Thank you Kuru, but it is only through the Guru's grace and the works of the pūrvācāryas that I can give short saṃgrahas on this topic. In Śrī Vaiṣṇava, there is a concept called Mārjāranyāya, where the bhakta, through prapatti or absolute surrender to Bhagavān, is delivered from Saṃsāra, like how a mother cat picks up a kitten by the scruff of her neck, but as I had mentioned in another comment, what constitutes a bhakta (sadbhakta, but it is obvious that when I say bhakta, I am referring to a true bhakta) is very difficult for most people to reach. This practice of absolute surrender is difficult, as without the right saṃskāras from prior births, it is hard to develop surrender to Īśvara whom most of us have never seen or felt. The other means, which is through prayatna or abhyāsa is more complex, but is more reliable, but can cause these ill-effects. Also, I would like to add a point. I came up with the example of takra off the top of my head, because for the past week, I had been researching Indian cows, and butter preparation. Usually, butter is prized, and takra is either not given much importance, or is said to be discarded, according to the śāstras. Yet, we see that it is praised in Āyurveda, and even in the Veda itself, as re-igniting the digestive fire of Indradeva, who was left tired and battered after the fight with Vṛtra. I took the example of butter, which is usually considered desired or as the essence of milk, and inverted it into saṃskāras, because for one, it is the 'dense' or coagulated product of churned curd, and second, it is something we are not willing to part with, viz. hold prized. As we offer in homakuṇḍa that which is prized to us, like literal ghee, fine silk garments, and various herbs, we should offer our ego which I have likened with butter, which is purified by tapāgni into ghṛta or ghee here. I am explaining twice, because again, in our Śāstras, it is said that butter is the essence, but we must realize that the analogy obviously extends only insofar as it has explanatory value. In texts, we often find that the same object may have opposing meanings. In the Śvetāśvataropaniṣad, Bramhan is likened to the cosmic tree, whereas in the Kaṭhopaniṣad, and in the Bhagavad Gīta, the upside-down Aśvattha tree is likened to the branching, expansive saṃsāra which we must cut down with the axe of viveka. I just want to make it clear to other readers, that the analogy must not be taken beyond its explanatory value, or that this buttermilk is somehow more auspicious than ghee. However, it is very high in protein, healthy sugars, and is crisp and slightly acidic because it has lost its fat for anyone interested in trying it.

Hello Mike Leonard, can i please know what is the difference between brahmrishi and mahabrahmrishi is there a class of rishi above it ?. Thankyou

Dear Kashik. Siddhis are not obstacles. They are good. There are 2 ways to look at siddhis: 1) Siddhis exist so that we can self-verify our progress in the sadhana. If no siddhi/power arises even after many years of sadhana, it means that there is some imperfection in the sadhana. So it is right to aim to get siddhis, as it would help in perfecting/rectifying mistakes in the sadhana. But one should understand that siddhis are only indications(by-products) of evolution of the soul. Tantras encourage becoming siddhas, because siddhis can be achieved only by proper sadhana, and by instructing aspirants to attain siddhis, the tantras indirectly instruct them to do the sadhana with utmost perfection. This sadhana with utmost perfection leads ultimately to self realization, which cannot be attained otherwise. Self realization is itself a siddhi, the highest one. 2) Siddhis are also considered as a test for the soul. If someone misuses recently attained Siddhis, he incurs a sin, hence making it difficult for him to attain the higher (more powerful) siddhis (If he misuses weak siddhis, how can he be allowed to get the powerful ones?). If he passes all the tests by using his siddhis only for the pleasure of the devata, the devata grants him the most powerful, highest siddhi, self realization. Final note: Hence, it is good to attain siddhis. They are not obstacles in the evolution of the soul, rather they are by-products(oblations) that should be used in the next stage of the yagnya of self realization. The only obstacle is the person himself. Are you going to misuse and lose everything, or are you going to use it to progressively attain self realization.

Extremely, extremely well said Tvaritha. Couldn't have put in better myself, in fact these three comments by you should be worthy of an article and published by krishna as they touch upon extremely important fundamentals of sadhana and the spiritual path I am especially impressed by "Whatever saṃskāras may surface are like this ghee, which we offer as havis to Paramātman in whatever form, be it Śiva, Devī, Viṣṇu, etc. What is left over, is the takra that represents our innate nature." Often times, seekers who choose to take up this path are very frightened to give up what they may regard as themself, and when it is titled as samskaras in the practice of kriya yoga or shaktipath it is easier for them. But in without kriya yoga or shaktipath, in actual practice the confrontation of giving up what is regarded as oneself (in actuality samskaras) frightens many aspiring sadhakas and causes hesitation and fickle mindedness. It is important to understand that what is underneath, what remains when all else is erased, that is the true self, as you put it underneath the samskaras is the innate nature. There need not be any fear of losing the self for the true self is what remains when all else is erased. Thank you for being here Tvaritha and I am looking forward to interacting with you more in the future.

