Is Vamachara marga Dharmic ? [Archive]

rkannan1

14 April 2006, 01:12 AM

The following link has some information on Vamachara Marga from Advaitic view point.

http://www.ambaa.org/archives/frm03286.html

Shankaracharya has clearly condemned this unVedic pratice according to couple of Shankara Vijayas.

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/shankarabio.htm

This is a presentation of his life based on Anandagiri's Shankara Vijaya, Maadhaveeya Shankara Vijaya and works by Swami Apoorvananda.

At Tulaja Bhavani, there lived many Shakta followers of Vamachara. Many of them indulged in practices like Narabali and Yoni Puja. These so called Shaktas indulged in the name of religion, in meat, wine and women and had thus considerably sullied the moral life of society. As a result of their diabolical rituals, people were misled to indulge in many evil practices. The Acharya knew this and therefore decided upon reforming these Vamachara tantrics.
One day during his stay at Tulaja Bhavani, some Vamacharis came to the Acharya and began to abuse him as a hypocritical ascetic. Explaining their own view they said, " The primal source of the world is Shakti and it is her that we worship. There is no importance of your Advaita knowledge whatsoever. You too should follow this creed. This will bring you supreme good".
The Acharya listened to their arguments patiently. Then he said, " There can be no deliverance through senseless rituals by which you claim to please Shakti. In the scriptures it is written that one should never take to meat and wine. By taking meat and wine, you have lowered yourselves. You have stayed away from the region of the Brahman. Do not call yourselves Shaktas any more. Try for deliverance from sins through atonement and by surrendering yourselves to the supreme Brahman".
The followers of Vamachara were filled with self-remorse at these words of the Acharya, full of substance and quite in accordance with the scriptures. The Acharya initiated them into Samayachara worship of the great Goddess and showed them the proper way to attain self- realization. His invaluable works like Prapanchasara Tantra, Tantravatarakrama and the Saundaryalahari acted as guides to the path of liberation by way of worship of the supreme Parashakti , at the same time following the rules laid down in the Vedas.

Here is what Vivekananda says about vamachara marga.

http://www.vivekananda.btinternet.co.uk/veda11.htm

Vol.3: The Vedanta in All Its Phases, pp.340-341.

When I see how much the Vamachara [Tantra] has entered our [Bengali] society, I find it a most disgraceful place, with all of its boast of culture. These Vamachara sects are honeycombing our society in Bengal. Those who come out in the daytime and preach most loudly about achara, it is they who carry on the horrible debauchery at night and are backed by the most dreadful books. They are ordered by the books to do these things. You who are of Bengal know of it. The Bengal Shastras are the Vamachara Tantras. They are published by the cart-load, and you poison the minds of your children with them instead of teaching them our Shrutis. Fathers of Calcutta, do you not feel ashamed that such horrible stuff as these Vamachara Tantras, with translations too, should be put into the hands of your boys and girls, and their minds poisoned, and that they should be brought up with the idea that these are the Shastras of the Hindus? If you are ashamed, take them away from your children and let them read the true Shastras - the Vedas, the Gita and the Upanishads.

ramkish42

14 April 2006, 12:41 PM

http://jalasayanan.tripod.com/nammalvar.bmp

This is my response. For practitioner it will be heaven to do such things but for abstainers it is not so.

As it is said, Wolf might attach a sheep flock. When shepherd drives of the wolf, wolf complains that shepherd blocks natural resources for its survivial offered by lord, whereas sheep praises for shepherd for upholding its survival right offered by lord.

Jai Shree Krishna.

If I am shepherd, I will protect what I am supposed to and I will protect my cult from Vamachara

rkannan1

14 April 2006, 01:39 PM

This is my response. For practitioner it will be heaven to do such things but for abstainers it is not so.

As it is said, Wolf might attach a sheep flock. When shepherd drives of the wolf, wolf complains that shepherd blocks natural resources for its survivial offered by lord, whereas sheep praises for shepherd for upholding its survival right offered by lord.

Jai Shree Krishna.

If I am shepherd, I will protect what I am supposed to and I will protect my cult from Vamachara

This does not seem to be very convincing. Based on this logic every adharmic activity can be made to look dhramic relative to somebody or some circumstance.

Dharma is well defined in Vedas. Vedas say clearly(in one of the Upanishads) that none can obtain Moskha and gain Brahma Jnana without knowing Vedas. All Shastras talk about control of senses, avoiding meat and alcohol, and control of sexual urges. Hence VAmAchArA marga cannot be right at the same time when Vedas reccommend just the opposite teachings.

What is right and wrong cannot be relative.

Arjuna

14 April 2006, 04:45 PM

Namaste,

Seemingly U want to bring this topic again and try to prove Ur opinion on sexual side of Tantrism and Hinduism in general.
Again, i will show it's invalidity. (No one tries to make U a Vamachari or Kaula or convince U to accept Tantric doctrine. What is the problem in fact? Every one is free to choose his path. If U personally aren't fond of Tantrism, it is not a reason to impose Ur views on others and divert the facts.)
I am totally aware of that i won't make U agree with me. Actually i do not try to convince U since i see it as useless thing. But i have to reply to protect the Truth - for the sake of those who may read Ur posts and get deluded about Tantric path. So, again, i do not suggest U to agree or change Ur personal views - it is totally up to Ur wish.

The following link has some information on Vamachara Marga from Advaitic view point.

It is not advaitic, it is Harsha's. His personal opinion is not a standard of truth. He has been noted in yahoo groups for baseless condemnation of Vama-marga. Harsha has no initiation into high levels of Shrividya-sadhana and i am not sure if he at all belongs to any authentic tradition.
The view of Shri Amritanandanatha of Devipuram is much more trustable. And he clearly says Vamachara was and is an esoteric, sublime part of Shrividya tradition. Which is in full accordance with Agamas and other sacred texts of Shrividya.

Shankaracharya has clearly condemned this unVedic pratice according to couple of Shankara Vijayas.

First of all, this kind of writings (half-mythical stories about lives of some saints) are not of primary importance to any tradition. Secondly, they are valid only for Shankara's tradition - and in no way have to be accepted as general Hindu authority, let alone Tantric one.
Leaving aside the matter of historical accuracy (which is questionable) of such stories, in any case they cannot stand as a proof of adharmic nature of Vama-marga.

Here is what Vivekananda says about vamachara marga.

Same thing, this is a personal opinion which is to be followed by his disciples only (and not all Hindus). With respect to Swami Vivekananda, his statements are incorrect in general (maybe it was said in some context and needed at that particular moment). Actually his own Guru, Sri Ramakrishna, did follow Vamachara for certain time (until he became divya-sadhaka). Many well known saints of Bengal were Kaulas and Vamacharis (Shri Vamakshepa and Tarakshepa are just two examples).

I can understand that some practices of Vama-marga are in contradiction with Smriti-shastras. However, Tantras (as Agamas in general) are traditionally held to be a part of Shruti (dealing with vishesha-jnana as opposed to samanya-jnana in Vedas) and their authority is higher than that of any Smriti (for the followers of Tantric path). And Tantras do prescribe Vamachara as a necessary level of Shakta-upasana, which is more advanced than conventional ritualistic or yogic sadhana.
To be clear, one doesn't have to follow niyamas of Tantras unless he is a Tantrika (moreover, he has no right for Vama-sadhanas without special diksha and upadesha).

Sexual rituals were present already in ancient Vedic cult, and they aren't prohibited by Smriti (if varnshrama-dharma is not violated).
They are present in Shaiva- and Bhairava-agamas, as well as in Shakta- (Kaula-)agamas. Even in Vaishnava tradition there is a place for sexual rituals - both in South Indian tradition of Shri-sampradaya and traditions of North. I do not mean to say that all Shaivas or Vaishnavas followed Vamachara (which is of course not the case), but some of them did - and their practice is fully dharmic and based of their Agamas.

Vamachara is prescribed in almost all scriptures of Shakta tradition. This fact is beyond any doubt. If needed i can easily provide any numbers of quotes. Hope it is not necessary, i simply have no time for reproducing here those text which are available in India. U may check some Tantras in Muktabodha Online Library, that will be enough. I can show U needed places as well.

Please, do not divert the facts. Vamachara is a valid path in Hinduism, and necessary part of Tantrism. But it is not for everyone, and primarily is meant for grihasthas with intention to Moksha or knowledge of God.
Also, Kaula-tantra is impossible without Love (bhakti), which is to be taken into account.

I really do not want to enter a huge disputation, since the issue is transparent. Hope U will have enough respect to other ways in Hindu-dharma which are different from Ur own.

