Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 73

Thread: Different views of śakti or mAyA?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Different views of śakti or mAyA?

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    hariḥ oṁ
    We need to better understand this. In kaśmir śaivism it is said by bhairava that śakti is the mouth ( the entry way) to śiva. That is,
    lively awareness that is rested and one-pointed ( uninterrupted awareness) ; If it is passive , then it is brilliantly passive, aware in itself vs. a dull passiveness. Now again, this is the entry point, yes.
    Namaste Yajvanji and others

    Just as Veda says that Agni is the mouth of Brahman or that vak is the expression of the subtle self. Our effort with mantra patha is this auspicious act of joining Lord with His consort, the Vak.

    From this, I cannot agree to Prakriti being synonymous with Self. Unmanifest is the Pragnya Ghana, which is a pada of Self.

    ----- In ignorance we think we are the actor, in liberation we find that the Supreme is , in the final analysis, doing all. ----Yet we have choices . Many think if śakti is doing the 'doing' then we have no choice.

    Lets say I get into an elevator - all the steps, the looking, the locomotion to get me to that elevator cannot be done without that energy , yes? I choose to go to the 10th floor. ----?

    Kṛṣṇa says the following in the Bhāgavad gītā (chapter 2, 47th śloka)

    karmai evādhikāras te
    mā phalesu kadācana
    mā karma-phala-hetur bhūr
    mā te sago'stv akarmai

    This says, you certainly (eva) have ādhikāra (claim , right , privilege, control) of your (te or ti) karmai (of your actions) , but never or not (mā) of its fruits (phalesu) .

    Just so there is no confusion - 'but never or not (mā) of its fruits (phalesu)' clearly points that the individual cannot control the outcome. You do not have a choice on the level of success or failure that may result from that action that is initiated, yet you get to choose the action.

    So, we're in the elevator , we push '10th floor '. In all ~likelihood~ we will get there but it is not guaranteed. You have the privilege to select an action, but you are not guaranteed the outcome.
    On this, I wish to add another perspective, since I think that the present choices offered do not stand on their own but depend on the past actions (results whereof were not guaranteed in the first place). This way, the cycle goes back to the beginning of time, when the timeless Self resolved a choice in a muhurta -- which is now infinite time, as if, to the mind (to us).

    To put it in another way, the choices/situtation that i have at the moment, arose from previous actions ----- and previous actions ---- and previous actions --- and so on.

    Shri Ramana teaches that we have two choices actually: to abide in Self and be free or to abide in unreality and suffer. Exemplifying His view is the following teaching, which He imparted to His mother.

    "Whatever is destined not to happen will not happen, try as you may. Whatever is destined to happen will happen, do what you may to prevent it. This is certain. The best course, therefore, is to remain silent."
    I think the ultimate teaching of Shri Krishna to Arjuna to submit is just this. I also think that to submit is not fatalistic but it is about the best possible action without suffering any dilemma.

    Regards

    Om Namah Shivaya
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    September 2009
    Posts
    623
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Different views of śakti or mAyA?

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    (cut for space)
    Shri Ramana teaches that we have two choices actually: to abide in Self and be free or to abide in unreality and suffer. Exemplifying His view is the following teaching, which He imparted to His mother.



    I think the ultimate teaching of Shri Krishna to Arjuna to submit is just this. I also think that to submit is not fatalistic but it is about the best possible action without suffering any dilemma.
    Dear Atanu
    It seems that Liberation is not liberty to act, but liberation from suffering.

    As you say and I am inclinded to agree, it is not fatalistic, we don't have to be victims, but yet we have no choice.

    This may seem contradictory unless we include the pivoting point. The pivoting point is "now", this moment.

    I have no choice, but neither do I know the choice I will take next. I may say with full confidence today that if a man held a gun to my head I would stay calm hand over the money and sigh with relief, but at that pivoting point in time I may find myself struggling to get free, taking the gun and changing my fate.

    So where does maya come into this? Maya is the illusional belief that I am acting freely as I am indepedent of all other forces, and with it comes the justification that my past actions were pre-mediated by me (this is how karma clings to the subtle body through ignorance).

    And Shakti, where does She fit in?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Different views of śakti or mAyA?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snip View Post
    Dear Atanu
    It seems that Liberation is not liberty to act, but liberation from suffering.

    As you say and I am inclinded to agree, it is not fatalistic, we don't have to be victims, but yet we have no choice.
    Namaste Snip

    Thank you for your response. In some scriptures, liberation is also said to be mukti from karmabandhana, in addition to liberation from suffering of course. Liberation is said to be not so much a freedom to act as one likes but it is liberation from acting to the tune of prakritic forces.

