Ok you seem experienced, can you tell me about Dr pillai and his shreem brzee mantra. I think it is made up mantra but many people claim it works.
Really soothing! It’s definitely a combination of her voice and the mantra (I wanna use official names but all rights reserved!) I slept to this last night and my heart rested in some longed for delight!
5 Likes
Ganesha or Ganpati is primarily a remover of obstacles and the symbol of auspiciousness in mainline Hindu traditions. Ganesha(ji) as we call him reverently. Appearing during the Mahabharata, he had ch sen to be a celibate. But the stars so conspired, as they do in mythological stories, that he had two marriages - wives being Riddhi & Siddhi.
The sexual connotations to Lord Ganesh have been given by the breakaway heterodox tantric traditions most likely (pls check) of the Ganpatyas.
Not sure who the singer is, but it really transports me to a different space!!
3 Likes
Yes!!! That’s exactly how it felt!! There was another singer I found her voice really charming but this one has taken away my mind!
/on to find all of those Maoshan recommendations!/
2 Likes
Ganapatya school is very ancient. That Mahabharata says something does not make them heterodox (or heretic as you seem to be hinting at?). Heterodox with regard to what?
In Atharva Samhita, for example, Ganapati is tied to balagrahas along with Skanda, and these Samhitas are older than Bharata. The most celebrated philosopher, Shankaracharya, dismisses Vinayaka in his commentary of Gita as ‘bhuta’ - भूतानि विनायकमातृगणचतुर्भगिन्यादीनि यान्ति भूतेज्या भूतानां पूजकाः. Several hundred years later, all major monasteries established by Shankaracharya invoke Ganesha regularly, ignoring his statement in Gita Bhashya.
The understanding of these deities changes, based on the capacity of the observer, as also the social and cultural contexts at that time. In the Vedic age, Indra was the prototype of perfection while Mahabharata reduces him to an inferior demi-god. Those not eligible for Tantra, dwell on stories and myths (which are certainly of value too) - but Tantra is not about them - it is about archetypes, using practical methods to realize the deity, and become the deity. Acharyas of Ganaptya sects such as Herambasuta and Girijasuta reached heights of Siddhi that most people lecturing on Mahabharata and morality will probably can never ever even imagine.
The point is - there is no mainline Hindu tradition really. Whatever gets perceived as mainline does not date back to anytime earlier than say the sixteenth century. Manu Smriti prescribes whipping women who leave the home without husband’s permission, or boycotting a Brahmana who works for non-Brahmanas and so on. Now, is that “mainline” Hindu tradition?
The beauty of Hindu tradition is that there is no one tradition - one book that dictates A to be true and B to be false. So, your line of thought separating orthodoxy vs heterodoxy w.r.t Hindu tradition seems inaccurate.
13 Likes
Yes all texts spring from socio Pol context and shd b viewed with a pinch of salt.
With reference to Ganesh(ji) as we call him…attaching anything that has sexual connotations is not correct in popular mainstream Hinduism. There are indeed breakaway sects that view dfferent dieties differently. He is seen as vighnaharta the remover or obstacles and shubhkarta the bringer of auspiciousness. That is it. It does not go beyond that into realms of sexuality with respect to him. That dept belongs to the other Gods. 
1 Like
I doubt most of the millions worshipping Shiva in Linga understand either what the Linga stands for?
Also, your view seems to represent mostly the North of India? South India is abundant with temples filled with Ganesha with his Shakti - who is visualized as a goddess or consort.
My point again is - what is mainstream Hinduism? What you say seems like a skwed and narrow regional view which certainly is not really applicable to the highly Tantric Kerala, the Ganesha-centric Tamil Nadu or the Parashurama belt of Karnataka which is filled with Ganapatya images. Are these not “mainstream” Hindus because their ritual and understanding is much more evolved and sophisiticated than their comparatively myth-driven Northern counterparts? The Southern regions seem to preserve ritualistic purity way more than North India (except in places like Kamakhya which adhere to strict codes).
For example, temple worship is mainly derived from Agamas - Veda and earlier Puranas have nothing to do with temples. If temples are part of mainstream Hinduism, then sexual practices are abundant in most Agamas. So what is this mainstream “Hinduism”? I don’t seem to find one common version across the Indian subcontinent. The very simplistic methods of UP and Bihar are Hindu, the highly Tantric worship of Kerala and Assam are also Hindu, the Shiavagama based Tamil Nadu culture is Hindu, the highly smarta and shrauta influenced practices of Karnataka and Andhra are also Hindu - so which of these is really mainstream? None really, each region has their mainstream aspect, although some are more refined and advanced than others.
