dear KS --

dear brother in the service of the divine, I am happy you are here.

oh, god, the running question. who came first -- Amma or Appa? (and the second question, behind the veneer of the first one -- "who is more powerful?")

what I understand is that Adi Parashakti is holding the strings and pulling them, that She is the ultimate Shakti to which even Parvati, Laxmi, etc., answer, in this world. (and the G-O-D, Generator Operator Destroyer trio of Brahma Vishnu Shiva.) I'll be interested to hear what some of the Shiva-worshippers on this tribe have to say.

that Maha Durga was created from the divine characters is a kind of later chapter -- last yuga. that the negativity had gotten so enormous that all of the divinity combined (including not only Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva but the devatas, goddesses, rishis, angels, divine souls, etc.) to form Her in response to a rakshasa that none of them could defeat (Mahisasura).

but ultimately Parashakti 'created' Durga, and all the other forms of Herself, through the auspices of the Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva characters.

my understanding is that in the world of forms, Adi Parashakti is the ultimate, most powerful divine energy force. BUT in the world beyond form, She is always pointing to Shiva, the Silence.

the truth, I suppose, is that in the Silence there is always motion, or Jawala (heat) and that in the Jawala there is always Silence and so Shiva and Shakti, in their transcendent states, are both present, in yoga but also in separation.

like a Shiva lingam -- we can't really tell where it begins or ends.

Alx

Dear All,

I will love to answer to the debatable questions posted by all of you. Narayan has put the questions to me in a very authentic manner of Vedanta. I considered his questions are the condensed form of all the questions probable to arise out of the subject of discussion. So in the way of answering him, I have tried to answer all. I have also tried to give the answer of my own question in the way of keeping the beat in context of the thread in the particular tribe by the name of Goddessence, the term based on Agama terminology. Enjoy the fun! Please don't get hurt....

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

>> “You say that Anandamayakosha is "causal state but free from duality" but later in your post you say "beyond anandamayakosha there is no perception." The latter statement seems to imply that perception is present in anandamayakosha. While I would agree with this (based purely on what I have heard my Guru say - I have no personal experience to speak of), there must be duality (i.e. avidya, subject/object divide) for perception to take place.”

<<You are absolutely right, Narayana. The causal state is free from duality in absolute ignorance. According to Vedanta absolute ignorance can not recognise anything even itself. In deep sleep, the experience of the deep sleep is not recognised. But the deep sleep breaks and one recognises deep sleep in awakened state by the process of refutation of anything that is not as the deep sleep state. So perception through negation establishes the experience of deep sleep as ‘no experience’. Who does this analysis? The witness-consciousness remains present even in deep sleep that has witnessed ‘nothing’ and coming down to perceptual state of the vijnanamayakosha recognises through perception the ‘nothing’. This is why you are enjoying a debate on Non-duality establishing through duality only. Vedanta says (check it up with your Guru), you can not establish a truth that you have not realised yourself. One who has experienced can indicate ‘It’ (Tat) to be Truth (Sat). If you have accepted that you have not realised, why are you participating in a debate? If you have heard it from your Guru it is for your practise not to be discussed. Forgive me as a friend, I am really eager to discuss and don’t want you to stop but just stated the rules of Vedanta along Nyaya because this is strictly followed in the Vedanta debate system; just for information. Because if one accepts that perception is duality, then the whole concept of Vedanta can never be Non-duality because it is taught and learned through perception only. The witness-consciousness can realise, which is an attribute to the Self and leaves Self in a paradox of self-contradiction (chakradosha) in its own logic system.

I am a Buddhist Tantrika who does not accept nirguna is anything but another concept through perception but beforehand practiced and studied Vedanta for 12 years under one of the most celebrated Vedanta masters in India. I could not check ‘playing the Vedantic fool’ to get into your discussion from the standpoint of nirguna or Non-duality. I mentioned it that the Agamis find the anandamayakosha as Self-perceptual. The seed of perception remains in anandamayakosha to have the feeling of bliss or ananda.