    This may seem contradictory unless we include the pivoting point. The pivoting point is "now", this moment.
    This I think is the gem.

    So where does maya come into this? Maya is the illusional belief that I am acting freely as I am indepedent of all other forces, and with it comes the justification that my past actions were pre-mediated by me (this is how karma clings to the subtle body through ignorance).
    Again well said.

    And Shakti, where does She fit in?
    About sakti, different schools have different ways of explanation, which must all be valid. Yet, the Vedanta school (such as upanishads etc.) do not mention sakti apart from the Self, although, the schools other than the non-dual ones incorporate sakti as a separate entity or tattva in some way or other. Without invalidating the many points of views already offered, I paste below a discussion:


    Question: Will concentration on Chakras quieten the mind?

    Sri Ramana Maharshi: Fixing their minds on psychic centres such as
    the Sahasrara (the thousand petalled lotus Chakra), yogis remain any
    lengths of time without awareness of their bodies. As long as this
    state continues, they appear to be immersed in some kind of joy. But
    when the mind, which has become tranquil emerges and becomes active
    again it resumes its worldly thoughts. It is therefore necessary to
    train it with the help of practices like Dhyana (meditation) whenever
    it becomes externalised. It will then attain a state in which there
    is neither subsistence nor emergence.

    Question: It is said that the Sakti manifests itself in five phases,
    ten phases, a hundred phases and a thousand phases. Which is true?

    Sri Ramana Maharshi: Sakti has only one phase. If it is said to
    manifest itself in several phases, it is only a way of speaking. The
    Sakti is only one.

    Question: How to churn up the Nadis (psychic nerves) so that the
    Kundalini may go up the Sushumna?

    Sri Ramana Maharshi: Though the Yogi may have his methods of breath
    control for his object, the Jnani’s method is only that of enquiry.
    When by this method the mind is merged in the Self, the Sakti or
    Kundalini, which is not apart from the Self, rises automatically.

    The Yogis attach the highest importance to sending the Kundalini up
    to the Sahasrara, the brain centre or the thousand petalled lotus.
    They point out the scriptural statement that the life current enters
    the body through the fontanelle and argue that, Viyoga (separation)
    having come about that way, yoga (union) must also be effected in the
    reverse way. Therefore, they say, we must, by yoga practice, gather
    up the Pranas (vital force) and enter the fontanelle for the
    consummation of yoga. The Jnanis on the other hand point out that the
    yogi assumes the existence of the body and its separateness from the
    Self. Only if this standpoint of separateness is adopted can the yogi
    advise effort for reunion by the practice of yoga.

    In fact the body is in the mind which has the brain for its seat.
    That the brain functions by light borrowed from another source is
    admitted by the yogis themselves in their fontanelle theory. The
    Jnani further argues: if the light is borrowed it must come from its
    native source. Go to the source direct and do not depend on borrowed
    sources. That source is the Heart, the Self.

    The Self does not come from anywhere else and enter the body through
    the crown of the head. It is as it is, ever sparkling, ever steady,
    unmoving and unchanging. The individual confines himself to the
    limits of the changeful body or of the mind which derives its
    existence from the unchanging Self. All that is necessary is to give
    up this mistaken identity, and that done, the ever shining Self will
    be seen to be the single non-dual reality.

    If one concentrates on the Sahasrara there is no doubt that the
    ecstasy of Samadhi ensues. The Vasanas, that is the latent mental
    tendencies, are not however destroyed. The yogi is therefore bound to
    wake up from the Samadhi because release from bondage has not yet
    been accomplished. He must still try to eradicate the Vasanas
    inherent in him so that they cease to disturb the peace of his
    Samadhi. So he passes down from the Sahasrara to the Heart through
    what is called the Jivanadi, which is only a continuation of the
    Sushumna. The Sushumna is thus a curve. It starts from the lowest
    Chakra, rises through the spinal cord to the brain and from there
    bends down and ends in the Heart. When the yogi has reached the
    Heart, the Samadhi becomes permanent. Thus we see that the Heart is
    the final centre.
    This discussion above actually exemplifies the difference in perspectives of Shri Ramana's and Shri Aurobindo's schools. Aurobindo sort of held that grace descends. Shri Ramana was always very staunch that grace did not ascend or descend. I feel that these differences of perspectives are tailor made for the majority of devotees that these two teachers (as major representatives of two schools) preside over. But, the Vedanta schools do not see sakti apart from the Self.

    Iccha sakti and kriya sakti are saktis of the Self. But whereas the sakti is very real, the effect may be mAyA -- illusory sense of discreteness perceived as really real.

