PDA

View Full Version : Kali and TripuraSundari



devotee123
24 September 2014, 05:42 AM
Learned Sadhaks

Is there any compulsory reason for one to worship Kali or Tripurasundari or any mahavidya for attaining self-realization?

Why cant we worship Siva directly?There are lot of saiva vidyas which gives way to reach self-realization

http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Saiva_Vidyas

Kalicharan Tuvij
26 September 2014, 09:59 AM
Learned Sadhaks

Is there any compulsory reason for one to worship Kali or Tripurasundari or any mahavidya for attaining self-realization?

Why cant we worship Siva directly?There are lot of saiva vidyas which gives way to reach self-realization

http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Saiva_Vidyas

namaste Devotee123,

A lot of organised and detailed knowledge base exists regarding Mother-worship, this mainly because the Shakta-s have been traditionally more research oriented than others.

Their knowledge-systems are more organised and detailed, yet their personal and social realities - to this day - continue to be chaotic. On the other hand, the knowledge systems sustained by the Vaishnava-s and the Shaiva-s are, beyond texts such as Ramayana etc, pretty shallow (according to one pov), yet their individual and societal structures reflected a great deal of organisation and order.

In the Shaiva traditions as practiced today, for example, one fails to find the richness and acknowledgement of paradigms of various Rudra-s, spoken so often of in the RgVeda: this only suggests that over the time the tradition in question instead of adding on to the variety and depth of Shaiva realities tended towards simplifications and to some extent trivialization.

Many wrongly attach the idea of Tantra to Shaktism. In reality Tantra is but a small fraction within the exhaustive and documented coverage of Shaktism.

The highest reality proclaimed in the Veda, is none other than Devi, Aditi.

There are regions on earth, which are directly presided over by Devi, and thus She is the natural deity there. Then, many others receive direct call, so they know where and whom- which Devi - to seek.

The same holds true of Shiva, no doubt. Still, it is understood by many that if one's primary goal in his or her life is sadhana then it is almost necessary that he or she gets to understand Devi in some way or form; not because Devi is the "necessary link" to something higher (not true), but because the sadhaka in question is serious enough. Or, simply put, "academic enough".

Then, there is no point boasting one's devotion to Devi in order to impress on others, because doing that will not fetch any good offices with Her -- it is always She who takes the first step, until then the best we can do is to truly remain receptive and respectful of all Devi-s (even the women folk included).

KT

Ram11
27 September 2014, 12:46 AM
namaste Devotee123,KT


Namaste Ji,

Good question and good answers.:)


Their knowledge-systems are more organised and detailed, yet their personal and social realities - to this day - continue to be chaotic.



On the other hand, the knowledge systems sustained by the Vaishnava-s and the Shaiva-s are, pretty shallow (according to one pov).


Ji,why is it so?


In the Shaiva traditions as practiced today, for example, one fails to find the richness and acknowledgement of paradigms of various Rudra-s, spoken so often of in the RgVeda: this only suggests that over the time the tradition in question instead of adding on to the variety and depth of Shaiva realities tended towards simplifications and to some extent trivialization.Both the Vaishnava and Shakta Schools have developed interesting systems and have many forms of Sri Vishnu or Sri Devi and functions/distinct iconography/rituals/festivals/symbolism corresponding to each deity form.The Shaiva school it seems has only forms presiding over the important elements(5 or 8) , the deities responsible for the five important activities and the various Sri Nataraja postures and a few forms based on Puranic narratives but except the former one none seem to have details beyond a few words.I have not seen anything beyond this.I think you are right when you say that the Shaivas have a very simple system.I do not know much about the Shaiva Agamas but is there anything found in them about various Rudras/Shivas?Is there any information online about the various Rudras based on the Vedas/other scriptures?

Also,I have observed that one can find books about Sri Vishnu or Sri Devi quite easily but seldom find Shaiva books.

And,why do you think the Shaivas failed to produce literature on their deity or did not emulate the Vaishnavas and Shaktas,who were(& even now,are) successfully expanding their systems?


The highest reality proclaimed in the Veda, is none other than Devi, Aditi.This is new,could you elaborate on this?

Thanks.Happy Sri Devi Navaratri.

Kalicharan Tuvij
27 September 2014, 09:02 AM
namaste Ram,


Their knowledge-systems are more organised and detailed, yet their personal and social realities - to this day - continue to be chaotic. On the other hand, the knowledge systems sustained by the Vaishnava-s and the Shaiva-s are, beyond texts such as Ramayana etc, pretty shallow (according to one pov), yet their individual and societal structures reflected a great deal of organisation and order.


