Tulasi: Either or Both?

January 25, 2010

Respected Guru ji,

Sadar Pranam!

While Guru ji was answering, You were writing to teach me.

It was addressed to Guru ji and Guru ji has answered. I try to think over and learn

from what is written and what is hinted!

The concept of No Mind can not be conceived by Mind! How can

Mind create/conceive something which is beyond it? It can only be realised if one leaves Mind and hence the world of

Duality behind! We can't understand what the Rishis tried to make us understand

fully by thinking over, but we can get some hint…and that is what they, who realised

it, wanted, to atleast give us some hint!

Now comes the work of Mind towards the attainment of that

ideal of No Mind. In other words, Gyan Yoga! It will take me far beyond. But

then at the last step/crossing, I need the grace of That which is "Neither" and

"Both" at the same time! So, Kali, the eterneal destroyer destroys/dissolves Herself!

I experience Shiva/Myself! Shivoham! Sohamasmi!

But I may have to

come back and so, Kali, the eternal Creatrix recreates Herself and starts

dancing over Shiva. The world of Duality has returned and now I try to explain

That, in terms of Mind, and discover

words and phrases like Advaita and No Mind. I, now, KNOW that "No Mind" never needed to Arise, as it was always present, inside me and

I, in it. The Sun was always there, the only thing is that clouds of my

Ignorance din't let me see it. The only thing that changed is that now I have realized

it! Now I Am Realized. But now I see everything in me and myself in everything, so I may try to help/raise my other Selves, but as No Mind

can't be understood with Mind, so I try

to hint them, and show them the way.

How can there be any duality between one that is Shashwat

and the one that never existed?! Mind is

a "concept" , No Mind is "Reality". But this is talking in absolute terms. Suppose,

I try to compare them understanding their relative importance, then first I'll need to conceive "No Mind" mentally, which is

not possible, so the whole exercise is futile?! So I'll try to imbibe as much as I can from

the Hints given by my Gurus and walk the path laid down for me. The words "No Mind" is a hint and That which

is hinted, is Reality?!Shishyawat,Kunal.

January 26, 2010

Hello Sir,

You caught me right on target while thinking about the inner self. The answer is

indeed inside us, dramas are unfolding everywhere around us in the outside

world. What to offer to oneself is to be decided by the self. But we are caught

in actions and dramas where is time to think inward......Sudhir

sohamsa , " mysticalsense " <sensemystical wrote:

>

> Dear Sudhir,

>

> Are we really in a position to offer something to the 'One' Who actually

> has given us Life?

>

> In true sense, we can only Ask. or should we actually ask - doesnt

> He/She already know what we need?

>

> Do 'We' really exist? Or is it only 'That' which exists as manifold?

>

> One Mind, many Views.

>

> mysticalsense.

>

> The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not

> between right and wrong. Carl Jung.

>

> sohamsa , " sudhir_panda_bbsr "

> <sudhir_panda_bbsr@> wrote:

> >

> > Hello Sir,

> >

> > This is an interesting discussion. In a small village near Puri, where

> I was born, people regularly offer Champaka to Shiva linga. Many people

> offer multiple of 108 Champakas when their wishes are fulfilled. I am

> not sure about other places in India, but this practice is also seen in

> several other parts of Odisha.

> >

> > I cannot exactly remember where (I think it was in Pune) but once a

> pandit has asked me to offer Tulasi on Shiva linga during a

> rudrabhiseka.

> >

> > Thanks and regards,

> > Sudhir

> >

> > sohamsa , " mysticalsense " sensemystical@ wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear SR,

> > >

> > > It can also be inferred that since the Atman in us is the Shiva and

> > > the rest of what we are made of is Shakti/Girija (ref:

> > > AdiShankaracharya's kriti: Atmaa tvaM girijaa matiH sahachrAhA; and

> > > Shiva Purana); then we should neither be consuming tulasi nor

> wearing

> > > it, as in essence we just end up offering it to Shiva+Shakti, since

> > > consuming it will put it into the Shakti part and wearing it will be

> > > around the body that houses the Atman that is the Spark of Shiva.

> > >

> > > oh ho but who is sustaining this body and the universe...Vishnu? so

> > > where is Vishnu if everything is Shiva+Shakti....and so on and so

> forth,

> > > then someone learned with Vishnu Purana will say, it is Vishnu that

> > > manifests as everything...so the 2 parties keep fighting about who

> is

> > > superior and what should be offered to whom.

> > >

> > > Coming back to Shiva Purana, why would Shiva Purana be talking about

> > > offering Tulasi to Shiva in general or under special circumstances?

> > >

> > > e.g. ShivaPurana: Rudra Samhita: Chapter 14: talks of offering

> Tulasi to

> > > Shiva ( Shloka 28 ), among benefits of offering other articles like

> > > bilva, bandhuka, nirgundi etc. this chapter 14 explicit in saying

> that

> > > ketaki and champaka are prohibited (and reasons to same are given in

> > > other parts of Shiva Purana). Please can you point the reference

> from

> > > Shiva Purana or elsewhere which says that " Only on Shiva ratri is

> tulasi

> > > offered to Shiva and Bilva offered to Vishnu. " or is that an

> inference

> > > (or a tradition being followed)?

> > >

> > > mysticalsense.

> > >

> > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not

> > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung.

> > >

> > > sohamsa , " Sanjay Rath " <sanjayrath@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > om gurave namah

> > > >

> > > > Dear Kunal Nath

> > > >

> > > > That is 100% correct. Only on Shiva ratri is tulasi offered to

> Shiva

> > > and Bilva offered to Vishnu. This is taught after the battle between

> > > Brahma and Vishnu in the Vidyesvara samhita of Shiva purana. For

> > > Shivaratri is the day when the Atma linga (pillar of light) was

> > > witnessed as the manifestation of Shiva by them. It was on this day

> that

> > > Shiva granted the boon of equivalence to Vishnu and forgiveness to

> > > Brahma for his sins. Therefore those who have lied and sinned in the

> > > year go to Shiva with the Ketaki flower (only offered on this day)

> and

> > > while offering it, they CONFESS their sin. This confession with

> Ketaki

> > > as witness leads to forgiveness and change. This is pracised in all

> > > Orissa temples even today.