Arjuna

14 April 2006, 04:49 PM

rkannan1

14 April 2006, 07:31 PM

Namaste,

Seemingly U want to bring this topic again and try to prove Ur opinion on sexual side of Tantrism and Hinduism in general.
Again, i will show it's invalidity. (No one tries to make U a Vamachari or Kaula or convince U to accept Tantric doctrine. What is the problem in fact? Every one is free to choose his path. If U personally aren't fond of Tantrism, it is not a reason to impose Ur views on others and divert the facts.)
I am totally aware of that i won't make U agree with me. Actually i do not try to convince U since i see it as useless thing. But i have to reply to protect the Truth - for the sake of those who may read Ur posts and get deluded about Tantric path. So, again, i do not suggest U to agree or change Ur personal views - it is totally up to Ur wish.

It is not about personal opinions but trying to see facts.

First of all, this kind of writings (half-mythical stories about lives of some saints) are not of primary importance to any tradition. Secondly, they are valid only for Shankara's tradition - and in no way have to be accepted as general Hindu authority, let alone Tantric one.
Leaving aside the matter of historical accuracy (which is questionable) of such stories, in any case they cannot stand as a proof of adharmic nature of Vama-marga.

The Shankara Vijayas are accepted as authentic by the Advaita tradition. Hence Shankara's opinions on vAmAchArA is explicit. As for proving whether vAmAchArA is adharmic or not, Shankara's words provide additional support for my claim. It is not a independent evidence.

Same thing, this is a personal opinion which is to be followed by his disciples only (and not all Hindus). With respect to Swami Vivekananda, his statements are incorrect in general (maybe it was said in some context and needed at that particular moment). Actually his own Guru, Sri Ramakrishna, did follow Vamachara for certain time (until he became divya-sadhaka). Many well known saints of Bengal were Kaulas and Vamacharis (Shri Vamakshepa and Tarakshepa are just two examples).

Ramakrishna has told that vAmAchArA is for Bhangis. Again the words of Vivekanada is to provide additional support to my statement.

I can understand that some practices of Vama-marga are in contradiction with Smriti-shastras. However, Tantras (as Agamas in general) are traditionally held to be a part of Shruti (dealing with vishesha-jnana as opposed to samanya-jnana in Vedas) and their authority is higher than that of any Smriti (for the followers of Tantric path).

Only for tantrics, but need not be true. Besides nowhere in Sruti it is told "sex" is a way to reach Bhagavaan. Infact many Srutis and Smritis make it clear that lust and desire(includes sex) takes one away from Brahma Saukya.

In addition Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is very clear that sex is merely a tool for procreation and hence is explained as a ritual here in this upanishad. This Upanishad never says that "sex" as a way to atttain Brahma Saukya.

And Tantras do prescribe Vamachara as a necessary level of Shakta-upasana, which is more advanced than conventional ritualistic or yogic sadhana.
To be clear, one doesn't have to follow niyamas of Tantras unless he is a Tantrika (moreover, he has no right for Vama-sadhanas without special diksha and upadesha).

The question is whether these tantric agamas are Dharmic or falsehood. There is every evidence for tantric agamas(left ones) going against Vedas.

Sexual rituals were present already in ancient Vedic cult,

Where ? Provide quotes. Otherwise it is mere statements.

and they aren't prohibited by Smriti (if varnshrama-dharma is not violated).
They are present in Shaiva- and Bhairava-agamas, as well as in Shakta- (Kaula-)agamas.

Only these agamas you mentioned above allow, all of which contyradict sruti in this regard.

Even in Vaishnava tradition there is a place for sexual rituals - both in South Indian tradition of Shri-sampradaya and traditions of North.

This is absolute nonsense. Merely stating more lies proves nothing.

I do not mean to say that all Shaivas or Vaishnavas followed Vamachara (which is of course not the case), but some of them did - and their practice is fully dharmic and based of their Agamas.

Which Vaishnava agama has this. Provide references, verses and your sources. Mere faulty, (intentionally/unintentionally) misleading statements will not help.

Vamachara is prescribed in almost all scriptures of Shakta tradition. This fact is beyond any doubt. If needed i can easily provide any numbers of quotes. Hope it is not necessary, i simply have no time for reproducing here those text which are available in India. U may check some Tantras in Muktabodha Online Library, that will be enough. I can show U needed places as well.

Please, do not divert the facts. Vamachara is a valid path in Hinduism, and necessary part of Tantrism. But it is not for everyone, and primarily is meant for grihasthas with intention to Moksha or knowledge of God.
Also, Kaula-tantra is impossible without Love (bhakti), which is to be taken into account.

I really do not want to enter a huge disputation, since the issue is transparent. Hope U will have enough respect to other ways in Hindu-dharma which are different from Ur own.

The whole point is that this kaula tradition is anti-Vedic and adhrmic in nature. To remove doubt of bigotry of my side or the doubt that this is my faulty opinion, I quoted some of the opinions of great acharyas too.

From Vedas and smritis it is clear that vAmAchArA is an adharmic and anti-vedic tradition. To show this fact is my intention of this post.

rkannan1

14 April 2006, 07:50 PM

To conclude,

There cannot be any objection for Vama-sadhana for grihasthis who got proper initiation into Kaula tradition. And Scriptures accept this as a path to Brahma-jnana (Shiva-vyapti in Tantric terms).

Let us agree on this and finish unnecessary clashes.

Best regards,
Arjunananda

Which scripture ? Please quote relevant scriptural quotes to support your contention.

As far as grihastas, they still have to follow Vedic path and sense control. Definitely sex is not part of any authentic Yoga process acceptable to Vedas.

Arjuna

15 April 2006, 03:41 AM

Znanna

15 April 2006, 12:39 PM

LalithA SahasranAma [793] Kapardini

Kapardini

Ka, water, ie of Ganga, para, the flow, da, sanctifies. His [Siva's]
matted hair sanctifies even the water of the GangA.

According to the commentator of the SU-sam., "Kaparda means, earth,
mockery, and praise." Hence Kapardini, greatly praised.

Or, kapardini, decked with the garland of cow-dung cakes. When Siva
incarnated as MailAra, his wife called MahAlasA, was decked with a
garland of cow-dung cakes. The Visva says, "Karpada means the matted
hair of Siva and cow-dung cakes"..

According to Devi Pr, Karpadini is the wife of Kaparda. [Siva], a
deity worshipped at ChagalAnda, one of the sixty eight sacred places.

BhAskararAya's Commentary
Translated into English by R. Ananthakrishna Sastry.

rkannan1

15 April 2006, 01:52 PM

Namaste,
Currently i am off place, and will be able to reply in detail tomorrow only.

For now, just check Tripuropanishad, it has a reference to 5M including sex. As U might know, Tripura is one of the 108 (Muktika) canon and is thus generally authorative.
Tripuropanishad is probably as unauthentic as muktikopanishad. Muktikopanishad does not find mention anywhere in literature before 19 th century. To my knowledge Tirupuropanishad also do not find mention before 18th century(Bhaskararaya).

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_46/msg00018.html

Lalita-sahasranama has many references to Vama-upasana, and it is not from a Tantra but from Purana. Kalika-purana mentions ritual sex also.

Lalita Sahsranama is not authentic as it contradicts Sruti, while Kalika Purana is also not authentic as it is not counted among 18 Mahapuranas.(I have rephrased my statement as the moderator has warned me).

In Vaishanava Agamas it is Lakshmi-tantra, as i already mentioned. I do not have a book presently, but will try to get the exact verses.
Please provide if you find any with source.

Brihadaranyaka doesn't say sex is only for procreation (U did not prove this point, only mere assumptions).
The portion of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad containing sexual union of man and woman is called "Putramantha-Brahmana". Hence it is only logical to conclude that sexual union is used only as a tool for obtaining a PUTRA. Nowhere in the upanishad it is mentioned that "sex" as a process for Brahma Gnana, only as a tool for obtaining good sons.

Neither Vedas and Smritis prohibit Vamachara for initiated grihasthis (where they do?).
Ofcourse scriptures do prescribe sense control even for grihastas and no Vedas or authentic smritis prescribe sex as a way for Brahma Gnana. Infact it is considered inauspicious to perform sexual acts during performance of good acts like Vedic yagnas etc.

If U do not accept the authority of Agamas, it is Ur wish. But they are a basic authority for many great Hindu traditions. They were accepted by hundreds well known Masters. It is awkward to say Agamas are anti-Vedic, nobody in India claims this.
Just because somebody follows vamachara, it does not become right.

