creed and becuase society imposes upon him/her to obey and conform. the jains oppose it not becuase that is their inner realization or something, they oppose it because from birth they are conditioned by their dogmas and their creeds to oppose it -- without feeling the need to understand what they are opposing really and why really they think they are opposing. so a " jain " is not really an " example " , that we must follow. in ngeneral, a person is not necessarily more " peaceful " or " moral " or " kind " or " humanitarian " than the rest just because he/she it is " cool " or fashionable to act the self-appointed " animal-rights " activist. most often people who oppose animal sacrifice (without understanding what btyey are opposing or why) are more fanatic and dogmatic thah the rest -- they do it not becuase they re full of love for living things, but it gratifies their ego, it helps them build up their self-image in their own eyes, or it helps them put away the disowned part of their psyches. animal sacrifice, buy itself --as a true shakta or a genuine pratictioner or worshipper will tell you -- is nothing to either support or oppose, just like having a meal or holding a job or taking a nap is nothing to support or oppose. Regards -- Jit , " Shankari Kali " <shankari_kali wrote: > > Namaste: > > I guess I'm having a crisis in faith again. I am truly wondering out loud if I am a Shakta or a Jain. > > Main aggravations lately have been: I find myself put off by animal sacrifices, animal slaughter, etc. > > I find myself truly believing that the only goddess/ god resides within, and most people are far too literal. > > I find myself believing in absolute equality of all beings. The caste system bothers me, the oligarchy in the US bothers me. > > I get put off by various individuals attempting to convert others whether covertly or overtly, and I feel this is an act of aggression. > > I've always been one to meditate silently rather than chant and border on a Jain/Buddhist outlook. > > What should I do? > > Thank you for any advice. > > Starla (Shankari) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Dear Gopalji, I guess the point here is " confusion " ................ Vivek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 <<You also have to understand (by the self-understanding) of animal sacrifice as is practised in Shakta tradition. when you understand that, you will not need anymore to associate that with " cruelty " -- the same value with which contemporary society associates animal sacrifices. you will see that the question of cruelty or kindness does not arise. the important thing is to understand what a true shakta understands sacrifice as, how he approaches it, how he sees himself (his own place) in the entire process, what are the mutual relations between the sacrificer, the sacrificed and the one to whom the sacrifice is being offered. then only you will find that scrifice is just a symbolic enactment of an eternal and inviolable truth.>>> Could you please explain in detail? What is the relationship between the sacrificer, sacrifice and the One to whom the sacrifice is made? Do we really need to sacrifice totally defenseless animals to realize this Truth? What is the eternal and inviolable Truth? Thanks Priya ________________________________ riktanandanath <jitmajumder212 Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:43:16 AM Re: Am I a Jain or a Shakta? Dear Shankari firstly, most sincere seekers go through this type of phases in their spiritual life more than once or at least once in thie initial stages. though it may seem to you outwardly as a lack of proper grounding and a sign of confusion, you should not look at it that way and feel that you are directionless and suffering a " crisis in faith " . almost all sincere seekers, practitioners, almost all of those who are thinking and feeling and questioning persons instead of just dumb blind followers of dogma or creed, will have such questions arise in themselves. Even great spiritual, and intellectual personalities, great sadhakas and saints and mystics, have gone through this phase once or twice in their formative years. It is the way by which the individual mind, intellect and conscience verifies its chosen path, it is the way by which it seeks the foundation upon which it will in future sink its roots deep. when you find yourself put off by animal sacrifice, you have to look in to yourself at that moment and " see " how your mind responds, and why it responds the way it does. you have to learn how to map your own cognition of the animal sacrifice. externally, you have to understand the different approaches to animal sacrifice in different cultures and traditions, and how one differs from the other in symbolism and significance. you have to see for yourself within you, whrther or not you are consciously or unconsciously mapping the approach of the judeo-christian animal sacrifice and its understanding in your own modern western society on to that of the Hindu/ Shakta way of sacrifice. You also have to understand (by the self-understanding) of animal sacrifice as is practised in Shakta tradition. when you understand that, you will not need anymore to associate that with " cruelty " -- the same value with which contemporary society associates animal sacrifices. you will see that the question of cruelty or kindness does not arise. the important thing is to understand what a true shakta understands sacrifice as, how he approaches