> > > >

> > > > Best Wishes

> > > >

> > > > Sanjay Rath

> > > >

> > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road, New Delhi 110060, India; +91 (011)

> 4504

> > > 8762

> > > >

> > > > Readings: www.srath.com; Courses: www.sohamsa.com; Books:

> > > www.sagittariuspublications.com; Community: www..org

> > > >

> > > > sohamsa [sohamsa ] On

> > > Behalf Of utkarsh_vaggbhav

> > > > 26 December 2009 03:06 AM

> > > > sohamsa

> > > > Re: Tulasi: Either or Both?

> > > >

> > > > Respected sir,

> > > >

> > > > I don't know the technical reason as to why Tulasi is not offered

> to

> > > Shiva, but I know that we shouldn't...!! Actually sometimes ago, I

> used

> > > to offer Tulasi to Shiv Linga, but later I came to know that I

> > > shouldn't, so I stopped that. Now while I didn't face any problems

> > > because of that, I know of people who had problems due to that

> > > only..like a friend of mine had kept shiva linga at the Tulasi Pindi

> and

> > > used to pour water over it...needless to say, his " general time and

> > > growth " suffered!

> > > >

> > > > Also it wouldn't be out of place to mention that once a year, on

> > > Mahashivaratri, Tulasi is offered to Baba Vaidyanath in Jharkhand,

> and

> > > if my memory doesn't fail me, Bel Patra to Vishnu ji.. It is a

> practice

> > > being followed since God knows when, but it is right for that place

> at

> > > that time...

> > > >

> > > > Though it is slightly off the topic, but let me add few more

> > > words...the same deity may change his/her bhava from place to

> place..so

> > > even as there are generalities as mentioned in scriptures, there are

> > > local/specific differences..to alter that is possible only for

> people

> > > like Adi Shankaracharya..Now the reasons behind this phenomenon can

> be

> > > many and unexplainable...Our own bhavas over a period of time(like

> > > bhavas of Bhaktas or of very evolved souls) somehow affects the

> bhava of

> > > deity too...

> > > >

> > > > So I think if I have to offer something to Shiva ji, I'll offer

> Bel

> > > Patra..But suppose You r really in love with Him and have been

> > > worshipping Him with Tulasi all your life, if I happen to come to

> your

> > > house, I'll make it a point that I offer some Tulasi to Shiv Ji :-)

> > > >

> > > > Sincerely,

> > > > Kunal Nath.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

January 28, 2010

Dear mysticalsense,

Few possible answers and some points bellow...

sohamsa , " mysticalsense " <sensemystical wrote:

>

> Dear Sudhir,

>

> Are we really in a position to offer something to the 'One' Who actually

> has given us Life?

Tijana: Yes. But only after we find out why He has given us a Life.

>

> In true sense, we can only Ask. or should we actually ask - doesnt

> He/She already know what we need?

Tijana: He/She does, but we don`t.

Do 'We' really exist?

Tijana: We certainly do.

Or is it only 'That' which exists as manifold?

Tijana: `That` would be Those or These in that case and not That.

>

> One Mind, many Views.

>

> mysticalsense.

>

> The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not

> between right and wrong. Carl Jung.

I`m curious to know how Jung helps. Duality is being created from delusive

perception of linear +/- axis spreading from the zero point and subconscious

(unawareness) and not Awareness is the one responsible for creating experience

of positive and negative. Both sense and nonsense, right and wrong are

wrong...But this leads to insanity. We are making the mind Master. The mind must

be made a slave, not of ego and superego (I find Freud much more precise when it

comes to defining structure of mind) and here only I give a credit to

psychology.

There is no end to mind even though there are limits to it. Bindu and nada,

Shiva and Shakti are the only Two who are One.

Warm regards

Tijana

>

> sohamsa , " sudhir_panda_bbsr "

> <sudhir_panda_bbsr@> wrote:

> >

> > Hello Sir,

> >

> > This is an interesting discussion. In a small village near Puri, where

> I was born, people regularly offer Champaka to Shiva linga. Many people

> offer multiple of 108 Champakas when their wishes are fulfilled. I am

> not sure about other places in India, but this practice is also seen in

> several other parts of Odisha.

> >

> > I cannot exactly remember where (I think it was in Pune) but once a

> pandit has asked me to offer Tulasi on Shiva linga during a

> rudrabhiseka.

> >

> > Thanks and regards,

> > Sudhir

> >

> > sohamsa , " mysticalsense " sensemystical@ wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear SR,

> > >

> > > It can also be inferred that since the Atman in us is the Shiva and

> > > the rest of what we are made of is Shakti/Girija (ref:

> > > AdiShankaracharya's kriti: Atmaa tvaM girijaa matiH sahachrAhA; and

> > > Shiva Purana); then we should neither be consuming tulasi nor

> wearing

> > > it, as in essence we just end up offering it to Shiva+Shakti, since

> > > consuming it will put it into the Shakti part and wearing it will be

> > > around the body that houses the Atman that is the Spark of Shiva.

> > >

> > > oh ho but who is sustaining this body and the universe...Vishnu? so

> > > where is Vishnu if everything is Shiva+Shakti....and so on and so

> forth,

> > > then someone learned with Vishnu Purana will say, it is Vishnu that

> > > manifests as everything...so the 2 parties keep fighting about who

> is

> > > superior and what should be offered to whom.

> > >

> > > Coming back to Shiva Purana, why would Shiva Purana be talking about

> > > offering Tulasi to Shiva in general or under special circumstances?