Ji,why is it so?
I can only touch upon a few possible reasons, knowing that the issue is deeper than that can be straightaway imagined.
Someone (dont know who:o ) has said that Hinduism has 33crore gods. If that is true, we have to concede that almost all of them are different Devi-s who have made their home the different parts of India. It is an impossible question to ask, "how many?".

You will not find a Devi devotee using theological crutches to explain their faith to others. For example, the superimposition of *brah...*:p onto an otherwise independent sect (no one says "Lakshmi is brah..", "Saraswati is brah..", etc). Some other sects though have failed to survive this particular rather unfortunate turn of events.

Shakta-s, don't usually speak of their devotion at all, because more than often it is based on some reality. They dont even reply to those who think (without saying it) that Shaktism is some sort of lower grade worship, but the Shakta-s have this silent understanding that, "the worst, and the worst only, are the loudest".

By steering clear of post Vedic kaliyugic fantasies, this sect has remained very true to the Vedic framework.

Hardly relevant to this sub-forum, but it can be said offhand that Vaishnavism failed to keep living sects going behind the various avatara-s. Another example, not a long time ago I raised the point of Narayana, and a whole world seemed to be suddenly pushed to the edge. To furnish one more example, it is some far-east Hindu nations that retained the memory of Sri Vishnu having two consorts - Sri Bhu Devi (Prithvi) in addition to Sri Lakshmi. It took a Shaiva inthis forum to point out the fact that Sita's essence is of Prithvi, not of Lakshmi - a statement again met with dullness.

This raises the question. "just how much people know about their Devata-s?" On the contrary, a Shakta possesses real understanding of his or her Devi - a deity whose name we might probably not even heard of.


The highest reality proclaimed in the Veda, is none other than Devi, Aditi.

This is new,could you elaborate on this?


Rig 01.089.010
अदि॑तिः । द्यौः । अदि॑तिः । अ॒न्तरि॑क्षम् । अदि॑तिः । मा॒ता । सः । पि॒ता । सः । पु॒त्रः । विश्वे॑ । दे॒वाः । अदि॑तिः । पञ्च॑ । जनाः॑ । अदि॑तिः । जा॒तम् । अदि॑तिः । जनि॑ऽत्वम् ॥
Crimes against Sanskrit aside, I believe every Hindu child must remember by heart this mantra which is the very summit of everything, human thought included.

Ram11
27 September 2014, 09:45 PM
namaste Ram,



You will not find a Devi devotee using theological crutches to explain their faith to others. For example, the superimposition of *brah...*:p onto an otherwise independent sect (no one says "Lakshmi is brah..", "Saraswati is brah..", etc). Some other sects though have failed to survive this particular rather unfortunate turn of events.


Namaste Ji,

You meant ParaBrah..,right?Hmm.


This raises the question. "just how much people know about their Devata-s?" On the contrary, a Shakta possesses real understanding of his or her Devi - a deity whose name we might probably not even heard of.

Yes,this is true.I can not comment about others but I have seen it myself that Shaktas are quite knowledgeable.


Rig 01.089.010
अदि॑तिः । द्यौः । अदि॑तिः । अ॒न्तरि॑क्षम् । अदि॑तिः । मा॒ता । सः । पि॒ता । सः । पु॒त्रः । विश्वे॑ । दे॒वाः । अदि॑तिः । पञ्च॑ । जनाः॑ । अदि॑तिः । जा॒तम् । अदि॑तिः । जनि॑ऽत्वम् ॥
Crimes against Sanskrit aside, I believe every Hindu child must remember by heart this mantra which is the very summit of everything, human thought included.


My knowledge of Devi Aditi is primarily Puranic in nature.I know that she is the wife of Kashyapa Prajapati,mother of the Devas & Sri Vishnu and occurs sometimes in the Srimad Bhagavata Purana or in the Sri MB.

Do the Shaktas worship her?
Why is that we do not know about her even though the other popular Devi Suktams are from the same Rig Veda?
Any idea Ji why the Vaishnavas don't talk about the mother of Sri Vishnu?

smaranam
27 September 2014, 10:42 PM
On the other hand, the knowledge systems sustained by the Vaishnava-s and the Shaiva-s are, beyond texts such as Ramayana etc, pretty shallow (according to one pov), yet their individual and societal structures reflected a great deal of organisation and order.

To furnish one more example, it is some far-east Hindu nations that retained the memory of Sri Vishnu having two consorts - Sri Bhu Devi (Prithvi) in addition to Sri Lakshmi. It took a Shaiva inthis forum to point out the fact that Sita's essence is of Prithvi, not of Lakshmi - a statement again met with dullness.

Namaste KalicharaN

It is true that serious shAkta have studied and practiced their shAstra, however, I would simply call this (yr words above) very poor sampling and poor use of statistics.

