PDA

View Full Version : Vak



Sudarshan
02 September 2006, 03:35 PM
Namaste,

True the Buddhas do not exist for the solitary realizer and neither the world exists for him. But the solitary realizer is still able to sprout as an I. Solitary realizer exists as ONE and ALL. The solitary realizer himself is Buddha.

When the light has risen, there is no day, no night, neither existence nor nonexistence; Shiva (the blessed One) alone is there.' (Svet. Up. IV. 18.)


But it is also true that the mental concept being discussed here is actually inappropriate, since the solitary realizer is neither consciousness nor non-concsiousness. So we truly cannot say that something exists as the substratum.

And wrt 'without substance and foundation' Rig Veda had already queried "Who knows how the boneless gives rise to the bony?" What you are terming 'without substance and foundation' vedanta terms as 'neither a being nor a being'. So, again I see just a difference of Vak.



Om

wow Atanu, frank admission...:cool1:

Indeed the only difference Buddhism and Advaita vedanta is just a difference of Vak, otherwise they are identical.:rolleyes:

atanu
03 September 2006, 10:57 AM
wow Atanu, frank admission...:cool1:

Indeed the only difference Buddhism and Advaita vedanta is just a difference of Vak, otherwise they are identical.:rolleyes:


Welcome Sudarshan,

Wow. Did You not know that all apparent differences are of Vak only? That is desribed in Asiya Vamiya Sukta of Rig Veda also.

And you seemed to have missed the following observation of mine:


Yes, then it is seems to be a real difference wrt to Vedanta.


I am happy that you are still sticking to your style.

Regards

Sudarshan
03 September 2006, 12:30 PM
Namaste,



Wow. Did You not know that all apparent differences are of Vak only? That is desribed in Asiya Vamiya Sukta of Rig Veda also.


Genius.:cool1:

All the differences are of Vak only according to our friend...

So,,,,

Brahman and Avidya
Truth and untruth
Advaita and Dvaita (wow)
Islamic Miitants and monks, to name a few, are differences arising out of Vak.

Again. Genius.:cool1:

Please write out that verse, word by word with exact translation and demonstrate how that verse is not capable of a more sensible meaning.




And you seemed to have missed the following observation of mine:


I did not, because

"Yes, then it is seems to be a real difference wrt to Vedanta. " is a true statement because I know what vedanta is, and I know it is quite different from Buddha Dharma. And you know what Brahman was as revealed to Arjuna ( vedantins cant consider that an illusion by any means as Arjuna was given divine eyes to view that spectacle), and we know that is quite different from Buddha's teaching regarding the nature of reaity. You have falsely interpreted Krsihna's Visvarupa darshana as an illusion because it had plurality? Pure dogma.

I have made a reference between Advaita and Buddhism. You have also made this declaration post the earlier one, so it overrules that conclusion.





I am happy that you are still sticking to your style.


Still sticking to my style? What ya mean? Sudarshan always stands only for Sudarshana Chakra - the Chakra that cuts the heads of Adharmis and saves the heads of Dharmis. No, I dont misinterpret vedas to insist that the difference betwen Islamic terrorism and Sanatana Dharma is only in terms of Vak, with which the universalists have ruled the roost so far.:D

atanu
05 September 2006, 05:34 AM
A request to administrators:

May this discussion, irrelevant to this thread be moved elsewhere, please.




Namaste,



Genius.:cool1:

All the differences are of Vak only according to our friend...

So,,,,

Brahman and Avidya
Truth and untruth
Advaita and Dvaita (wow)
Islamic Miitants and monks, to name a few, are differences arising out of Vak.

Again. Genius.:cool1:

Please write out that verse, word by word with exact translation and demonstrate how that verse is not capable of a more sensible meaning.



omityetadaksharamidaM sarvaM tasyopavyAkhyAnaM bhUtaM bhavad-bhaviSyaditi sarvamo—kAra eva |
yaccAnyat-trikAlAtItaM tadapyo—kAra eva |1|

Om is the Word, and it is all this; and its explanation is this: All that is past, present, and future, is verily Om.
Also that which is beyond the triple conception of time is verily Om.

In silence of mind and vak, there is no visva. Sudarshana you may become cynical day by day but everyday deep sleep experience proves it.






