Sadly, there is no link between “constructive activities” and “sticking with the right path” in terms of values,

Carnatic music, etc are purely performative for many of these kids—something to master & carve out a niche place for oneself in terms of skill and something to serve as a source of fame.

If you define right path in terms of religious & moral values, Carnatic music or traditional dance have hardly an impact. Chess, etc-abysmally less significant.

Parents’ upbringing is the one *external* thing that comes closest in terms of having an impact and even that is not at all determinative. At best, it acts as a dam against bad, innate vāsanas or a force multiplier for good, innate vāsanas. That’s all. We see many cases where a child is brought up in a very wholesome, traditional environment (traditional but not autistically absurd/harsh; firm but loving) and yet goes astray.

Problems which arise at the level of Svābhāvika machinery cannot be combatted by a purely empirical/pragmatic approach: parental upbringing, good schools, etc.

A truly potent & “awakened” temple, cleaning up the corrupt practices at temples, ensuring a competent & honest priesthood at every temple. reviving Tīrthakșetras in every nook & corner of the country, revival of Utsavas, mass sponsoring of anāthapreta-samskāras so that no Hindu body ever gets left behind, frequent recitation of Vedas, purāņas & āgamas at every corner of Bhārata, frequent pravacanas by truly learned Vidvāns, dīkșā-s & imparting of ntiyapūjās for eligible ones of all backgrounds—all these will do far more to suppress evil Vāsanas.

It won’t be immediate. May take 2-3 generations to see a truly tangible effect. But this is what I personally feel.

This goes well with the Saiddhāntika conception of Ātmā (Self/Soul) & its inseparable Cicchakti (which is the Ātmā’s individuality). Every Ātmā, when divested of all non-innate, insentient characteristics (form, name, māyā which supplies it with the stream of bodies/faculties through births, karmic baggage, etc), is a unique sentient, whose fundamental nature cannot be further simplified. I was also trying to formulate, yesterday night, the “categorical”/“univeraal” Śivatvam as an analog of the One before I decided to write this morning:

1. Every sentient is *a* Śiva (*a* Cidghana, a unique unit of consciousness) and therefore has an inseparable Cicchakti (individuality), which is but its Śivatvam/Śiva-ness.

2. Imagine a set consisting of every sentient’s Śivatvam. One may therefore speak of a universal Śivatvam, for discussion’s sake.

3. In the Siddhānta, universals are denied—there is no universal separate from the individuals which partake in it.

4. “The One/Śivatvam neither is”—Śivatvam as universal does not exist, separate from individual instances or Śivatvam.

5. “Nor is Śivatvam one”—There is no universal Śivatvam that is ‘one’—i.e. a unique entity—as it cannot partake in itself.

6. Therefore, Śivatvam is an infinite class of members, one for each sentient.

Hope this made some sense: @premavardhanam @EPButler

x.com/premavardhanam…

Typical understanding of Āgama/Tantra that is present in those who have no idea of it.

https://twitter.com/potturirat58839/status/1925804342298218843

Fact is, it is the Āgamika-Tāntrika religion that saved the Vaidika-Paurāņika religion. Firstly, it supplemented the latter in the form of material incorporated into the Purāņas.

Secondly, the developed methods in Tantrāgama have been incorporated into vaidika praxis (nyāsa, mudras, etc).

Thirdly, when the Aupanișada Vidyās and Upāsanas had mostly died off due to broken transmission, it is the Upāsanakrama of the Tantrāgama that was adopted by the Yatis of the different schools of Vedānta: Śrīvidyā by the Advaitīs, Pāñcarātra by the Vaișņavas.

Tantrāgama massively built on Sāńkhyā and its Tattvajñāna has proven to be an invaluable supplement to the Dharma as a whole.

Those who think Tantrāgama is about worship or Kșūdradevatas have zero idea of what they are discussing.

Anyone who ignores the Brāhmaṇa texts of the Veda & the Karmakāṇḍa, and treats them as if they are non-existent, in their overall narrative on the meaning of the Veda, no matter how eloquent they are or sagacious they sound, cannot be authoritative, let alone a Ṛṣi. Problem is even those who affirm the Vedatvam of the Brāhmaṇa texts ignore their importance & their overall interpretative framework makes Śrauta rituals & Karmakāṇḍa redundant & meaningless.

Many Hindus have a very poor appreciation of the importance of ritual/spiritual technology & what it can do. A robust & powerful ritual/metaphysical technology can transform even the most primitive (whether apparent or actual) of religions into something very profound & this can create an extremely strong attachment to the Deity & its coterie which undergird that system, including becoming subjected to that Deity’s limitations (if the Deity is truly not transcendental or “enlightened”).

It’s precisely because of this potential one has to be very careful because getting initiated into a system with such ritual technology can leave a very deep mark/stain “on” the soul (figuratively, since the soul can’t be stained & the actual locus of the mark is the innate malaśakti obscuring the soul but this gets very technical), which can be very difficult to remove without a truly competent master.