it, how he sees himself (his own place) in the entire process, what are the mutual relations between the sacrificer, the sacrificed and the one to whom the sacrifice is being offered. then only you will find that scrifice is just a symbolic enactment of an eternal and inviolable truth. you will see that there is absolutely no need to feel any guilt, or to sense cruelty, or to abide by any superficial, vain, egocentric " moral " notions or yardsticks. the true meaning of spiritual progress, and the true meaning of the shakta dhrma is to shed artificial and superficial notions of what constitutes " cruelty " , or " morality " etc. the shakta approach to life is not to have any " for " or " against " stand towards anything, not to " fear " or to " like " anything, but to UNDERSTAND the jist of everything. the shaksta approach is to recognize the naked truth -- as naked as the Mother herself -- by removing the artificial constructs and values that society tries to impose. I feel that is what you should do -- to understand, to get into the heart of things. On the other hand, one does not necessarily become a " jain " just because he/she has an aversion to animal sacrifice. and neither is it necessary that just because the jains are fanatically opposed to animal sacrifice, therefore they are very " moral " or holier-than- thou vis-a-vis the rest of us. true morality is what comes from within, out of understanding and realization, out of an unfettred and unconditioned ego -- what is called in tantra as " svechhachara " -- to do what thou wilt. true morality is not what one is " bound " to follow because one is born into this or that tradition or creed and becuase society imposes upon him/her to obey and conform. the jains oppose it not becuase that is their inner realization or something, they oppose it because from birth they are conditioned by their dogmas and their creeds to oppose it -- without feeling the need to understand what they are opposing really and why really they think they are opposing. so a " jain " is not really an " example " , that we must follow. in ngeneral, a person is not necessarily more " peaceful " or " moral " or " kind " or " humanitarian " than the rest just because he/she it is " cool " or fashionable to act the self-appointed " animal-rights " activist. most often people who oppose animal sacrifice (without understanding what btyey are opposing or why) are more fanatic and dogmatic thah the rest -- they do it not becuase they re full of love for living things, but it gratifies their ego, it helps them build up their self-image in their own eyes, or it helps them put away the disowned part of their psyches. animal sacrifice, buy itself --as a true shakta or a genuine pratictioner or worshipper will tell you -- is nothing to either support or oppose, just like having a meal or holding a job or taking a nap is nothing to support or oppose. Regards -- Jit , " Shankari Kali " <shankari_kali@ ...> wrote: > > Namaste: > > I guess I'm having a crisis in faith again. I am truly wondering out loud if I am a Shakta or a Jain. > > Main aggravations lately have been: I find myself put off by animal sacrifices, animal slaughter, etc. > > I find myself truly believing that the only goddess/ god resides within, and most people are far too literal. > > I find myself believing in absolute equality of all beings. The caste system bothers me, the oligarchy in the US bothers me. > > I get put off by various individuals attempting to convert others whether covertly or overtly, and I feel this is an act of aggression. > > I've always been one to meditate silently rather than chant and border on a Jain/Buddhist outlook. > > What should I do? > > Thank you for any advice. > > Starla (Shankari) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 *** Could you please explain in detail? What is the relationship between the sacrificer, sacrifice and the One to whom the sacrifice is made? *** /message/31172 *** Do we really need to sacrifice totally defenseless animals to realize this Truth? What is the eternal and inviolable Truth? *** To say animal sacrifice is part and parcel of Shaktism would be incorrect. To say that it is not would also be incorrect. The reasons for the practice reach back to the Vedas and far beyond into the mists of prehistory. Wendy Doniger's " The Hindus " (Penguin, 2009) accurately traces both animal sacrifice *and* opposition to animal sacrifice back through thousands of years. If you truly seek an answer to your question, that's an excellent place to find it; better than a sound-bite ion . If you're simply posting to say, " I think sacrificing innocent animals is wrong and I'm against it, " please know that you are in good company throughout history. Some do it, some don't. aim mAtangyai namaH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Aptly said. Who perform animal sacrifices say, " Those jeevan(s) directly attain salvation. " The counter argument is, " If so, then sacrifice your parents and family, so they can go directly to heaven. " My personal opinion is, " If you can kill the animal yourself, then do it. If you do not have the guts to see/watch an animal thrashing around, done to death by your own hands, don't do it. " Heard of a legend a few years ago, related to a SV guru in Chennai, who had left his physical being couple or 3 years ago. When he was younger, he was performing some yagna. Goddess asked for animal sacrifice. He replied, " I cannot kill an animal. It