I did not, because

"Yes, then it is seems to be a real difference wrt to Vedanta. " is a true statement because I know what vedanta is, and I know it is quite different from Buddha Dharma. And you know what Brahman was as revealed to Arjuna ( vedantins cant consider that an illusion by any means as Arjuna was given divine eyes to view that spectacle), and we know that is quite different from Buddha's teaching regarding the nature of reaity. You have falsely interpreted Krsihna's Visvarupa darshana as an illusion because it had plurality? Pure dogma.

I have made a reference between Advaita and Buddhism. You have also made this declaration post the earlier one, so it overrules that conclusion.



Visvarupa is not Brahman. What gives rise and what cognizes that is Brahman. After Visvarupa darshan Arjuna was fearful. Arjuna had to visit hell also -- albiet for a short time.

And while granting Visvarupa darshan, Lord said: --- And see whatever you like to see in me ---.

It is one's preference and desire that will modify the picture. But the one seeing and cognising the picture is the truth -- ever the truth.




Still sticking to my style? What ya mean? Sudarshan always stands only for Sudarshana Chakra - the Chakra that cuts the heads of Adharmis and saves the heads of Dharmis. -------.:D


So you are Vishnu? Well that's nice. Most egoistic statement of this whole web site.

Om Namah Shivayya

A request to administrators:

May this discussion, irrelevant to this thread be moved elsewhere, please.

sm78
05 September 2006, 05:49 AM
In silence of mind and vak, there is no visva. Sudarshana you may become cynical day by day but everyday deep sleep experience proves it.

What does sleep prove ... that world/vishwa does not exist ???

Then ...

What does staying awake prove ?? That God doesn't exist!!

In sleep body still exist, world still exist and after 6 hours of goodnight sleep mind cannot deny that.

I think sleep is just sleep, a state where mind and senses detach from one another (only in deep sleep though). It is just another vidya and a way nature/mahamaya works in this creation.

Sleep state is ofcourse a state of conciousness...but no way the highest or only truth or where vishwa doesn't exist etc...for we have to come back to awake state sooner than later.

Sudarshan
05 September 2006, 07:38 AM
Om is the Word, and it is all this; and its explanation is this: All that is past, present, and future, is verily Om.
Also that which is beyond the triple conception of time is verily Om.


Yes, that is your interpretation only. That does not prove unreality of anything, but more solidly proves they are real. You call jagat as brahman and as illusion, eh?:)



In silence of mind and vak, there is no visva. Sudarshana you may become cynical day by day but everyday deep sleep experience proves it.


So what does that prove? If I close my eyes, it becomes unreal? Your deep sleep experiences dont become proof for others, friend. Deep sleep perception is after all sublatable you know that right? Neither truth nor untruth is known there. How did you conclude the world is unreal with such a state? In Turiya everything is known, including the world. Can you deny that? What proof for that? Then you must be telling me God does not know the world?;)

Lord Krishna as Turiya was able to interact with the world and even give us the Gitoansihad. It was not unreal for him. Please stay away from this dogma.




Visvarupa is not Brahman. What gives rise and what cognizes that is Brahman. After Visvarupa darshan Arjuna was fearful. Arjuna had to visit hell also -- albiet for a short time.


What? Vishvarupa is one of the forms of Brahman( Aniruddha, please read Gopala Tapini and Gopalottara Tapini), get your facts right Atanu. Dont superimpose your ideas and confuse other people here. I wonder what others think when some people claim that what Arjuna saw was an illusion. Perhaps you may want to read the teaching of Ramana Maharishi who clarified that Vishvarupa Darshana is the same as Atma darshana. He is not binding on me, but I accept this words of his, and perhaps you will too. You are his bhakta isn't it? Anyway the way you talk - "Who is doing the talking? Who is asking the question" is so well pointing to the teaching of Ramana. FYI, I have read most of the works of Ramana and I know how much you imitate his style. if Vishvarupa is not Brahman, then what else it is? I thought you beleived in no second to Brahman. Please be consistant.

Arjuna was afraid because was not fully qualified to percieve that form of the Brahman, but Lord showed him out of compassion because he desired it. That is why, Krishna withdrew it. Arjuna was not yet a complete Yogi fit enough to comprehend his relationship to the Lord, in the amsa-amsi way and in the sesha-seshi way. That is why he was unable to behold it for long. Arjuna was an incomplete Bhakti Yoga at that point. And you must be knowing that Yogis always strive to obtain the Atma Darshana even for an instant, before returning to the lower states to resume Yoga. As a remedy, Lord teaches him the Saranagati marga in 18.66 so that he may proceed faster in his Yoga.