Such a mark can prevent a soul from progressing towards the higher end of spiritual traditions & obstruct them from realizing the fruit even if they get initiated into such a higher-end Sampradāya. This is why, in the Siddhānta, prior to Dīkṣā (initiation), a rite called Liṅgoddhāra has to be first performed for a convert from another system in order to remove the mark (Liṅga) from the initiate, though many teachers (particularly those who are completely outside Saṁskṛta scholarship, are exclusively vested in the Tamizh tradition & are not well-versed in the Āgama) are sadly not well-equipped to do this.

Many Hindus often find it cool to clap back with retorts like “all these Abrahma religions are barbaric & worship false gods”, mirroring what the Abrahmas say. What they don’t get is that we have to confront them precisely because they are real & they have complex spiritual technologies which work but are ultimately not beneficial.

In this regard, those in a position to understand should be able to see something like the below & see in it a diminished version of a similar technology used by the Śaiva-Mantramārga (particularly the Siddhānta) &, to a much lesser extent, the Pāñcarātrikas. It also shows how the use of a proper, ritual technology (even if ultimately limited) can transform a religion even if the base framework is primitive/crude .

The below table is based on the Yahudas’ Kabbalah. What parallel concept/ritual technology in the above-mentioned Āstika Sampradāyas does it remind you of? Screenshot in above tweet missed the last column. See this:

While certain paths are open to MahāmlecchādayaH by initiation, a problem they undeniably present is that they can’t be content with being passive spectators. They have to be leaders & reshape the path/system in their image. No ritual space can be closed off to them.

https://twitter.com/shardula23/status/1727262088664645904

A certain Āṅglika Mantravādī of the “Adhvamata” of the Cīnas in this realm is a good example of this tendency. Another example is this priest initiated into the Pāñcarātra, who has taken it upon himself to waive off the applicability of adhikāravidhi for…well…himself.

Came, by chance, across a passage from Aitareyabrāhmaṇa that ties in with the point in the thread below as to how in rituals, the ritualist is given a taste of the universal power (sarvārthakriyā) that becomes manifest in Paramukti. Explanation of the Śruti in subsequent tweets:

https://twitter.com/ghorangirasa/status/1720132834600636927

The Śruti speaks of how the Agnihotrī leads (nayati) humans & all other beings as dakṣiṇā (ritual fees) to the Devas through the evening Agnihotra (hence the rest of creatures in the evening).

Śāstra fails to be taken seriously because of 2 reasons:

1. Where it does contain precious teachings, it fails to be taken seriously because of arrogance on part of a small-minded reader.+++ +++
2. There is an undeniable bit of genuinely uninspired, over-the-top frivolity, which cannot be taken seriously but unfairly offers a justification for some to not take seriously the śāstravākyas in No.1. Such tripe should have been tempered, done away with or explained away.

Dharmadānaparāyaṇā - A name of the old, widowed Goddess.

A very literal & simplistic meaning: She who is devoted to Dharma & Dāna (gift/charity).

A better but still very lay meaning: She who is devoted to the gift of Dharma (righteousness) by destroying the Adharmikas. +++ How a Saiddhāntika will see this beautiful name in light of Tattvajñāna. In the Siddhānta, Śiva’s grace, which is His inseparable Śakti, is seen as being in contact with sentients & insentients at all times. This is explained beautifully in Śrīmat-Mṛgendrāgama 👇🏾

Parāśakti is what you call Paramaśiva in relation to sentients & insentients. But since that Nirmala-Cidghana simultaneously exists in relation to other existents & without such relation, the relationship between Paramaśiva & Parāśakti is taught to be non-different yet different. It can’t be the case that a part of that Nirmala-Cidghana exists outside any relation to other existents while another part relates with the existents (sentients + insentients). There are no parts in any Cidghana Ātmā, let alone that Nirmala-Cidghana known as Paramaśiva.

Those who belong to Satsampradāyas which have Paśubali-krama & defend it in SM, you owe it to your Sampradāya to defend it eloquently with deep Śāstra/Tattva-jñāna at your disposal & avoid the “if you don’t do this, He/She will get angry” line of argument. +++ You belong to the larger world of Śaiva-Śākta mantramārga (36-Tattva system) & your Devata is non-different from the same Nirmala Cidghana-Paramaśiva & His Parāśakti. Portraying that Nirmala-Cidghana as “vengeful”is doctrinally wrong & you end up making Him/Her look like a Paśu.

Prior to Schomerus, see G U Pope, who tried to present Tamizh Siddhānta through a Pretamata lens in his translation of the great Śaiva hymn, “Tiruvācakam”. Such efforts became possible due to Tamizh Śaiva texts being cut off from its root, the Sam̐skṛta Āgama textual tradition.

https://twitter.com/Herran_Ukkonen/status/1700345174772130182

Like it or not, it’s predominantly & sadly “Mleccha-led” research that has completely overturned the myth of Siddhānta’s tamizh origin (the position taken by likes of Pope, Schomerus & others) & has established, once & for all, the pan- Bhāratīya & SE-Asian presence of Siddhānta.

