[Advaita-l] Anya Devata

[Satish Arigela]

> durgeti bhadrakALi iti vijayaa vaiShNavi iti cha |
> kumudA chaNDikA kRShNA madhavee kanyaketi cha ||
> mAyA nArAyaNI cha IshAnA shaaradEtyambiketi cha |  10.2.11 - 12
>
> Could these names, Durga, etc., be associated with PaarvatI, the consort of
> Shambhu, Shiva?
>

>>None of the names, as far as I see, have any characteristics of Parvati...
>>Bhavani, Haimavati, Parvati, Dakshayani, Sati, etc.

As far as the purANa-s are concerned no distinction is made between durgA, 
ambikA & pArvati.
I actually find it a bit surprising that a distinction is made here.

In the devI nAma nirukti section of the devI purANa** all these are seen as 
names of one devatA i.e. pArvatI

Or for example take the name kanyaka: it refers to the state of pArvatI as the 
daughter of himavAn before she was married to rudra.

Or for ex bhadrakAlI: technically she emanated from satI-dAkShAyani at the same 
time when vIrabhadra arose from shiva. So the association is clear? So going by 
this kR^iShNa is like a son to pArvatI.. of-course trying to make such human 
relations for devata-s using mythological points would be absurd :-)

In a way asking whether they are associated with devI or saying none of the 
characteristics of pArvati are found is similar to saying....nR^siMha and varAha 
do not display any characteristics of viShNu/nArAyaNa

IMHO this distinction is quite unreasonable.

Also refer to the brahma-vaivarta purANa - prakriti khaNDa where durgA emanates 
from kR^iShNa^^ and is considered as a sister and later she takes birth as 
satI-dAkShAyanI


**which is quite different and much more ancient{some sections are in  existence 
definitely before 100 BC} than the popular devI bhAgavathaM and devi 
mAhatmyaM/saptashati.

^^ Well, not the kR^iShNa in bhArata but a higher kR^iShNa in a place called 
goloka... and the kR^iShNa in bhArata is supposedly only an amsha or 
manifestation of goloka kR^iShNa or something similar...