It is very well known among VaishNav that Sita = Bhu Devi + Shri Devi, more on the Bhu. Since RAm was eka-patni-vratA (one who had vowed to marry only one), Lord VishNu's shaktIs Shri and Bhu had to be combined in Sita.
Unlike in case of KRshNa where more grouping specialization and segregation was possible - 8 shaktis, with RukmiNi (Shri) on one side, SatyabhAmA (Bhu) on the other, and then Lakshmi (alhAdini), Saraswati (Samvit), DurgA (sat).

There are many many VaishNav as well as Shaiva that have thoroughly researched shAstra. They just don't engage in those debates or don't post here.

sAre bhaktoNko merA praNAm

Kalicharan Tuvij
28 September 2014, 05:08 AM
Namaste Ram,

Namaste Ji,

You meant ParaBrah..,right?Hmm.

:cool1:
Elephant in the room (that everyone wants to talk about):D



My knowledge of Devi Aditi is primarily Puranic in nature.I know that she is the wife of Kashyapa Prajapati,mother of the Devas & Sri Vishnu and occurs sometimes in the Srimad Bhagavata Purana or in the Sri MB.

PurANa-s have largely preserved important information, even if cryptically.

When one begins to summarise by integrating what is basically a polytheistic field of reality as described in the Veda, it is indeed Aditi that shows up as the final outcome. PrajApati also shows Himself, just a step before Aditi. Thus out of all deities possible, it is only PrajApati who is judged somewhat equal and similar to Aditi- and hence as Her "spouse". That a Rishi and his wife the Rishika had the names PrajApati and Aditi respectively as a recorded history in a PurANa - in the grand overall scheme- only has the purpose of pointing to the deeper truth of Aditi and PrajApati implicit in the Veda. The literal in the PurANa-s may be either historical or allegorical, but it is far overshadowed by the Vedic truth encoded in it. The Veda, on the other hand, is very blunt and straight - not cryptic at all - only barrier (a very formidable one) being the understanding of the Vedic Sanskrit.

[SIZE=3]Why is that we do not know about her even though the other popular Devi Suktams are from the same Rig Veda?
Any idea Ji why the Vaishnavas don't talk about the mother of Sri Vishnu?
Just like why Shaiva-s don't talk about Shiva's mothers. Here is a summary (compiled by me) on the topic of discussions held between Jaskaran Singh and me some time ago.


Before understanding the meaning of “Tryambaka” त्र्यम्बक, let us consider the following Rica रिचा, श्लोक (incidentally one of the most powerful mantra-s) from the RgVeda:

RV 2.41.16 (to Devi Saraswati)

अम्बि॑ऽतमे । नदी॑ऽतमे । देवि॑ऽतमे । सर॑स्वति । अ॒प्र॒श॒स्ताःऽइ॑व । स्म॒सि॒ । प्रऽश॑स्तिम् । अ॒म्ब॒ । नः॒ । कृ॒धि॒ ॥
ambitame nadītame devitame sarasvati | apraśastā iva smasi praśastim amba nas kṛdhi ||

Translation: “Among all mothers (ambi-s), among all rivers, among all Devis, O Saraswati, thou are the best! O mother (amba), make us – the ignoble- full of renown.”

Here, both ambi अम्बि and amba अम्ब have been used to mean “mother”. So, amba means: mother -common noun- not Mother, but mother; and much more than that:
“womb” can be seen as coming from amba.
It also denotes the “waters” realm of Mother (Antariksha; Space).
That’s where ambā (“watery”/ “spacious”) comes from, as well as ambikā (ambi+kā; fem.).
Hence, ambuja (ambu+ja) means: “water-born”; ambar (amba+ra) means: antariksha, ākāsha.
And that’s why ambak (amba+ka; masc.) means: “of mother”. This is the only meaning Veda knows of, verily, as in this exquisite Rica (the famed Mahāmrityunjaya Mantra) for Rudra.

RV 7.59.12:

त्र्य॑म्बकम् । य॒जा॒म॒हे॒ । सु॒गन्धि॑म् । पु॒ष्टि॒ऽवर्ध॑नम् । उ॒र्वा॒रु॒कम्ऽइ॑व । बन्ध॑नात् । मृ॒त्योः । मु॒क्षी॒य॒ । मा । अ॒मृता॑त् ॥
tryambakam | yajāmahe | sugandhim | puṣṭi-vardhanam | urvārukam-iva | bandhanāt | mṛtyoḥ | mukṣīya | mā | amṛtāt

Translation: “I worship thee, the Three-mothered (Tryambaka), of pleasant odour, the giver of good health. Liberate me unto Immortality even as the gourd fruit is freed of its shell (i.e., when death comes).”