    Om Namah Shivaya
    Last edited by atanu; 25 August 2010 at 01:01 PM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    September 2009
    Posts
    623
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Different views of śakti or mAyA?

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post

    In some scriptures, liberation is also said to be mukti from karmabandhana, in addition to liberation from suffering of course. Liberation is said to be not so much a freedom to act as one likes but it is liberation from acting to the tune of prakritic forces.

    (cut for space)
    This discussion above actually exemplifies the difference in perspectives of Shri Ramana's and Shri Aurobindo's schools. Aurobindo sort of held that grace descends. Shri Ramana was always very staunch that grace did not ascend or descend. I feel that these differences of perspectives are tailor made for the majority of devotees that these two teachers (as major representatives of two schools) preside over. But, the Vedanta schools do not see sakti apart from the Self.
    Namaste Atanu
    I hope you will let me indulge in sharing a point on this interesting topic you add above...

    Suffering is caused by karma acting on us as individuals, we can be carrying our suffering from our past action through into the present moment, wishing for a better life. So mukti from karmabandhana, is liberation from the suffering.

    I don't mean to split hairs My point above is that one rarely complains about pleasure, one may be indifferent to luxury, but it is suffering that one wishes to avoid. So positive karma, such as winning the lottery, from the point of mukti shows as indifference.

    This is just as well as even the liberated being cannot avoid their prabdah karma (actions started but not fullfilled), but mukti is liberation from kriyamana karma (present actions) and agami karma (future karma). They may show indifference to prabdah karma, be it good or bad.

    However to the seeker the liberated person (jivamukhti) appears to be acting and dealing with the results. And they are right, because for them the other person is an individual, but for the jivanmukhti they no longer are individualised but rather merged in the Supreme Self. (Not an idea new to either of us).

    Regarding Grace, my perspective is that if we accept that there are no choices, then everything, including liberation (mukti), is grace.

    I feel I either am not fully up to speed with Shakti or Shakti can be taken to be energy alone, so forgive me if I do not add more for the moment on your kind words above.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Different views of śakti or mAyA?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snip View Post
    Namaste Atanu
    I hope you will let me indulge in sharing a point on this interesting topic you add above...

    Suffering is caused by karma acting on us as individuals, we can be carrying our suffering from our past action through into the present moment, wishing for a better life. So mukti from karmabandhana, is liberation from the suffering.

    I don't mean to split hairs My point above is that one rarely complains about pleasure, one may be indifferent to luxury, but it is suffering that one wishes to avoid. So positive karma, such as winning the lottery, from the point of mukti shows as indifference.
    Namaste Snip

    I fully agree. Actually what Shri Ramanuja calls eternal karma, Shankara calls eternal avidya. Freedom from suffereings, from karmbandhana, or avidya mean the same. Highest goal, I agree, is freedom from suffering, which is not natural to Self.

    This is just as well as even the liberated being cannot avoid their prabdah karma (actions started but not fullfilled), but mukti is liberation from kriyamana karma (present actions) and agami karma (future karma). They may show indifference to prabdah karma, be it good or bad.

    However to the seeker the liberated person (jivamukhti) appears to be acting and dealing with the results. And they are right, because for them the other person is an individual, but for the jivanmukhti they no longer are individualised but rather merged in the Supreme Self. (Not an idea new to either of us).
    I agree, especially the blue parts. A separate discussion may be due on this subject, especially in reference to inferred morality etc.

    I feel I either am not fully up to speed with Shakti or Shakti can be taken to be energy alone, so forgive me if I do not add more for the moment on your kind words above.
    True for everyone. For the sake of record and completeness, i include the following reference:

    http://www.hinduism.co.za/maya-sha.htm

    Om Namah Shivaya
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    September 2009
    Posts
    623
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Different views of śakti or mAyA?

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    Namaste Snip

    I fully agree. Actually what Shri Ramanuja calls eternal karma, Shankara calls eternal avidya. Freedom from suffereings, from karmbandhana, or avidya mean the same. Highest goal, I agree, is freedom from suffering, which is not natural to Self.



    I agree, especially the blue parts. A separate discussion may be due on this subject, especially in reference to inferred morality etc.



    True for everyone. For the sake of record and completeness, i include the following reference:

    http://www.hinduism.co.za/maya-sha.htm

    Om Namah Shivaya
    Namaste dear Atanu
    Thanks for the reply and the link. I quote Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa. Look for the apparent contradiction:

    If we reason it out, we realise that all these are as illusory as a dream. Brahman alone is the reality, and all else is unreal. Even this very Shakti is unsubstantial, like a dream.