is against my belief. Since you are asking for blood and flesh, here it is. " He cut off one of his big toes and sacrificed it into the fire. Above is one example where it is just a H2O molecule and not distinguished as ice/water/cloud, where the universal love prevailed and the worshiper considered the pain, fear of any physical body are the same as that of self and borne them as his. , Devi bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote: > > *** Could you please explain in detail? What is the relationship between the sacrificer, sacrifice and the One to whom the sacrifice is made? *** > > /message/31172 > > *** Do we really need to sacrifice totally defenseless animals to realize this Truth? What is the eternal and inviolable Truth? *** > > To say animal sacrifice is part and parcel of Shaktism would be incorrect. To say that it is not would also be incorrect. The reasons for the practice reach back to the Vedas and far beyond into the mists of prehistory. Wendy Doniger's " The Hindus " (Penguin, 2009) accurately traces both animal sacrifice *and* opposition to animal sacrifice back through thousands of years. > > If you truly seek an answer to your question, that's an excellent place to find it; better than a sound-bite ion . If you're simply posting to say, " I think sacrificing innocent animals is wrong and I'm against it, " please know that you are in good company throughout history. Some do it, some don't. > > aim mAtangyai namaH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Namaste: This is just my opinion. One can be a Shaktaa and embrace ahimsa and complete vegetarianism and non-violence. But one should ask themselves why the Mother made this world with duality of Eater and Food. Very few things can truly live without taking life from another source. Animal sacrifice is probably an attempt to understand and honor this fact of Nature, and make it sense of its cycle and make it more sacred. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, it simply is. Also, among the Dharmic traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and others) one does not necessarily have to confine oneself to one path. I know several Jains that participate in Hindu ceremonies like Durga Puja. I myself, though born into a Hindu family, have embraced many of the teaching of the Buddha and especially Tibetan Vajrayana. Similarly, in China there are multiple schools of spirituality - Taoism, Confucius, Mahayana Buddhism, traditional folk shamanism. People are allowed to take the bits they like (under heavy influence of their family and place in society, of course.) The insistence on defining oneself as " just one religion " is a problem that I believe the Abrahamic Monotheisms have propagated, and has spread to Western thought in general. The Mother will be pleased if you approach her with single minded devotion and love, whether you offer her flowers and fruit or living animals or merely mantric praises. Much luck in your journey. Jai Maa.. -S. Santo Sengupta " Aum Shanti Shanti Shantih. " On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:33 PM, ganpra <ganpra wrote: > > > Aptly said. > > Who perform animal sacrifices say, " Those jeevan(s) directly attain > salvation. " The counter argument is, " If so, then sacrifice your parents and > family, so they can go directly to heaven. " > > My personal opinion is, " If you can kill the animal yourself, then do it. > If you do not have the guts to see/watch an animal thrashing around, done to > death by your own hands, don't do it. " > > Heard of a legend a few years ago, related to a SV guru in Chennai, who had > left his physical being couple or 3 years ago. When he was younger, he was > performing some yagna. Goddess asked for animal sacrifice. He replied, " I > cannot kill an animal. It is against my belief. Since you are asking for > blood and flesh, here it is. " He cut off one of his big toes and sacrificed > it into the fire. > > Above is one example where it is just a H2O molecule and not distinguished > as ice/water/cloud, where the universal love prevailed and the worshiper > considered the pain, fear of any physical body are the same as that of self > and borne them as his. > > <%40>, > Devi bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote: > > > > *** Could you please explain in detail? What is the relationship between > the sacrificer, sacrifice and the One to whom the sacrifice is made? *** > > > > /message/31172 > > > > *** Do we really need to sacrifice totally defenseless animals to realize > this Truth? What is the eternal and inviolable Truth? *** > > > > To say animal sacrifice is part and parcel of Shaktism would be > incorrect. To say that it is not would also be incorrect. The reasons for > the practice reach back to the Vedas and far beyond into the mists of > prehistory. Wendy Doniger's " The Hindus " (Penguin, 2009) accurately traces > both animal sacrifice *and* opposition to animal sacrifice back through > thousands of years. > > > > If you truly seek an answer to your question, that's an excellent place > to find it; better than a sound-bite ion . If you're simply > posting to say, " I think sacrificing innocent animals is wrong and I'm > against it, " please know that you are in good company throughout history. > Some do it, some don't. > > > > aim mAtangyai namaH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 This is really true - in India, brahminical and local beliefs integrate seamlessly, and there