There are many strict Vaidika brahmanas who do follow Vamachara. Sex and alchohol are used in almost all Shakta traditions. If U get more knowledge on this theme, we can discuss. Since U have no, how can U judge? If U are lazy to check with books, ask some Shakta-pandita, there are some to be found in Varanasi for example.

Abhinavagupta and Bhaskararaya are accepted authorative Gurus by all Shakta traditions. And Bhaskara promoted Vamachara is his life and writings. In is a known historical fact that he opposed brahmanas who condemned Vama-marga in Varanasi. Bhaskara is one of the most high authorities in Shrividya tradition.
Vedas clearly prescribe SENSE CONTROL. Indulgence in sexual activities is definitely not sense control. Hence vamachara is automatically anti-vedic.

In support of Vamachara we have many Agamas, opinions of acknowledged Masters, some places in Shruti and Puranas. Isn't this enough to admit (even if U take the most strict Smarta position) that it is a valid path for those who have a right for it (according to Smriti)?
Which Sruti says that sexual activity is a process of Brahma Gnana ?

Except Pancaratra and other authentic smritis that agree with Srutis, all other tantric works and smritis are obviously wrong and/or interpolated.

BTW U won't find in Vedas any yoga, mantra-japa, murti-puja etc. Are these things also anti-Vedic? Some, like Dayananda Saraswati, claimed so. But do U agree? Vamachara is not less Vedic than these practices.
The whole of Vedas contains mantras. The varnashrama system is for Veda parayana for dvijas. Hence one cannot say Brahmacharya etc. is not mentioned in Vedas, for Brahmacharya is mentioned explicitly in Chandogya upanishad etc.

Also it is clearly mentioned in this upanishad that Brahman world is attainalble only through Brahmacharya(8:5:2). It is because of these explcit statements in upanishads like this that vAmAchArA needs to be rejected as anti-Vedic.

Regarding Murti Puja, there is no such explicit statements in Vedas that rejects making of images etc.

satay

15 April 2006, 06:21 PM

Mod Note:

Please refrain from calling hindu puranas bugus. I am issuing you a warning I would have done the same thing if another sectarian person from another shove it down your throat religion like chrisitianity or islam came here and called our puranas bogus.

thanks,

rkannan1

15 April 2006, 08:58 PM

Singhi Kaya

16 April 2006, 04:05 AM

The greatness of the sanatana dharma is acceptence of many paths to God. There are religions in this world which offer no path to god.

The spiritual essence of sruti and gita is realization of our inherent divine nature (whether dvaitic or advaitic, upto the practioner). Medivial smarta-ism of hair splitting argumentation to prove something is counter to vedas by pundits with little tapas and substiquently making a group Outcaste has done great harm to our dharma and culture as a whole. Instead of using sruti as the fountain head of spiritual isnpiration few people have always tried to use it in argumentation with others with the aim of making them outcastes. This was there since puranic times but became a disease in medivial times. This is called purohitism in language of shaktibad. It is an asurik development, since it's main motivation is to grab other's wealth or increase one's dignity at the cost of others. This is an injustice - the hallmark of asurik development. I despise them as much as muslim mullahs.

It is disturbing to see such mentality still persists among some hindu's.
I don't think there is anything against vamamarga anywhere. Brahmacharya has been hailed as the greatest tapas, that's it. If one can live by it, fine. I know many of hypocrats who cannot live by it but advocate to others's and ruin their lives.

If one is a grihi, one must keep his wife happy. In such circimstances if someone offers a way to even use his normal duties of kama as offering to god and progress in sadhna - I personally find it quite beautiful.

But at the sametime based on my param guru's writing I don't believe serious spiritual development or ultimate moksha can be obtained while still engaged in kama. Kaula's adovacte that one can. But that's a minor difference-I may not choose that path. End of Story.

Tantra (in terms of the rituals) is very very ancient and vamamarga/kaula tantra is also atleast a mellinea old development within our dharma. Let's not without knowing and practicing the system defame and belittle it. I personally still do not believe it as a path to serious spiritual growth, but I see it has it's own beauty. Let us devote our energy on how anti-vedic Islam is, for it is the need of the hour.:)

rkannan1

16 April 2006, 07:58 PM

The greatness of the sanatana dharma is acceptence of many paths to God. There are religions in this world which offer no path to god.
But Vedas do not accept stealing, murder etc. as a way to Bhagavaan. Just because Vedas accept some ways like Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga etc. as a way, it does not mean every way is acceptable.

Medivial smarta-ism of hair splitting argumentation to prove something is counter to vedas by pundits with little tapas and substiquently making a group Outcaste has done great harm to our dharma and culture as a whole.
In that case you must be blaming Shankaracharya and Vivekananda for not doing Tapas, for telling the truth about vamachara, that it is wrong.

Instead of using sruti as the fountain head of spiritual isnpiration few people have always tried to use it in argumentation with others with the aim of making them outcastes. This was there since puranic times but became a disease in medivial times. This is called purohitism in language of shaktibad. It is an asurik development, since it's main motivation is to grab other's wealth or increase one's dignity at the cost of others. This is an injustice - the hallmark of asurik development. I despise them as much as muslim mullahs.
In that case Shanakarcharya who criticized vamachara is also to be called an asura as per your argument.

The upanishads are clear. There is a story where India and Virochana try to learn from prajapati in Changogya Upanishad(Vaishvanara Vidya I guess). While Indra comes back everytime to learn the correct meanings from Prajapati, Virochana is satisfied with his faulty knowledge without any critical examination. Virochana is the leader of asuras. It is asuras who accept anthing without critical analysis.

It is disturbing to see such mentality still persists among some hindu's.
I don't think there is anything against vamamarga anywhere. Brahmacharya has been hailed as the greatest tapas, that's it. If one can live by it, fine. I know many of hypocrats who cannot live by it but advocate to others's and ruin their lives.
Hypocrites or not, the fact is clear. Changogya Upanishad is very clear in stating that only by Brahmacarya, Brahma Jnana can be attained(8:5:2). It does not make any sense to then say also sexual indulgence is a way for Brahma Jnana. Vamachara is a condemnable practise.

If one is a grihi, one must keep his wife happy. In such circimstances if someone offers a way to even use his normal duties of kama as offering to god and progress in sadhna - I personally find it quite beautiful.
When alll the scriptures from Sruti to authentic smritis prescribe sense control, how can one offer selfishness and lust to Bhagavaan. Scriptures are very clear, that only by brahmacarya and sense control can one gain Brahma Jnana. Nowhere in Sruti or authentic smritis, one can find "sex" as a way for gaining brahma Jnana.

But at the sametime based on my param guru's writing I don't believe serious spiritual development or ultimate moksha can be obtained while still engaged in kama. Kaula's adovacte that one can. But that's a minor difference-I may not choose that path. End of Story.
That is no small difference. There is a big difference between not stealing and stealing. Similarly there is a big difference between having sex, thinking always about sexual activities and Brahmacarya(where one does not even think of sexual activities). Both are completely opposite ways and both cannot lead to same end.

Tantra (in terms of the rituals) is very very ancient and vamamarga/kaula tantra is also atleast a mellinea old development within our dharma. Let's not without knowing and practicing the system defame and belittle it. I personally still do not believe it as a path to serious spiritual growth, but I see it has it's own beauty. Let us devote our energy on how anti-vedic Islam is, for it is the need of the hour.:)
The discussion is on Vama marga. Islam is ofcourse anti-Vedic because it presribes blind violence. But so is Kaula Marga that prescribes sex as a way to achieve Moksha, just as islam thinks violence is a way to achieve moksha.

Nowhere in Sruti one can find a verse that SEX is a way for attaining Moksha. In addition vedas are clear in saying that through Brahmacarya only (Chandogya 8.5.2).

One need not pratcise Islam to know it is wrong. We know it is wrong because it promotes violence and bigotry. Similarly sexual union is no way for attaining Bhagavaan for scriptures prescribe control of senses in all ashramas with a reason.

It is ridiculous to ask for explicit verses condemning vamachara, for one cannot find explicit verse for Islam too. Vedas have clear instructions against murder and also clear instructions for attaining Brahma Jnana, which is sense control. Sense control automatically prescludes sensual enjoyments of any kind including sexual activities, sexual thoughts and sexual indulgence. Hence vamachara is automatically rejected just as islam is rejected as per Vedas.

Arjuna

17 April 2006, 06:55 AM

Tripuropanishad is probably as unauthentic as muktikopanishad. Muktikopanishad does not find mention anywhere in literature before 19 th century. To my knowledge Tirupuropanishad also do not find mention before 18th century(Bhaskararaya).