So, त्र्यम्बक = त्रि + अम्बक, Tryambaka = tri (three) + ambaka (of mother)
Tryambaka, then means, “of three mothers”. Rudra has three mothers: ILa, DakshiNā and Saraswati, when He is seen to come/ take birth evolutionarily from the Antariksha realm.

This realisation has been lost on the people since the end of the Vedic age, and upon much speculation and groping in the dark, Tryambaka was arbitrarily assigned the meaning: Three eyed. That even while Trilochana त्रिलोचन already means “three eyed” and is used very widely as an attribute of Shiva/ Rudra. However,

1) No etymology (in Sanskrit) exists for ambak meaning eye, in the same way that ambak is shown here to be from amba.

2) “Eye” (लोचन, चक्षु, नयन, etc.) is a utility word and therefore ambaka if meaning “eye” should have usage in regular contexts. This also doesn’t seem to be the case. However, in a classical text on Ayurveda, Ashtānga Hridayam, a word “valāmbaka”(vala+ambaka) वलाम्बकः occurs, and is said to be the place where the “remaining disease (phlegm)” is confined. Now, both Vala and ambaka are Rgvedic words. Vala is the Asat of Antariksha (Mother’s) realm who holds up Her waters, that is, is a barrier between us and Mother. The disease, in question, is being sent to this mysterious place, outside the body to “above it”, via the sahasradhara chakra, presumably. “valāmbaka” (Mother’s hold/ cave) is that place where this is sent and held up. This is how healing and self-healing is performed by Yogis. So here again, ambaka means “of mother” and not “eye” as translated by some.

3) There is this village named “ambaka” in Maharashtra/ India 17°12’4″N 74°22’25″E (wikimapia link). The site says the village has in its middle an ancient Ambā Temple, “from which it derives its name”. Moreover, the villagers must have been extremely conservative about this, given the fact that they fell under islamic dominance and surrounding areas do seem to have adopted islamic names. Now this is some hard evidence.
I have quoted this particularly since you have started a related thread on Tryambaka. However, in this context just to show how Vedic terms are not understood at all, and there is also a tendency to twist to suit ignorant intent of preachers prevalent today (but surely fast losing their hold).

And I am not speaking these unheard "weird" things to buttress some claim about the absolute superiority of Devi over all else. This is just to underline the fact the Reality out there is HIGHLY NON-LINEAR, and defies all petty attempts by limited minds at linearity and hierarchical based thinking.

There is no absolute truth, but there sure is: "truth is absolute".


Namaste KalicharaN
Pranam,
Thank you for replying.

It is very well known among VaishNav that Sita = Bhu Devi + Shri Devi, more on the Bhu.
I am extremely happy to hear this, especially since coming from you.

Sita is understood, (as a deities' name in RgVeda), "the best of Mother Prithvi". So, if one goes to the last detail, Sita is "a Prithvi goddess", and not "the whole of Prithvi". So there is a subtle difference between the two, but still, literally speaking there is no trace of Ma Lakshmi, though a total equivalence to the mighty Vedic Devi UshA can be easily drawn.

Even after your reply I am not sure about the average Vaisnhava out there- how much he or she has been told.

Viraja
30 September 2014, 03:35 PM
Sita is understood, (as a deities' name in RgVeda), "the best of Mother Prithvi". So, if one goes to the last detail, Sita is "a Prithvi goddess", and not "the whole of Prithvi". So there is a subtle difference between the two, but still, literally speaking there is no trace of Ma Lakshmi, though a total equivalence to the mighty Vedic Devi UshA can be easily drawn.

Even after your reply I am not sure about the average Vaisnhava out there- how much he or she has been told.

Namaste KT ji,

An average Vaishnava understands Sita devi as 'born of Earth' -- since she was born a baby to Bhudevi and was obtained as a baby from the plough land of King Janaka. Besides, when Sita devi wants to go back to her mother (Earth), she calls out to Bhuma devi, the earth splits and down goes Sita devi. These are the only associations does Sita devi have with mother Bhuma, and Sita devi as such is not Bhooma devi. This is the average understanding.

