Oneness and Manyness of Forms (What Parasara Advocates...To Lakshmi)

[Guest guest]

Dear Lakshmi,

Wonderful dreams! Permit me to psychoanalyze the dreams a bit. There

is even more " gold " here, but you have to dig. I have frequently

found that in such dreams, the dreamer tends to not be in a closed

space. He/she is always out in the open. See, in dreams, especially

such powerful ones, it is always the symbolic meaning that is

important, not literally what you see. Your unconscious tries to

communicate with you, but you (not you specifically, I mean anybody),

being caught currently in a human body in the material universe,

interpret the messages of the unconscious in terms of the objects of

everyday experience. So what I am trying to say is, when you in your

dream are out in the open, it symbolically refers to being free of

many of the bondages of your ego. That freedom shows up as openness

of surroundings (in an open field, you are free to move as you

choose). So in this dream you had temporarily let go of significant

parts of your ego (perhaps this was induced by the psychological

pain). And when you did, you saw what you interpreted as God or

Krishna. First point to note is, this is actually proof that the ego

needs to be given up in order to truly experience divinity.

Secondly, the form you see, again, is very personal to you - you see

Krishna, when I have similar dreams I am always out in bright

sunlight that always illuminates with breathtaking vividness - so for

me it is the Sun. The key common factor across dreamers is that it is

always a source of intense energy. Thirdly, you clearly state that

you couldnt look up directly at him in the first dream, in the second

dream he/it surrounded you. I have always found that the reason I

cant look directly at the Sun is actually because of my unconscious

refusal to completely let go of my ego. Being able to look at the Sun

(the dream Sun for me), or in your case, looking at Krishna amounts

to genuine, true and complete surrender. I find it remarkable that in

your second dream you were actually able to do so. I believe it marks

significant progress for you, but you may not know it, so I write.

But I am no expert, everything I say is up for evaluation..

 

Hope this was interesting, sorry I couldnt correlate it to astrology..

 

Sundeep

 

 

 

sohamsa , " lakshmikary " <lakshmikary wrote:

>

> Hare Krishna

> Dear Narasimha and Sanjay

> Pranams,

> I was intriqued to read these posts.As it so vividly reminded me of

> something,

> One time when i was going through the most emotionally painful part

> of my life.. I was praying to Krishna to please reveal himself to

> me, so that by looking at him, even in a dream I can be freed from

> my mundane but very painful emotions.

> In my trance like state, (I think I had cried myself into a

> stuporlike trance.)

> I immediately saw Krishna , he was far away, there was bright light

> all around him, I somehow was already laying flat, I tried to crawl

> closer to really " see " him as I got closer and closer I fixed my

> eyes to where his feet should be, but there were tiny grains , that

> looked like sand, all glitering with an incredible radiance, the

> birghtness was so intense that I was only able to see somewhat of

> Krishna's lotus feet, I tried to look higher up but the radiance

was

> so intense , each grain, so reflective of Krishna's potency,

energy,

> shakti or whatever that I could'nt see past that point.

> After awhile I felt like I shouldnt attempt to see Krishna so I

> lowered my head/face downward, stretched out my hands in surrender.

> Then Krishna was gone.After that I've always felt like Krishna is

> always present, just due to my inablity to see him was all.

>

> Another time, going through a similiar excruciatingly painful time,

> I also prayed to " GOD " (this was before I found him as " Krishna "

> again,it was very similiar,,, I was far away out in space, with

> stars around and in the distance, I could see my God far out in

the

> distance, I wanted to come closer to submit to him. But as I got

> closer every speck was like a billion lights and each speck got

> brighter and brighter ,at the same time , they each

> multiplied/expanded over and over.

> Soon, " God " filled the whole universe including me and I was

> surrounded by light, and I understood the principle that we are

> part and parcel of the Supreme Lord.

> Anyway, so I found the analogy very nice.

> Best wishes

> Lakshmi

> sohamsa , " Narasimha P.V.R. Rao " <pvr@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Pranaam Sanjay,

> >

> > > (1) Given that Parasara explicitly mentioned Shiva and Gouri in

> the context

> > > of ishta devata, I take objection to anyone who claims that

they

> cannot be

> > > ishta devatas and only Vishnu's forms can be.