I have no idea of it's exact date; however even if the text was written in recent times, it doesn't prove that it's teaching never existed before. In fact, Shakta-tantrism as a matter of fact existed well before 8 century (approximate date of Shankara's life). And it was much more spread and influential that nowadays.
Muktika canon of 108 is generally accepted to be authorative (by mainstream brahmanas i mean), and it is hardly possible that it was fabricated in 19 century.

The name of the topic was "Is Vamachara dharmic" (and not "is Vamachara Vedic/Upanishadic). What is Ur standard of dharmic? U haven't provided any exact definition as yet.
If U limit Dharma to Vedas + Smriti, it is Ur view and not a generally accepted standard in Hinduism (which is very much based upon Agamas). Moreover, if some practice is not directly taucht in Vedas and Smriti, it doesn't imply it is "anti-Vedic" or "anti-dharmic". Unless it is not prohibited there.

I can agree that certain practices of Vama-marga contradict Smarta prescriptions and at times maybe some Vedic passages. But here we do not discuss each and every sadhana taken as a whole, but whether any type of Vamachara is against Veda or some types of it are in accordance with Veda. And there is no prohibition of ritual sex for those who are grihasthis. It is said in Manu-smriti that "there is no sin in intercourse". It doesn't say "in only that intercourse which is intended at making kids". Eventhough it says further that abstaining is valuable, it does not prohibit, but allows. That, which is allowed in Smriti cannot be claimed to be anti-dharmic. On what grounds?

The whole speculation around "sense control" is irrelative to the issue. First of all, "sense control" doesn't mean "no sex", "sex only for procreation" or "sex cannot be upasana". Sense control in fact is needed for ritual usage of sex! And that is underlined in Tantras.
Similar situation is in yoga systems, which incorporated sexual practices of Tantras (as vajroli-kriya). Even tamil Tirumantiram being against extreme Vama sadhanas, mentiones sexual practice of yogic kind. And Tirumantiram is very authorative among all followers of Shaiva-siddhanta (practically this means on half or even the majority of Tamil brahmanas).
No Kaula-tantra teaches that sense-control is not needed. Thus, the teaching of Veda and Smriti about sense-control doesn't contradict Tantras, as they teach essentially the same (though means are different).

There is great difference between animal-like enjoyment and realisation of Purnabrahman in sexual intercourse. In fact, animals never enjoy but copulate for procreation only (as is their instinct). Thus, strictly speaking, sex only for procreation is the only truely animal sex. In such sex there in no place for love. It is despicable.

If one doesn't love a woman, it is better to abstain from any sex and become a sannyasi. Indeed such person has no reason to marry. To love a woman and make her happy is a part of husband's dharma. And as Gita teaches, it is better to do one's own dharma imperfectly than another's one perfectly. Grihasthi who "tries to behave like sannyasi" is acting against Dharma and against Vedas and Smriti. If one has an inclination toward renouncing the world, he can take sannyasa (again, if he just leaves wife alone, it is not very dharmic).

I cannot see any greatness in a situation when one gets married without any feeling for his wife, and like an animal uses her body for making an offspring. Is this Hindu-dharma? Never.

In each ashrama rules are different. Can U give any proof from Vedas that it is adharma to love one's wife and satisfy her and oneself sexually? If U see Atharvana-veda, there are many prayers regading sexuality. The attitude of Vedas is clearly positive, no denial of sex is there. In fact, nowadays narrow [mis]understanding of brahmacharya (not as an ashrama but as a prescription) is a byproduct of outer influences on Hinduism. Started from buddhism, then islam, and finally victorian morality brought by englishmen and ideology of gandhism. This is the root of the problem. Such attitude to sex is in fact anti-Hindu.

Lalita Sahsranama is not authentic as it contradicts Sruti, while Kalika Purana is also not authentic as it is not counted among 18 Mahapuranas.(I have rephrased my statement as the moderator has warned me).

Lalita-sahasranama is a part of Brahmanda-purana, which as i remember is one of the 18 Mahapuranas. Kalika-purana is Upapurana, but it doesn't make it unauthentic.

In Devi-mahatmya (part of Markandeya-purana) it is said that "all women are forms of the Goddess", which is in total accordance with Tantric teaching. If woman is seen in such a way, then naturally sexual union with her is a religious sacrament. There is no contradition with Shruti in this. (Is there any? Please, references.)

Please provide if you find any with source.

I do not own a copy of it, but i will try. At least i can get it in India � but for that U will have to wait. But, on every reference i provide U, U say it is not valid, not authentic and alike � i guess U again will simply say that Lakshmi-tantra is also of no value 'coz it contradicts Ur idea of Shruti.

The portion of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad containing sexual union of man and woman is called "Putramantha-Brahmana". Hence it is only logical to conclude that sexual union is used only as a tool for obtaining a PUTRA. Nowhere in the upanishad it is mentioned that "sex" as a process for Brahma Gnana, only as a tool for obtaining good sons.

Let me deal with this issue when i get the original text.
In any case, if fire is mentioned in homa-prakriya, it doesn't "logically" mean that fire is used only in homa ritual.
I didn't say that Vedas or Upanishads (apart from Shakta ones) teach sex a a means to Brahma-jnana. This is specific to Tantras � but it doesn't go against Vedic teaching.

Ofcourse scriptures do prescribe sense control even for grihastas and no Vedas or authentic smritis prescribe sex as a way for Brahma Gnana. Infact it is considered inauspicious to perform sexual acts during performance of good acts like Vedic yagnas etc.

While U do any ritual it is inaspicious to mix it with another ritual! If one does purashcharana he is not supposed to break it with ganga-snana or homa unless it is specially told in Scriptures. However in some Vedic yajnas sexual act was performed as a part of ritual. I cannot give exact references to Vedic texts as i am not in India currently (i won't try to dig them out myself � i have another work to do). I will try to ask through my friends-brahmanas; in the case i succeed i will post references here.
Hope U won't tell again that this "statement is of no value" :D. In any case U may inquire from Vedic scholars, who should know the matter.

Just because somebody follows vamachara, it does not become right.

Same can be said about any practice. The basis for Vamachara are Agamas, which are a part of Shruti.
If it was anti-Vedic, no Guru could teach it openly and remain authortive. But we know that Bhaskararaya for example remained highly authorative even for those Shrividya brahmanas who were against Vama-marga.

Vedas clearly prescribe SENSE CONTROL. Indulgence in sexual activities is definitely not sense control. Hence vamachara is automatically anti-vedic.

It is definitely Ur opinion ;)
It is neither proved by pramana, nor by anumana, not by agama.
There is no contradiction between having sex (we do not talk about any kind of sex, but about sex in limits of what is natural and acknowledge by Shastras) and developing sense-control. Moreover, one can learn to control senses only while experiencing sex (otherwise it is suppression and not control).

Which Sruti says that sexual activity is a process of Brahma Gnana?

Agamas.

Except Pancaratra and other authentic smritis that agree with Srutis, all other tantric works and smritis are obviously wrong and/or interpolated.

It is not "obvious", but Ur personal view only.
As a matter of fact, many Gurus and acharyas held different views from Urs. In Ur claim i can see only indirect insult of many saints and direct insult of Scriptures (which U didn't study btw).

The whole of Vedas contains mantras. The varnashrama system is for Veda parayana for dvijas. Hence one cannot say Brahmacharya etc. is not mentioned in Vedas, for Brahmacharya is mentioned explicitly in Chandogya upanishad etc.
Also it is clearly mentioned in this upanishad that Brahman world is attainalble only through Brahmacharya(8:5:2). It is because of these explcit statements in upanishads like this that vAmAchArA needs to be rejected as anti-Vedic.

If brahmacharya was understood in the way U pose it, no grihastha could have attained Brahman. Which is obviously nonsense view.
Brahmacharya means "conduct of Brahman" or "going to Brahman". In its direct meaning it has nothing to do with physical celibacy.

Regarding Murti Puja, there is no such explicit statements in Vedas that rejects making of images etc.

No, there are statements. And in any case, murti-puja and the whole of temple worship is absent from Vedas. Yoga is not Vedic as well.
If U stick to Vedas in a strict sense of 4 samhitas, U have to reject almost all Hindu traditions as non-Vedic (but not anti-Vedic though).

Singhi Kaya

17 April 2006, 09:35 AM

namste kannan,

I agree with you to some extent. But personally I'm not convinced vamachara is against vedas. But I can be wrong. You can prove the point here.