You are evn forgetting this statement in the Gita:

"O best of the Kuru warriors, no one before you has ever seen this universal form of Mine, for neither by studying the Vedas, nor by performing sacrifices, nor by charity, nor by pious activities, nor by severe penances can I be seen in this form in the material world." (11.48)

Please do understand that this is the final(or nearly final) realization of Atman - the infinite, and very few Yogis have ever realized it in the world.





And while granting Visvarupa darshan, Lord said: --- And see whatever you like to see in me ---.


Yes, so Arjuna must have seen everything that one could see- the ultimate. What makes you think Arjuna wanted to see something other than the Brahman in his fullest.




So you are Vishnu? Well that's nice. Most egoistic statement of this whole web site.


Yes, every sentient being is a Vishnu, some are pUrNa, some are amsa, and some of them not manifested. Please understand simple metaphors. Some ego is needed to do basic activities in the world. And some more ego is needed to resist the Islamic aggression. I cant act like you, so sorry about that - lot of people are suffering. Let us be karma yogis first before trying to become bhakti yogis.

atanu
06 September 2006, 02:59 AM
What does sleep prove ... that world/vishwa does not exist ???

Then ...

What does staying awake prove ?? That God doesn't exist!!




Neither of your assumptions I have stated. I have stated that in deep sleep when there is no desire one does not know of the world and one does not know of the individual self. The individual self and the world are not two things. They rise and set together.

The world does not come and say "I exist". On waking up, you first know "I exis". Then you see the body and you surmise "I am this body". And then, you see the world.

The point is that the world is not apart from you -- the pure consciousness. That you are the body is a notion in that consciousness. The body is as much you as is the world; the body is another object of this world which you yourself see and cognize. When someone comes and says "The world exists", it is you only who cognizes that other person.



Without your cognition nothing would exist. This is the truth. The Seer (Rudra) himself is the world.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
06 September 2006, 03:14 AM
What? Vishvarupa is one of the forms of Brahman( Aniruddha, please read Gopala Tapini and Gopalottara Tapini), get your facts right Atanu. ----

Perhaps you may want to read the teaching of Ramana Maharishi who clarified that Vishvarupa Darshana is the same as Atma darshana.
------

if Vishvarupa is not Brahman, then what else it is? I thought you beleived in no second to Brahman. Please be consistant.




Om Namah Bhagavate Shri Ramanaya.

No. Visvarupa is not Brahman. Brahman is Visvarupa. The cause and effect must be known. Rig Veda and Yajur Veda both state visvarupa as a name of Lord Rudra. And Raman Maharshi himself teaches that till there is a separate seer of sights/experiences the realization is far away. Please, I do not need it.


Visvarupa darshan is knowing that everything is in Lord. But there is another part "knowing the Lord in everything". That you keep forgetting.


Who saw the visvarupa?

Bye.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
06 September 2006, 03:16 AM
Yes, every sentient being is a Vishnu, some are pUrNa, some are amsa, and some of them not manifested. Please understand simple metaphors. Some ego is needed to do basic activities in the world. And some more ego is needed to resist the Islamic aggression. I cant act like you, so sorry about that - lot of people are suffering. Let us be karma yogis first before trying to become bhakti yogis.


Nicely said. I was actually scared that you would cut away my head.

But again a very basic mistake. You think that the ego is yours? Did you create it or was it endowed?


Om Namah Shivayya

Sudarshan
06 September 2006, 03:51 AM
Om Namah Bhagavate Shri Ramanaya.

No. Visvarupa is not Brahman. Brahman is Visvarupa. The cause and effect must be known. Rig Veda and Yajur Veda both state visvarupa as a name of Lord Rudra. And Raman Maharshi himself teaches that till there is a separate seer of sights/experiences the realization is far away. Please, I do not need it.


Visvarupa darshan is knowing that everything is in Lord. But there is another part "knowing the Lord in everything". That you keep forgetting.


Who saw the visvarupa?

Bye.