However, I have been told that Sita devi is an amsa of Sri Kamakshi Amman, also known as 'Tripurasundari devi'. In the Kamakshi stotram, Sri Adi Sankara Bhagawadpada calls Kamakshi Amman as 'Kssonnii_Bhrt_Tanayeti' meaning 'Earth born daughter Sita devi'. This makes Sita devi as Durga + Lakshmi + Saraswati amsas, because Kamakshi Amman is Durga + Lakshmi + Saraswati amsas. In the famous 'Shree Yantra', there are bindus allotted for Durga devi, Sri Lakshmi and Saraswathi devi. Also, in Hanumath Kruta Sita-Rama stotram, Shri Hanuman calls Sita devi as 'Vedi Garbhoditham swayam' which means 'one who rose from the yagna floor herself' which parallels with how Lalitha Tripurasundari Devi manifests herself initially. Lalitha Tripurasundari a.k.a Kamakshi Amman also rose from yagna fire as 'Swayambhu'. However, this is not the belief of an average Vaishnava, since Lalitha devi is not a Vaishnava deity, I'm just reiterating what I came to learn from an academic perspective since it may be interest to those who have curiosity on Sita devi's origins. Ofcourse, I am aware this arises the question on Sri Rama then. If Sita Devi is Tripurasundari (Kamakshi), then how is it possible that Sri Rama is a Vishnu avatara alone since Kamakshi's husband is Sri Ekambareswara (Shiva)? To this question, as of today, I don't have an answer, I am still searching.

Thanks & regards,

Viraja

yajvan
30 September 2014, 05:20 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Rig 01.089.010
अदि॑तिः । द्यौः । अदि॑तिः । अ॒न्तरि॑क्षम् । अदि॑तिः । मा॒ता । सः । पि॒ता । सः । पु॒त्रः । विश्वे॑ । दे॒वाः । अदि॑तिः । पञ्च॑ । जनाः॑ । अदि॑तिः । जा॒तम् । अदि॑तिः । जनि॑ऽत्वम् ॥
Crimes against Sanskrit aside, I believe every Hindu child must remember .

I am in hopes you will give us the translation and your insight on the mantra offered:

aditiḥ | dyauḥ | aditiḥ | antarikṣam | aditiḥ | mātā | saḥ | pitā | saḥ | putraḥ | viśve | devāḥ | aditiḥ | pañca | janāḥ | aditiḥ | jātam | aditiḥ | jani'tvam ||

Would you also be kind enough to explain why virāma¹ (|) is used after each word-phrase ? Is this what you were talking about:

Crimes against Sanskrit aside
iti śivaṁ

1. virāma = 'stop', to come to an end. It would be roughly equal to a period (.) in the English grammar.

ṛg ved 1.89.10
aditirdyauraditirantarikṣamaditirmātā sa pitā sa putraḥ |
viśve devā aditiḥ pañca janā aditirjātamaditirjanitvam ||

smaranam
30 September 2014, 11:05 PM
Dear Viraja

You are a sweet and wonderful devotee, and the mana (mind) and bhAvanA of a devotee have to be nurtured. So I am going to suggest something but really do not want to disturb your bhAv, so you can look at this in a detached way.

Have you read LalitA-sahastranAma for LalitA tripurAsundarI?
If you study this sahasranAma it will reveal Who and What She is.

sAre bhaktonko merA praNAm

jayo rAdhe govindo S rAdhe govindo
shri KRshNa Chaittanno prabhu nittAnando
hare kRshNa hare rAm shri rAdhe govindo
joyo rAdhe govindo S S rAdhe govindo S S

Viraja
01 October 2014, 09:00 AM
Dear Viraja

You are a sweet and wonderful devotee, and the mana (mind) and bhAvanA of a devotee have to be nurtured. So I am going to suggest something but really do not want to disturb your bhAv, so you can look at this in a detached way.

Have you read LalitA-sahastranAma for LalitA tripurAsundarI?
If you study this sahasranAma it will reveal Who and What She is.

sAre bhaktonko merA praNAm

jayo rAdhe govindo S rAdhe govindo
shri KRshNa Chaittanno prabhu nittAnando
hare kRshNa hare rAm shri rAdhe govindo
joyo rAdhe govindo S S rAdhe govindo S S

Dear Smaranam ji,

Thank you for the kind words. This will be my assignment for today - I will look into Sri Lalitha Sahasranama.

Regards,

Viraja

Kalicharan Tuvij
01 October 2014, 11:04 AM
Pranam,

I am in hopes you will give us the translation and your insight on the mantra offered:

aditiḥ | dyauḥ | aditiḥ | antarikṣam | aditiḥ | mātā | saḥ | pitā | saḥ | putraḥ | viśve | devāḥ | aditiḥ | pañca | janāḥ | aditiḥ | jātam | aditiḥ | jani'tvam ||

Would you also be kind enough to explain why virāma¹ (|) is used after each word-phrase ? Is this what you were talking about:

Providing translation is an HDF norm, so thank you for reminding. As we know the Veda was preserved in many forms- one of them being the pada-pāṭha (wiki (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_chant)) where each word is clearly, separately spelled out. And that's why the separation "dandā" between the words.

It is wrong to apply Sandhi rules (same which are used to create words from roots) to join together two or more words, as there is always a good chance of losing information because there may be more than one ways to un-sandhi the bigger word causing ambiguities in meaning - the exact opposite result of the intention behind Sanskrit. So, no I wouldn't say it was a big crime committed against Sanskrit (by joining words together) but certainly was an abuse. Now, coming to the translation, each of the words is in 1st vibhakti (nominative), so it reads--

Aditi = Dyo (the Heavens) = Aditi = Antariksha (another important realm) = Aditi = Mātā (the Mother, Devi) = Aditi = Pitā (the Father, Brahmanaspati) = Aditi = viśve devāḥ ("All Gods") = Aditi = pañca janāḥ ("Five People", superior like the Pandava-s) = Aditi = jātam (whatever / whoever is born) = Aditi = jani'tvam (whatever / whoever is going to be born).

A proper commentary will take a separate thread (apart from the suitability of the writer to comment on such rica), but in the context of the ongoing progress on HDF one thing must be mentioned:
Aditi is not spoken of as "pervading" or "All-pervading", because She is "All-including", She is "All".

Something that may interest you, the Rsi of this hymn- as per the anukramani (Vedic index)- is Gautama Rahu-gaNa. The word, "Rahu-gaNa" is of interest here because of the connection with Astrology, and its similarity with "Marud-gaNa".

Rahu is indeed connected to Marut, apart from Vayu as discussed previously in that Jyotisha thread. I have something important to share, but stopped posting there because of lack of interest (particularly from some reputed practising Jyotishisi-s members here) in the topic.

I've noticed that Hindu-s today are a judgmental lots, no harm in it, but the problem is that they judge things without understanding a subject properly and more than that are not even willing to give a listening ear to things out of their comfort jones.
********
**********


Namaste KT ji,

An average Vaishnava understands Sita devi as 'born of Earth' -- since she was born a baby to Bhudevi and was obtained as a baby from the plough land of King Janaka. Besides, when Sita devi wants to go back to her mother (Earth), she calls out to Bhuma devi, the earth splits and down goes Sita devi. These are the only associations does Sita devi have with mother Bhuma, and Sita devi as such is not Bhooma devi. This is the average understanding.
namaste Viraja-ji,
Occam's razor applies in such cases: which means, to explain "n" number of facts, there should be minimum number of theories. You cannot have 10 facts explained by 10 theories.
So when Sita is obviously connected with Prithvi (in RgVeda and Ramayana) then where is the need to invoke Tripurasundari?


However, I have been told that Sita devi is an amsa of Sri Kamakshi Amman, also known as 'Tripurasundari devi'.
There is this secret which I will share with you - and which will make life a lot easier in these regards- the Mahavidya-s are the manifestations of Kali (now one can get some feel of the depths of Shaktism, which moreover is totally along Vedic understanding, non-linearity, fractality, so on).

Just as Durga is the "integration" of all Devi-s, similarly, there is this truth of the "differentiation" of each Devi. So Mahavidya-s are the output of the differentiation of Kali.

Tripurasundari is technically Kali/ Lakshmi so as you see, it is very easy to confuse these things. Hinduism is a land mine for such casual syncretism.

Ofcourse, I am aware this arises the question on Sri Rama then. If Sita Devi is Tripurasundari (Kamakshi), then how is it possible that Sri Rama is a Vishnu avatara alone since Kamakshi's husband is Sri Ekambareswara (Shiva)? To this question, as of today, I don't have an answer, I am still searching.

Ram11
01 October 2014, 10:43 PM
Namaste Ram,

Namaste Ji,


:cool1:
Elephant in the room (that everyone wants to talk about):D
:D


That a Rishi and his wife the Rishika had the names PrajApati and Aditi respectively as a recorded history in a PurANa - in the grand overall scheme- only has the purpose of pointing to the deeper truth of Aditi and PrajApati implicit in the Veda.
It seems I mistook Puranic people having the same name for Vedic Devas.


only barrier (a very formidable one) being the understanding of the Vedic Sanskrit.
Yes Ji,I do not know Vedic Sanskrit and it is quite different from classical Sanskrit.:(


Just like why Shaiva-s don't talk about Shiva's mothers. :)


Vedic terms are not understood at all, and there is also a tendency to twist to suit ignorant intent of preachers prevalent today (but surely fast losing their hold).I agree with your interpretation.How is it that non-sectarian Veda Bhasyakaras who lived thousands of years ago did not notice this and interpreted it as three-eyed?