> > >

> > > e.g. ShivaPurana: Rudra Samhita: Chapter 14: talks of offering

> Tulasi to

> > > Shiva ( Shloka 28 ), among benefits of offering other articles like

> > > bilva, bandhuka, nirgundi etc. this chapter 14 explicit in saying

> that

> > > ketaki and champaka are prohibited (and reasons to same are given in

> > > other parts of Shiva Purana). Please can you point the reference

> from

> > > Shiva Purana or elsewhere which says that " Only on Shiva ratri is

> tulasi

> > > offered to Shiva and Bilva offered to Vishnu. " or is that an

> inference

> > > (or a tradition being followed)?

> > >

> > > mysticalsense.

> > >

> > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not

> > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung.

> > >

> > > sohamsa , " Sanjay Rath " <sanjayrath@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > om gurave namah

> > > >

> > > > Dear Kunal Nath

> > > >

> > > > That is 100% correct. Only on Shiva ratri is tulasi offered to

> Shiva

> > > and Bilva offered to Vishnu. This is taught after the battle between

> > > Brahma and Vishnu in the Vidyesvara samhita of Shiva purana. For

> > > Shivaratri is the day when the Atma linga (pillar of light) was

> > > witnessed as the manifestation of Shiva by them. It was on this day

> that

> > > Shiva granted the boon of equivalence to Vishnu and forgiveness to

> > > Brahma for his sins. Therefore those who have lied and sinned in the

> > > year go to Shiva with the Ketaki flower (only offered on this day)

> and

> > > while offering it, they CONFESS their sin. This confession with

> Ketaki

> > > as witness leads to forgiveness and change. This is pracised in all

> > > Orissa temples even today.

> > > >

> > > > Best Wishes

> > > >

> > > > Sanjay Rath

> > > >

> > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road, New Delhi 110060, India; +91 (011)

> 4504

> > > 8762

> > > >

> > > > Readings: www.srath.com; Courses: www.sohamsa.com; Books:

> > > www.sagittariuspublications.com; Community: www..org

> > > >

> > > > sohamsa [sohamsa ] On

> > > Behalf Of utkarsh_vaggbhav

> > > > 26 December 2009 03:06 AM

> > > > sohamsa

> > > > Re: Tulasi: Either or Both?

> > > >

> > > > Respected sir,

> > > >

> > > > I don't know the technical reason as to why Tulasi is not offered

> to

> > > Shiva, but I know that we shouldn't...!! Actually sometimes ago, I

> used

> > > to offer Tulasi to Shiv Linga, but later I came to know that I

> > > shouldn't, so I stopped that. Now while I didn't face any problems

> > > because of that, I know of people who had problems due to that

> > > only..like a friend of mine had kept shiva linga at the Tulasi Pindi

> and

> > > used to pour water over it...needless to say, his " general time and

> > > growth " suffered!

> > > >

> > > > Also it wouldn't be out of place to mention that once a year, on

> > > Mahashivaratri, Tulasi is offered to Baba Vaidyanath in Jharkhand,

> and

> > > if my memory doesn't fail me, Bel Patra to Vishnu ji.. It is a

> practice

> > > being followed since God knows when, but it is right for that place

> at

> > > that time...

> > > >

> > > > Though it is slightly off the topic, but let me add few more

> > > words...the same deity may change his/her bhava from place to

> place..so

> > > even as there are generalities as mentioned in scriptures, there are

> > > local/specific differences..to alter that is possible only for

> people

> > > like Adi Shankaracharya..Now the reasons behind this phenomenon can

> be

> > > many and unexplainable...Our own bhavas over a period of time(like

> > > bhavas of Bhaktas or of very evolved souls) somehow affects the

> bhava of

> > > deity too...

> > > >

> > > > So I think if I have to offer something to Shiva ji, I'll offer

> Bel

> > > Patra..But suppose You r really in love with Him and have been

> > > worshipping Him with Tulasi all your life, if I happen to come to

> your

> > > house, I'll make it a point that I offer some Tulasi to Shiv Ji :-)

> > > >

> > > > Sincerely,

> > > > Kunal Nath.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

January 28, 2010

Hello Tijana,

Please see below:

sohamsa , "tijana" <tijanadamjanovic wrote:>> > > Dear mysticalsense,> Few possible answers and some points bellow...> > sohamsa , "mysticalsense" sensemystical@ wrote:> >> > > > Dear Sudhir,> > > > Are we really in a position to offer something to the 'One' Who actually> > has given us Life?> > Tijana: Yes. But only after we find out why He has given us a Life.

MS: there can be many views here some of which are:

we will tend to offer (things - puja offering or any other services) to That if we think that We and That are 'not one'.

once we realise that we are a part of the That Whole, then we will think that our services will be (offered) to The Whole.

If you say that we can offer only after we find why he has given us a Life, then does that mean that we cannot/should not consider offering anything until "we" come to know the purpose of our life?

> > > > In true sense, we can only Ask. or should we actually ask - doesnt> > He/She already know what we need?> > Tijana: He/She does, but we don`t.

MS: agreed. we just think of our immediate needs - He/She knows the purpose of our Existence. Further, please see below:> > Do 'We' really exist? > > Tijana: We certainly do.

MS: 'we' exist so long as 'we' think that 'we are separate from 'That'. After realisation of Oneness of 'That' and 'we', we can appreciate that it is 'That' that is all there is.

something like dissoluiton of Ego and merger into the Absolute.

now see what happens - below...>

> Or is it only 'That' which exists as manifold?> > Tijana: `That` would be Those or These in that case and not That.

MS: 'That' again is the concept in the mind which exists so long as there is the appreciation of duality between 'we' and 'That'.

the "That" that is translated from Tat-Tvamasi is not the That of the ThisORThat, but the Whole That is: where ther is no boudary between 'we' and 'that'.

Sanjayji said somewhere, when it comes to translating, English may not be the right language. You see, the statements i have tried to articulate above would seem quite contradictory between themsleves.

It is said that the Tao that is the real Tao cannot be described in words. Much of the same is said about "God" like: what God is, cannot be explained in words, He/She is beyond description.