Arjuna

17 April 2006, 11:44 AM

It is ridiculous to ask for explicit verses condemning vamachara, for one cannot find explicit verse for Islam too. Vedas have clear instructions against murder and also clear instructions for attaining Brahma Jnana, which is sense control. Sense control automatically prescludes sensual enjoyments of any kind including sexual activities, sexual thoughts and sexual indulgence. Hence vamachara is automatically rejected just as islam is rejected as per Vedas.

No, it is not ridiculous. Let me try to explain once again:

1. Stealing, murder and alike things are clearly prohibited independently of any ashrama, varna or sampradaya (there are direct prescriptions against these things). Secondly, these things are unnatural for a human and the motivation behind them is himsa (violence, anger) and pride, and the root is ignorance.
There is nothing common among these things and sexual desire. Sexual desire is totally natural for a human, who unlike animals is able to enjoy it independently of procreation instinct. Sex according to Smriti is to be practiced only in marriage. And in marriage it is never restricted to procreation only. Quite the opposite, husband’s dharma is to satisfy his wife and make her happy — which includes sexual satisfaction. U again and again ignore this matter. It is adharma for a grihasthi to abstain from sex just because he has got such queer idea, it is pure selfishness. Of course in no way it can be regarded as brahmacharya, since it is not required from grihasthi. To spread sannyasa-dharma upon grihasthi is practical ADHARMA, which is against Shruti and Smriti.
Thus, first of all, sex is not restricted to procreation or prohibited for grihasthis — this is the teaching of Shruti and Smriti. U cannot prove otherwise and for this reason say “it is ridiculous to ask”.

2. There is a huge difference between sense control and abstaining from sex. While the first is needed for sadhana, the second is clearly not (for grihsthis). No true Shastra says it is needed. Vedas never put sex into opposition to Moksha. Sexual enjoyment is included into Kama, one of 4 valid Purusharthas. Shruti and Smriti never say “either Kama or Moksha” — do not impose this para-christian idea upon Hinduism.

3. While the doctrine of sexual upasana is clearly Tantric and has its origin in Kaula and Bhairava Agamas, no Vedic teaching prohibit this possibility. Nowhere it is said that sex is incompatible with sadhana or Moksha.

4. Finally, what about love? U really do not understand what it is, do not have such category?

ramkish42

17 April 2006, 11:54 AM

This does not seem to be very convincing. Based on this logic every adharmic activity can be made to look dhramic relative to somebody or some circumstance.

Dharma is well defined in Vedas. Vedas say clearly(in one of the Upanishads) that none can obtain Moskha and gain Brahma Jnana without knowing Vedas. All Shastras talk about control of senses, avoiding meat and alcohol, and control of sexual urges. Hence VAmAchArA marga cannot be right at the same time when Vedas reccommend just the opposite teachings.

What is right and wrong cannot be relative.

Dear Shri Kannan

Indeed Yes.

This analogy looks as if what you had mentioned. However, you fail to understand the rights and duties assigned to every one.

Sanaatana is diversified group of philosophies where every one is accomodated, hence what is adharmic to one may be dharmic to another. Let me point out

For (Veer Shaiva my earlier posting is wrong, actually it is Kapaali) Kapaali, Yagnopavitam is made of long hair, esp of female, for they are supposed to live in Burial Ground. Hair in food is OK for Sowriraja Perumal as promised by the lord himself. But for you and me, Hair found in food or elsewhere in house spoils the sanctity.

Let us please understand Dharma changes for each and every one

You had been specifically taught to take Charanagati, and you go for it. This does not mean it is the only Dharma. There are other 32 similar dharma to reach god's abode.

For Vamachara, results as deemed by Saaktha is not Vaikunta as you understand. Eternity offered by Saaktha is different by what is offered in Vaishnav or Shaiva.

To add, Yoni puja, (of course not in literal terms and practise as said and done by Saaktha) is incorporated also in Saama Veda and it is mandatory during marriage ceremonies. Now a days, our practise to this much disguised. REquest you to consult a local preist on this (I trust you yourself might know this well)

As I understand there is good and bad. There is only Good and Pleasant.

Sreyas or Preyas

This is what you have to choose from.

Sreyascha preyascha manushyamethatsou samparitya vivinakthi deerah
Sreyosi deeropi preyaso vrunite preyomandhe yogakshemaan vrunite

Just my humber Opinion

tanmaamaavet; tadvaktaaramaavet; aavetmaam; aavetvaktaaram

ramkish42

17 April 2006, 12:15 PM

The basis for Vamachara are Agamas, which are a part of Shruti

This is wrong. Basis of Vamachara is not Agamic but of practise. Agama regulate the practise of vamachara with some specific guidelines, but this does not make basis of vamachara to be extracted from Veda.

But, for sure, it is not condemned by srutis, but great Aacharya are against this practise. As aacharyas go against we, we follow aacharya.

(I would like to bring to your notice that many of our current practises does not carry vedic approval but only customary approval. As Sage Aapasthamba rightly observed, we must continue with our customs and what women want to follow, if it is Ok according to our books and customs. For many of hindus, Vamachara is no customary, hence they should not practise)

rkannan"
Regarding Murti Puja, there is no such explicit statements in Vedas that rejects making of images etc
No, there are statements. And in any case, murti-puja and the whole of temple worship is absent from Vedas. Yoga is not Vedic as well.
If U stick to Vedas in a strict sense of 4 samhitas, U have to reject almost all Hindu traditions as non-Vedic (but not anti-Vedic though)
This is wrong again. There are no such statements.

All statements goes against Idols and not murti puja as such. I would like to point out the differences. Idol worship is make an Idol and worship it. Murti Puja is make an Idol according with few pre made rules, install the idol (this may be applicable to few idols), invoke godly power on the idols, worship it. As far as I see, the practise of inviting god to accept the puja offered to the Idol is clearly absent in other Idol worshippers.

Once invoked, veda does not ban puja offered to Murtis.

My humble Request to you to kindly come up with specific verses that bans murti puja so that I can offer you explanation on such, if it is possible for my limited knowledge. Request you not to be offended if I do not clarify, for that means, my knowledge is limited on that aspect.

Jai shree krishna[/COLOR]

Arjuna

17 April 2006, 03:25 PM

This is wrong. Basis of Vamachara is not Agamic but of practise. Agama regulate the practise of vamachara with some specific guidelines, but this does not make basis of vamachara to be extracted from Veda.

Agamas are a part of Shruti dealing with vishesha-jnana (while Vedas deal with samanya-jnana). Agamas are Shaiva, Shakta and Vaishnava. And Vamachara is essentially based upon Shakta and Shaiva (Bhairava) Agamas.
Vamachara is not extracted from Veda, i never said that. But it doesn't contradict Veda as well (at least essential part of it, not all sadhanas).

But, for sure, it is not condemned by srutis, but great Aacharya are against this practise. As aacharyas go against we, we follow aacharya.

Each one has to follow his sampradaya, this is right.
It is also a fact that many great Acharyas were adherents of Vamachara and promoted it. One has to reply on those Acharyas who are authorative for his sampradaya and parampara.
As for myself, i rely upon Sri Shambhunatha, Abhinavagupta, Matsyendranatha, Maheshvarananda, Vatulanatha, Bhaskararaya, Purnananda and others. Being a kaula i follow my tradition, and this is my dharma. But of course i do not say everyone has to follow Kaula path. Moreover, it is unnecessary and even impossible.
All paths which are really to God, are valid and proper for certain groups of people.

(I would like to bring to your notice that many of our current practises does not carry vedic approval but only customary approval. As Sage Aapasthamba rightly observed, we must continue with our customs and what women want to follow, if it is Ok according to our books and customs. For many of hindus, Vamachara is no customary, hence they should not practise)

Yes, U are right.
I do not advocate Vamachara as specific type of upasana for every hindu, never. For this sadhana one has to get specific diksha, otherwise it is generally impossible.
But, i do state that every husband should see Devi in his wife, and percieve sexual act as a devotional act to Her. This is not specific to Tantra only, but it is simply natural in the context of bhakti and jnana.

This is wrong again. There are no such statements.
All statements goes against Idols and not murti puja as such. I would like to point out the differences. Idol worship is make an Idol and worship it. Murti Puja is make an Idol according with few pre made rules, install the idol (this may be applicable to few idols), invoke godly power on the idols, worship it. As far as I see, the practise of inviting god to accept the puja offered to the Idol is clearly absent in other Idol worshippers.

Well, i am aware of the procedure of murti-puja, trust me :) No need in explanations about avahanadi procedures.
I didn't state it is wrong � it exists to some extent even in Kaula-tantra (at least in the external upasana). Moreover, there is very sacred and specific understanding of such type of worship in Kaula doctrine, which deals with worship of deities inside bdoy.