So, त्र्यम्बक = त्रि + अम्बक, Tryambaka = tri (three) + ambaka (of mother)
Tryambaka, then means, “of three mothers”. Rudra has three mothers: ILa, DakshiNā and Saraswati, when He is seen to come/ take birth evolutionarily from the Antariksha realm.

Who are the Devis ILa and DakshiNA?Is there any reference in the Vedas that names these three Devis as Sri Shiva's mothers?

Also,there are many others Vedic mantras that say that Sri Shiva is self-manifest,the oldest of all,the eldest of all,the one before all etc and same things are said about Sri Vishnu(Sriman Narayana).

Why is there an apparent contradiction present here,once he is said to be born by himself and at other places as you said has three mothers?

Kalicharan Tuvij
02 October 2014, 01:42 PM
Namaste Ram,


Also,there are many others Vedic mantras that say that Sri Shiva is self-manifest,the oldest of all,the eldest of all,the one before all etc and same things are [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]said about Sri Vishnu(Sriman Narayana).

Why is there an apparent contradiction present here,once he is said to be born by himself and at other places as you said has three mothers?

This is the important most question to ponder in Hinduism, isn't it?

In the journey from "Asat" to "Sat", we get to see two paths- the two languages-
The Lannguage of Morality

The language of Immortality


The moral language is the language of evolution- it deals with good and bad, vice and virtue, dharma and adharma, etc - and assists us upto "moksha". No doubt, 99.99 % of the literature belongs to this group.

Immortal Language - of amaratva- is on the other hand the perspective from an already fully realised standpoint.

All gods are Swayambhu-s (on a given day any of them can be the seed to all the others). Those who are far from us seem to be more important when we are on our journey of evolution - again the moral language.

But the immortal language knows that all these Swayambhu-s are equally great (a Rgvedic ricā specifically mentions this).
*********
*********

Let us imagine, god A is the nearest to us, goddess B is slightly farther, C is farther still, D is still farther, and so on until god Z.

Suppose we do the Bhakti of God H. We go through A, B, C, D, E, F and G to finally come to H. So, the Bhakta says, "H is the highest among A to G." And he is right in terms of the moral language. He may even do the compositing and say, |H| = (A+ B+ C+ D+ E+ F+ G+ H) and that A, B etc are "Demi-gods" compared to |H|.

Is |H| real? Yes, She is. She is real and therefore shows up Her form (formless included) to Her devotee in the way the devotee is able to comprehend with.

The immortal language thoroughly acknowledges H and |H| in Her full glory, but also is keen enough to understand that A, B, C etc are also equally great.

I think this symbol play is demonstrative of the thing I am trying to explain.
********
********

Just to make it more interesting, let us ponder the following:
The immortal language giving most emphasis on God A because it is through Him/ Her that we receive everything.

What is the view on God Z? Is Z the *Supreme* in both the languages? No, not in the immortal language, because the "trail" is "circular" and we come back to where we started- though with a fully immortally realised consciousness!


********
********
I know the write up here may be a bit dense, but please do take the trouble to understand this with some effort.


KT

yajvan
02 October 2014, 03:35 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


It is wrong to apply Sandhi rules (same which are used to create words from roots) to join together two or more words, as there is always a good chance of losing information because there may be more than one ways to un-sandhi the bigger word causing ambiguities in meaning - the exact opposite result of the intention behind Sanskrit.

Let me offer a few ideas from another point of view... this is not to contest what you have offered, but again, another view.

This ṛṣi, gautamaḥ ( some spell gotama) rāhūgaṇaḥ was one of the saptaṛṣi-s ( 7 seers) of this age; he is the son of rāhūgaṇaḥ, from the family of angiras (āñgirāsa). Needless to say angiras was considered one of the mind-born sons of brahmā.

The notion of rāhu and its alignment to that of jyotish is debatable in this application. The word in-and-of-itself means to take hold of, to grasp, to desire vehemently. So, to decipher this name one needs to look at it in this manner: rāhū +gaṇaḥ , and I will leave that for another time.

The ṛg ved saṁhita 1.89.10
aditirdyauraditirantarikṣamaditirmātā sa pitā sa putraḥ |
viśve devā aditiḥ pañca janā aditirjātamaditirjanitvam ||

We know this is from the ṛg ved, as the ṛg veda is called saṁhita. What does this mean ? Saṁhita means uninterrupted, joined, put together, composed.
It is the approach of the ṛg ved to be ‘composed’ in a flowing manner, uninterrupted. The stops virāma¹ (|) are there for our use; to grasp a section, to count off a meter (chandas). etc.
Yet the offer is saṁhita, flowing of verse uninterrupted. This is to imply and offer the wholeness of the mantra and of the subject matter. That then leads us to aditi. This verse is the indelible mark of this notion of wholeness.