> > > [s.Rath:] Again form! There is no form in the 12th house. There

> cannot be a

> > > form in the 12th house. This is where everykind of form ends.

> This is where

> > > the body or bodies end. This is the state of the body at death.

> >

> > Let me respectfully remind you that this whole discussion is

about

> forms. I will write a little later on why different forms are even

> needed.

> >

> > > Have I not given such a clear and lucid explanation about the

> meaning of

> > > 12th house and vishnu as 'sarva-vyapakesa'. Then tell me from

> the physical

> > > universe viewpoint.

> > > Is vishnu there in the flower? The answer is yes

> > > Is Vishnu there in the tree? The answer is yes

> >

> > That's all fine. But a devotee of Kaali like Ramakrishna will

> eventually reach the stage where he sees Kaali in flowers, trees

etc

> (just as you may aspire to see Vishnu in everything). A great

> devotee of Shiva will eventually see Shiva in everything.

> >

> > It is possible to devote to several deities and eventually start

> seeing the deity in everything that exists.

> >

> > Even as you exclaim " again form! " , you ARE getting lost in forms

> and thinking that only Vishnu's form has the characteristic you

> explained above.

> >

> > In order to explain this more clearly, let me go back to the

> analogy I gave earlier. This fantastic analogy is from my spiritual

> guru.

> >

> > -------------- Quote Begin --------------

> > Imagine God to be a bright star in the sky. When you see from a

> distance, star seems tiny and you conclude that there is only one

> God. If you start moving towards God, you realize as you get closer

> that the star is in reality a huge diamond with 330 million faces.

> Each face is several miles long and wide and has various attributes

> (gunas). One face may be red and hot and another may be blue and

> cold etc. So, as you get closer to the diamond, you have to pick

one

> face to get close to.

> >

> > Now, when you get too close to a face, the whole world will seem

> to have the attributes of that face. For example, if you get too

> close to a face that is cold and blue, then the whole world will

> feel cold and blue to you. In other words, the God you are getting

> close to is the Supreme god of the world and fills the entire world

> as you experience it.

> >

> > This is the ultimate goal in sadhana for one adhering to Dwaita

> siddhanta (duality). For them, getting close to ishta devata and

> securing a place near the feet is the highest goal.

> >

> > For some, there is a next stage: As you get closer and closer to

> the face you picked, you finally merge with it! This is the

ultimate

> goal in sadhana for one adhering to Visishtaadwaita.

> >

> > To Advaitis, this communion with a Saguna ( " with attributes " )

form

> of God is not the final goal. The final goal is to break through

the

> face and jump into the inside of the diamond. As you break through

> the face of the diamond into which you merge and jump into the

> interior of the diamond, you no longer perceive the faces of the

> diamond or the world outside. There are no longer any objects or

> attributes. The experiencer, experienced and experience all merge

> into one.

> > -------------- Quote End --------------

> >

> > Read the above analogy carefully. Imagine Vishnu, Shiva etc to be

> faces of the diamond in the above analogy. If you get too close to

> Vishnu, you will indeed see Vishnu in everything and you 'realize'

> that Vishnu is the supreme god of this universe and fills

everything

> that exists. You see Vishnu in even Shiva. Similarly, if you get

too

> close to Shiva, you will indeed see Shiva in everything and

> you 'realize' that Shiva is the supreme god of this universe and

> fills everything that exists. You see Shiva in even Vishnu.

> >

> > It is as simple as that.

> >

> > But then, one may ask what is the importance of picking ishta

> devata based on chart. If it is possible to see Vishnu in Shiva or

> Shiva in Vishnu, what is the big deal in choosing a deity? Why

can't

> one pray to a random deity?

> >

> > The answer is that the stage of perceiving the ishta devata in

all

> gods and everything that exists has not been reached by most

people.

> Our ishta devata prescriptions are for people who are yet to reach

> that stage. In terms of my analogy, the journey to different faces

> of the diamond takes different times based on where you stand right

> now. If you pick a face that is closest to you based on where you

> are, you reach the diamond faster. For example, if you choose a

face

> on the other side, it will take considerably longer to reach it. On

> the contrary, if you select a face that is closest to you, you

reach

> it faster.

