[Advaita-l] A question for the Keralites (Kolamandala)

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Jaldhar ji
Can you elaborate or point to resources which give some explanations or
rationale - perhaps a more mantra shAstra and deep-psychology based one on
Devi Mahatmyam. Often the explanations are either too esoteric or too banal
(good vs. evil kinda thing).

Not sure if I managed to convey what I had mind. But probably some
explanation/unfoldment which can be related to by an open minded
contemporary Astikas who relates well to some rationale/supporting logic
being given for the various leelas of Devi.

I do appreciate that mantras have power which is invoked by their very
chanting. And it's use in chaNDi homa attests to its sanctity.

Om

On Fri, 25 Oct, 2024, 9:35 am Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Sep 2024, Bhaskar YR wrote:
>
> >>  sumedha (here in South India we translate 'dvijavaryasya medhasaH as
> >>  sumedha only 😊) is Rishi,
>
> I've heard both being used interchangeably.  Sumedha is probably more
> correct though.
>
>
> > suratha is king and samAdhi is Vaishya.  I
> >>  have heard in some discourse the background of devi mAhAtmya is very
> >>  similar to that of geeta.  In geeta it is arjuna's vishAda and in devi
> >>  mAhAtmya suratha and samAdhi-s rAga-dvesha.
>
> Yes.  There are some who as a result of their sukarmas in the past have a
> natural affinity to adhyatma but others only come to it as a result of
> personal sorrows in this life.  This is why Shankaracharya observes that
> Arjuna was only a madhyama not uttama adhikari.  This comes as a surprise
> to some people but it shouldn't.  It is a sign of the daya and prasada of
> Bhagavan that he gave His upadesha to all people not just the elite.
>
>
> >  Yes, there is no details
> >>  available about 'kOlAvidhvaMsi-s'.  kOlAvidhvaMsi might be the
> >>  visheshaNa of some kings' dynasty.
>
> That's what the tikakara's say but _which_ dynasty is the question.
>
>
> >  Prabhuji I am just wondering do we
> >>  really have to dig deep into it when the essence of this text is
> >>  something entirely different and when it is exclusively devi para!!??
> >
>
> Yes in the scheme of things it is a trivial issue but I believe that Devi
> Mahatmya is not just an ordinary Puranic katha but has deep mystical
> significance in every word so should be studied as in-depth as possible
> and from every angle possible.
>
> (and btw I was informed that the royal family of this Kolamandal have
> nothing to do with the Kolavidhvamsis.)
>
> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>