I think the attempt to homogenize a largely diverse cultural tradition is extremely counter-productive. There really is no right or wrong way, or in the case of highly diverse Indian subcontinent, a mainstream way. I don’t live in India myself, but it is fascinating to see that most North Indians seem to have little to no familiarity with the South Indian culture, religious and metaphysical, while the Southerners seem to understand the North a lot better. Not sure what the dynamic there is…
12 Likes
I agree with Archer on this one. Being a Hindu I find it quite offensive
I heard pillai mantras are made up, but if it works then that’s the power of mantras and the intentions infused into it I guess
2 Likes
Time is precious. I would rather stick with time-tested mantras which have a long history of practice to have a better chance of success than risk wasting time with a potentially made up mantra, no? At least that is how I feel currently. Unlike that Dhyaanguru guy who I know personally, I am not familiar with this person, so cannot really comment on his capability as a seer which enables one to divine/channel mantras.
8 Likes
I’m a South Indian Telugu Hindu and I don’t 
4 Likes
Sex is beautiful, sacred, fun and life-affirming. What is there to get offended? 
Duti Yaga, Bhairavi Chakra, Karmamudra - are all sacred alchemical techniques used since ancient times. Repression is the problem, expression is the solution. 
19 Likes
5 Likes
You missed the point completely.
You are absolutely right. Sex is beautiful. Source of creation. Ultimate unification. For some spiritual.
And Hinduism projects a very liberal outlook on life…what the west fought for as LGBT righs has references in Hinduism too. It’s a beautiful non confining way of life.
What I commented upon is - the association of LORD GANESH with sexual connotations is NOT mainline Hindu tradition.
We have other Gods representing that…
We are pretty organised that way.
If it does exist, it could be part of breakaway, tantric sects.
And yes, the Linga of shiv that is worshipped is a beautiful concept of the a-sthir part of reality…the formless…the constancy of creation by extension…the element of brahm… not to be confused with Brahmaa…
It’s all too beautiful…
And u are right too…most Hindus don’t worry too much about what and how…they just embrace what exists. That’s why HINDUISM is such a popular way of life. We are truly liberal, the perspective of the one looking at it from within or outside matters.
You still don’t get my point.
I am asking you - what is mainline Hindu tradition? Is there one tradition? And is there something that is “mainline”? What is this “mainline” Hinduism based on? Vedas? If so, there is no concept of worship or temples in the Veda - then where was this so-called mainline Hinduism derived from?
If so, who defined it? Scriptural authority? Or regional practices? If regional, how is one region’s practices “mainline”? I pointed out that many many South Indian temples depict Ganesha as Vallabhopeta - with VallabhA aka Siddhi Lakshmi. Are South Indian traditions not “mainline”? One of India’s oldest temples, Kailasanatha in Kanchi, depicts Shodasha Ganpati, sixteen forms of Ganesha, half of who are depicted with consorts. The Shilpa-shastra says - yugalau mithunashilpau - the depiction of a pair - whether in explicit sexual union or not - is a depiction of conjugal harmony between the pair.
The very fact that a certain deity has sexual connotations is causing so much argument here, then how are we laying claim to liberalism?
There is a difference between inquiry, critical thinking, and blind embrace. I am just questioning the latter because it does not reflect the spirit of logic such as Mimamsa or Nyaya, the real spiritual heritage of India which most seem to have abandoned for myths, tales, and Arya-samaj influenced ridicule of ritual and metaphysics.
By the way, I understand the difference between Brahma (it is not brahm) and BrahmA - I have a masters in Sanskrit literature with a focus on Kashmir Shaivism from Varanasi Hindu University
Study, learn, explore - don’t go by what you see around you as “mainstream” - “heterodoxy” etc., as these are extremely subjective observations. While reform movements did get rid of evils such as Sati, untouchability, dowry, etc., they also caused damage by imposing a certain colonial mindset introducing the concept of shame, guilt, etc. especially regarding rituals, tantra, sexuality, etc., which unfortunately seems deeply engraved in India today even as she tries to emerge out of the colonial influence.
Not always a virtue. No wonder critical thinking and a deep understanding are so severely lacking. This is probably a passable attitude for hippies, not for a serious student of any tradition, especially if one expects to gain any serious merit from it. As Vamakshepa, a famed teacher from Assam once said: “Ignorant people who pass by these erotic sculptures clutch their pearls in horror and criticize, sneaking glances at the same time; the curios try to appreciate their sculptural beauty; the devoted explain it away through their closely held myths; the philosopher explains it using concepts and principles to the point of boredom. A Tantravetta (knower of Tantra), however, not just sees but experiences in them the expression of his own Shiva and Shakti (yin and yang) dancing in union, and not a separate concept, entity or an object”.
17 Likes
What a lovely discussion. I find that I resonate with the idea of the sacred in (what others would regard as) the profane. Pardon my scripture, but as I remember it, it goes: “I wanna f**k you like an animal, I wanna feel you from the inside. You get me closer to God.” 
4 Likes
The university that you did your masters from is called the BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY… popularly known as BHU…
It is not Varanasi Hindu University.
One of the most romantic campuses that one sees…with long winding canopied roads…with the energy pure…allowing life to simply…flow…
1 Like
Always.
Indeed it’s highly spiritual and sacred as it takes you to the crest of creation…
And creation is the expression of the absolute …the unity…There is nothing more sacred than creation. It is highly philosophical…at one end…n therefore scholars can debate it as per their perspective.