Gurubhakti is absolutely not a substitute for the Śruti’s commandment, “Satyam Vada/ Dharmam̐ Cara”. It ought to be subservient to the latter.

You can’t make hagiographical claims of events in real time & not expect a rigorous, evidence-based assessment of such claims. To approach claims about real-time events with brutal objectivity even if it diminishes your Guru’s legacy to an half or even a mere tenth of the original number of pages of his hagiography - This requires an “Ādhyātmika Pauruṣam/Pum̐ṣṭvam”.

Religion needs common worship & ritual but a competing concern is that young gens across the world increasingly have a “standardised” sense of what they want from a religion & find it important to obtain a “profound/sophisticated” basis for popular rituals, lore/myths, etc.+++

https://twitter.com/granirau/status/1689099342118793216

A case in point is the situation of folkish Daoism in Sim̐hapurī (Daoism has a remarkably sophisticated cosmology, metaphysics & ritual but the way it is articulated & experienced in SG is what matters) vs that of Buddhism.++

A common misconception many Hindus have about the Siddhānta, including many Śaiva-s but also others, is that the Siddhānta is centered on the supremacy of a "particular deity". Yes, Siddhānta upholds Śiva-paratvam but how to understand this? In the Siddhánta, every Ātmā (sentient) is Cidghana (a pure mass of consciousness) whose inseparable Cicchakti consists of knowledge & power. These two are obscured by mala for all sentients except one, who is eternally unlimited & pure & beyond name & form.

A lot of people have asked this question on various forums: "Why are there navagrahas only in Śiva temples governed by siddhānta-āgama-s?" The answer hit me a while ago when I realized that the navagrahas worshiped by Śaiva-s are not the ones we know in this Brahmāṇḍa (which consists of this entire material universe, svarga, naraka-s, asura, rākṣasa, yakṣa, gandharva worlds, etc), which is in Pṛthivī-tattva.

Insight from Skāndapurāṇa: Miracles do not necessarily imply “spiritual correctness”. Good Dhārmikas must internalize this. 👉🏾

https://twitter.com/ghorangirasa/status/1516072450055806977?s=46&t=JRgHUG6kQhYeOnGj4ay84g

https://twitter.com/Caarrnage/status/1667122929480654849

tadadbhutaṃ mahaddṛṣṭvā naiva vipro visiṣmiye/
yato bahuvidhaṃ citraṃ bhavedbhūtādyupāsiṣu//85
taccitreṇa na jahyācca śrutimārgaṃ sanātanam//86

https://twitter.com/ghorangirasa/status/1516072450055806977?s=46&t=JRgHUG6kQhYeOnGj4ay84g

Almost everything you may find distasteful in the large world of tantra (which may constitute a mere 10% of it at the very most) has a prototype/predecessor in the Veda.

Unfortunately, most who do Veda-Tantra-compare-&-contrast know neither of those.

https://twitter.com/2Gaudadhipati/status/1659873909540536321

I’m not going to elaborate the above tweet for the reason given in the tweet quoted below. But will tweet a few things I think are useful (to those who can grasp & extrapolate). See subsequent tweets ++

https://twitter.com/GhorAngirasa/status/1659880131211702272

1. Bhojeśvara (MP), 2. My Son (Vietnam), 3. Bṛhadīśvara (TN) (Not main Liṅga), 4. another such Liṅga from Bṛhadīśvara — zoom into the “face” of each Liṅga. For 3rd & 4th, I drew red lines in parallel to the two markings since it’s been a little eroded by time.





5. Badavaliṅga (KN), 6. A Liṅga at Kailāsanāthasvāmī temple, TN
7. A Liṅga at Pattadakal, KN:
8. Guḍimallam, AP

For 5, I have drawn red lines to help see the markings. There are two questions. What do the markings mean? And what are they based on?+++ commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:7th_…

The Siddhānta explains Kālī as a name denoting the particular function of ŚIva’s śakti in relation to concealing a bound soul’s (Paśu’s) vision. One can clearly see how concealed is his understanding & intellect. 🙂 x.com/ghorangirasa/s… x.com/cestlaviepriya… Just to explain a bit, JBP sees in Kālī’s imagery the Jungian archetype of the Devouring Mother. His own words on that archetype here: 👉🏾

Now that we all had our fun bashing him for his imbecile take, it’s important to understand why his take is idiotic. extrafilespace.wordpress.com/2020/06/04/jor…

In this thread, we have looked at a number of incidents from the Mahābhārata. We take 2 of them & see how Sañjaya describes or narrates them. What are the 2 incidents?

https://twitter.com/GhorAngirasa/status/1631322619806117888

1. The battle between Arjuna & Śrīkaṇṭharudra in the form of a Kirata; and

2. The final battle between Arjuna & Karṇa, where Aśvasena manages to break Arjuna’s kirīṭa.