> > > > One Mind, many Views.> > > > mysticalsense.> > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not> > between right and wrong. Carl Jung.> > I`m curious to know how Jung helps. Duality is being created from delusive perception of linear +/- axis spreading from the zero point and subconscious (unawareness) and not Awareness is the one responsible for creating experience of positive and negative. Both sense and nonsense, right and wrong are wrong...But this leads to insanity.

Those who look at the world from dvaita perspective, see duality everywhere [i vs That; Shiva-Shakti etc.] those who see the world from Advaita perspective, see everything as One. Can it be said who of the two is right? They call themselves right from the perspective that makes sense to them. Both perspectives can make sense from a third perspective! What you said above is your perspective and makes sense to you and will make sense to many others. When we say 'right' we assume exitence of 'wrong', and vice versa. So when u r saying 'wrong', it may be implied that there is something else which you think is 'right'.

We are making the mind Master. The mind must be made a slave, not of ego and superego (I find Freud much more precise when it comes to defining structure of mind) and here only I give a credit to psychology.> There is no end to mind even though there are limits to it. Bindu and nada, Shiva and Shakti are the only Two who are One.

That particular statement from CJ is (to me) simply as an indicator that the field of Mind's working is Limited. From the Mind's perspective, the world (our world as we understnad it - Cognitive Perception) depends on what sense we make of it.

the issue happens when 'what we think is sense to us' is being termed by us as 'right'.

Discriminating between Right and Wrong comes in as a function of the SuperEgo that enforces on the individual as to what is to be followed and what is not to be followed (that perhaps is equivalent to what society or humanity decides collectively as Dharma - sets of rules and regulations about life) - like today, gays are being accepted more openly, in some societies that others, and as compared to previous times. So individuals, accordingly, may have less inhibition or guilt feeling in this matter in coming times. Now, whether the given example falls in "Right or Wrong" domain of discusson or in "Sense or Nonsense" domain, can further be debated (elsewhere i suppose, not in this forum) or we may see that it encompasses both.

Now, what i would be interested in knowing is that where is the faculty of "Viveka" located in us?

We do use the term vivek-buddhi. So, is this vivek-buddhi originating in the mind, or does it come from elsewhere and influence the mind - much like emotions from the mana or desires from the Id may be influencing the Mind, making it's pendulum sway between making sense or non-sense out of it. The viveka-buddhi may be under influence from super-ego, but if a person's sense of Ego is stronger, then that person may bring revolutionary chagnes in society or atleast follow his/her ways against the rules of society. Over a period of time, such ways (of this person) may become a norm in the society ( super-ego has undergone change - as has the archetype).

Are Id, Ego, SuperEgo and Vivek-buddhi, all parts of Mind? Then perhaps Vivek-buddhi is the pendulum that swings between 'thisORthat'. May be someone could also coin a statement like "the pendulum of the mana swings between Id and SuperEgo". Freud should have done that - actually, he did that in his theories, just didnt write that statement :-) And may be he didnt differentiate between mana and mind.

(like english translations say - karaka for Mind is Moon!! now, do emotions arise in mind or in mana? you know the answer).

You will appreciate, that we cannot demarcate boundaries between Jungian ways and Fruedian ways in "either this wayor that way" manner. These 2 methods and may be others too like Gestalt can (should) be used in a complementary way, seeing which is applicable where, how and how much. e.g. Desires arises from Id, super-ego tries to put a reign to it, but Mind of the individual keeps swinging to make sense out of it that whether the desire should be gratified or whether the rules of society or inner conciousness be followed. What manifests may still not make sense to the mind or may not make sense to the superego. CJ, SF etc all had their 'veiws' about the 'mind', and these veiws and those of others that followed (i think you will agree) are in no way the absolute correct ways, some explain somethings better that the others, and each veiw has it's limitations. The 'archetypes' (of CJ) may be an outgrowth of the 'superego' (of SF) at the 'collective consciousness' level (of CJ) vs 'individual' level (of SF). The view (CJ, SF ) that one thinks is applicable will thus depend on whether at the given moment the individual needs to be looked as and Individual or a part of that Collective Whole. Both views are nevertheless applicable to the same individual, in some conditions in a complementary way, in other conditions one at a time.

Study of psychology, to me, provides another way about understanding of what the scriptures are saying about the human wrt desires, I, That, consciousness, ego etc.

U said that: Both sense and nonsense, right and wrong are wrong...But this leads to insanity.

U said that: The mind must be made a slave, not of ego and superego

The scriptures say as well that mind should be mastered, and i could agree no lesser. The statement from CJ just reminds me of just that - i.e. one should not be a slave to the swinging of the mind's pendulum - between ego-superego, this-that, I-That, sense-nonsense, karma-destiny, etc etc. It is no weightier a statement, than those, if any, about swinging between Id-Superego or between ego-superego from wherever they came from, including SF or Tijana or anyone who studies these perspectives :-)

> e> Warm regards> Tijana

Nice discussing all this with you.

mysticalsense. The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong. Carl Jung.