But there is no murti-puja in Vedas. There existed the worship of sexual images of Godhead, namely linga and yoni. And while Yajur and Atharnava Vedas are much pro-shaivistic, Rigveda has a passage against "phallus worshippers". And as i know nowhere Vedas do promote any type of murti-puja.

My humble Request to you to kindly come up with specific verses that bans murti puja so that I can offer you explanation on such, if it is possible for my limited knowledge. Request you not to be offended if I do not clarify, for that means, my knowledge is limited on that aspect.

What i remember is that verse against linga-worshippers, and linga is an image (though not murti strictly speaking). My expression wasn't precise perhaps.
Generally Vedas do not ban murti-puja, since it wasn't prominent at those times. What i wanted to say is that murti-puja is not Vedic in origin, as well as Tantric sadhanas or yoga. But it is not anti-Vedic, which is most sure.

BTW, thank U for the reasonable arguments. Like this discussion becomes possible and sensible :)

Bhakti Yoga Seeker

17 April 2006, 11:19 PM

Scriptures are very clear, that only by brahmacarya and sense control can one gain Brahma Jnana.

If you are going to make such a claim, please cite your sources. What scripture and what section?

The discussion is on Vama marga. Islam is ofcourse anti-Vedic because it presribes blind violence. But so is Kaula Marga that prescribes sex as a way to achieve Moksha, just as islam thinks violence is a way to achieve moksha.

Again, you make a claim without citing your source. Where in the Qur'an, is "blind violence" prescribed? Muslims also don't believe in Moksha.

One need not pratcise Islam to know it is wrong. We know it is wrong because it promotes violence and bigotry. Similarly sexual union is no way for attaining Bhagavaan for scriptures prescribe control of senses in all ashramas with a reason.

Again, please back up your claims with evidence. I don't know if I missed something in this discussion, but since when did someone claim that one can practice sex as the sole path to mukti? I would consider such a path absurd and ridiculous. On the other hand, if we are talking about a spiritual lifestyle where sex is also used in moderation, I don't find a problem with that. Sex can be spiritual despite what some claim.

It is ridiculous to ask for explicit verses condemning vamachara, for one cannot find explicit verse for Islam too. Vedas have clear instructions against murder and also clear instructions for attaining Brahma Jnana, which is sense control. Sense control automatically prescludes sensual enjoyments of any kind including sexual activities, sexual thoughts and sexual indulgence. Hence vamachara is automatically rejected just as islam is rejected as per Vedas.

No it is NOT ridiculous. It is ridiculous to assert that something is or is not required in the practice of dharma and then not be expected to at least quote one shloka backing up your claim. Imagine in a courtroom if the prosecutor made a claim that the defendant broke the law but told the judge and jury it would be ridiculous for them to cite the exact law that was broken. :rolleyes: Your second point also doesn't make sense. Where does sense control ban sense enjoyment? Sense control means controlling the senses. It does not mean not using the senses. It would be absurd to say that traffic control means that you cannot have any traffic. Sense control logically means that you control your senses--and that your senses do not control you. As long as you are in the material world, your senses will enjoy at times and suffer at other times. Managing them is a logical path to Self-Realization. You cannot turn off your senses as long as you are in a physical body.

Enough said. ~BYS~

Arjuna

18 April 2006, 02:57 AM

Again, please back up your claims with evidence. I don't know if I missed something in this discussion, but since when did someone claim that one can practice sex as the sole path to mukti? I would consider such a path absurd and ridiculous. On the other hand, if we are talking about a spiritual lifestyle where sex is also used in moderation, I don't find a problem with that. Sex can be spiritual despite what some claim.

Of course, no such claim was made (about sex being sole path).
Tantras never say this. Any action, be it yogic kriya, some ritual (including Tantric), meditation practice or whatsoever cannot be put as a "sole path to Mukti", since it is GOD who gives Mukti as He/She wills. Salvation is a result of Shiva-anugraha only (called in Tantras "Shakti-nipata", or downward flow of Kundalini), never of any technique.

Sexual practice has two basic reasons in Kaula-mata:
1. It is a means to develop bhakti-bhava and achieve Shakti-jnana, which are conditions for the Grace to manifest.
Of course it is not physical sex only, but LOVE which includes sexual side. And perfect Love should include it, since it is total.
2. Sex is a natural way to manifest Ananda, bliss of Brahman as it is present in the world and body. Thus it is a part of Kaulika brahmacharya.

But for sure simple f###ing (as well as murmuring of mantras or doing havana) is never a way to Mukti.
As Kularnava-tantra says, "Only Love saves".

ramkish42

18 April 2006, 01:17 PM

All paths which are really to God, are valid and proper for certain groups of people

Your submissions since does not contradict much of my submissions, this leads us to discussion than a debate. I like this. However, I would like to point the difference here in.

In Gita, Shri Krishna procceds by saying, those who worship demi-gods and follow different paths established for demi-gods, gets limited & adequate fruits entitled through the demi-gods by my (Shri Krishna's) grace.

This explains, though all paths for established by god, not all leads to god for limited and adequate applicable for that demi-god is offered by supreme being through that demi-god. If you consider reaching demi-god as reaching god himself, then this should be OK, otherwise, it is not. The phrase you had quoted becomes obselete with the second premise.

What i wanted to say is that murti-puja is not Vedic in origin

This deals with historic dates. I want know from you what your ideas are. Do you see vedic era is different from Puranic periods or do you assume, Veda along with Purana form the same age

satay

18 April 2006, 01:36 PM

Did Bhagwan outline who "demi-gods" are? By the way, what is a "demi-god"?

ramkish42

18 April 2006, 02:25 PM

Did Bhagwan outline who "demi-gods" are? By the way, what is a "demi-god"?

The outline offered by Lord Shri Krishna is other devatas - meaning devatas other than himself.

The word Demi-god is recently coined and widely used in english translations, hence I went with the word. The word for Hindus is "Devatas"

yo yo yaam yaam tanum bhaktha shradha yaarschitum ischate |
tasya tasya chalaam sharadhaam taameva vitataamyaham ||

I uphold the shradha of the bhaktha on whom so ever he wants to show his shradha - the words YO YO YAAM YAAM usage though refers to whom so ever, is pulled by all commentators to the next verse to indicate the meaning

I understand you intentions in making this query. All I want to submit is though the names are different as we say aakasaath patitam doyam yatha gachaathi saagaram, sarva deva namaskaarah kesavam prati gachaathi, it reaches the same god, you use one name and I use another, but vedaantinonir vachaniyam ekam

The contradictions we have is with the rupa and not with the guna, hence I feel this does not bars

Arjuna

18 April 2006, 02:54 PM

Your submissions since does not contradict much of my submissions, this leads us to discussion than a debate. I like this. However, I would like to point the difference here in.

Thank U.

In Gita, Shri Krishna procceds by saying, those who worship demi-gods and follow different paths established for demi-gods, gets limited & adequate fruits entitled through the demi-gods by my (Shri Krishna's) grace.

I assume the word "demi-god" was invented by Prabhupada in the course of his sectarian preaching of vaishnavism.

In fact, whether one worships God or "demi-god" depends on his intention and understanding, his faith (shraddhA), not of the name of particular deity. If one strives to the Absolute (Anuttara or Brahman, Parashiva/Parashakti), it is a path to God. Whether he calls IT "Kalika", "Krishna", "Shankara" or "Chandayogeshvari" doesn't make much difference. And if one worships "Krishna", "Kali" or whosoever for mere selfish reasons or due to custom, it is not a way to God but a worldy activity (laukika-karma).

Of course i was speaking about ways to GOD, that One (and at the same time 0, 2 and 3), who is Ultimate Truth and Absolute Love.
Not each and every religious method directly leads to Shiva-vyapti. For sure there is an hierarchy of paths, some being more straight and pure. But again, in any case it is God who is giving Mukti to us. Thus, it is wrong to say that one cannot reach the Highest Abode even being indulged in "lower doctrines", such as dvaita philosophies or "technical" yoga practice.

This deals with historic dates. I want know from you what your ideas are. Do you see vedic era is different from Puranic periods or do you assume, Veda along with Purana form the same age

Puranas were written much much later than Vedas, it is a historical fact. I did not study chronology in detail, but i doubt any Purana can be traced to B.C.E. period, while Vedas, some Upanishads, Gita etc surely belong to it.

Arjuna

18 April 2006, 03:01 PM

The outline offered by Lord Shri Krishna is other devatas - meaning devatas other than himself.

But this clearly refers to Anuttara, GOD, and not to Krishna as a historical personage, "man".
For in Vedas and early Upanishads God is never called "Krishna", and in most Agamas God is called by another names.

So this shloka is to be understood in the sense i underlined in previous post, and not as a sectarian claim or "krishnaism" being superior to other sampradayas.

ramkish42

18 April 2006, 03:32 PM

In fact, whether one worships God or "demi-god" depends on his intention and understanding, his faith (shraddhA), not of the name of particular deity. If one strives to the Absolute (Anuttara or Brahman, Parashiva/Parashakti), it is a path to God. Whether he calls IT "Kalika", "Krishna", "Shankara" or "Chandayogeshvari" doesn't make much difference. And if one worships "Krishna", "Kali" or whosoever for mere selfish reasons or due to custom, it is not a way to God but a worldy activity (laukika-karma).

On the contrary, in Hinduism, God is treated as King of him kingdom, and he has ministers who will take care of administration. Thus the emergence of devatas described as person in-charge of particular activity. It is not our wish to assign different names and forms to god, but lord assumed different names and forms for us.

When I say this, many ask me, why so?, isn't that god alone is enough to do this? etc, and I used to respond, this creation work, as per our religion is explained as child's play of god - god wants to play and now he plays - and when a child starts playing, it is not bound by his own rules, but child makes rules then and there as per his wish and many a times it might break the previously said rule - Who am I to say this is unfair

To your submission, even if we pray a pot to offer moksha, it could offer provided you see the god in the pot. This has sruthi samhatham provided proper invocation process is done. Hence this does not bares any other devata worshiped in the very name of lord or in different name.

sarva deva namaskaarah kesavam prathi gachaathi.

Important aspect to demand moksha from god is purusha nirnaya without this seeking moksha is shooting arrows in dark. Unless you are a master, it will not hit the target

Puranas were written much much later than Vedas, it is a historical fact. I did not study chronology in detail, but i doubt any Purana can be traced to B.C.E. period, while Vedas, some Upanishads, Gita etc surely belong to it
Nice observation.

Purana, the very name implies it is old, even at the time it is told, it is told as purana, hence this should be as old as veda. My point here is when vedas are classified by Shri Ved Vyasa, this choronological problems arised. In the same way. Shri Ved Vyasa, classified Puranas also. As we know, we hear, Shri Ved Vyasa classfied Vedas first and then came to puranas, it is younger to Veda, no doubt, but it cannot be in 1000 years span, for the very classification activity shows that it existed even before such classification

Let me clarify you how historians date a book. Shrimad Bhagavat Gita as citations on Arjuna. Say, you are king some time in 11 AD, then historians reasonably assume, age of Bhavat Gita could be 11 AD, if it corrborates events depicted has some relevance to happenings in and around you in 11 AD. Though this may not be correct, possibilites are more. For that fact, there could be king even in 200 BC by the same name whose records not found yet, till it is found books date is 11 AD, once a new records are found, it is the duty of the historians to change the assigned date, if it deems fit. In many occasions the very historian who has dated a book does not survive to change the date, for archealogical findings takes time. In short, I can say dating business is not science but a hypothesis. Let us curtail it at the level of hypothesis itself.

However, there are certain texts whose dates are very clear - say for example - works of Kalidasa is clearly dated. There will changes but only few year but not in centuries.

When we consider Veda and Purana, such dating is not possible. Rig veda not mentioning Ganga does not mean exactly, people were travelling hence, rig came before yajur. But the possibility survives. It is the classification done by Shri Ved Vyasa in such manner - this view also survives

For the faith, Vedas does not refer puranas for vedas are primary texts, hence if it refers to any purana, and in turn purana refer veda, it becomes cyclic fallacy, hence such references are avoided. Having understood that vedas are written anywhere previously, and has such clarity is astounding fact. This does not negate the possiblity of presense of purana along with veda. Even when the difference of veda and purana be in 1000 / 10000 years or even more makes no difference for we still do not know when this universe is created - we still say this is begining less. We are bothered about date of classification done by Shri Ved Vyasa. At that time, puranas and veda existed simultaneously. (I do not agree though all puranas existed at that time, some are compiled later - note compilation does not amount to written, but in few instances yes. This is confusing but the past 10 years spent on this I am still confused - sorry for that)

My point is - when we say vedic marga, it includes puranas and other shaastras, hence, reference need not be only in veda, even if it in purana, it is highly adorable on par with veda

It is clearly pointed out by many aacharyas, that puranas exist to explain veda clearly, hence indication given in purana is equivalent to indication given in Veda

satay

18 April 2006, 03:43 PM

Arjuna

18 April 2006, 03:54 PM

I do not want to enter into disputation about chronology of Puranas, since i think it is rather irrelevant to the issue discussed. Of course we cannot put any exact date to oral tradition, be it of Puranas or Tantras. But those texts of Puranas which exist nowadays are not very ancient.
In any case, pauranika authority is very much secondary one, while Vedas (Upanishads included) and Agamas are of primary importance.

Regarding the first point about God-worship vs gods-worship, Tantrism holds on to absolutist monistic view. Though in relative sense we can say there are "demi-gods" as particular powers (shaktis) of the Anuttara, God is one and only. Shakta-tantras call Him/Her as Shiva/Kali, Shaivagamas as Shiva or Rudra, Vaishnavagamas as Vishnu or Krishna — but Godhead is one.

Of course, cults of kshudra-devatas and alike are not God-worship and do not lead to Mukti.

ramkish42

18 April 2006, 04:12 PM

personally, I "dislike" the word demi.

I think "devtas" should be used instead of demi. demi was coined by shri prabhupada and though I have the utmost respect for him as I do for any acharya of our tradition, I choose to use the word 'devta' instead of demi to uderstand that sholka in gita.

Hi

you guys are pretty fast. for more that three hours I am in this forum, just replying to threads

Just for your information, the word demigod is not coined by Prabhupada, but it is normal english word, which means mortal having extraordinary powers. As we refer devatas, abide in god during prelude, hence their mortality is well known the word demigod is direct translation of devatas.

If you have wordweb installed in your system, just check for this word

ramkish42

18 April 2006, 04:14 PM

Arjuna

18 April 2006, 04:35 PM

Just for your information, the word demigod is not coined by Prabhupada, but it is normal english word, which means mortal having extraordinary powers. As we refer devatas, abide in god during prelude, hence their mortality is well known the word demigod is direct translation of devatas.
If you have wordweb installed in your system, just check for this word

demigod |?dem??g�d| noun ( fem. demigoddess |?dem??g�dis|) a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity, the offspring of a god and a mortal, or a mortal raised to divine rank.
� figurative a person who is greatly admired or feared.
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: translating Latin semideus.
(Oxford Dictionary from MacOSX package)

But i do not agree on that it is a translation of "devata". Devatas are aspects or powers, shaktis of Paramadevata, Mahashakti, dynamic "half" of the Godhead.
Devatas are not "mortals". Please do not confuse mythical stories for kids with actual Reality :).

Arjuna

18 April 2006, 04:47 PM

Which agamas you say are primary importance.
I understand Agamas include, sivaagama, Vaikanasa and Paancharaatra. All three I had mentioned are not present when Shri Ved Vyasa classified Puranas, hence it clearly indicates it came much later to Purana

There are three major classes of Agamas by sampradaya: Shaiva, Shakta and Vaishnava.
Shaiva include Siddhanta (10), Rudra (18) and Bhairava (64) Agamas, the latter being of monistic and the highest in authority.
Shakta Agamas = Kaulagamas or Tantras.
Vaishnava are Pancharatra and Vaikhanasa.

For all these traditions (Shaiva, Shakta and Vaishnava) Agamas are a part of Shruti, direct revelation from God (as Vedas). While Puranas, irrespectively of their date, are not Shruti and are secondary authority, like Itihasas and Smriti.

I do not know exactly what U mean by Vyasa's classification. In any case, as i told, i view Puranas to be of relatively recent date. But this is not important, since they are not Shruti anyway.

ramkish42

18 April 2006, 05:36 PM

demigod |?dem??g�d| noun ( fem. demigoddess |?dem??g�dis|) a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity, the offspring of a god and a mortal, or a mortal raised to divine rank.
� figurative a person who is greatly admired or feared.
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: translating Latin semideus.
(Oxford Dictionary from MacOSX package)

But i do not agree on that it is a translation of "devata". Devatas are aspects or powers, shaktis of Paramadevata, Mahashakti, dynamic "half" of the Godhead.
Devatas are not "mortals". Please do not confuse mythical stories for kids with actual Reality :).