> >

> > Similarly, if you choose a form (face of the diamond of divinity)

> that is closest to you based on where you stand in karmic evolution

> (i.e. based on all previous karmas and samskaras), you reach god

> faster. Once you reach the chosen face and get too close to it, you

> will see that deity in the entire universe. Someone with different

> samskaras may choose a different deity and reach a different face

> and that person will see that deity in the entire universe. There

is

> no contradiction here!

> >

> > Thus, while trying to surrender to a random deity may eventually

> work, surrendering to some specific deities may work faster based

on

> your previous karmas. That is what astrologers should try to figure

> out. Instead of setting one on a different course, if we help one

> continue the course one was on already (from various lives), we

> would have done a good thing!

> >

> > Thus, my humble appeal is this: Let us not restrict to one deity

> (e.g. Vishnu) based on OUR OWN samskaras. Let us recommend all

> deities based on the native's inclination, samskaras and karmas.

> >

> > I hope my view on prescribing only Vishnu's avataras as ishta

> devatas is better understood after this detailed mail!

> >

> > * * *

> >

> > I referred to Saptashati rahasyam to show that Mahaakaali is

> composed of tamoguna. You wrote:

> >

> > > [s.Rath:] Mahakaali is different from Kaali just as Mahalakshmi

> is different

> > > from Lakshmi. So we are talking of different moods of the same

> mother. As

> >

> > When I said Kaali is taamasik, you said that Kaali is very pure

> (as though tamas implies impurity!) and said that karna pisachini

> etc are taamasik devatas and gave quiet a narrow interpretation

> of " taamasik devatas " . Now, you seem to be accepting that

Mahaakaali

> is taamasik. I hope you agree that this taamasik Mahaakaali

> is " pure " .

> >

> > As you seem to agree that MahaaKaali is taamasik, I hope that is

> not stopping you from linking MahaaKaali with spiritual progress. I

> hope you don't view tamas as something that cannot aid in spiritual

> progress.

> >

> > > Mahaakaali she gives victory in wars whereas as Dakshina Kaali

> she gives the

> > > supreme path of spirituality. So to say that Kaali is taamasik

> is wrong as

> > > Mahaakaali is her mood when she is going to war and she is not

> always in

> > > this mood. The three Devis go to war with the three names of

> MahaaSaraswati,

> > > Mahalakshmi and mahaKaali forming the Chamunda Hridaya mantra.

> this is the

> > > most powerful war mantra...so your argument is not right as the

> single mood

> > > cannot determine the overall being of the devata.

> >

> > Just as you gave a narrow interpretation of tamas and taamasik

> devatas and brought in connotations of purity and impurity wrongly

> in the previous mail, you are interpreting Mahaakaali narrowly in

> this mail.

> >

> > MahaaKaali is not just about wars. When the three supreme

mothers -

> MahaaSaraswati, MahaaKaali and MahaaLakshmi - go to war together

as

> you say above, it is obviously not just war over your physical

> enemies for some material purposes. That is a lower level meaning.

> At the highest level, the three make one win over the internal

> enemies (shadripus) and all weaknesses that are binding one to a

> limited existence and blocking one's liberation. Apart from the

> shadripus, even the simple notion that " I am this body " is an enemy

> that one has to fight in order to gain liberation. To an Advaitin,

> even the notion that " I am a soul separate from Brahman " is an

enemy

> that needs to be defeated in order to gain liberation.

> >

> > That is the highest war and the three supreme Mothers can make

one

> win it.

> >

> > Thus, I totally disagree with your separation of " victory in

wars "

> and " supreme path of spirituality " . This is a narrow interpretation

> of MahaaKaali (and, by extension, of the three supreme mothers you

> listed above with respect to the powerful war mantra). They can

gave

> victory in the highest war we ever fight also and hence enable the

> highest success in the supreme path of spirituality, i.e. be

> liberated.

> >

> > * * *

> >

> > > [s.Rath:] Faith in the basics shall open the mind for the

higher

> truths.

> >

> > Perhaps that is what is happening right now...

> >

> > > Firstly I don't know from where the " SJC formula " came. If it

is

> in any book

> > > or letter, then please ignore it as there can never be one

> formula for SJC

> > > (at least during my headship of SJC) for spirituality.