> > > > > > > > sohamsa , "sudhir_panda_bbsr"> > <sudhir_panda_bbsr@> wrote:> > >> > > Hello Sir,> > >> > > This is an interesting discussion. In a small village near Puri, where> > I was born, people regularly offer Champaka to Shiva linga. Many people> > offer multiple of 108 Champakas when their wishes are fulfilled. I am> > not sure about other places in India, but this practice is also seen in> > several other parts of Odisha.> > >> > > I cannot exactly remember where (I think it was in Pune) but once a> > pandit has asked me to offer Tulasi on Shiva linga during a> > rudrabhiseka.> > >> > > Thanks and regards,> > > Sudhir> > >> > >> > > sohamsa , "mysticalsense" sensemystical@ wrote:> > > >> > > >> > > > Dear SR,> > > >> > > > It can also be inferred that since the Atman in us is the Shiva and> > > > the rest of what we are made of is Shakti/Girija (ref:> > > > AdiShankaracharya's kriti: Atmaa tvaM girijaa matiH sahachrAhA; and> > > > Shiva Purana); then we should neither be consuming tulasi nor> > wearing> > > > it, as in essence we just end up offering it to Shiva+Shakti, since> > > > consuming it will put it into the Shakti part and wearing it will be> > > > around the body that houses the Atman that is the Spark of Shiva.> > > >> > > > oh ho but who is sustaining this body and the universe...Vishnu? so> > > > where is Vishnu if everything is Shiva+Shakti....and so on and so> > forth,> > > > then someone learned with Vishnu Purana will say, it is Vishnu that> > > > manifests as everything...so the 2 parties keep fighting about who> > is> > > > superior and what should be offered to whom.> > > >> > > > Coming back to Shiva Purana, why would Shiva Purana be talking about> > > > offering Tulasi to Shiva in general or under special circumstances?> > > >> > > > e.g. ShivaPurana: Rudra Samhita: Chapter 14: talks of offering> > Tulasi to> > > > Shiva ( Shloka 28 ), among benefits of offering other articles like> > > > bilva, bandhuka, nirgundi etc. this chapter 14 explicit in saying> > that> > > > ketaki and champaka are prohibited (and reasons to same are given in> > > > other parts of Shiva Purana). Please can you point the reference> > from> > > > Shiva Purana or elsewhere which says that "Only on Shiva ratri is> > tulasi> > > > offered to Shiva and Bilva offered to Vishnu." or is that an> > inference> > > > (or a tradition being followed)?> > > >> > > > mysticalsense.> > > >> > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not> > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung.> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > sohamsa , "Sanjay Rath" <sanjayrath@> wrote:> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > om gurave namah> > > > >> > > > > Dear Kunal Nath> > > > >> > > > > That is 100% correct. Only on Shiva ratri is tulasi offered to> > Shiva> > > > and Bilva offered to Vishnu. This is taught after the battle between> > > > Brahma and Vishnu in the Vidyesvara samhita of Shiva purana. For> > > > Shivaratri is the day when the Atma linga (pillar of light) was> > > > witnessed as the manifestation of Shiva by them. It was on this day> > that> > > > Shiva granted the boon of equivalence to Vishnu and forgiveness to> > > > Brahma for his sins. Therefore those who have lied and sinned in the> > > > year go to Shiva with the Ketaki flower (only offered on this day)> > and> > > > while offering it, they CONFESS their sin. This confession with> > Ketaki> > > > as witness leads to forgiveness and change. This is pracised in all> > > > Orissa temples even today.> > > > >> > > > > Best Wishes> > > > >> > > > > Sanjay Rath> > > > >> > > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road, New Delhi 110060, India; +91 (011)> > 4504> > > > 8762> > > > >> > > > > Readings: www.srath.com; Courses: www.sohamsa.com; Books:> > > > www.sagittariuspublications.com; Community: www..org> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > sohamsa [sohamsa ] On> > > > Behalf Of utkarsh_vaggbhav> > > > > 26 December 2009 03:06 AM> > > > > sohamsa > > > > > Re: Tulasi: Either or Both?> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Respected sir,> > > > >> > > > > I don't know the technical reason as to why Tulasi is not offered> > to> > > > Shiva, but I know that we shouldn't...!! Actually sometimes ago, I> > used> > > > to offer Tulasi to Shiv Linga, but later I came to know that I> > > > shouldn't, so I stopped that. Now while I didn't face any problems> > > > because of that, I know of people who had problems due to that> > > > only..like a friend of mine had kept shiva linga at the Tulasi Pindi> > and> > > > used to pour water over it...needless to say, his "general time and> > > > growth" suffered!> > > > >> > > > > Also it wouldn't be out of place to mention that once a year, on> > > > Mahashivaratri, Tulasi is offered to Baba Vaidyanath in Jharkhand,> > and> > > > if my memory doesn't fail me, Bel Patra to Vishnu ji.. It is a> > practice> > > > being followed since God knows when, but it is right for that place> > at> > > > that time...> > > > >> > > > > Though it is slightly off the topic, but let me add few more> > > > words...the same deity may change his/her bhava from place to> > place..so> > > > even as there are generalities as mentioned in scriptures, there are> > > > local/specific differences..to alter that is possible only for> > people> > > > like Adi Shankaracharya..Now the reasons behind this phenomenon can> > be> > > > many and unexplainable...Our own bhavas over a period of time(like> > > > bhavas of Bhaktas or of very evolved souls) somehow affects the> > bhava of> > > > deity too...> > > > >> > > > > So I think if I have to offer something to Shiva ji, I'll offer> > Bel> > > > Patra..But suppose You r really in love with Him and have been> > > > worshipping Him with Tulasi all your life, if I happen to come to> > your> > > > house, I'll make it a point that I offer some Tulasi to Shiv Ji :-)> > > > >> > > > > Sincerely,> > > > > Kunal Nath.> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>

January 28, 2010

Hello Mysticalsense!

Thank you for elaborating some crucial points.

To be able to move in a direction that could bring useful insights in this

exchange, I kindly request to decide on which concept we`ll discuss (dvaita or

advaita), first or only.

You have raised a crucial question - do id, ego and super ego belong to mana or

Viveka...If only western psychology knew about this - it would be a revolution.

I base my understanding on Adishankara`s teaching, and Viveka chudamani gives

answers to questions rasied (I`m sure you know this). We could go through the

slokas anytime and clearly see how he differentiates Mana, Viveka, Ahamkar.

But what I personally lack is self-understanding or experience in sadhana that

only can give differentiation.

When it comes to psychology I follow the teaching of Eric Bern and TA method.

If you find this acceptable, I hope we can continue, now or some other time.

Warm regards,

Tijana

sohamsa , " mysticalsense " <sensemystical wrote:

>

> Hello Tijana,

>

> Please see below:

>

> sohamsa , " tijana " <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear mysticalsense,

> > Few possible answers and some points bellow...