    But though you reason all your life, unless you are established in samadhi (deep meditation), you cannot go beyond the jurisdiction of Shakti. Even when you say, "I am meditating" or "I am contemplating", still you are moving in the realm of Shakti; within its power.

    Brahman(Shiva) and Shakti are identical. It is like fire and its power to burn. One cannot conceive of the sun's rays without the sun. Thus one cannot think of Brahman without Shakti, or of Shakti without Brahman. One cannot think of the Absolute without the relative, or of the relative without the Absolute.
    So first we are told Brahman is real and Shakti is unsubstantial like a dream. Then we are told that actually Shakti is Brahman (and so real).

    The point is that Shakti is real, but only so when taken as identical with Brahman. First one must know Brahman (as Atman). The mistake is to miss Brahman and take the world (Shakti) as real as this is the state of identification with the body and us leads to suffering, if one were to find oneself there then one must be reminded of the first paragraph (Shakti is a dream to be overcome).

    This is why a differentiation is required for maya compared to Shakti. If one is not introduced to Shakti then maybe one may live out their life in a maya-dream or with replusion to the world, believing Brahman to be the only reality and abiding with That?

    However, once Brahman is known there is another "step" if you wish. That is that after "neti neti" and the dispassion have done their job of discarding the universe then one realises that the universe still exists and must be re-added.

    One need not go on living as a recluse to avoid maya, but rather one is forced to re-embrace the world a fresh, but this time as an expression of Brahman. Thus divine will is reigns supreme.

    This is where Goddess Bhuvaneshwari takes over IMHO. She holds the noose to pull us away from maya, with neti-neti and the goad to push us back once maya is overcome and Shakti shines forth in union with Brahman.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Different views of śakti or mAyA?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snip View Post
    Namaste dear Atanu
    This is why a differentiation is required for maya compared to Shakti. If one is not introduced to Shakti then maybe one may live out their life in a maya-dream or with replusion to the world, believing Brahman to be the only reality and abiding with That?
    Namaste Snip

    Yes. I think this is easy to understand.

    However, once Brahman is known there is another "step" if you wish. That is that after "neti neti" and the dispassion have done their job of discarding the universe then one realises that the universe still exists and must be re-added.

    One need not go on living as a recluse to avoid maya, but rather one is forced to re-embrace the world a fresh, but this time as an expression of Brahman. Thus divine will is reigns supreme.
    But, I think, this is not so easy. What remains and who returns?

    Below, I paste a step wise involution process (this is from Taittiriya Brahmana of KYV):

    1.May fire (Agni) be placed in my speech (Vak), my speech in the heart (hridaya), the heart in me (mayi), the I (aham) in the immortal (amritam), the immortal in Brahman.
    2.May the Wind (Vayu) be placed in my breath (Prana), my breath in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.
    3.May the Sun be placed in my eye, my eye in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.
    4.May the Moon be placed in my mind, my mind in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.
    5.May the Directions be placed in my hearing, my hearing in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.
    6.May the Waters be placed in my generative fluid, my generative fluid in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.
    7.May the Earth be placed in my body, my body in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.
    8.May herbs and trees be placed in my hair, my hair in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.
    9.May Indra be placed in my strength, my strength in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.
    10.May the Rain God (Parjanya) be placed in my head, my head in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.
    11.May Rudra be placed in my spirit, my spirit in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.
    12.May my self be placed in the Self, the Self in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.

    13.May my Self return again. May my life (Ayur) return again. May my Prana return again. May my will return again.

    14.May the Universal God increasing with his rays dwell within 'me' as the guardian of immortality

    ----------------

    I simply do not know and have no means to know as to what returns, or what the above prayer is wishing for, since moksha is described as 'one does not return from there'.

    Om Namah Shivaya
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    September 2009
    Posts
    623
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Different views of śakti or mAyA?

    Namaste Atanu
    The quote you provide sums it up well.

    Please note I am not talking about anybody returning to anywhere, you are right. When I say "one is forced to embrace the world afresh" I imply that the "one" is no longer the doer of neti-neti and so "force" must be implied as action continues despite total surrender of one's lower self. And by embrace, I mean that there is no escape, no where to go, so total acceptance.... realisation is realisation that This is It: Tat tvam Asi, Soham etc.

    We are told that the first step is to reduce the world and see it as being impermanent. But one cannot remain there; the brilliance of Brahman illuminates all. Who is this one, but Brahman! And what is this universe if not Brahman?

    Once one has realised that Tat Tvam Asi, there is no longer anything to discard for you are verilly That which is discarding That.