We know aditi is defined as boundlessness , immensity , inexhaustible abundance , unimpaired condition , perfection.

She is the mother of the āditya-s
the mother of the viśve deva-s that are called out in this verse.
We can also look at aditi like this a + diti. The term diti means cutting , splitting, dividing. And the ‘a’ as a prefix means ‘not’ like 'un' in English.
Hence this a + diti means not divided, not split, whole, full (pūrṇa). She then is wholeness, fullness, the all and everything, infinite.So, with that in mind I’d like to take a stab at the translation.

Aditi ( this wholeness, fullness, infinite) is heaven, the mid-world (antarikṣam) , she is mother, she is father she is son |
She (aditi) is the viśve deva-s, she is the 5 people¹ (pañca janā), she is all that is born and yet to be born ||

By saying she is mother suggests multiple meanings; the mother of all that exists, or will exist, and at the same time
the result of that birth; that is, she is the womb and the seed and the result. Mother also infers the field of the tattva-s , or the elements that make up all of creation. If She is mother and father she is both śiva and śakti, and that which results from the two ( creation on all levels) i.e. the son.

Now in my opinion there is a subtle idea that is offered by the ṛṣi when he says all that is born and yet to be born. This is my conjecture here.
Everything we see that has form (this too includes thoughts and ideas) is born – so she too is the stuff of mind; and all that is yet to be born is the unmanifest or the pure level of Being . Said another way since she is wholeness itself She is all that is or could be - vyāvahātika + pāramārthika (the manifest or the world of diversity + the transcendent).

iti śivaṁ

words

virāma (|) – is a ‘stop’ , halt; It is = to the period( .) found in English grammar
5 people (pañca janā) – considered the beings on the 5 planes : anna, prāṇa, mana, vijnāna some call mahas, and ānanda.
This is inferred in the ṛg ved verse 1.7.9 or the pañca kṣhiti and reviewed in the śīkṣā vallī (section) of the taittirīya upaniṣad.
Now there is a more mundane view of these 5 as the 4 castes + 1 ( the niṣāda-s) which I do not subscribe to.

Kalicharan Tuvij
03 October 2014, 01:19 AM
Pranam,


The notion of rāhu and its alignment to that of jyotish is debatable in this application. The word in-and-of-itself means to take hold of, to grasp, to desire vehemently. So, to decipher this name one needs to look at it in this manner: rāhū +gaṇaḥ , and I will leave that for another time.
I also understand that this is debatable (else, what is the point?), however:
It is unlikely that Rahu has much to do with outside Astrology. Possible, yes, but that requires special pleading.

Rahu is obviously not implying any negative connotation as in a Rsi's name. This simply means Rahu is not what the modern Jyotishis want it to be.


However I am not interested in this topic, but stopped to mention it thinking it could be of interest to some. To build up an argument for Rahu's real nature, though, needs a mention from another mainstream Hindu text, which deals with this question at some length.


We can also look at aditi like this a + diti. The term diti means cutting , splitting, dividing. And the ‘a’ as a prefix means ‘not’ like 'un' in English.
Hence this a + diti means not divided, not split, whole, full ([/COLOR]pūrṇa). She then is wholeness, fullness, the all and everything, infinite.
There is another view that does not regard Aditi as built up from diti. Aditi is supposed to be an original word ("a" in the start does not mean it has to be a prefix). I like to think of the word as "from the start (ad) to the end (iti)". Like the Greeks used to say, "alfa and omega". Aditi can be likened to the Sanskrit's 1st vowel "a" itself, just as Prajapati, as shown by you in a recent post, is likened to the 1st Sanskrit consonant "ka".



Now in my opinion there is a subtle idea that is offered by the ṛṣi when he says all that is born and yet to be born. This is my conjecture here.
Everything we see that has form (this too includes thoughts and ideas) is born – so she too is the stuff of mind; and all that is yet to be born is the unmanifest or the pure level of Being . Said another way since she is wholeness itself She is all that is or could be - vyāvahātika + pāramārthika (the manifest or the world of diversity + the transcendent).
Thank you for this explanation. I suppose we should make use of the word, the Devi's name, more often (because it has been given to us) instead of looking in some wrong directions.




P.S.: @Ram, my detailed reply to your post will appear at post#13.

Ashish_Marathe
02 September 2015, 05:53 PM
Learned Sadhaks

Is there any compulsory reason for one to worship Kali or Tripurasundari or any mahavidya for attaining self-realization?

Why cant we worship Siva directly?There are lot of saiva vidyas which gives way to reach self-realization

http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Saiva_Vidyas

There are no compulsions. All the deities are various aspects of your soul. All paths lead to self-realization.