Khadga Retrospection

[Guest guest]

> Similarly, the word " Khadga " has been borrowed from trilinga

bhasha (prachina telugu) which has two meanings. One is STUTHI /

PRAISE and other meaning is MANO KAMANA (DESIRE). The word Khadga in

trilinga bhasha means the " WORDS OF PRAISE DESCRIBING THE

CHARACTERISTICS OF COURAGEOUS AND GREAT PERSONALITIES " . The second

meaning of Khadga is Samkalpa (Desire). Hence, during the parayana of

Khadgamaala, while doing the sankalpa we say " MAMA KHADGA (ABHISHTA)

SIDDHYARTHE JAPE VINOYOGAHA " . So, at the time of Samkalpa, the Khadga

means MANO KAMANA and the word KHADGAMAALA implies " GARLAND OF STHUTI

OR PRAISES DESCRIBING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF COURAGEOUS AND GREAT

>>QUEEN (BHATTARIKA) LALITHA TRIPURASUNDARI " .

 

Whether right or wrong these are my inferences on this topic:

Like I said before, when I see the right evidence I am more than

willing to take this back and eat my own words :-)

I did not find your statements offensive or harsh at all.

I am all eyes like everybody else to know more about the facts that

you collected regarding the origins of khaDgamAlA.

 

So in retrospection here is our key?

mama khaDga siddhyarthe jape viniyogaH.

Meaning it is utilised for khadga-siddhi.

Now a couple of shankara mutt following people have trouble with this

compound word khaDga-siddhi. Why so?

Because 1) It talks about a siddhi 2) This khadga-siddhi procedure has

some relation to vAmAchAra practices.

 

So if somebody looking at this thread is wondering why is there so

much struggle(reminds me of the thread on uchchiShTa) to interpret

khaDga in a round about and illogical manner, the answer is here. They

want to avoid any reference to this tAntric practice khaDga-siddhi

ever since the time shrIvidya was hijacked* by some shankara-mutt

following late medieval vedAnta people. This is the reason I was

trying to dig and find out the exact reasoning that went into this

strange interpretation.

 

Among many tAntric practices there are a few called khaDga-siddhi,

pAdukA-siddhi etc., the procedures for which can be found in various

tantra-s. Given the kAshmIra shaiva/kaula origins of shrIvidya(which

btw has nothing to do with vedAnta) it is not surprising that there

are particular stotra-s for various worldly ends.

 

*Let us relax and take the word in a lighter vein. To find

similarities with vedAnta is perfectly alright. No problems.

But to retrofit terminology and change and assert that it actually

means only what vedAnta says(and slinging mud on kaula sampradaya-s

and texts where lie the origins of shrIvidya) is not so nice. Not all

but I have seen few do this.

 

In addition I am appending the learned scholar Shri Vidyasankar

Sundaresan's views on re-incarnating saints from Advaita-l.

 

---

" Sundaresan, Vidyasankar (GE Infra, Water) "

<vidyasankar.sundaresan wrote:

 

Tue, 6 May 2008 09:44:14 -0400

" Sundaresan, Vidyasankar

<advaita-l

Re: [Advaita-l] rAmadAsa Swami

 

>It is known among the disciples of rAmadAsa Swami that he

>was sage yAjnavalkya of bRhadAraNyaka Upanishad fame in

>his previous birth.

>Assuming this to be true:

Dear Shrinivas,

 

The key point is the " assuming to be true " . Whatever message

one takes from this avatAra legend depends on that.

 

Historically, we see an evolution of the avatAra concept. We can

reconcile the varying emphases on karma, upAsana, dhyAna and

jnAna, as given by various saints, in terms of what was necessary

for the disciples that they taught. The fundamental principles are

not compromised though.

 

If you take the example of the contemporary SankarAcArya-s in

India, their discourses will typically lay a lot of emphasis on

bhakti,

karma, etc. This does not mean that they are diluting Sankara's

emphasis on jnAna, but they are addressing a very different audience

today, and feel the need to reiterate and emphasize a lot of what

Sankara bhagavatpAda takes for granted. Also, many have been

considered to be avatAra-s of Sankara, but this has to be taken as

a matter of praise (stutyartham) and not as a philosophical or

theological principle that impacts the interpretations of vedAnta.

 

Regards,

Vidyasankar