> >

> > I am very glad you cleared that one!

> >

> > > I found you copying this mail to so many other groups. Why is

it

> so? If they

> > > need to know they can come here and see the discussions.

> >

> > Well, I think differently. If the mail makes atleast one person

> think on every group, the purpose is served. Sorry if you don't

like

> this.

> >

> > > not is, as far as I am concerned, not open to debate! The fact

> that Parasara

> > > explicitly listed them means they can be ishta devatas. Period.

> > > [s.Rath:] What is meant by

> > > " period " in the end of your sentence? The meaning given in the

> websers

> > > dictionary is as below. Which of these did you mean?

> > > pe-ri-od (peer'ee uhd) n. <snip>

> >

> > Check

> >

> > http://education./reference/dictionary/entry/period

> >

> > Meaning 10 is the one. When we say something conclusive, we

> write " period " to emphasize it.

> >

> > > Whether deities not explicitly listed by Parasara can be ishta

> devatas or

> > > not is debatable.

> > > [s.Rath:] Again debate. Why is this debatable? I thought we had

> agreed on

> > > this point.

> >

> > WE agreed. But, if someone ELSE disagrees, it is valid. This is

> something on which a subjective judgment has to be made. But,

> regarding the suitability of deities explicitly listed by Parasara,

> there is no need for debate. That is what I am saying.

> >

> > Enough for now. If I left out any points without replying, sorry.

> >

> > May the light of Brahman shine within,

> > Narasimha

> > -------------------------------

> > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

> > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

> > -------------------------------

> >

> > > | om gurave namah |

> > > Dear Narasimha,

> > >

> > > Firstly I don't know from where the " SJC formula " came. If it

is

> in any book

> > > or letter, then please ignore it as there can never be one

> formula for SJC

> > > (at least during my headship of SJC) for spirituality. If there

> is one

> > > statement that is going to be the breadth of SJC's spiritual

> vision during

> > > my period, it can be summed up as the statement of Sri

> Ramakrishna

> > > Paramhamsa: " jat mat tat path " (Bengali: There are as many

paths

> [to God] as

> > > there are opinions or minds) and anything smaller than this is

> just a

> > > manifestation of individual narrowmindedness due to lack of

> appreciation of

> > > divinity and their personal world view which can be glimpsed

> after a careful

> > > examination of their 9th houses.

> > >

> > > There are some new area that have opened due to this discussion

> and

> > > clarifications. I am giving my opinion and views ans am sure

you

> will also

> > > communicate yours. I am packing for Serbia and will reply to

> your mail after

> > > my return. Thereafter we can continue this discussion in

> California and

> > > later also. I am sure with all this the SJC USA conference in

> California is

> > > going to be something as we discuss this in extended hours

after

> the

> > > conference with everyone.

> > >

> > > I found you copying this mail to so many other groups. Why is

it

> so? If they

> > > need to know they can come here and see the discussions. Also

if

> lakshmi or

> > > someone who is so new to all this (comparatively) or even

Robert

> says

> > > something, I take it easy and let it pass, but not you

> Narasimha. We have

> > > agreed on most points but a few remain.

> > >

> > > comments below in blue -

> > >

> > > Best wishes and warm regards,

> > > Sanjay Rath

> > >

> > > <Previous Mail>

> > >

> > > Dear Sanjay,

> > >

> > > > Why did you say that? According to the argument you were just

> giving in a

> > > > previous mail it should be Durga for Rahu in 12th house. Why

> did you

> > > change

> > > > to Vyankateswara?

> > >

> > > You have misunderstood me. I did not and do not say that

> Vishnu's avataras

> > > should be avoided. Nor did I say that we should strictly stick

> to the short

> > > list Parasara gave for guidance. But I had two issues:

> > >

> > > (1) Given that Parasara explicitly mentioned Shiva and Gouri in

> the context

> > > of ishta devata, I take objection to anyone who claims that

they

> cannot be

> > > ishta devatas and only Vishnu's forms can be.

> > > [s.Rath:] Again form! There is no form in the 12th house. There

> cannot be a

> > > form in the 12th house. This is where everykind of form ends.

> This is where

> > > the body or bodies end. This is the state of the body at death.