Om Namah Shivayya

As you wish. But that is the opinion of some only. The "knowing the Lord in everything" presumes a knower and known. How do you know anything in advaita? How do you know if Advaita has been attained? Jnana is considered mitya by Advaita....so how to take your claims seriously?

You must first try to know the God external to you - that is easier. Then you must know the God within you. Then you can judge if they are different or one and the same. But dismissing all ideas of scripture replete with descriptions of God as the Lord of all and as the inner controller is a pure dogma. No one gets to final realization without this Visvarupa darshana, and you are saying you dont want it? Can you enroll in post graduate without obtaining graduation? All this talk of Advaita is illogical. First know that there is a God external to you by devotion. Then try to find the God within you.( and then tell me if you and God are different or the same). Aren't you trying to do something without possessing the qualification? I am not questioning your chosen method of realization, which is quite valid if you are sincere and qualified. But shouldn't your goal be progressive - you are talking of "becoming God" without even verifying that God exists( words of others are no proof). The external God is far easier to find because he is everywhere and obtained by pure love alone without any sAdhana. The inner God is much harder and may sometimes require many incarnations. If you succeed in finding that external God the rest will be straightforward.

________

Who saw Visvarupa? Arjuna, the Atma in Arjuna, that is different from the Paramatma, but is an amsa of it. Arjuna is Purusha, Krishna is Purushottama - both are eternal and not identical.

atanu
13 September 2006, 06:27 AM
-----
You must first try to know the God external to you - that is easier. Then you must know the God within you. ----.



Dear Sudarshan that is your persistent view.


What is your own self and which alone is capable of knowing the so-called externalities is direct and most intimate. Everyone knows it as Me and everyone has to finally know the Self only. And seeing the external God? Well one sees him everywhere -- in air, water, fire, in intelligence, in nature. But very few know the Self, which sees all these things as God or not-god.


BG 2.53 Shrutivipratipannaa te yadaa sthaasyati nishchalaa;
Samaadhaavachalaa buddhistadaa yogam avaapsyasi.

(2.53) When thy intelligence, which is bewildered by the scriptures, shall stand unshaken and stable (samadhi), then shalt thou attain to insight (yoga).


Lord has said it. Abidance in the Self gives insight.


Om

atanu
13 September 2006, 06:37 AM
Who saw Visvarupa? Arjuna, the Atma in Arjuna, that is different from the Paramatma, but is an amsa of it. Arjuna is Purusha, Krishna is Purushottama - both are eternal and not identical.


The atman, which is pure intelligence can never be divided. Paramatma situated in the body appears to be many but is truly one. There is one Turiya atma and one "I" in the one consciousness of that turiya. One "I" creates subtle and gross objects, which appear many. Well, on this point we will never agree till shivoadvaitam is experienced. So, please leave it. You follow your path and let me follow what suits me.


Om

atanu
13 September 2006, 06:46 AM
As you wish. But that is the opinion of some only. The "knowing the Lord in everything" presumes a knower and known. How do you know anything in advaita? How do you know if Advaita has been attained? Jnana is considered mitya by Advaita....so how to take your claims seriously?



"Knowing the Lord in everything and everything in Lord" is only possible when the boundaries are known as modification of one Lord. When the knower, the known, and the knowing process have become One. With boundaries being considered real this knowledge will never come in.


You have very vague idea about advaita. And come again and again with same points that were refuted. Lord is Jnana and beyond also. So jnana cannot be mithya by any chance.

And regarding how an advaitin sees/knows consider the following:

“When the world is known and experienced to be an indivisible appearance in the underlying substratum of the Self, its nature is correctly known. The world is not real to the Jnani because it appears physically; it is REAL because its inherent nature is inseparable from the underlying reality of the SELF.”

“To those who have not known the SELF and to those who have known the Self, the world in front is real. But to those, who have not known, the reality is limited to the measure of the world, whereas, to those who know, the reality shines devoid of form on which the changing world form subsists. Know that this is the difference between the two.”



Om Namah Shivayya

Znanna
13 September 2006, 06:41 PM
Namaste,

It seems to me that so long as one labors at differentiating between what is *me* and what *IS*, that duality persists.

It all depends on one's point of view at the time, which I think is rather random.

My practice is to just say to hell with it all, and deal with situation as presents itself :)



Love,
ZN

(JMNSHO)

atanu
14 September 2006, 03:35 AM
Namaste,

yaireva patanaM dravyaiH siddhistaireva choditA .
shrI kauladarshane chApi bhairaveNa mahAtmanA .

It is revealed in the sacred doctrine of Kula and by the great Bhairava, that the perfection is achieved by that very means by which fall occurs.


Love,
ZN

(JMNSHO)


Would love some elaboration on your signature line in a separate thread.

Thanks

Sudarshan
14 September 2006, 07:11 AM
You have very vague idea about advaita. And come again and again with same points that were refuted. Lord is Jnana and beyond also. So jnana cannot be mithya by any chance.


I dont think you have read the classical Advaita of Shankara. You have probably read Advaita from some neo literature. Jnana has been explicitly classified by Shankara as mitya in the Brihadaranyaka Up. Brahman is not considered as a knower in Advaita, but as knowledge itself. I suggest you to read more before discussing.

Sudarshan
14 September 2006, 07:15 AM
Would love some elaboration on your signature line in a separate thread.

Thanks

That is quite simple I guess:

How does fall occur? Through anger, through desire etc.

Use you ranger against your own weaknesses.( instead of others)
Use your desire to point it to God.( instead of the world)

Thus, whatever reasons that caused your fall, can be used in a reverse direction to attain perfection.

atanu
14 September 2006, 07:43 AM
I dont think you have read the classical Advaita of Shankara. You have probably read Advaita from some neo literature. Jnana has been explicitly classified by Shankara as mitya in the Brihadaranyaka Up. Brahman is not considered as a knower in Advaita, but as knowledge itself. I suggest you to read more before discussing.

It is easy to confuse things when using same words from different perspectives.

Turiya, the Self, is neither consciousness nor non-consciousness and is the seed of Pragnya. And scriptures proclaim "Prajanam Brahman". Understand Lord Krishna being the Self and also the yoni of Brahman, and you will perhaps feel OK.

I simply stick to shivoadvaitam as the Self, which is truly beyond both jnana and ajnana (being the seed of consciousness itself). Is there any need for any polemics?


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
14 September 2006, 07:59 AM
Namaste,

It seems to me that so long as one labors at differentiating between what is *me* and what *IS*, that duality persists.
-------
(JMNSHO)


Very nicely put indeed. I add that "what is" is not known if "me" is non-existent.



Namah Anandamayi Chaitanyamayi Brahmamayi Parame

atanu
14 September 2006, 08:03 AM
That is quite simple I guess:

---
Use you ranger against your own weaknesses.( instead of others)
Use your desire to point it to God.( instead of the world)
----



Yes, that is what my Guru also teaches. But still Znanna's perspective would be welcome.

Znanna
15 September 2006, 07:56 PM
Yes, that is what my Guru also teaches. But still Znanna's perspective would be welcome.

Well, thank you for being interested! Here's a girl's point ov view :D

I don't know from guru or scripture, only from what I've experienced, so please take it for what its worth which is nothing...but hopefully that's known by now...

I don't even know what y'all mean by "vak" which sort of sums up my point of view~to me it doesn't matter what the orthodoxy is, because the opposite also is true in any case ... and regardless, debate is just, um, shall we say "monkeying around" with points of view, anyways :)

What I have experienced, I have found a balance which I call "Twin" and then found references, now even here, to such. I call him Twin cause he is my polar opposite, and we were able to balance in psychic meditation in a way that, well, results in a very nice ecstatic state which provides plenty of motivation to meditate more. There was or maybe still is a "personality" associated with that which is known as "Twin" to me (I don't know for sure if he still lives but it doesn't really matter) and the distinctness of that Person as such becomes increasingly irrelevant, as increasingly my experience is more of a "Twin-ness" than "Twin" per se.

The only way to resolve the dissonance is, at this time, for me to acknowledge a multiplicity of Twin which incorporates all the different manifestations of the balancing direction for my lushness LOL :D

With respect to the saying, I first adopted it in recognition that even the most awful demons need love ...

The corollary to giving up everything is accepting or taking in everything, no matter how ugly. It's a contrary contrary path :)


Namaste,
ZN
(just a girl)

sarabhanga
16 September 2006, 04:14 AM
Namaste Znanna,

Consider the Aśvinau, the (two, double, or twin) cavalier(s) or charioteer(s), whose return brings prosperity and gladdens the heart. They are known as the physicians of heaven.

Znanna
16 September 2006, 06:29 PM
Namaste Znanna,

Consider the Aśvinau, the (two, double, or twin) cavalier(s) or charioteer(s), whose return brings prosperity and gladdens the heart. They are known as the physicians of heaven.


Thank you again, sarabhanga, for an interesting odessey of searches! (I like to use the internet sort of like tarot cards or the cast of the die.)

The Twins are en-twined, in the Voudoun Marassa, with an implied Third ... or, in the mythos I favor, Inanna (Queen of Heaven) has a (twin) sister, Eriskigal (Queen of the Underworld) with her paramour Dimuzi (who trades his soul/life for hers).

I think these all describe the notion of being more than one place at a time, the sort of effortless balance found in meditation ... which allows time and space to become meaningless, and the world of forms even less so.



http://faculty.goucher.edu/mbell/lestrois.htm

http://w3.iac.net/~moonweb/archives/LM/Marassa1.html




Namaste,
ZN

atanu
17 September 2006, 02:14 AM
Greetings ZNN,

Please keep expanding on the above post. That will be Vak, since Vak is Gauri -- a girl.

I have one point -- of course borrowed but which I have found of use --- wrt to the following:



Well, thank you for being interested! Here's a girl's point ov view :D

------
I call him Twin cause he is my polar opposite, and we were able to balance in psychic meditation in a way that, well, results in a very nice ecstatic state which provides plenty of motivation to meditate more. ----

-----
Namaste,
ZN
(just a girl)


Who sees the twin anyway? Have you seen the being who sees the twin? Do you lose yourself in ecstacy or can you still enquire: "Who sees the twin? of course, if you are not bored by the thought itself. One must continue with interest only.


Please write more on Bhairava's teachings. I really miss His teachings.



Regards

Znanna
17 September 2006, 07:01 AM
Greetings ZNN,

Please keep expanding on the above post. That will be Vak, since Vak is Gauri -- a girl.


Who sees the twin anyway? Have you seen the being who sees the twin? Do you lose yourself in ecstacy or can you still enquire: "Who sees the twin? of course, if you are not bored by the thought itself. One must continue with interest only.


Please write more on Bhairava's teachings. I really miss His teachings.



Regards

I've never seen Twin, only felt him.

Yes, I have looked into the blinding light, searing my senses, and heard the 3 gongs which turn into thunder.

When I am balanced, I remember. There are times where I surrender entirely, attempting to balance infinite Twins and lose my mind, then Twin remembers. "There is no Shiva without Shakti", he did tell me ... I just like to have fun :)

http://sandsoftimemultimediacreations.com/songs/cyndiLauper_girlsJustWannaHaveFun.htm

Thank you, for another interesting search term (gauri vak)! This is what was returned. :p


Shri kamalAmbikAyaM - sahAna - triputa

Pallavi:
I am devoted unto kamalambika - the one who is like a garden of wish yielding trees to those who surrender unto her.
The one who slays her enemies, the universal mother.
AnuPallavi:
The one whose countenance is like the fullmoon, the one whose eyes are like lotuses, the one whose feet are worshipped by Indra - the enemy of demon Paka.The one whose splendour radiates over ether and other elements;
the one who is the female deer in the forests of hreemkara, the one whose body is verily the form of hreemkara mantra, the one who is like the branch of flowers in the tree of hreemkara, the goddess of hreem kara, the golden-hued gauri.
Charanam:
The one whose soul gives bliss that is beyond gross, subtle and causal bodies, the secret yogini power known to brahma, vishnu and shiva and harihaya - (Hayagriva ?) who rules over powers like Vashini the vak devata, an embodiment of para and other speech. The raja yogini who has the power to remove all diseases associated with the body, the one who plays the vina; the one who takes abode in tiruvarur or Kamalanagara. The one who pleases gods, men and sages, the one who gives boons to Guruguha.


Namaste,
ZN
/just a girl

atanu
19 September 2006, 05:08 AM
I've never seen Twin, only felt him.

Yes, I have looked into the blinding light, searing my senses, and heard the 3 gongs which turn into thunder.



So interesting. How long the light remains and what you perceive yourself as at that time?