are often people who practice both Hinduism and Islam seamlessly. I am thinking in particular about the Hindustani music tradition, where you have Hindus paying homage to Muslim gurus, and Muslims paying homage to Saraswati. And there is no conflict in this. So one can be a " Shakta " but also hold many different beliefs and ideas, with a core emotional connection to seeing the divine as MAA/Devi/etc. Perhaps the bhakta makes the Shakta, not the dogma. My guru has said that no one needs to " convert " to be a Shakta. You can be any religion and be a Shakta. MAA accepts everyone as Her children, everything else is man-made labels based in ego. jai MAA kamesvari -sundari On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Santo Sengupta <s.santo.senguptawrote: > > > Namaste: > > This is just my opinion. > > One can be a Shaktaa and embrace ahimsa and complete vegetarianism and > non-violence. But one should ask themselves why the Mother made this world > with duality of Eater and Food. Very few things can truly live without > taking life from another source. Animal sacrifice is probably an attempt to > understand and honor this fact of Nature, and make it sense of its cycle > and > make it more sacred. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, it simply is. > > Also, among the Dharmic traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, > and others) one does not necessarily have to confine oneself to one path. I > know several Jains that participate in Hindu ceremonies like Durga Puja. I > myself, though born into a Hindu family, have embraced many of the teaching > of the Buddha and especially Tibetan Vajrayana. Similarly, in China there > are multiple schools of spirituality - Taoism, Confucius, Mahayana > Buddhism, > traditional folk shamanism. People are allowed to take the bits they like > (under heavy influence of their family and place in society, of course.) > > The insistence on defining oneself as " just one religion " is a problem that > I believe the Abrahamic Monotheisms have propagated, and has spread to > Western thought in general. > > The Mother will be pleased if you approach her with single minded devotion > and love, whether you offer her flowers and fruit or living animals or > merely mantric praises. Much luck in your journey. > > Jai Maa.. > > -S. Santo Sengupta > " Aum Shanti Shanti Shantih. " > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:33 PM, ganpra <ganpra<ganpra%40rocketmail.com>> > wrote: > > > > > > > Aptly said. > > > > Who perform animal sacrifices say, " Those jeevan(s) directly attain > > salvation. " The counter argument is, " If so, then sacrifice your parents > and > > family, so they can go directly to heaven. " > > > > My personal opinion is, " If you can kill the animal yourself, then do it. > > If you do not have the guts to see/watch an animal thrashing around, done > to > > death by your own hands, don't do it. " > > > > Heard of a legend a few years ago, related to a SV guru in Chennai, who > had > > left his physical being couple or 3 years ago. When he was younger, he > was > > performing some yagna. Goddess asked for animal sacrifice. He replied, " I > > cannot kill an animal. It is against my belief. Since you are asking for > > blood and flesh, here it is. " He cut off one of his big toes and > sacrificed > > it into the fire. > > > > Above is one example where it is just a H2O molecule and not > distinguished > > as ice/water/cloud, where the universal love prevailed and the worshiper > > considered the pain, fear of any physical body are the same as that of > self > > and borne them as his. > > > > <%40><% > 40>, > > Devi bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote: > > > > > > *** Could you please explain in detail? What is the relationship > between > > the sacrificer, sacrifice and the One to whom the sacrifice is made? *** > > > > > > /message/31172 > > > > > > *** Do we really need to sacrifice totally defenseless animals to > realize > > this Truth? What is the eternal and inviolable Truth? *** > > > > > > To say animal sacrifice is part and parcel of Shaktism would be > > incorrect. To say that it is not would also be incorrect. The reasons for > > the practice reach back to the Vedas and far beyond into the mists of > > prehistory. Wendy Doniger's " The Hindus " (Penguin, 2009) accurately > traces > > both animal sacrifice *and* opposition to animal sacrifice back through > > thousands of years. > > > > > > If you truly seek an answer to your question, that's an excellent place > > to find it; better than a sound-bite ion . If you're simply > > posting to say, " I think sacrificing innocent animals is wrong and I'm > > against it, " please know that you are in good company throughout history. > > Some do it, some don't. > > > > > > aim mAtangyai namaH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 on a lighter note ;-) Not a horse, not an elephent and never a Tiger, Given in sacrifice is goat, Oh ! God is killer of weak !! " Ashvam Naiva Gajam Naiva Vyaaghram Naiva Cha Naiva Cha Ajaa putram balim dadyaat Devo durbala-ghaatakah " --- On Fri, 8/21/09, ganpra <ganpra wrote: ganpra <ganpra Re: Am I a Jain or a Shakta? Friday, August 21, 2009, 4:03 AM Aptly said. Who perform animal sacrifices say, " Those jeevan(s) directly attain salvation. " The counter argument is, " If so, then sacrifice your parents and family, so they can go directly to heaven. " > 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.