> > >

> > > The form is in the 9th house, in the temples and churches and

> mosques where

> > > men try to put God in a box and makes rules about how to reach

> Him and how

> > > they should conduct themselves socially and in groups and as

> individuals. If

> > > others are making the mistake of saying that they can only see

> the " forms of

> > > Vishnu " in the 12th house, in what way are you also not adding

> to the same

> > > mistake by saying that there are " other forms instead of Vishnu

> forms " in

> > > the 12th house. You are still thinking about what others are

> saying and not

> > > what I am saying.

> > >

> > > Have I not given such a clear and lucid explanation about the

> meaning of

> > > 12th house and vishnu as 'sarva-vyapakesa'. Then tell me from

> the physical

> > > universe viewpoint.

> > > Is vishnu there in the flower? The answer is yes

> > > Is Vishnu there in the tree? The answer is yes

> > > Is Vishnu there in the pillar? The answer is yes

> > > Is Vishnu there in you? The answer is yes

> > > Then what is the form of Vishnu that I must attach the mind to -

 

> the flower,

> > > the tree, the pillar or to you? The external skin that forms

the

> boundary

> > > for the physical bodies of all beings defines their physical

> form as seen by

> > > the eye but that which cannot be seen by the naked eye is the

> akasa that

> > > caused the elemets to come together to create the form in the

> first place

> > > and this is vishnu, the essence of the AKASA tattva that cause

> the creation.

> > > This is the prasava-karana devata of the 12th house and since

> the 12th house

> > > is associated with the bed, the learned say that he is sleeping

> or resting

> > > as if on a couch.

> > >

> > > Parasara says Shiva, Gouri and other names for the 12th house

> from karakamsa

> > > as it is this aspect that we have got attached to and it is

this

> that we

> > > have to transcend. If a person has Sun in the 12th from

> Karakamsa he will be

> > > very attached to Shiva, as if Shiva is his lord or boss and

then

> there is

> > > the saying " fear of the lord is the begining of wisdom " . So

this

> is the

> > > begining of the wisdom and this was the begining of Thakur's

> awakening in

> > > this world as he played the role of Shiva in the village plays

> and went into

> > > instant samadhi!

> > >

> > > AKASA tatva has the magnetic power (jupiter has the largest

> magnetic field)

> > > and the power of attraction is this nature of the akasa tatva.

> So by

> > > attracting the soul towards this final resting point, God takes

> forms and

> > > symbols as the tools for teaching him. So, any form that we see

> associated

> > > with the 12th house is incidental and not the cause of the

> moksa. Moksa

> > > comes when we transcend that form. Similarly the symbols like

> nama and rasa,

> > > like rupa (form) have to be transcended with 'om' (Srimad

> Bhagavatam) to

> > > realize the essence that is everywhere.

> > >

> > > If Thakur saw Kali everywhere then that means he had

transcended

> the form,

> > > name and flavor associated with Kali as per the various dhyana

> of Kali. The

> > > dhyana are the forms and imagery associated with the 9th house

> as the dharma

> > > of the devata and one has to transcend them before beeing in

the

> state of

> > > jivana-mukta. That is why the Chandrakala nadi talks of the

12th

> house from

> > > karakamsa as the jivana-muktaamsa.

> > >

> > > Whether deities not explicitly listed by Parasara can be ishta

> devatas or

> > > not is debatable.

> > > [s.Rath:] Again debate. Why is this debatable? I thought we had

> agreed on

> > > this point.

> > >

> > > But, whether deities explicitly listed by Parasara can be

ishta

> devatas or

> > > not is, as far as I am concerned, not open to debate! The fact

> that Parasara

> > > explicitly listed them means they can be ishta devatas. Period.

> > > [s.Rath:] That is the same thing that I said in the very first

> mail

> > > regarding taking of names that has started this thread. What is

> meant by

> > > " period " in the end of your sentence? The meaning given in the

> websers

> > > dictionary is as below. Which of these did you mean? I think it

> is a bit out

> > > of context as we were not talking about time or dasa in any

> manner. If it is

> > > a slang then I will advise you to try to stop using it. Believe

> me it is not

> > > worth it as it spoils the language.