>>Also, thanks for correcting my interpretation of the koshas. I've heard various interpretations but, let's face it, the vast majority of those talking are just parroting things they've heard or read. And the ones who have fully explored the koshas - how do we know they would use only these names and not others to refer to them?

<< “Word is not Truth, but indicative of Truth” – This is the version of Vedanta. So words do not matter, according to Vedanta, to indicate the Truth. In that logic it is impossible to mark who is speaking realisation and who is speaking hearsay. But Shaiva-Baudhas, all Agamis, accept Word (Vak) to be primordial reflection of Truth and just by witnessing the words used in the expression of a realiser marks the realiser while words mark the heretic. I being an Agami, am very careful about words because perfect words are expressions of perfect realisation. If not, there should be no words to indicate Truth because, taking for granted that words cannot express the Truth, why falsely use words? This is why in Kathaponishada it has been mentioned that one who has not experienced samadhi and explains samadhi or a realisation regarding samadhi or asserts postulations based on samadhi, is a ‘mother-fucker’ (matrigamanakari).
Please forgive my sincerity (nishthha) to the rules of discussing anything in respect to Non-duality. Western practitioners of Yoga practice asana-pranayama without yama-niyama, which is like a ‘pregnant sterile woman’ according to Yogasiddhanta of Patanjali. In the same way Western Vedantists discuss and participate in debate with authoritative claims followed by sarcasms and challenges without the concern of Nyaya logic without which discussing or debating on Vedanta is ‘pregnant sterile woman’ according to Adi Shankaracharya.

>> It cannot, that's my whole point. How the devotee chooses to conceive of God is purely a matter of personal preference. God is equally present and absent in all names and forms. This naturally implies complete religious tolerance, a foundation tenet of Hinduism.

<< Can “personal preference” and “devotional choice” go in parallel with recognition of Non-duality? Or Non-duality is asserted from the state of avidya to be respected as settled understanding of Non-duality? Is realisation of Non-duality as Truth limited by Hindu-ism?
Just for fun of the debate!

>>God cannot be claimed, but in some mysterious way She can be felt.
<< See, you have subconsciously claimed God to be “She”! Mysterious ways are not accepted in realisation of Truth, according to Vedanta. If you are asserting Truth of Non-duality, why are you establishing mysterious conceptions?

>>: So when the question of Primordial One comes, from which kosha this thought appears? :
Haha! You posted the question - you tell me!

<<This is what I call fun. In the other way, you assert it by answering the question. The moment you are answering the question, you are caught into the trap of the question. Would you call it maya?
All questions and answers come from vijnanamaya and manamaya koshas. One who has not yet realised the anandamayakosha cannot answer from vijnanamaya or manamaya kosha the truth of anandamayakosha. If one does so, would be called a heretic and is crossing the rules of Nyaya, the logic-spine of Vedanta. This is how remaining in avidya a person claiming paravidya or realisation is ‘absurd’ according to Nyaya.

>>Regardless of whether or not the non-dual state is present or absent in any kosha, it cannot be recognized, for there is no separate subject in relation to which "it" could function as an object. There is nothing that can be said about "it", because saying anything implies a subject doing the speaking and an object which is being spoken of. The very use of language in relation to "it" is absurd. "It" is attributeless - Nirguna. There's no handle by which to grasp it. Like Adya said, you can't even assign a pronoun (He? She? It? none apply) to it.
<<Remember all your assertions as the answers of my question fall under the trap of “It” is attributeless – Nirguna.” “It” I used as a translation of “Tat”. You can use “That” or “Such” also for “Tat” to assert “Sat”, Truth. This is another point of self-contradiction of Vedanta where it speaks, that Truth is “not in the grasp of word or mind (avangmanasagocharam).” And still speaks and asserts…..


>>I hope I haven't opened a proverbial "Pandora's box".... Maybe we can at least agree to disagree.

<<Yes you have! When you speak Vedanta you have to speak in terms of Nyaya, because Nyaya is the supportive logic to Vedanta. If we agree to disagree we are in difference that is Duality. How Non-duality can be discussed from a dual stand point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The primordial question in this thread about The Primordial One was in reference to the context of Sri Sri Saptasati, a text of Shaktagama compilation in the Yamalas. A debate on a particular subject should not go beyond the frame of the particular subject and its premises. The Shaktagamas claim She to be primordial, call Her Maya or Brahman, it applies to the same Truth. The term ‘maya’ occurs with two different idioms in two opposite schools.

The term ‘maya’ in Sanskrit means:
ma (no/nothing/negation) + ya (She/Prakriti/Nature)

According to Vedanta – ma (negation) of ya (Nature/Prakriti), which means the Prakriti or multidiversity, does not exist. So, maya is ‘ignorance’ which is ‘inexplicable’ (anirvachaneeya) but said to be ‘false’ (mithya). The Nature of mithya according to Vedanta ‘appears to be but not’ (tatbhavati tatprakarak).
The greatest logic against this idiom of maya by Vedanta, is – why take the help of maya (duality) to prove Non-duality? Is Non-duality not free from maya that it takes the help of word and logic when Truth is not within the grasp of word and mind? This self-contradiction of Vedanta proves Vedanta discussions as mere intellectual speculation, that we are doing now, because the term ‘Non-duality’ itself is based on the basic term ‘duality’ and self-refuted by the prefix ‘non’. So the Vedantic logic stands against itself in the way of proving maya. If it doesn’t exist, why are you discussing about it?

According to Agama, maya means:
ma (nothing) is ya (She/Prakriti/Nature) which means Being but Nothing. So everything is maya, even the concept of Brahman/Atman/God so long it is defined in terms of differentials. “Nothing but maya, exists” is the declaration of Shaktagama. So from sensation of the body, to experience of prana, to recognition of mind, to memory of intellect, up to assertion on negation from the standpoint of identity (witness-consciousness or others) of the ‘Great Expanse’ (Brahman) is verily Maya Herself. So beyond perception is the experience of the child in the womb of Being but Nothing, Maya, makes the conception of The Primordial One as The Mother.

That is why Saptasati describes The Mother emanating as the three standpoints of Creation, Operation, and Destruction, to combine as the Father God. The term ‘Maya’ being used as feminine gender in Sanskrit grammar for definite reasons according to Agama, is The Mother Consciousness that emanates all other consciousness forms. Tantra asserts this truth by recognising woman as the embodiment of The Primordial One supported by the physiological extra capabilities over to a man present in female form together with male attributes:
1. Mammary glands, ovaries, clitoris (protopenital form), vagina.
2. Common hormones (male/female) as well as extra female hormones.
3. Anahataguptakamal/ secret-heart-plexus, comprising of eight petalled lotus to experience the eightfold-nature (five senses, mind, intellect, ego) in one go through the experience of Love. If a man is born with this extra plexus, would be called Ardhanarishwara, or an authentic Avatar of Shiva-Shakti.
4. Extra sensory perception known as intuition developed through human evolutionary rules from animal instinct. To get to this intuitive nature, a man has to practice a lot of basics of experiential meditations to forget the over-doing of the left lobe, the right lobe being the experiential quotient.
5. Right lobe being more prominent in woman makes woman fast in the queue of spirituality which is primarily a subjective quest.
6. The enchanting power that works over all men including Shiva The Primordial Man (see Adi Shankaracharya’s Anandalahari and Sundaryalahari deductions).

Supportive of Tantra, the modern genetic scientists found that all primordial species are female in nature!!!!! The modern genetic engineers, trying in the way of cloning, depend upon female species. The tantric dakinis of past India had the secret of only conceiving female children to carry on the matriarchy (see the birth of Bhagirat, said to be born out of two women without a man, by the boon of Shiva, Shivapurana). Lord Buddha has personified Wisdom as Mother Tara The Saviouress. In Ashtasastrika Prajnaparamita, Nirvana is metaphorised as the experience in the womb of Voidness.

How Maya can be Voidness? Because ‘Ma’ means Nothingness and ‘ya’ means She. Maya is the Matrix of the Trinity according to Agama (Sankhya) as well as Vedanta. The Trinity is the inseparable three gunas corresponding to the inseparable three understandings of dual, non-dual, dual-nondual, reflecting in the inseparable three attitudes of will-, knowledge-, action-powers. So long the three points of the Trinity are not equal, there is always room for partiality and viewpoints of subject-object relational contradictions. Hence maya is avidya according to Vedanta. But based on the same understanding, Maya is Mahavidya according to Tantra; the logic is, the balance of the three gunas, shaktis, and bhavas, is Voidness (gunasamyetisunyaam).
So why recognise maya as mithya/felix? Because one in mithya/felix cannot but recognise Existence as such; with temporal eyes they recognise Existence as temporary, considering on the point of ever-changefulness. Thus the incapability is expressed by the mindful words of a ‘mayavadin’ (those who prove their Truth against maya by taking the sole help of maya). While Tantra calls The Primordial One Adyashakti (feminine gender usage of Sanskrit grammar). So according to Tantra, the outer nature of Maya, being changefulness, is the Becoming, while the inner nature of Maya is the indispensable Being. Being in Becoming is the Truth of dual-nondual Oneness. Shiva is the Guru of Tantra through whom the Primordial Energy, Adyashakti is flowing as The Word. Without Shiva, there is no perception of Adyashakti, so, in vijnanamayakosha Shiva is the perceiver and Adyashakti is the perception, in anandamayakosha the perceiver Shiva and the perception Adyashakti is one and the same as experience without recognition as the causal state. But the transcendental state which transcends even the causal state only perceived through the causal state in the descending order or manifestation of the flowing down Primordial Consciousness into identity in order to recognise causal state consciousness or the Witness-consciousness, is in experience ‘known as’ “Perceptionless-Perception” or Perceptionless flowing through perception. Thus the realisation of The Paradox makes one come to The Balance. Thus the Gods created out of The Primordial Energy emit together their inexplicable emotions against Mahisasura (the demon of lower nature) in their pranic flow that takes the manifested astral body of Durga that kills the demon and merges back into the Gods. One who understands this mysticism is no more within the boundaries of mysteries because one knows the Oneness of the five elements / five koshas as well as the specific differentiations of them. Thus one equally traversed through Oneness and Many-ness, Nirvana and Samsara, Reality and Relativity, End and Means, Wisdom and Compassion…. can remain in the Truth of parallelity of duality and Non-duality in Togetherness. This is known as the ultimatum of Tantra called Sahaja the Spontaneity.

Though the Agamis and the Vedantists have got into a funny admixture today, it is very difficult to see or conceive the Existence with its all variables from the standpoint of singularity of Truth. But the Vedantists again and again get trapped in the attraction of maya because most of the time they go through intellectual speculation depending upon hearsay. In the same way, going through the great challenge of the Agami Gurus, Adi Shankaracharya, came down in his later life to praise saguna in contrary to his nirguna assertions; Anandalahari, Sundaryalahari, Bhajagovinda, Kalavairabashtaka, etc. marks this grounding.

The tribe we are discussing in is called Goddessence. Discussing in Goddessence I tried to keep the essence of The Goddess as it is. When a fight is deeply observed, it turns to a game. When a game is deeply observed, it turns to a fun. The fun is, just for the fun of debate:
There is a man in Wo-man.
There is Adam in M-adam.
There is he in S-he.

So The Primordial One is The Mother, even of Shiva!!!!! :)

By the Agama logic and rule of the essence of The Goddess, in the thread of “Who is The Primordial One” in the tribe of Goddessence, thus comes the conclusion of Kulavadhuta Satpurananda’s self questioning and answering session. Discussions may still carry on for fun!

The primordial One is...the primordial One. We can ascribe gender and names as we like, but it doesn't change what is. There is one primordial Consciousness-Energy (citta-shakti) that pervades and is the context of arising for all beings, forms, and realms of existence. Some call It Ram or Krishna, some Shiva or Shakti, others Buddha, or the God of the monothesitsic religions. Does anyone on this forum doubt they are all the same? One God Essence - many Names and Forms. To that One bow - Tat Tvam Asi.

.
.
.
Stare at candle flame
long enough without blinking
two candles appear.