Thank you, for another interesting search term (gauri vak)! This is what was returned. :p

Shri kamalAmbikAyaM - sahAna - triputa

Pallavi:
I am devoted unto kamalambika - the one who is like a garden of wish yielding trees to those who surrender unto her.
The one who slays her enemies, the universal mother.
AnuPallavi:
The one whose countenance is like the fullmoon, the one whose eyes are like lotuses, the one whose feet are worshipped by Indra - the enemy of demon Paka.The one whose splendour radiates over ether and other elements;
the one who is the female deer in the forests of hreemkara, the one whose body is verily the form of hreemkara mantra, the one who is like the branch of flowers in the tree of hreemkara, the goddess of hreem kara, the golden-hued gauri.
Charanam:
The one whose soul gives bliss that is beyond gross, subtle and causal bodies, the secret yogini power known to brahma, vishnu and shiva and harihaya - (Hayagriva ?) who rules over powers like Vashini the vak devata, an embodiment of para and other speech. The raja yogini who has the power to remove all diseases associated with the body, the one who plays the vina; the one who takes abode in tiruvarur or Kamalanagara. The one who pleases gods, men and sages, the one who gives boons to Guruguha.


Namaste,
ZN
/just a girl



Anandamayi Chaityanyamayi Satyamayi Parame.

Znanna
19 September 2006, 07:30 PM
So interesting. How long the light remains and what you perceive yourself as at that time?






Anandamayi Chaityanyamayi Satyamayi Parame.


The EYE remains so long as I can take it. I been blinded, and regained my Sight .... and still the glare is too much. Numinous is a term which has been coined by some in the West (http://www.friesian.com/numinos.htm) to describe :)

I been devoted to Her service since I was a teen; how I feel is grateful.

I know nothing, I only feel and do ... my understanding is sensory, not verbal. I think (haha) that's cause I'm a girl. It's weird to me that few represent Her or the enTwinned HEr on these lists, perhaps it is because folks like me don't really have a point ov view :p


Namaste,
ZN

atanu
20 September 2006, 02:58 AM
The EYE remains so long as I can take it. I been blinded, and regained my Sight .... and still the glare is too much. Numinous is a term which has been coined by some in the West (
http://www.friesian.com/numinos.htm (http://www.friesian.com/numinos.htm)) to describe :)

I been devoted to Her service since I was a teen; how I feel is grateful.

I know nothing, I only feel and do ... my understanding is sensory, not verbal. I think (haha) that's cause I'm a girl. It's weird to me that few represent Her or the enTwinned HEr on these lists, perhaps it is because folks like me don't really have a point ov view :p


Namaste,
ZN


You are surely blessed.

But my guru exhorts us to be vigilant/conscious and enquire "Who sees the light?". One finds that one is that light only and beyond the senses.

In Vedas, Aditi --- the girl and one without a second is All and she is non-different from EKO-- the One also. Does she require any representation? All manifestation, all gods, the heaven, the earth is her only.

RV 1 HYMN LXXXIX. Visvedevas.

1. MAY powers auspicious come to us from every side, never deceived, unhindered, and victorious, That the Gods ever may be with us for our gain, our guardians day by day unceasing in their care.


2 May the auspicious favour of the Gods be ours, on us descend the bounty of the righteous Gods. The friendship of the Gods have we devoutly sought: so may the Gods extend our life that we may live.
------
10 Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son.Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been bom and shall be born.



And then:

8.HYMN XLVIII. Soma.



1. WISELY have I enjoyed the savoury viand, religious-thoughted, best to find out treasure,

The food to which all Deities and mortals, calling it meath, gather themselves together.

2 Thou shalt be Aditi as thou hast entered within, appeaser of celestial anger.

Indu, enjoying Indra's friendship, bring us - as a swift steed the car - forward to riches.

3 We have drunk Soma and become immortal; we have attained the light, the Gods discovered.

Now what may foeman's malice do to harm us? What, O Immortal, mortal man's deception?

---------



Siva

rku
14 January 2012, 10:45 AM
Dear Friends,

I think Buddhism is much different from Vedanta. Because in Vedanta the nature of the Brahman is Sacchidananda and has been always and should be supplementary to the Dvaita world i.e. should promote it so that more 'Patra' (eligible ones) would come up to understand the ultimate truth of Vedanta.

I am not aware of such any implications of Buddhism. If any?