I would also like to add another example, to illustrate the principles of churning. When we make ghee by bilona method or curd method, we get butter, and we get takra or buttermilk (Note that this takra is not the same buttermilk we get in most stores, and is a bit stronger and much more filling). In yajña, we offer the ghee obtained from this butter as oblations, and we consume the takra. Whatever saṃskāras may surface are like this ghee, which we offer as havis to Paramātman in whatever form, be it Śiva, Devī, Viṣṇu, etc. What is left over, is the takra that represents our innate nature. There is a popular adage or subhāṣita, that says even Indradeva (Śakra) is covetous of this takra. Why? Bhūloka is the karmabhūmi, where we can actively discriminate between sat and asat, to obtain this takra. Hence, when we have been lucky enough to obtain some spiritual knowledge in our highly desired human births, we must strive to develop this strength of discrimination. Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa in his bālasvarūpa, which we worship as Guruvāyurappan is also called navanītacora for this reason. He climbs up high, hard to reach places to where the pots or ghaṭas representative of our egoic defenses are hung, and steals this butter leaving us with the takra. I would like to clarify one thing, because I make it seem like butter or ghee is inauspicious, but when it represents the ego, it is not representing something that is inherently evil. It is something that is intensely personal or prized to us. When it is identified as oneself, it is the cause of bondage, but when it is poured into the homakuṇḍa, it becomes the favourite havis of the Devas. In Śrīvidyā, you will find similar schemas, where the 64 koṭi Yoginīs of Parābhaṭṭārikā themselves cause bondage of the paśu, and themselves deliver liberation to the sādhaka. Namo Nārāyaṇaya!

Without contradicting Gurujī, we can understand that the time it takes for a practice to yield fruit depends on the past-life karmas, and temperament of the individual. In some individuals, this absorption might happen spontaneously or without effort, in some people, it might take decades, and in others, months to years. 12 years (speculatively) might have been an approximation for the average reader, or an exaggeration so the practitioner does not drop the yoga prematurely. Generally, it is thought that kuṇḍalinīyoga requires a Guru's guidance. I will explain why. When she rises through the svādhiṣṭhānacakra, she can generate immense lust or libido, and other feelings in the sādhaka, which may derail him from sādhanā. In that case, the Guru might prescribe remedial practices like a cooling prāṇāyāma or mantra, or even expiatory mantras for any lapses in conduct during this period. Similarly, as she pierces through the 3 granthis, she may trigger strong, negative feelings as she does mathana of our prior conditionings, which exists in our subtle body as attachments or tendencies, which we call saṃskāras and vāsanas. Piercing of the brahmagranthi MAY be accompanied by an intense fear, even without an object to fear, which is terrifying. Since we don't know the object, we cannot hide from it or run away, and may be forced to drop the practice. When Viṣṇugranthi is pierced, we MIGHT lose all sense of control, and be thrown into nihilism. When rudragranthi is pierced, we MIGHT find that our entire understanding, including darśana, siddhānta, and so on and so forth are ultimately meaningless, which can severely agitate the mind. If you recollect the story of the churning of the ocean, the hālāhala poison was the first to arise, before even Lakṣmī and other great wonders. All of this requires a Guru, who is a reservoir of grace, who can correct our misunderstandings, eliminate our fears and doubts, and keep us steady in our practice. Note, I have put MAY and MIGHT in caps as these are possible effects, and the same does not happen to everyone.

Namaste Kashik. It is only by the grace of the Guru that I can attempt to even begin to explain these things. Yesterday, I might not have made something clear, so I would like to add a few points. It is not that siddhis aren't real, as we believe them to be a byproduct of sādhanā. It is just that one must exert severe restraint even when one has acquired these Siddhis. I will illustrate a popular example from one of the discourses of Śṛṅgerī Jyeṣṭha Mahāsannidhānam. Bhagavān Ādi Śaṅkarācārya had a siddhi called pādukasiddhi, which is similar to what we call 'teleportation', yet he only used it once. When? To return to Kalady to perform his dying mother's final rites. The question then arises, why does a jīvanmukta not display Siddhis often? They are without ego, so they cannot 'fall' from their state. The answer is, once liberated, they are firmly established in Brahmānanda. We may experience flashes of this Brahmānanda during moments of intense pleasure, or during meditation, but they are permanently established in it. As a result, they have no preferential desire, other than what is impelled by their prārabdha, they only retain functional desires. (eg; drinking milk or water instead of sewage for nourishment) Also, a popular figure should set an example for those who follow him, and not delude them with magic-tricks. Similarly, the story of Bhagavān entering the body of another to master the 64 arts is also well known. As another footnote, there are some siddhi-like practices, which are actually positive. Take for example laṃbikāyoga. It is the practice where the adept rolls back their tongue behind their uvula and soft palate to catch the (subtle, not literal) nectar that drips from the somasthāna of their sahasrāracakra, which satisfies all hunger and thirst and causes immense bliss during saguṇadhyāna. This is done by practicing khecharimudra, which can happen either spontaneously, or by stretching the tongue incrementally, or by making incisions in the frenulum and allowing it to heal. This practice definitely aids one in achieving liberation as an auxiliary practice (Such practices may be necessary, as we lack the one-pointed focus to achieve liberation through vicāra alone or even spontaneously, which are known as śaktopāya and śāmbhavopāya respectively), but it specifically is absolutely not a necessity for the same. There are many other such practices, and we should discern, with the help of the Guru, what practices might be beneficial for us, and what practices are not. Similarly, mantras are also picked based on the sādhaka's mental makeup, pūrvajanmasaṃskāras and other factors, which is why we say it is important not to mix practices. (Mantraśodhana) If one's mind is predominantly rājasika, a fiery practice might not suit them and a gentler mantra is given first instead. This is not because the second mantra is intrinsically better than the first, but because it is more conducive to the goal of the sādhaka at that moment.

Let it be known that anyone who practices this without permission from a guru who is a jivanmukta will incur a curse

Namste krishna ji, i want to request if possible, could you please publish these 2 stotraa? https://docs.google.com/document/d/19OAvL3H7nzHEU_26NAJJTy-hq2m__B6AlUHyzw857I0/edit?usp=drivesdk https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DbrNxQan9BE8kTRDXbPbgEnq-WuutynOdgTCiTYXhLs/edit?usp=drivesdk and with better translation. Thank you

Namste tvaritha ji, thank you for your wonderful and profound explanation very helpful once again thank you