    This is why all methods are useless from the ultimate perspective, because one is already That which one is trying to become. I feel this is related to the vantage point of Shakti and Maya as clarification can clarify this point. It is uttara because we are no longer speaking of Advaita alone, one can see Dvaita too.

    I hope this is more clear, I am not attempting to present anything new, but to explore that which is.

    PS: I answered your post on the Ego thread, no reply is necessary but I hope that wasn't missed by the change of page (that has happened to me before )

  9. #29
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Different views of śakti or mAyA?

    Quote Originally Posted by Snip View Post
    Namaste Atanu
    The quote you provide sums it up well.

    We are told that the first step is to reduce the world and see it as being impermanent. But one cannot remain there; the brilliance of Brahman illuminates all. Who is this one, but Brahman! And what is this universe if not Brahman?
    Namaste Snip

    I have similar understanding as you state above. But I would wish to rephrase the above phrase shown in blue.

    -----It is uttara because we are no longer speaking of Advaita alone, one can see Dvaita too.
    Here also, I am not sure, because the experience of advaita itself is pending. But from study of Upanishads, i say that the Supreme Self alone appears as (or is) two -- pure consciousness and its creative energy.


    PS: I answered your post on the Ego thread, no reply is necessary but I hope that wasn't missed by the change of page (that has happened to me before )
    Ya. I have read that and found nothing more to add.

    Om Namah Shivaya
    Last edited by atanu; 26 August 2010 at 09:37 AM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: Different views of śakti or mAyA?

    namaste everyone.

    Some excellent points have been made about shakti, mAyA and Brahman so far in this thread. It is worth (re)collecting them:

    01. Is shakti something postive and interactive, whereas mAyA is something negative to be overcome? How can we understand shakti and God as One from the scripture? (OP: Snip)

    02. ...is mAyA equal to shakti? It depends on your vantage point. In kashmir shaivism, they are seperate tattva's and hense not the same initially; this transformation of mAyA (of limits) becomes the play and display of shakti. (post 2: Yajvan)

    03. In kashmir shaivism it is said by bhairava that shakti is the mouth (the entry way) to shiva. (post 11: Yajvan), with an amazingly true explanation of this truth in post 12.

    04. mAyA is her crystallized forms of illusion that we see as objects of matter in the world. Another interpretation of mAyA is yA--who (which Goddess), does-mA--make a show, of the world which is not really there, hence the connection between paraAshakti and mAyA. (post 16: saidevo)

    05. Once the world is seen to be a constant flux of change and consciousness is seen as the that which is changeless and forever true, can the world be seen as a positive creative force (i.e. Shakti) rather than purely illusive (i.e. mAyA)? (post 20: Snip)

    06. So where does mAyA come into this? mAyA is the illusional belief that I am acting freely as I am indepedent of all other forces, and with it comes the justification that my past actions were pre-mediated by me (this is how karma clings to the subtle body through ignorance). (post 22: Snip)

    07. About shakti, different schools have different ways of explanation, which must all be valid. Yet, the Vedanta school (such as upanishads etc.) do not mention shakti apart from the Self, although, the schools other than the non-dual ones incorporate shakti as a separate entity or tattva in some way or other. (post 23: Atanu)

    08. The point is that Shakti is real, but only so when taken as identical with Brahman. First one must know Brahman (as Atman). The mistake is to miss Brahman and take the world (Shakti) as real as this is the state of identification with the body and us leads to suffering, in which case, Shakti is a dream to be overcome. (post 23: Snip)

    • This is why a differentiation is required for mAyA compared to Shakti. If one is not introduced to Shakti then maybe one may live out their life in a maya-dream or with replusion to the world, believing Brahman to be the only reality and abiding with That?

    • However, once Brahman is known there is another "step" if you wish. That is that after "neti neti" and the dispassion have done their job of discarding the universe then one realises that the universe still exists and must be re-added.

    • One need not go on living as a recluse to avoid mAyA, but rather one is forced to re-embrace the world a fresh, but this time as an expression of Brahman. Thus divine will is reigns supreme.

    • But, I think, this is not so easy. What remains and who returns? ... I simply do not know and have no means to know as to what returns, or what the above prayer is wishing for, since moksha is described as 'one does not return from there'. (post 27: Atanu)

    09. This is why all methods are useless from the ultimate perspective, because one is already That which one is trying to become. I feel this is related to the vantage point of Shakti and Maya as clarification can clarify this point. It is uttara because we are no longer speaking of Advaita alone, one can see Dvaita too. (post 28: Snip)

    **********
    रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
    ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥

    To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.

    --viShNu purANam

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •