Parārthārcādhikāra (public worship in public temples) in Śaiva Siddhānta

Paraphrasing SK Ramachandra Rao’s Shiva Kosha,worship of Śiva is of two types

  • Svārtha(home worship/worship in one’s private shrine)
  • Parārtha(worship in a public temple on behalf of others/another person)

The former category of worship is allowed to all in Saiddhāntika Āgama,but the latter category is restricted by the Āgamas to a particular subsection of brahmins alone who are descended from a set of sages directly initiated by Śiva Himself:The sages mentioned vary,but they are usually

  • Kauśika
  • Bharadvāja
  • Kaśyapa
  • Gautama or Nandi(the ape faced attendant of Śiva)
  • Agastya or Atri

This implies only these brahmins who are descendants of the above sages and have been born in families with a heritage of performing the rites of public worship according to the Siddhānta āgama in an unbroken chain,generation after generation,can offer public worship in temples that run according to the Siddhānta. These brahmins in the living tradition are to be revered as forms of Śiva Himself. More crucially,these brahmins belong to a set of gocaras which are in their fold alone now,this marks them out from other ordinary brahmins belonging to these gotras.

A brief investigation about the views and role of Raghunandana and Ānandabhaṭṭa on the existence of Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas in the Kali Yuga

Warning note:This post is not intended to argue against varṇāśrama,but is meant as a preliminary inquiry into the how people viewed themselves in an idealized hierarchical setup.

Anandabhatta presented the Ballālacarita to the influential Kayastha landlord of Nabadwip (navadvīpādhipati) Buddhimanta Khan in 1510 CE. In the 23rd chapter of the second part of the Ballālacarita he is clearly aware of various lines with well recognized kṣatriya and vaiṣya status that are clearly lines of the recent Kaliyuga and not some pre-Mahapadma-Nanda or pre-Paraśurāma era.(some notable kṣatriya lines of unambiguously this era that he names seems to be: Mauryas,Chauhans,Paramaras,Chalukyas,Silharas,etc). He lists the kṣatriya lines as Sūryavaṃśin,Candravamśin,descendants of Kadru and Vinātā and from Prithu. He also names a Candravamśi line of vaiśyas and gives a partial contemporary list of famous vaiśya communities before scathingly mentioning the suvarṇa-vāniks,who were reduced to śudra status by Ballālasena in the course of their conflict with him.
Raghunandana is born in 1510 CE with his literary activity centred in Nabadwip(and presumably patronized by the same influential Kayastha landlords’ line) and lived uptil 1580(using Kane’s dating at the time). Given the changing political scenario at that time(Bengal coming under Mughal rule) it is more likely he recieved local Kayastha landlord patronage(which was influential and powerful enough to integrate even Rajputs from outside Bengal into it:The case of Purandar Basu Khan integrating the Rajput chieftains Surasimha and Rudrasimha into the Kayastha samaj of Western Bengal(Dakshin Rarh)) rather than needing to Muslim patronage. He(Raghunandana) likely did not have access to the same resources as Anandabhatta and thus stated,extrapolating from what he saw around him in his specific region of Bengal that there were no varṇas except brāhmaṇas and śudras (and he extrapolates this situation backward to being in vogue since the time of Mahāpadma Nanda the son of Mahānandin). I do not have enough data to speculate on why he did not have more data about jātis of other regions and their statuses or the social setups of other prāntas. I am reproducing his quotation from Kane’s work below(from the Śuddhitattva).

Gaṇapati as Brahman who humbles Vāyu Agni and other Gods and shows a Viśvarūpa form

This section is taken from the Gaṇeśa Purāṇa,11th chapter of the Krīḍā khaṇḍa. The relevant one is being posted here

इन्द्र उवाच:

न दृष्टो’स्य गुणोत्कर्षस्तावन्मान्यो भवेत्कथम्।
क उवाच:

ततो दिदेश वायुं स नयैनं व्योममण्डलम्।
तस्याज्ञानुपदं वायुर्युगान्तसदृशो ववौ।
आन्दोलयन्सर्वलोकं भ्रामयन् कुधरान्भृशम्॥
अकालप्रलयः किं नु प्रारब्धो लोकनाशनः।
इत्येवं भृशसंविग्ना ऋषयश्च चकम्पिरे॥
भग्ने वायौ तु संप्राह शुम्भाणं पाकशासनः।
दहैनं त्वं बटुं शीघ्रं द्रष्टव्या शक्तिरद्य ते।
तदाज्ञां शिरसा गुह्यं जगाम तमुषर्बुधः।
निर्दहन्निव त्रींल्लोकान्प्रलयानलसन्निभः॥
भस्मीकर्तुं दुमान्सर्वान्शोषयन्सर्वसागरान्।
तं दहन्तं जनान्सर्वान्दृष्ट्वा कश्यपनन्दनः।
तत्क्षणादगिलद्रोगी भेषजं गुटुकामिव।
गिलिते तादृशे वह्नौ क्रोधसंरक्तलोचनः॥
सहस्रलोचनो लोकां’लोकयत्सर्वलोचनैः।
तावद्ददर्श तं तत्र सहस्राधिकलोचनम्॥
असंख्यशीर्षमुकुटमनन्तश्रोत्रसंयुतम्।
अनन्तहस्तचरणमनन्तोदारविक्रमम्॥
शशिसूर्याग्निनयनं शिरस व्यापनभस्तलम्।
सप्तपातालचरणम् सप्तलोकैकमस्तकम्॥
असंख्यसूर्यसंकाशमसंख्येन्द्रसुसेवितम्।
असंक्श्यकेशसंयुक्तं नानाब्रह्माण्डरोमकम्॥
आमूलाग्राद्यथा वृक्षे भवन्त्यौदुम्बराणि वै।
औदुम्बरे वा मशकाः संख्यातीता भवन्ति हि॥
तथैवैकैकरोमाञ्चं संख्यातीताण्डसंयुतम्।
पस्यंस्तत्रवैकतरं भ्रान्तःशक्रो विवेश ह॥
पश्यन्ति स्म स तन्मध्ये त्रैलोक्यं सचराचरम्।
अरण्यकदलीकोशपत्रे पत्रे यथा फलम्॥
असंख्यातं जगत्तत्र पश्यति स्म शचीपतिः।
बभ्राम भ्रान्तचित्तो’सौ नालभन्निर्गमं ततः॥

indra uvāca:

na dṛṣṭo’sya guṇotkarṣastāvanmānyo bhavetkatham।
ka uvāca:

tato dideśa vāyuṃ sa nayainaṃ vyomamaṇḍalam।
tasyājñānupadaṃ vāyuryugāntasadṛśo vavau।
āndolayansarvalokaṃ bhrāmayan kudharānbhṛśam॥
akālapralayaḥ kiṃ nu prārabdho lokanāśanaḥ।
ityevaṃ bhṛśasaṃvignā ṛṣayaśca cakampire॥
bhagne vāyau tu saṃprāha śumbhāṇaṃ pākaśāsanaḥ।
dahainaṃ tvaṃ baṭuṃ śīghraṃ draṣṭavyā śaktiradya te।
tadājñāṃ śirasā guhyaṃ jagāma tamuṣarbudhaḥ।
nirdahanniva trīṃllokānpralayānalasannibhaḥ॥
bhasmīkartuṃ dumānsarvānśoṣayansarvasāgarān।
taṃ dahantaṃ janānsarvāndṛṣṭvā kaśyapanandanaḥ।
tatkṣaṇādagiladrogī bheṣajaṃ guṭukāmiva।
gilite tādṛśe vahnau krodhasaṃraktalocanaḥ॥
sahasralocano lokāṃ’lokayatsarvalocanaiḥ।
tāvaddadarśa taṃ tatra sahasrādhikalocanam॥
asaṃkhyaśīrṣamukuṭamanantaśrotrasaṃyutam।
anantahastacaraṇamanantodāravikramam॥
śaśisūryāgninayanaṃ śirasa vyāpanabhastalam।
saptapātālacaraṇam saptalokaikamastakam॥
asaṃkhyasūryasaṃkāśamasaṃkhyendrasusevitam।
asaṃkśyakeśasaṃyuktaṃ nānābrahmāṇḍaromakam॥
āmūlāgrādyathā vṛkṣe bhavantyaudumbarāṇi vai।
audumbare vā maśakāḥ saṃkhyātītā bhavanti hi॥
tathaivaikaikaromāñcaṃ saṃkhyātītāṇḍasaṃyutam।
pasyaṃstatravaikataraṃ bhrāntaḥśakro viveśa ha॥
paśyanti sma sa tanmadhye trailokyaṃ sacarācaram।
araṇyakadalīkośapatre patre yathā phalam॥
asaṃkhyātaṃ jagattatra paśyati sma śacīpatiḥ।
babhrāma bhrāntacitto’sau nālabhannirgamaṃ tataḥ॥

Basically there are two things happening in this section of this text(I am summarizing):

(1)Indra ordering Vayu and Agni to fetch him,and them displaying all their power and failing to move the boy like Vināyaka(not a single hair of Him moves,and Agni himself gets swallowed like a pill). He then himself goes out with His thousand eyes shining like fire to Vināyaka. This part echoes the 3rd and 4th khaṇḍa of the Kena Upaniṣad.

(2)A ‘universal vision’ of the great Vināyaka,who is brahmasvarūpa. He has more than a thousand eyes,uncountable ears and crowns,eyes of suns,moons and fiire and His hairs filling space,feet being the seven netherworlds,looking like uncountable suns,attended upon by uncountable Indras,and his bodily hairs were several brahmāṇdas…and Indra entered one of them saw the moving and unmoving beings in one of those brahmāṇdas and his mind started wandering and could not find his way out,and then he bowed to Vināyaka.

On right view,Buddhist-coloured deities and Hindu practice

Ths is a novice’s attempt to answer about why the practice of some deities:tArA,chinnamastA(to a small extent vajrayoginI too),vilAsinI also is soiterologically relevant:

[Edit:Please do not take this as some word of shAstra or AchAryavAkya or something,I am not any guru,I am just thinking my thoughts out loud after asking my question and trying to process what I got]

An example of animus Buddhists displayed to Hindu systems can be seen about. This ritual consumption of brahmin flesh(a huge NO in any Hindu system that will ever exist) stems from two sources:(1)A kApAlika background is suggestible,as noted by the offering of brahmapuShpa to gain power as recorded by the author(I am not saying that that system existed in toto like that at Adi Shankara’s time but it transmits some relevant information about a cult with similar practices) and (2)actual dvesha for brAhmaNas,the gurus and systemizers of a lot of the native systems in the first place from where they took our mantras from:Hence these deities under the influence of the Bauddha transmitters took on Bauddha dresses in various aspects(like Rishi,etc)

With deities worshipped by such people,how is it that our people gain mukti?Taking leads from this article suggested by the author of the Kamakotimandali blog suggests that without a proper understanding of the tattvic scheme,such Bauddha upAsakas in the 36 tattva scheme would attain at best Buddhi tattva,mahAdevIing the chintAmaNI she is, granting the sAdhakas according to their view. Or worse,worldly siddhi mainly only more often.

Another thing is that in Hindu views,the deity with the same iconography is interpreted differently. An example is here where the image which is considered that of Arya achala is interpreted as that of krodharAja rudra trampling some demonic yakSha. Sometimes the descriptions in the Astika version are superficially different(sarvasiddhi and sarvabuddhi rather than sarvabuddhaDAkinI).

So the transmissions which have come back to Hindus with that Buddhist dress have in key,a different understanding than the Buddhists of what they are worshipping+when they got back the tranmissions from those who achieved only siddhi,their correct understanding put them on higher states of AdhyAtma than the Bauddhas they got it from.(albeit coloured by the ‘shunya’ type of language they inherited)[because they could understand the tattvas better and the devI granted them a place in those higher tattvas]. Another core difference is a practical respect in terms of ritual to brahmins(in the bhojana anga of the Hindu method of attaining siddhi in mantras).

Addendum by @TheRajarshi:

1. The necromancy practices are still prevalent even among H Kapalika-s (few are there still) but neither done in public nor publicized.
2. The actual consumption is mostly a tokenism in ritual setting to gain powers. 3. The mention of “brahmin” is because brahmins were the ones who had the tapa-shakti, other Vs did not. Same way even today in H viracara when taking a kapalapatra one cannot take random one…. else there is no Shakti in it, and becomes useless. Specific type of kapalas are useful. Guru decides basd on nature of sadhaka/na. Same logic baudhas were using. A kapala of a an individual who was a good yogi/sadhaka is highly prized. Or a chandala for certain rituals.
3.The icons of baudha deities trampling on H (IMO) was result of assimilation + abhicara practices which each group was doing on the other. But by time of Kalacakra tantra the Baudhas had come full circle and accepted H deities without any modification/distortion – post-Islam.
4. Coming to practical upasana Vajrayanists also produced terrific siddhas (not lower level at all if one knows how to judge the level of a siddhi) as did Hindus.

On Jagadguru Pītāmbara Siddhāntavāgīśa,the most famous exponent of the Kāmarūpa school of Dharmaśāstra

On Pītāmbara Siddhāntavāgīśa’s life:Gleanings from his own works

Pītāmbara Siddhāntavāgīśa,the most famous exponent of the Kāmarūpa school of Dharmaśāstra is,in the tradition of many Sanskrit authors,quite rectinent on his personal life. However he mentions the following details

  • Dāyakaumudī:He was born at a place in the Southern part of the Lauhitya(Brahmaputra)
  • He was in a large part taught by his father(the benedictory verse of the Śrāddhakaumudī)
  • He was a smārta devotee of Nārāyaṇa and pays obeisances to Śiva,Durgā and Sūrya also. This last bit can be gleaned from the Daśakarmakaumudī where the term ‘śrīvāsudevamārādhya…’ is used.
  • He mentions in the end of his Śuddhikaumudī that he accomplished this work in 1534 śakābda(1612 CE)
  • In the colophon to his Grahaṇakaumudī he mentions that he was patronized by Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa of Kāmarūpa.

Siddhāntavāgīśa’s life:Gleanings from other sources

  • Bṛhatrājavaṃśāvalī states that Cilārāya the brother of Naranārāyaṇa brought Puruṣottama Vidyāvāgīśa(the author of the grammatical work Ratnamālā) and Pītāmbara from Gauḍa
  • He was also said to be a court poet of Naranārāyaṇa and probably served in the court of Balinārāyaṇa as well.
  • Maṇgaladair Buranji introduces him as the Dīkṣāguru of the king of Daraṇga,who donated a large amount of property in his province and his descendants still live there.
  • Nagendranath Vasu in his Social History of Kamarupa states that his kaumudīs were followed by the kings,citing the Bṛhatrājavaṃśāvalī,which noted that those who violated the rules and regulations of society as laid down for the various varṇas and āśramas of human society and life by Jagadguru Pītāmbara Siddhāntavāgīśa were punished by the king.

Works of Pītāmbara Siddhāntavāgīśa

He is traditionally said to have composed 18 kaumudīs(digests of smṛtiśāstra),which are listed popularly as;

  • Daṇḍakaumudī
  • Pretakaumudī
  • Vṛṣotsargakaumudī
  • Pramāṇakaumudī
  • Śrāddhakaumudī
  • Durgotsavakaumudī
  • Ekādaśīkaumudī
  • Śuddhikaumudī
  • Pratiṣṭhākaumudī
  • Saṃkalpakaumudī
  • Prāyaścittakaumudī
  • Tīrthakaumudī
  • Pañcadīkṣākaumudī
  • Sambandhakaumudī
  • Tithikaumudī
  • Dāyakaumudī
  • Ācārakaumudī

Hiramoni Goswami(on whose introduction this article is based) cites Taranath Goswami’s list as follows

  • Dāyakaumudī
  • Śrāddhakaumudī
  • Malamāsakaumudī
  • Nirṇayakaumudī
  • Sambandhakaumudī
  • Tattvakaumudī
  • Āhnikakaumudī
  • Vivādakaumudī
  • Aśaucakaumudī
  • Tithikaumudī
  • Pretakaumudī
  • Śuddhikaumudī
  • Pañcayajñakaumudī
  • Dīkṣakaumudī
  • Janmāṣṭamīkaumudī
  • Vṛṣotsargakaumudī
  • Saṃskārakaumudī

Hiramoni Goswami also cites Ghanakanta Sarma’s list of Pītāmbara Siddhāntavāgīśa’s kaumudīs which runs into 28

  • Dāyakaumudī
  • Śrāddhakaumudī
  • Malamāsakaumudī
  • Nirṇayakaumudī
  • Sambandhakaumudī
  • Tattvakaumudī
  • Āhnikakaumudī
  • Vivādakaumudī
  • Aśaucakaumudī
  • Tithikaumudī
  • Pretakaumudī
  • Śuddhikaumudī
  • Pañcayajñakaumudī
  • Vṛṣotsargakaumudī
  • Dīkṣākaumudī
  • Janmāṣṭamīkaumudī
  • Saṃkrāntikaumudī
  • Daśakarmakaumudī
  • Tīrthakaumudī
  • Pramāṇakaumudī
  • Patrakaumudī
  • Prāyaścittakaumudī
  • Jyotiṣkaumudī
  • Daṇḍakaumudī
  • Divyakaumudī
  • Sākṣyakaumudī
  • Vyavahārakaumudī
  • Kṛtyakaumudī

Some other works of his that are unpublished amongst digests are Grahaṇakaumudī,etc.(apparently the recently published Śivarātrikaumudī is a part of Durgotsavakaumudī:oral communication). He also is credited with writing commentaries on Vācaspati Miśra’s Dvaitanirṇaya(Dvaitanirṇayadīpikā) and on the tantric digest Śāradātīlaka(Guḍārthaprakāśikā). Very few of his works have been published in print.

Review of Samanya Dharma by Nithin Sridhar

Book title: Samanya Dharma

Author:Nithin Sridhar

This book gives a good introduction to dharma,and what dharmas are common to all humans,but specifically to those who are Hindus(since devotion to devas and gurus is definitely a part of some of its definitions,which are more expanded versions of the more concise definitions that don’t explicitly state it). It notes the seeds of these ideas in various shrutivAkyas and then nicely,in various places puts them as elucidated in various smR^itis and purANas,and notes their social benefit and usefulness/importance in yoga of all forms(pAta~njala,bhaktimArga,etc) and sAdhanA.

This is a book that is useful in educating Hindus about the basic dharma-s that they need to follow,especially in an era where certain classes of middle-class people do not have anything substantial to explain dharma beyond ‘way of life’ platitudes,and claiming ‘anything goes’ in Hinduism. All in all,a very good,neat little book that I would recommend to any Hindu(and in whatever language they know/speak).

 dharmaviduttamAbhyAm hariharAbhyAm namaH|

(Obeisances to Hari and Hara,the best of knowers of dharma)

On Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa’s so called universalism

It is often said that he said ‘joto mot toto poth'(As many faiths, so many paths). However,from reading Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita,one of the earliest unbiased records on his life,we find a more nuanced picture than the uncritical universalism a lot of people(secularists of Bengal,Ramakrishna mission monks themselves,etc).

He also says next after that

It’s like going to the Kali temple on different roads. Even so, some paths are pure, while others are dirty. One must take a pure path.cvama

Are paths like Islam or Christianity pure?No. Since they are explicitly vedaviruddha and brAhamaNaviruddha. As nArAyaNa utters in the kUrma purANa:na vedabAhye puruShe puNyalesho’ pi sha~Nkara(kUrma purANa 1.15.109). The kUrma also advises

 

So such paths would squarely fall in the domain of ‘impure’ paths,and by Ramakrishna’s standard,to be avoided for sAdhakas. Even in the domains of Astika sAdhanA,Ramakrishna himself was deprecatory of practices involving miThuna(though he did vAmAchAra sAdhana on a pa~nchamuNDi Asana). He again says

Narendra refers to the Tantrik sects of Ghoshpara, Panchanami and others. Thakur describes their practices and condemns them. He says, “They can’t follow spiritual practices correctly. They just satisfy sensual desires in the name of religion.”

….looking on a woman as one’s mistress, the attitude of a ‘hero,’ is beset with difficulties. Tarak’s father used to practice this rite. It is a very difficult path. It is impossible to maintain the correct spirit in this path.

Many of these people conduct themselves according to the Radha Tantra. They practise spiritual disciplines with the five basic elements – earth, water, fire, air, and ether – through the use of excrement, urine, menstrual flow, and semen. It is a very dirty practice, like entering a home through the toilet.

 

…when you come across a wicked person, salute him from a distance. Chaitanya Deva did the same thing. He would restrain his spiritual feelings in the presence of those of a different nature. At Srivas’s home, he forced Srivas’s mother-in-law out of the room, dragging her by the hair.

Note the use of physical force to evict those averse to devotion.

His preferred path as noted elsehwere in the Kathamrita

The path of devotion enjoined by Narada is best suited to this age.

And he truly was an embodiment of that mArga. As seen from quotes like

It(Kashi) brings liberation[10], dear. But I don’t want liberation, I want only love and devotion for God

guNarahitam kAmanArahitam pratikShaNavardhamAnam,,,,says nArada in his sutras. A bhakta does not have even mokSha-kAma,what to speak of worldly kAmas.

I have seen so many faiths, so many paths. Now I don’t like them anymore – they just argue with each other.

This corresponds well with the sutras vAdo nAvalambayaH| and bAhulyAvakAshatvAdaniyatvAt| of the nArada bhakti sutras(The sAdhaka should not take to disputation,for it leads to endless arguments and no certain conclusion).

And when Ramakrishna spoke about ‘harmony between religions’ it was usually situations like this

This book contains beautiful stories of devotees. But the book is dogmatic. It runs down other beliefs.

Is someone who condemns even the mild sectarianism of the bhaktamAla is going to accept the sectarianism inherent in the Mosaic counter-religions exemplified by Islam,etc?

One holy book of the Vaishnavas is the Bhaktamala. It is a beautiful book. It contains nothing but stories about devotees. But it is one-sided. It goes so far in one place as to make the Divine Mother[5] adopt a Vishnu mantra.

“Once I praised Vaishnavcharan a lot and asked Mathur Babu to invite him to his house. Mathur was very hospitable to him – silver plates for the refreshments. And what did Vaishnavcharan say to Mathur Babu but that without a Krishna mantra nothing would help! Now Mathur Babu is a devout worshiper of the Divine Mother of the Universe. His face reddened. I nudged Vaishnavcharan.

“I think you can find such things in the Srimad Bhagavata also. Such as that without a Krishna mantra it is as difficult to cross the ocean of the world as it is to try to cross a mighty ocean by holding a dog’s tail. All sects talk highly of their own sects alone.

“Shaktas also try to disparage Vaishnavas when they say, ‘Sri Krishna is the pilot of the river of the world; he alone can take one across.’ To this Shaktas reply, ‘Of course this is true. Will the supreme Mother, empress of the universe,[6] row one across Herself? She has engaged this Krishna to do the job.’” (All laugh.)

“What arrogance people show because of their beliefs! There are weavers in my village and in Shyambazar and other places, most of them Vaishnavas. They talk very big. They say, ‘Which Vishnu do they worship? The Vishnu who preserves! We don’t touch him.’ Or ‘Which Shiva? We accept Atmarama Shiva, the Atmarameshwar Shiva.’ One of them says, ‘Tell me which Hari you worship.’ Thereupon another says, ‘No, why should we? Let someone else answer.’ They work at weaving and talk so big.”

“Rati’s mother – the attendant of Rani Katyayani, a member of Vaishnavcharan’s group – was a bigoted Vaishnava. She used to visit here frequently. Her devotion for God was unusual. But as soon as she saw me eating Mother Kali’s prasad she ran away.

“He alone is a real person who has harmonized. Most people are single-minded. But I see all these as one. Shaktas, Vaishnavas, and Vedantists worship the same one Reality. He who is formless also has forms. All are only His different forms.

Brahman without attributes is my father, and God with form is my mother.

Whom shall I blame? Whom shall I worship? The pans of the scale are of equal weight.

“The Tantra also speaks of the same Being as the Vedas. The Puranas also speak of the same Being – Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute. The Absolute belongs to the same as the phenomenal belongs.

“The Veda says, ‘Om Sat-chit-ananda Brahman.’ The Tantra says, ‘Om Sat-chit-ananda Shiva – Shiva only, only Shiva.’ The Purana says, ‘Om Sat-chit-ananda Krishna.’ The Vedas, the Puranas, and the Tantras talk of the same Sat-chit-ananda. And the Vaishnava scriptures also say that Krishna Himself has become Kali.”

His references to harmony were usually of this nature. Scarcely between even Bauddha upAsanA,let alone hostile counter-religions which seek to uproot our traditions. It points to an immense loss of common sense when Ramakrishna’s remarks are extended beyond their intent(ativyApti-dosha).

As for the alleged practice of Islam and Christianity,I have found no mention of any Christ-centred sAdhanA,and he only repeated Islamic mantras for a few days given by a certain Govind Rai. It’s extremely unseemly to ignore his central legacy(of that of a nAradIya style bhakta to devI bhava-tAriNI,disparaging vAma and other impure paths) and instead paint him as someone who was lacking in discrimination. Shri Ram Swarup deals with this issue better than I could in his book on this affair.

homa vidhAnaM for nitya homa

I am uploading a homa vidhAnam I use for daily homa: nitya homa vidhAnam

Also,the keshavAdi chaturviMshati mUrti and their corresponding shaktis are

1. keshava and shrIdevI
2. nArAyaNa and lakShmI
3. mAdhava and kamalA
4. govinda and padmA
5. viShnu and padminI
6. madhusUdana and kamalAlayA
7. trivikrama and ramA
8. vAmana and vR^iSAkapiH
9. shrIdhara and dhanyA
10. hR^iShIkesha and dhanyA
11. padmanAbha and yaj~nAmbA
12. dAmodara and indirA
13. saMkarShaNa and hiraNyA
14. vAsudeva and hariNI
15. pradyumna and satyA
16. aniruddha and nityA
17. puruShottama and AnandA
18. adhokShaja and Atmaj~nA
19. nArasiMha and sukhA
20. achyuta and sugandhA
21. janArdana and sundarI
22. upendra and vidyA
23. hari and sushIlA
24. shrIkR^iShNa and sulakShaNA

Sridevi and other stuff need not be pushed as normative queer icons

Trigger warning:Religion. You can frankly speaking,sod off if you are anti-religious and moan about whatever -ist or patriarch or whatever I am in your cubbyholes.

(It’s primarily a reaction to this glorified blog that is a newspaper column: https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/thank-you-sridevi-our-queer-icon/story-Oy6SST3RhHpSfrWSh9MZZM.html)

we saw the promise of a future where we wouldn’t lie about who we were and what we liked

All of that passes away. Though I wish I had someone in my arms,and someone who I could talk with/at-on the same level.

My queer icons are more off the beat than what activists would put forward. My icons would be the poet Raskhan,and the author Mishima. Only one muddled by activist babblings can not appreciate Mishima’s vīryam(a pale reflection of Samkarṣaṇa’s bala*),or the devotion that Raskhan put to Mādhava,which makes even every single shackle insignificant before long. It is that devotion which grants the freedom from every single shackle as easily as one breaks a rotting thread. And it’s this devotion which is in the very form of jñāna which is very rare to obtain. The yati who carries Lakṣmī’s husband in him has more freedom than any of us will ever have! (Need not even be a yati strictly speaking,Aghoremani Devi is a living testimony to that).

I do recognize that this path(and my inclinations) are not for everyone,though.Few would care,anyway. Maybe I am crazy.

*A reference to Saṃkarṣaṇa’s two predominating qualities amongst the vyūhas.

Pramathanath Mitra -a reminiscience and a lesson needed

So I decided to translate the article linked here,a reminiscence on a founder of the Anushilan Samiti for a friend[archived),and I am now putting this translation(paraphrased a bit here and there) here.

Sri Pramathnath Mitra,one of the supreme founding members of the Anushilan Samiti was an upAsaka of shakti and concerned himself with [physical] strength as well rigorously. He was one of the strongest men amongst Hindu Bengali society of that time. His sole aim was a martial(sAmarika sikShAya sikShita) cadre/race of Bengalis(jAti),and that is why the Anushilan Samiti and the Jugantar(the two fearsome militaristic revolutionary organizations set up and run by Bengali Hindus),from the very moment of its founding(prathama lagna thekei),were clothed with militarism and shakti-bodliy(daihik),mentally(mAnasik),and in character(chAriktrik). Before founding the Anushilan Samiti,in the daily The Bengali(which was edited by Surendranath Banerjee),he wrote an essay on the martial art of lathi khela,and spoke about the need to cultivate a fighting spirit amongst the youth of Bengal.He was a follower of Bankim,and he said this:

“The lathi is the national weapon of Bengal. A Bengalee lathial, properly trained, can with his single lathi keep a dozen of swordsmen at bay.

It is a healthy outdoor exercise. As an art of offence and defence it combines in itself the skill required, in the bayonet exercise and the sword exercise. It gives full play to the exercise of muscles. It necessitates the cultivation of the quickness of the eye and quickness of the movement of every limb, which is a very favourable growth of the resourcefulness, activity of the body, strength of muscle and sinew and keenness of the observation and above all, it inspires confidence in its possessor. It is a purely national art and inexpensive. We should be unwise if we allow it to die away from our midst”.

Even if it was a hundred years ago,what he said still remains a firm truth,and the aim of the Anushilan Samiti is yet unfulfilled[my personal note:Was actually subverted].The Bengali Hindus in 1947 were broken like the Jews,but yet they could not rise up like an Israel anew because they did not follow the path of their very strong/powerful predecessors due to their weakness,and didn’t even attempt to,and instead has gone being like a beggar(bhikhiri),at the expense of others.A beggar has no respect,and he is enjoyable by everyone(ie,everyone makes fun of him/pities him).

Bengali Hindu society has now become like a whore,who will sell off all that is dear to her(j~nAna,buddhi,vidyA,etc) for money(ie,the highest bidder). But she has to live. So,then,what to do?(here I’ve been literal-ish,but I am not able to convey the sense adequately).

If Bengali Hindu society is to survive,it must transform from an amiable-tempered society(sushIl samAj) to a martial society(sAmarik samAj).Let them suffer as many belts or firing squads by the mlecchas,who cares?Discipline and the fear factor should be instilled firmly into the Bengali mind…so…back to basics.