> >

> > sohamsa , " mysticalsense " sensemystical@ wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sudhir,

> > >

> > > Are we really in a position to offer something to the 'One' Who

> actually

> > > has given us Life?

> >

> > Tijana: Yes. But only after we find out why He has given us a Life.

>

> MS: there can be many views here some of which are:

>

> we will tend to offer (things - puja offering or any other services) to

> That if we think that We and That are 'not one'.

>

> once we realise that we are a part of the That Whole, then we will think

> that our services will be (offered) to The Whole.

>

> If you say that we can offer only after we find why he has given us a

> Life, then does that mean that we cannot/should not consider offering

> anything until " we " come to know the purpose of our life?

>

> > >

> > > In true sense, we can only Ask. or should we actually ask - doesnt

> > > He/She already know what we need?

> >

> > Tijana: He/She does, but we don`t.

>

> MS: agreed. we just think of our immediate needs - He/She knows the

> purpose of our Existence. Further, please see below:

> >

> > Do 'We' really exist?

> >

> > Tijana: We certainly do.

>

> MS: 'we' exist so long as 'we' think that 'we are separate from 'That'.

> After realisation of Oneness of 'That' and 'we', we can appreciate that

> it is 'That' that is all there is.

>

> something like dissoluiton of Ego and merger into the Absolute.

>

> now see what happens - below...

> >

>

> > Or is it only 'That' which exists as manifold?

> >

> > Tijana: `That` would be Those or These in that case and not That.

>

> MS: 'That' again is the concept in the mind which exists so long as

> there is the appreciation of duality between 'we' and 'That'.

>

> the " That " that is translated from Tat-Tvamasi is not the That of the

> ThisORThat, but the Whole That is: where ther is no boudary between 'we'

> and 'that'.

>

> Sanjayji said somewhere, when it comes to translating, English may not

> be the right language. You see, the statements i have tried to

> articulate above would seem quite contradictory between themsleves.

>

> It is said that the Tao that is the real Tao cannot be described in

> words. Much of the same is said about " God " like: what God is, cannot be

> explained in words, He/She is beyond description.

>

> > >

> > > One Mind, many Views.

> > >

> > > mysticalsense.

> > >

> > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not

> > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung.

> >

> > I`m curious to know how Jung helps. Duality is being created from

> delusive perception of linear +/- axis spreading from the zero point and

> subconscious (unawareness) and not Awareness is the one responsible for

> creating experience of positive and negative. Both sense and nonsense,

> right and wrong are wrong...But this leads to insanity.

>

> Those who look at the world from dvaita perspective, see duality

> everywhere [i vs That; Shiva-Shakti etc.] those who see the world from

> Advaita perspective, see everything as One. Can it be said who of the

> two is right? They call themselves right from the perspective that makes

> sense to them. Both perspectives can make sense from a third

> perspective! What you said above is your perspective and makes sense to

> you and will make sense to many others. When we say 'right' we assume

> exitence of 'wrong', and vice versa. So when u r saying 'wrong', it may

> be implied that there is something else which you think is 'right'.

>

> We are making the mind Master. The mind must be made a slave, not of ego

> and superego (I find Freud much more precise when it comes to defining

> structure of mind) and here only I give a credit to psychology.

> > There is no end to mind even though there are limits to it. Bindu and

> nada, Shiva and Shakti are the only Two who are One.

>

> That particular statement from CJ is (to me) simply as an indicator that

> the field of Mind's working is Limited. From the Mind's perspective, the

> world (our world as we understnad it - Cognitive Perception) depends on

> what sense we make of it.

>

> the issue happens when 'what we think is sense to us' is being termed by

> us as 'right'.

>

> Discriminating between Right and Wrong comes in as a function of the

> SuperEgo that enforces on the individual as to what is to be followed

> and what is not to be followed (that perhaps is equivalent to what

> society or humanity decides collectively as Dharma - sets of rules and

> regulations about life) - like today, gays are being accepted more

> openly, in some societies that others, and as compared to previous

> times. So individuals, accordingly, may have less inhibition or guilt

> feeling in this matter in coming times. Now, whether the given example

> falls in " Right or Wrong " domain of discusson or in " Sense or Nonsense "

> domain, can further be debated (elsewhere i suppose, not in this forum)

> or we may see that it encompasses both.

>

> Now, what i would be interested in knowing is that where is the faculty

> of " Viveka " located in us?

>

> We do use the term vivek-buddhi. So, is this vivek-buddhi originating in

> the mind, or does it come from elsewhere and influence the mind - much

> like emotions from the mana or desires from the Id may be influencing

> the Mind, making it's pendulum sway between making sense or non-sense

> out of it. The viveka-buddhi may be under influence from super-ego, but

> if a person's sense of Ego is stronger, then that person may bring

> revolutionary chagnes in society or atleast follow his/her ways against

> the rules of society. Over a period of time, such ways (of this person)

> may become a norm in the society ( super-ego has undergone change - as

> has the archetype).

>

> Are Id, Ego, SuperEgo and Vivek-buddhi, all parts of Mind? Then perhaps

> Vivek-buddhi is the pendulum that swings between 'thisORthat'. May be

> someone could also coin a statement like " the pendulum of the mana

> swings between Id and SuperEgo " . Freud should have done that - actually,

> he did that in his theories, just didnt write that statement :-) And may

> be he didnt differentiate between mana and mind.

>

> (like english translations say - karaka for Mind is Moon!! now, do

> emotions arise in mind or in mana? you know the answer).

>

> You will appreciate, that we cannot demarcate boundaries between Jungian

> ways and Fruedian ways in " either this way " " or that way " manner. These

> 2 methods and may be others too like Gestalt can (should) be used in a

> complementary way, seeing which is applicable where, how and how much.