> > > pe-ri-od (peer'ee uhd) n. <snip>

> > >

> > > (2) Given that so many deities are lauded in various scriptures

> as givers of

> > > moksha, I object to the claim that only Vishnu grants moksha.

> > > [s.Rath:] That would amount to saying that only Indians get

> moksha and the

> > > rest of the world has no hope! Of course its pathetic. But then

> to say that

> > > " one who cannot see his devata as Vishnu " , will be granted

> moksha is also

> > > wrong. The devata has to be seen as the devata of all and in

all

> thngs big

> > > and small.

> > >

> > > * * *

> > >

> > > > So you see you are also saying what I am saying and this

> saying is based

> > > on

> > > > your Ista devata guiding you *intuitively* and not all

> mathematics and

> > > > program.

> > >

> > > Yes.

> > >

> > > There are so many deities and only 9 planets. So, to me, each

> planet shows

> > > umpteen deities (rather than just one Vishnu avatara). I try to

> judge based

> > > on various sign/planet influences on the planet in question to

> narrow down

> > > to a short list of deities. Then I have to select one among the

> short list

> > > of deities, using intuition.

> > > [s.Rath:] but the sign/planet correlation you did for Dhira

> Krishna was

> > > very interesting. Aquarius Mountains, Rahu Varaha-avatara so it

> was Balaji.

> > > Now look at this logic:

> > > Aquarius - Mountains, Rahu - Durga, so it has to be Vaishno

Devi

> who is the

> > > Durga of the mountains or Durga at Haridwar or any other

> mountain shrine of

> > > Durga. Is there anything wrong with this? If not then your

logic

> of choosing

> > > Vyankaeswara is wrong and it will not work again.

> > > In another case of Hari Mahalingam you have also advised

> Vyankateswara for

> > > Rahu in Gemini with Venus in 12th house from karakamsa and he

> has confirmed

> > > that he feels the closeness to Balaji.

> > > One sadhu of the Ramakrishna mission says that the greatness of

> Balaji is

> > > that whoever goes to him, He appears in the form of the Ista

> devata to that

> > > person!!! Thats true as I have always seen Jagannath whenever I

> have gone to

> > > Balaji. So we cannot have any logic and should all prescribe

the

> deities

> > > randomly.

> > >

> > > I honestly don't think that I am capable of giving perfect

> guidance with the

> > > imperfect knowledge I have. So I leave it to Mother Sri

> Mahalakshmi. If She

> > > wants me to give the correct guidance in someone's sadhana, She

> will inspire

> > > me accordingly.

> > > [s.Rath:] I really admire this thing in you. This is what I had

> seen so many

> > > years back and will always like you because of this. It is a

> mark of the

> > > true bhakta. For me too, after all the logic it has to be

> > > jagannatha-arpanamastu

> > >

> > > > In fac if Ramakrishna Paramhamsa came to you to ask for

> > > > Ista devata and that chart, what would you have told him?

> > >

> > > I would have loved to note the lord of 12th from karakamsa,

> Jupiter, being

> > > stronger than Sun in 12th and Saturn in moolatrikona dominating

> over Jupiter

> > > and would have loved to suggest " Taarana Kaali " .

> > >

> > > Similarly, if Aurobindo had come to me, I would have loved to

> suggest

> > > sadhana of Savitri. If Ramana Maharshi had come to me, I would

> have loved to

> > > send him to Arunachaleshwara.

> > >

> > > I am simply seeking better rules that would have allowed me to

> do so!

> > > [s.Rath:] Faith in the basics shall open the mind for the

higher

> truths.

> > >

> > > * * *

> > >

> > > Regarding my statement that Kaali is taamsik, you wrote:

> > >

> > > > Kali is very pure and a sister or Krishna. In Puri we are

> taught that she

> > > is

> > > > Parameswari and that children can worship her for anything.

> > > >

> > > > America is ridden with all kinds of sex tantras and they have

> all kinds of

> > > > devata guiding them. That is taamasik devata. Karna Pisachini

> is a

> > > taamasik

> > > > devata.

> > >

> > > This is very tough to understand or appreciate for most people

> and hence I

> > > prefer to not go there, but let me briefly make a couple of

> important

> > > points.

