Sectarianism in ktism

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

namaste Jaskaran ji

I thought just sharing my thoughts on whatever happened yesterday.
To start with, I was wary of threads reading "Sisnadeva in.." or "Sectarianism in..", now that you can see how it unfolded (naturally).

We get what we ask for. If we ask for adhyatmic learning (which plenty can provide us here) then we will sooner or later get it (and it will help us directly or indirectly in our various fields of works, etc).

But if we invoke Sisnadeva, we will get Sisnadeva. The troll was a prime example of Sisnadeva, a god_f***er, an unchaste being wanting to be among the godly, a terrorist.

I've been poking at you at times, but wouldn't bother to do that if I didn't think that you were a good guy.

I am not asking for a reply here, though.

KT

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

But if we invoke Sisnadeva, we will get Sisnadeva. The troll was a prime example of Sisnadeva, a god_f***er, an unchaste being wanting to be among the godly, a terrorist.

"Speak of the Śiśnadevaḥ and he doth appear," .

 

[JaiMaaDurga]

Namaste,

I wanted to express thanks for how this thread progressed, as I was wary
at first, and was not sure if there would be much constructive discussion.

As has already been said, the context in which this was originally written
needs to be considered; also, there are two other historical factors to bear in mind-
one, being the fact that Shaktism in general has never been static, just the
same as any other sampradaya- while there are not many tales of bitter enmity
between, say, Srikula and Kalikula, the prevalence, form, and perception of Shaktism
has been changing incessantly, depending on when and where one happens to be.

The second factor has to do with esotericism, and how this has been important
to the roots and survival of Shaktism (always historically a "minority"), and how
the modern age of books, cameras, sound recorders, digitalization, and internet has
rendered much of what was once only transmitted verbally or through initiation
is now available to anyone with Google and some curiosity; what is not available
is the original context, the proper "lens" with which a particular mantra, verse, etc.
was meant to be given with.. in a way, this preserves a sampradaya from those unfit
for it, but creates much more outward noise and confusion from the world of
curiosity-seekers, and those academics with a voyeuristic attitude.

Please do not mistake these words for an accusation of anyone here of doing anything
ignorant or improper- (we really are very friendly ), just a reminder that we're
equally capable of sectarianism- but as with many things Shakta, much stays well off
the radar.

Of course, all this is only my perspective, and I do not dare imagine myself qualified
to speak for any other Shakta!

JAI MATA DI

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

The second factor has to do with esotericism, and how this has been important
to the roots and survival of Shaktism (always historically a "minority"), and how
the modern age of books, cameras, sound recorders, digitalization, and internet has
rendered much of what was once only transmitted verbally or through initiation
is now available to anyone with Google and some curiosity; what is not available
is the original context, the proper "lens" with which a particular mantra, verse, etc.
was meant to be given with.. in a way, this preserves a sampradaya from those unfit
for it, but creates much more outward noise and confusion from the world of
curiosity-seekers, and those academics with a voyeuristic attitude.

Yes, this is indeed true, although one doesn't necessarily need initiation to appreciate and/or understand a text (for example, you don't need to be an Advaitin or a Śrīvidyā practitioner to understand the jist of the Saundaryalahar&#299. However, I do agree that for certain texts, without a proper form of initiation, one would only be able to understand the superficialities and could make rash conclusions which may or may not be true. However, after rereading the first chapter and noticing a couple peculiar verses, I stand by my initial impression that this text (i.e. the Kulārṇavatantram) seems to reject explicit ritualism and social taboos (like vegetarianism), as is evident in these satirical verses:

तृणपर्णोदकाहाराः सततं वनवासिनः।
हिरणादिमृगा देवि योगिनस्ते भवन्ति किम्॥८१॥
आजन्ममरणान्तञ्च गङ्गादितटिनीस्थिताः।
मण्डूकमत्स्यप्रमुखा व्रतिनस्ते भवन्ति किम्॥८२॥
वदन्ति हृदयानन्दं पठन्ति शुकसारिकाः।
जनानां पुरतो देवि विबुधाः किं भवन्ति हि॥८३॥

Transliteration:
tṛṇaparṇodakāhārāḥ satataṃ vanavāsinaḥ।
hiraṇādimṛgā devi yoginaste bhavanti kim॥81॥
ājanmamaraṇāntañca gaṅgāditaṭinīsthitāḥ।
maṇḍūkamatsyapramukhā vratinaste bhavanti kim॥82॥
vadanti hṛdayānandaṃ paṭhanti śukasārikāḥ।
janānāṃ purato devi vibudhāḥ kiṃ bhavanti hi॥83॥

Translation:
Dwellers of the forest continually eat [only] grass, water, and leaves.
O Goddess, then does this make these golden deer the foremost yogi-s? (81)
[Some] beings are fixed near [sacred rivers like] the Gaṅgā from birth until their terminal death.
Does this make these toads and fishes the foremost ascetics? (82)
Happy talking birds speak verses [from sacred books] with blissful hearts.
O Goddess, should they first be known as wise men (vibudhā&#7717 because of this? (83)

However, I was a rash in dismissing the entire text as sectarian, as although it does indeed view texts other than the Kaula Tantra-s and Śākta āgama-s as paśuśāstrāṇi (as I have said before), it still ultimately quite poetically appeals to the caturvedāḥ and the six vedāṅga-s as its source of authority (etānyeva kulasyāpi ṣaḍaṅgāni bhavanti hi... tasmādvedātmakaṃ śāstraṃ viddhi kaulātmakaṃ priye)

Also, I do realize that not all Śākta-s accept the Kulārṇavatantram, but it does have a particularly prominent place in regards to Kaula practices, or at least that was the opinion of John Woodroffe:

 

[Poeticus]

Happy finally for Jaskaran

His thread was extremely valuable. The conversations regarding Sayana's Commentary and Yaska's translations of the verse in question really put forth into light the literal and spiritual observations of that verse.

It was interesting to note that Griffith, Yaska, Sayana, and others, all utilized the non-literal translation in order to keep in line with the spirit of the Rishi and the purpose of that verse.

But like all unchaste powers, trolls invade such important threads to foster the disintegration of intellectual aptitude.

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Nothing, KT. The mods took care of it, like auspicious powers that come from all directions to rid the HinduDIR of defilement (M.V.1.32.6).

Yes, I would say, MV and mods took care of it

Shri Ram.

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

His thread was extremely valuable. The conversations regarding Sayana's Commentary and Yaska's translations of the verse in question really put forth into light the literal and spiritual observations of that verse.

It was interesting to note that Griffith, Yaska, Sayana, and others, all utilized the non-literal translation in order to keep in line with the spirit of the Rishi and the purpose of that verse.

But like all unchaste powers, trolls invade such important threads to foster the disintegration of intellectual aptitude.

"sisnadeva" word itself is non-literal, so I translated it as "god_f***er", (I'm damn serious) much in the same line as m---

Though I had some reservations about the accuracy of full translation of the rica, but don't want to go there again.

 

[Poeticus]

KT,

The Śakta Sect(s) can definitely take advantage of the countless hymns dedicated to Mothers Usha, Ida, Aditi, and Ratri (and even Nrrti) to develop a Sakto-Vedic liturgical corpus. I truly think that would be wonderful, for it would bring to ours and theirs attention that the Feminine is of paramount concern and importance.

Have you noticed that in the Rig Veda, the day (a 24-hour period) is given more Feminine qualities than masculine? It is the feminine (Usha) that brings forth the masculine (Adityas), and ends with the feminine (Ratri).

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

KT,

The Śakta Sect(s) can definitely take advantage of the countless hymns dedicated to Mothers Usha, Ida, Aditi, and Ratri (and even Nrrti) to develop a Sakto-Vedic liturgical corpus. I truly think that would be wonderful, for it would bring to ours and theirs attention that the Feminine is of paramount concern and importance.

Have you noticed that in the Rig Veda, the day (a 24-hour period) is given more Feminine qualities than masculine? It is the feminine (Usha) that brings forth the masculine (Adityas), and ends with the feminine (Ratri).

MAhi is also very big, and I put Her at the same footing as Savitr. Not to talk of other Devis such as BhArati, Sarama, Prsni, and ofcourse the female versions of all Aditya-s anyway.

So, Aditi is the all-in-all, the Mother of Mother herself. Aditi means "Unity"/ "The Whole", so there is no question of a sectarian interpretation of Veda.

Otherwise some Shakta sect could have made a claim over Aditi as the Supreme Goddess of Hinduism.

 

[Poeticus]

Otherwise some Shakta sect could have made a claim over Aditi as the Supreme Goddess of Hinduism.

I wouldn't mind, since the Aditya-s are, literally, "of Aditi".

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

I wouldn't mind, since the Aditya-s are, literally, "of Aditi".

Atleast it anyways flies in the face of the macho color given to the Veda by the sisnadevA-s of indology.

May be, in their sub-conscious they remember encounters mainly with Aryan males (and thus the male deities only), so there is no imprint of Vedic Goddesses. One all-important name is: Sarasvati ji.

 

[Poeticus]

Prsni

(7.018.10.2) pŕ̥śnigāvaḥ pŕ̥śninipreṣitāsaḥ śruṣṭíṃ cakrur niyúto rántayaś ca

"They went like kine, un-herded from the pasture, each clinging to a friend as chance directed.
They who drive spotted steeds, send down by Prsni, gave ear, the Warriors and the harnessed horses."

It seems, Shri Prsni didn't like the Paktha-s (Avagāna-s ) in Her Holy Waters, and, at the behest of Shri Indra, drowned the invaders and scattered them from unison!

I couldn't resist!

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Hey, MV
Do you know Aditi has given out roll-numbers to various Aditya-s in Her classroom?

 

[Poeticus]

Hey, MV
Do you know Aditi has given out roll-numbers to various Aditya-s in Her classroom?

No, unfortunately, I did not.

Happy?

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

No, unfortunately, I did not. But, I know who didn't get a roll-number/roll-call....

Because today was the most important ekAdashi of the year and I worshipped Shri Vishnu, so that makes Shri Vishnu as " roll no. 11

KT: "Hey, you need to shake off this stuff (persian and pakhtoon); remember we are here to share/ learn from Veda in some other way, more important way. And these things are not important at all".

Yeah, happy!

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Hey, MV
Do you know Aditi has given out roll-numbers to various Aditya-s in Her classroom?

Duh, everyone who has read the Viṣṇumahāpurāṇam knows that...

पूर्वमन्वन्तरे श्रेष्ठा द्वादशासन्सुरोत्तमाः।
तुषिता नाम तेऽन्योन्यमूचुर्वैवस्वतेन्तरे॥१.१५.१२६॥
उपस्थितेऽतियशसश्चाक्षुषस्यान्तरे मनोः।
समवायीकृताः सर्वे समागम्य परस्परम्॥१.१५.१२७॥
आगच्छत द्रुतं देवा अदितिं संप्रविश्य वै।
मन्वन्तरे प्रसूयामस्तन्नः श्रेयो भवेदिति॥१.१५.१२८॥
एवमुक्त्वा तु ते सर्वे चाक्षुषस्यान्तरे मनोः।
मारीचात्कश्यपाज्जाता अदित्या दक्षकन्यया॥१.१५.१२९॥
तत्र विष्णुश्च शक्रश्च जज्ञाते पुनरेव हि।
अर्यमा चैव धाता च त्वष्टा पूषा तथैव च॥१.१५.१३०॥
विवस्वान्सविता चैव मित्रो वरुण एव च।
अंशुर्भगश्चातितेजा आदित्या द्वादश स्मृताः॥१.१५.१३१॥
चाक्षुषस्यान्तरे पूर्वमासन्ये तुषिताः सुराः।
वैवस्वतेऽन्तरे ते वै आदित्या द्वादश स्मृताः॥१.१५.१३२ ॥

 

[Kalidas]

namaste Jaskaran ji

I thought just sharing my thoughts on whatever happened yesterday.
To start with, I was wary of threads reading "Sisnadeva in.." or "Sectarianism in..", now that you can see how it unfolded (naturally).

We get what we ask for. If we ask for adhyatmic learning (which plenty can provide us here) then we will sooner or later get it (and it will help us directly or indirectly in our various fields of works, etc).

But if we invoke Sisnadeva, we will get Sisnadeva. The troll was a prime example of Sisnadeva, a god_f***er, an unchaste being wanting to be among the godly, a terrorist.

I've been poking at you at times, but wouldn't bother to do that if I didn't think that you were a good guy.

I am not asking for a reply here, though.

KT

what happened? I have been offline being busy for a while so totally missed the troll.

I can honestly say I have never read the text that you all speak of so I am getting a little lost when it comes to the specifics. Yet I would like to weigh in, I think every "sect" is a little "sectarian" but I would not say that is entirely a bad thing. I not only think it is okay but I would go as far as to see it is needed, that one view their beliefs are above other even if only for themselves. If you don't believe this, why are you who you are?

I left my old religion for Hinduism, I may believe that spiritual enlightenment is not reserved only for us, but I do believe it is for sure better. If I didn't believe this why would I be a Hindu at all? I value Kali and my worship of her above other Gods. that is not to say I feel they are not important, don't help, or are "weaker" they just are not the ones who speak to me. Like many things in life a feel a healthy level of balance is needed. We must be open minded enough to except others and be willing to learn and grow, but closed minded enough to hold onto who we are and for progression down a good solid road. If you can't make up your mind over what you do or don't believe, how can you be sure that you believe in anything at all?

Feeling that your "sect" is "better" then others for yourself, is not to me a problem. Now thinking that your "sect" is the ONLY way and truth, well... we know how I feel about these people.

 

[Poeticus]

what happened? I have been offline being busy for a while so totally missed the troll.

It was a Neo-Nazi who was fantasizing about....well....you get the gist.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

what happened? I have been offline being busy for a while so totally missed the troll.

The troll kAlicharaN was talking about was Aryana Bactrian on the shishnadevA thread.

I can honestly say I have never read the text that you all speak of so I am getting a little lost when it comes to the specifics. Yet I would like to weigh in, I think every "sect" is a little "sectarian" but I would not say that is entirely a bad thing. I not only think it is okay but I would go as far as to see it is needed, that one view their beliefs are above other even if only for themselves. If you don't believe this, why are you who you are?

I left my old religion for Hinduism, I may believe that spiritual enlightenment is not reserved only for us, but I do believe it is for sure better. If I didn't believe this why would I be a Hindu at all? I value Kali and my worship of her above other Gods. that is not to say I feel they are not important, don't help, or are "weaker" they just are not the ones who speak to me. Like many things in life a feel a healthy level of balance is needed. We must be open minded enough to except others and be willing to learn and grow, but closed minded enough to hold onto who we are and for progression down a good solid road. If you can't make up your mind over what you do or don't believe, how can you be sure that you believe in anything at all?

Feeling that your "sect" is "better" then others for yourself, is not to me a problem. Now thinking that your "sect" is the ONLY way and truth, well... we know how I feel about these people.

I'm not necessarily saying that sectarianism is inherently bad. Rather, I am stating that while shAkta-s as a whole are less sectarian than other Hindus, shAkta scriptures are just as sectarian as those of vaiShNava-s or shaiva-s and some (like the tantra in question) views certain mArga-s as more advanced systems of tantra-sAdhanA.

 

[Kalidas]

The troll kAlicharaN was talking about was Aryana Bactrian on the shishnadevA thread.



I'm not necessarily saying that sectarianism is inherently bad. Rather, I am stating that while shAkta-s as a whole are less sectarian than other Hindus, shAkta scriptures are just as sectarian as those of vaiShNava-s or shaiva-s and some (like the tantra in question) views certain mArga-s as more advanced systems of tantra-sAdhanA.

Makes sense. I would have to say the scriptures you listed have proven your point very well, bravo.