> e.g. Desires arises from Id, super-ego tries to put a reign to it, but

> Mind of the individual keeps swinging to make sense out of it that

> whether the desire should be gratified or whether the rules of society

> or inner conciousness be followed. What manifests may still not make

> sense to the mind or may not make sense to the superego. CJ, SF etc all

> had their 'veiws' about the 'mind', and these veiws and those of others

> that followed (i think you will agree) are in no way the absolute

> correct ways, some explain somethings better that the others, and each

> veiw has it's limitations. The 'archetypes' (of CJ) may be an outgrowth

> of the 'superego' (of SF) at the 'collective consciousness' level (of

> CJ) vs 'individual' level (of SF). The view (CJ, SF ) that one thinks

> is applicable will thus depend on whether at the given moment the

> individual needs to be looked as and Individual or a part of that

> Collective Whole. Both views are nevertheless applicable to the same

> individual, in some conditions in a complementary way, in other

> conditions one at a time.

>

> Study of psychology, to me, provides another way about understanding of

> what the scriptures are saying about the human wrt desires, I, That,

> consciousness, ego etc.

>

> U said that: Both sense and nonsense, right and wrong are wrong...But

> this leads to insanity.

>

> U said that: The mind must be made a slave, not of ego and superego

>

> The scriptures say as well that mind should be mastered, and i could

> agree no lesser. The statement from CJ just reminds me of just that -

> i.e. one should not be a slave to the swinging of the mind's pendulum -

> between ego-superego, this-that, I-That, sense-nonsense, karma-destiny,

> etc etc. It is no weightier a statement, than those, if any, about

> swinging between Id-Superego or between ego-superego from wherever they

> came from, including SF or Tijana or anyone who studies these

> perspectives :-)

>

> > e> Warm regards

> > Tijana

>

> Nice discussing all this with you.

>

> mysticalsense.

>

> The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not

> between right and wrong. Carl Jung.

>

> > >

> > > sohamsa , " sudhir_panda_bbsr "

> > > <sudhir_panda_bbsr@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hello Sir,

> > > >

> > > > This is an interesting discussion. In a small village near Puri,

> where

> > > I was born, people regularly offer Champaka to Shiva linga. Many

> people

> > > offer multiple of 108 Champakas when their wishes are fulfilled. I

> am

> > > not sure about other places in India, but this practice is also seen

> in

> > > several other parts of Odisha.

> > > >

> > > > I cannot exactly remember where (I think it was in Pune) but once

> a

> > > pandit has asked me to offer Tulasi on Shiva linga during a

> > > rudrabhiseka.

> > > >

> > > > Thanks and regards,

> > > > Sudhir

> > > >

> > > > sohamsa , " mysticalsense " sensemystical@

> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear SR,

> > > > >

> > > > > It can also be inferred that since the Atman in us is the Shiva

> and

> > > > > the rest of what we are made of is Shakti/Girija (ref:

> > > > > AdiShankaracharya's kriti: Atmaa tvaM girijaa matiH sahachrAhA;

> and

> > > > > Shiva Purana); then we should neither be consuming tulasi nor

> > > wearing

> > > > > it, as in essence we just end up offering it to Shiva+Shakti,

> since

> > > > > consuming it will put it into the Shakti part and wearing it

> will be

> > > > > around the body that houses the Atman that is the Spark of

> Shiva.

> > > > >

> > > > > oh ho but who is sustaining this body and the universe...Vishnu?

> so

> > > > > where is Vishnu if everything is Shiva+Shakti....and so on and

> so

> > > forth,

> > > > > then someone learned with Vishnu Purana will say, it is Vishnu

> that

> > > > > manifests as everything...so the 2 parties keep fighting about

> who

> > > is

> > > > > superior and what should be offered to whom.

> > > > >

> > > > > Coming back to Shiva Purana, why would Shiva Purana be talking

> about

> > > > > offering Tulasi to Shiva in general or under special

> circumstances?

> > > > >

> > > > > e.g. ShivaPurana: Rudra Samhita: Chapter 14: talks of offering

> > > Tulasi to

> > > > > Shiva ( Shloka 28 ), among benefits of offering other articles

> like

> > > > > bilva, bandhuka, nirgundi etc. this chapter 14 explicit in

> saying

> > > that

> > > > > ketaki and champaka are prohibited (and reasons to same are

> given in

> > > > > other parts of Shiva Purana). Please can you point the reference

> > > from

> > > > > Shiva Purana or elsewhere which says that " Only on Shiva ratri

> is

> > > tulasi

> > > > > offered to Shiva and Bilva offered to Vishnu. " or is that an

> > > inference

> > > > > (or a tradition being followed)?

> > > > >

> > > > > mysticalsense.

> > > > >

> > > > > The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense,

> not

> > > > > between right and wrong. Carl Jung.

> > > > >

> > > > > sohamsa , " Sanjay Rath " <sanjayrath@>

> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > om gurave namah

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear Kunal Nath

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That is 100% correct. Only on Shiva ratri is tulasi offered to

> > > Shiva

> > > > > and Bilva offered to Vishnu. This is taught after the battle

> between

> > > > > Brahma and Vishnu in the Vidyesvara samhita of Shiva purana. For

> > > > > Shivaratri is the day when the Atma linga (pillar of light) was

> > > > > witnessed as the manifestation of Shiva by them. It was on this

> day

> > > that

> > > > > Shiva granted the boon of equivalence to Vishnu and forgiveness

> to

> > > > > Brahma for his sins. Therefore those who have lied and sinned in

> the

> > > > > year go to Shiva with the Ketaki flower (only offered on this

> day)

> > > and

> > > > > while offering it, they CONFESS their sin. This confession with

> > > Ketaki

> > > > > as witness leads to forgiveness and change. This is pracised in

> all

> > > > > Orissa temples even today.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Best Wishes

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sanjay Rath

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 15B Gangaram Hospital Road, New Delhi 110060, India; +91 (011)

> > > 4504

> > > > > 8762

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Readings: www.srath.com; Courses: www.sohamsa.com; Books:

> > > > > www.sagittariuspublications.com; Community: www..org

> > > > > >

> > > > > > sohamsa [sohamsa ]