> > >

> > > That Mahaakaali is taamasik is not my invention. Saptashati

uses

> the

> > > adjective " taamasi " (taamasik) to describe Her. Saptashati

> rahasyam (from

> > > Maarkendeya puraanam) clearly describes how Mahaalakshmi came

> into existence

> > > first from nothingness, how Mahaakaali and Mahaasaraswati came

> from Her and

> > > how they brought to existence one male and one female deity

each

> (i.e.

> > > Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and their consorts).

> > > [s.Rath:] Mahakaali is different from Kaali just as Mahalakshmi

> is different

> > > from Lakshmi. So we are talking of different moods of the same

> mother. As

> > > Mahaakaali she gives victory in wars whereas as Dakshina Kaali

> she gives the

> > > supreme path of spirituality. So to say that Kaali is taamasik

> is wrong as

> > > Mahaakaali is her mood when she is going to war and she is not

> always in

> > > this mood. The three Devis go to war with the three names of

> MahaaSaraswati,

> > > Mahalakshmi and mahaKaali forming the Chamunda Hridaya mantra.

> this is the

> > > most powerful war mantra...so your argument is not right as the

> single mood

> > > cannot determine the overall being of the devata.

> > >

> > > In that account, it is clearly said that Mahaakaali is composed

> of the guna

> > > tamas and Mahalakshmi is composed of the guna sattwa. Thus,

> Mahaakaali being

> > > taamasik is based in scripture and not my creation.

> > > [s.Rath:] The Mahaakaali bija is KliiM which is the same as

> Krishna bija so

> > > technically, MahaaKaali = Krishna, but the Kaali bija is kriiM

> (with an 'R')

> > > and is completely different in its color etc. Everyone here

> knows about

> > > Krishna that when He goes to war, the rest just give up their

> bodies! Thats

> > > kleeM vija.

> > >

> > > Again Mahalakshmi is HriiM whereas Lakshmi is ShriiM. Please

> explain the

> > > gunas to me with these vijas so that I can understand what you

> are trying to

> > > say.

> > >

> > >

> > > You have to bear in mind here that all tamas is not equal and

> all rajas is

> > > not equal either. If Karna Pisachini is a taamasik devata and

> Mahaakaali is

> > > a taamasik devata, it does not make them equal.

> > >

> > > All darkness is not equal. Darkness that prevents you from

> seeing good is

> > > bad and darkness that prevents you from seeing bad is good.

> > > [s.Rath:] That is a superb analogy. You deserve kudos for this

> one

> > > statement.

> > >

> > > Also, all tamas is not " impure " as you imply. All darkness is

> not impure and

> > > all ignorance is not impure. Removing light from certain things

> and

> > > developing ignorance of certain things can be actually quite

> pure!

> > > [s.Rath:] Logic seems fine, but can you give me an example

where

> knowledge

> > > of anything is bad. Just about anything.

> > >

> > > Even sex which was taboo in modern India due to the effect of

> islamisation

> > > of north India, was discussed in quite a lot of detail in the

> Kamasutra of

> > > Vatsayana. Not to forget Arthashastra and other such literature

> which are

> > > written by sages and seers.

> > >

> > > I need an example to understand this point.

> > >

> > > Yes, Kaali is very pure. But that does not imply that she

> is " saattwik " .

> > > Mahaakaali IS taamasik as Saptashati rahasyam unambiguously

> states. If this

> > > fact does not make sense to some, perhaps they are missing

> something! As I

> > > said earlier, taamasik devatas (esp those taamasik devatas who

> are very

> > > pure) are tough to understand. In fact, understanding the three

> gunas fully

> > > is also not easy.

> > > [s.Rath:] Dakshina Kaali is PURE SATVA, please think again on

> this. I am

> > > merely trying to say that the mood of the devata is very

crucial

> for

> > > understanding mantra sadhana and mantra shastra. Think of guna

> as resulting

> > > in moods of four kind - uttama, madhyama, adhama and udaasina.

> Then the

> > > effet of the gunas can be understood, else we will be just

> painting deities

> > > as black and white without understanding the reasons forthe

> color and its

> > > effetc on us.

> > >

> > > May the light of Brahman shine within,

> > > Narasimha

> > > -------------------------------

> > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

> > > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> > > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

> > > -------------------------------

> >

>