> On

> > > > > Behalf Of utkarsh_vaggbhav

> > > > > > 26 December 2009 03:06 AM

> > > > > > sohamsa

> > > > > > Re: Tulasi: Either or Both?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Respected sir,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I don't know the technical reason as to why Tulasi is not

> offered

> > > to

> > > > > Shiva, but I know that we shouldn't...!! Actually sometimes ago,

> I

> > > used

> > > > > to offer Tulasi to Shiv Linga, but later I came to know that I

> > > > > shouldn't, so I stopped that. Now while I didn't face any

> problems

> > > > > because of that, I know of people who had problems due to that

> > > > > only..like a friend of mine had kept shiva linga at the Tulasi

> Pindi

> > > and

> > > > > used to pour water over it...needless to say, his " general time

> and

> > > > > growth " suffered!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Also it wouldn't be out of place to mention that once a year,

> on

> > > > > Mahashivaratri, Tulasi is offered to Baba Vaidyanath in

> Jharkhand,

> > > and

> > > > > if my memory doesn't fail me, Bel Patra to Vishnu ji.. It is a

> > > practice

> > > > > being followed since God knows when, but it is right for that

> place

> > > at

> > > > > that time...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Though it is slightly off the topic, but let me add few more

> > > > > words...the same deity may change his/her bhava from place to

> > > place..so

> > > > > even as there are generalities as mentioned in scriptures, there

> are

> > > > > local/specific differences..to alter that is possible only for

> > > people

> > > > > like Adi Shankaracharya..Now the reasons behind this phenomenon

> can

> > > be

> > > > > many and unexplainable...Our own bhavas over a period of

> time(like

> > > > > bhavas of Bhaktas or of very evolved souls) somehow affects the

> > > bhava of

> > > > > deity too...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So I think if I have to offer something to Shiva ji, I'll

> offer

> > > Bel

> > > > > Patra..But suppose You r really in love with Him and have been

> > > > > worshipping Him with Tulasi all your life, if I happen to come

> to

> > > your

> > > > > house, I'll make it a point that I offer some Tulasi to Shiv Ji

> :-)

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sincerely,

> > > > > > Kunal Nath.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

January 29, 2010

Dear Tijana/Mysticalsense,

You raise an interesting question here:

sohamsa , " tijana " <tijanadamjanovic wrote:

>

> You have raised a crucial question - do id, ego and super ego belong to mana

or Viveka...If only western psychology knew about this - it would be a

revolution.

I have so many questions on this statement itself, I dont know where to start

:-) But let me pick 2:

a) Doesnt Vivekacudamani say that Sookshma Sarira lasts until Moksha? And

sookshma sarira contains antahakarana which contains manas, so it would mean

that that persists through all lives as well? Do you agree with this/are you

aware of conflicting viewpoints? If you agree, since we can " fall in birth due

to karma " , the same sookshma sarira must persist even if we're reborn as a, say,

virus?

b) Now let us simply take Id, since its basis/origin is simple (the other two's

origins are far harder). I assume you agree that Id is simply instinctive

drives, based simply on biological/evolutionary survival/propagation? If this

has it's basis ANYWHERE in sookshma sarira, then it would mean (by point 1),

that the Id is essentially the same for all lifeforms? This cant be true, since

all animals dont have an identical set of drives. For e.g. not all species

propagate using sexual reproduction, so the sex drive simply cant be present in

asexually reproducing lifeforms. So the Id cant be a " permanent unchanged

resident of the antahakarana " , it at the very least must change based on the

manifested life form, no? So that opens the possibility that it is simply

induced in the sookshma sarira, much like when you look at a chair, a concept of

the chair is formed in the manas - it isnt inherent in the manas.

Can you resolve this?

Regards,

Sundeep

January 30, 2010

Dear Sundeep,

a) Vivekachudamani statement is very clear and I don`t see conflicting

viewpoints. Manas is not equal to chitta. Sookshma sarira exists until Moksha

that is also described as - sat chit ananda. Awarness (losely understood as

remembering of all experience in all forms we have taken while evolving) is one

of the possibly allowed attributes of enlightenment.

b) I must say it`s not clear to me what were you aiming at.

Why would you put Id in Sookshma sarira?

If we assume that Freud`s terminology and system is right (though I think it is

taken for granted and without thorough investigation) this is how I would make a

correlation:

Id would be placed in Annamaya kosha, and would spread to samana (including

prana and apana in Pranamaya kosha)-gross body.

Ego would correspond to samana, vyana and udana in Pranamaya kosha, including

also Mana maya and Vijnana maya kosha forming subtle body.

Superego would correspond to Anandamaya kosha - causal body.

Now, the understanding of Superego demands corrections. What is logical and

clear only is that the greatest part of us lies far, far from what we can see

and understand observing this life only (you must admit that psychology cries

for reconstruction).

This scheme however demands deep and serious research that cannot be based on

simple logical remarks and conclusions.

The first step is to make a correlation to harmonics (D charts) according to

this and to think if is it maybe time for us to leave behind Freud and Jung and

to move on.

Warm regards,

Tijana

sohamsa , " vedicastrostudent " <vedicastrostudent

wrote:

>

> Dear Tijana/Mysticalsense,

>

> You raise an interesting question here:

>

> sohamsa , " tijana " <tijanadamjanovic@> wrote:

> >

>

> > You have raised a crucial question - do id, ego and super ego belong to mana

or Viveka...If only western psychology knew about this - it would be a

revolution.

>

> I have so many questions on this statement itself, I dont know where to start

:-) But let me pick 2:

>

> a) Doesnt Vivekacudamani say that Sookshma Sarira lasts until Moksha? And

sookshma sarira contains antahakarana which contains manas, so it would mean

that that persists through all lives as well? Do you agree with this/are you

aware of conflicting viewpoints? If you agree, since we can " fall in birth due

to karma " , the same sookshma sarira must persist even if we're reborn as a, say,

virus?

>

> b) Now let us simply take Id, since its basis/origin is simple (the other

two's origins are far harder). I assume you agree that Id is simply instinctive