Dear Arjuna

Are you sure about the last line. Devatas are mortals.

For that supreme head of Devatas, Lord Brahma, his max age is determined as 100 years.

All devatas are mortals and only God is immortal

Jai shree krishna

ramkish42

18 April 2006, 05:38 PM

There are three major classes of Agamas by sampradaya: Shaiva, Shakta and Vaishnava.
Shaiva include Siddhanta (10), Rudra (18) and Bhairava (64) Agamas, the latter being of monistic and the highest in authority.
Shakta Agamas = Kaulagamas or Tantras.
Vaishnava are Pancharatra and Vaikhanasa.

For all these traditions (Shaiva, Shakta and Vaishnava) Agamas are a part of Shruti, direct revelation from God (as Vedas). While Puranas, irrespectively of their date, are not Shruti and are secondary authority, like Itihasas and Smriti.

I do not know exactly what U mean by Vyasa's classification. In any case, as i told, i view Puranas to be of relatively recent date. But this is not important, since they are not Shruti anyway.

To which part of veda these agamas belong to?

Arjuna

18 April 2006, 05:58 PM

Dear Arjuna
Are you sure about the last line. Devatas are mortals.
For that supreme head of Devatas, Lord Brahma, his max age is determined as 100 years.
All devatas are mortals and only God is immortal
Jai shree krishna

Namaste,

I prefer the monistic view and not mythological. In the advaitic system devatas can be only shaktis of God, or aspects of Consciousness (Chiti), and not any kind of separate entities or mortals.

ramkish42

18 April 2006, 06:04 PM

Namaste,

I prefer the monistic view and not mythological. In the advaitic system devatas can be only shaktis of God, or aspects of Consciousness (Chiti), and not any kind of separate entities or mortals.

Your ideas are really confounding.

Aspect of consciousness does not corroborate with Advaitic view.

There is no point in rejecting the reality in the name of mythology. If mythology is to be rejected, forms of shiva and shakti is to be rejected for such features are fundamentally mythological

Arjuna

18 April 2006, 06:08 PM

To which part of veda these agamas belong to?

Vedas and Agamas are the two halves of Shruti, general and specific.

Arjuna

18 April 2006, 06:17 PM

Your ideas are really confounding.
Aspect of consciousness does not corroborate with Advaitic view.
There is no point in rejecting the reality in the name of mythology. If mythology is to be rejected, forms of shiva and shakti is to be rejected for such features are fundamentally mythological

Shiva and Shakti are essentially non-mythological, but are directly experienced and logically proved. Of course we have a large mythology of Shiva and Devi, but it is symbolic only.

I do not see any problem in Consciousness having aspects. It does have, but still remain One. The whole world with all its differences is its manifestation, how can one say there are no aspects in it?

Monism doesn't mean one thinks there is only void-like Brahman which is practically same as Shunya. Brahman is both passive and active, His active "part" is Mahashakti or Parasamvit, Consciousness.

Bhakti Yoga Seeker

18 April 2006, 08:18 PM

In Gita, Shri Krishna procceds by saying, those who worship demi-gods and follow different paths established for demi-gods, gets limited & adequate fruits entitled through the demi-gods by my (Shri Krishna's) grace.

This explains, though all paths for established by god, not all leads to god for limited and adequate applicable for that demi-god is offered by supreme being through that demi-god. If you consider reaching demi-god as reaching god himself, then this should be OK, otherwise, it is not. The phrase you had quoted becomes obselete with the second premise.

No where in the Bhagavad Gita is contained the term "demi-god." The closest English translation would be "deva." "Demi-" in the English language means "half" or "partial." There is no such concept in Sanatana Dharma. Also, "deva" refers to the avatars of the Supreme. They could be agents of God or simply God taking on different forms and personalities depending on how you look at it and obviously depending on which dharma school you follow. But any mention of "demigods" in Hinduism is bogus and such use of that term is actually derrogatory and offensive toward the avatars that Hindus respect and worship. I don't want to see any talk of Shiva, Ganesh, Kali, etc. being called a half of God or a fourth of God. It is disrespectful and doesn't make any logical sense. Namaskaar. ~BYS~

Bhakti Yoga Seeker

18 April 2006, 08:42 PM

I realized something about these terms. There is no term "deva" or "devata" in English. It apparently isn't even an English term as I couldn't find it in the dictionary. I assume it is a commonly used term in Hindi as well as other Indian languages. Regardless, it is crucial that a translation be kept as close to the original as possible. Every time a text is translated from one language to another, even if the words have the same meanings, the connotations are often slightly different. You can essentially say the same thing many different ways and put a different spin on each method causing the person to interpret each one slightly differently. Using the term "demigod" in the Bhagavad-Gita definitely skews the meaning of what Krishna is saying. It is much safer to just stick to the term "deva." Also, many times in the Gita, Krishna will refer to the Supreme in a general sense and other times call it "me." In other words, at one time Krishna will refer to the Supreme as himself and other times talk about the Supreme in third person.

Biased translations will tend to favor one description or the other in the Gita. For instance, Prabhupada's translation which is in favor of the Gaudiya Vaishnava path will use the term "Supreme Personality of Godhead" in place of "Supreme" or "Krishna" even though the Sanskrit does not point to the use of such a term in all cases. It is important to review the original Sanskrit along with the translation to fully understand what is being said. Namaste. ~BYS~

Arjuna

19 April 2006, 05:23 AM

Arjuna

19 April 2006, 05:28 AM

Many Shastras have statements like:
rudro viShnur umA lakShmIs tasmai tasyai namo namaH (this is from one Upanishad).
Hinduism is totally lacking Prabhupada's sectarian idea, which was borrowed from christianity. The hierarchy of paths is based upon levels of understanding (paradvaita, advaita, vishishtadvaita and dvaita the lowest), and not on the name of God used.

ramkish42

19 April 2006, 07:21 AM

Vedas and Agamas are the two halves of Shruti, general and specific.

As you will remember the discussion is on Murthi Puja - having said, Agama and Veda are two halves of sruthi, and agamas having texts pertaining to establishing temples, rituals of temples, its guidelines, sytle of murthi's kept in the temples, it should mean, Murthi puja is as old as Veda

ramkish42

19 April 2006, 07:33 AM

Shiva and Shakti are essentially non-mythological, but are directly experienced and logically proved. Of course we have a large mythology of Shiva and Devi, but it is symbolic only.

I do not see any problem in Consciousness having aspects. It does have, but still remain One. The whole world with all its differences is its manifestation, how can one say there are no aspects in it?

Monism doesn't mean one thinks there is only void-like Brahman which is practically same as Shunya. Brahman is both passive and active, His active "part" is Mahashakti or Parasamvit, Consciousness.
Shiv and Shakti are esstentially mythological. I do not understand how mythology is symbolic

The basic problem with such tenants is inconsistency - If brahman has both passive and active forces emboided in it. Once you try to divide active part as shakti and passive part of Shiv this goes against your monism. Further more it is aggrevated by your logic of union of Shiv and Shakti in the name of Yoga where in it is clearly shows the division is real. When the division is real how do you corroborate it with monism.

ramkish42

19 April 2006, 07:41 AM

No where in the Bhagavad Gita is contained the term "demi-god." The closest English translation would be "deva." "Demi-" in the English language means "half" or "partial." There is no such concept in Sanatana Dharma. Also, "deva" refers to the avatars of the Supreme. They could be agents of God or simply God taking on different forms and personalities depending on how you look at it and obviously depending on which dharma school you follow. But any mention of "demigods" in Hinduism is bogus and such use of that term is actually derrogatory and offensive toward the avatars that Hindus respect and worship. I don't want to see any talk of Shiva, Ganesh, Kali, etc. being called a half of God or a fourth of God. It is disrespectful and doesn't make any logical sense. Namaskaar. ~BYS~

How do you explain the presence Indra and his family of deva. I had further clarified that the word demigod is essentially english word and it means A person who is part mortal and part god like Indra and other devas. This concept is essentially Sanatana.

Let us not confuse ourselves with different philosophies and try to establish our own philosophy as a combination of many philosophies.

Devas does not refer to avataras of god. Kenopanishad as categorically classified God Vis-a--vis other devatas. It clearly deciphered, god disappeared leaving behind Uma to answer Indra, agni, vayu and other deva

The talk is not about Shiva/kali/ganesh being half/quarter of god and this thread is not even about purushanirnaya. We are here discussing about vamachara and murti puja

Let us not confuse ourselves with so many ideas. Let us try to classify ideas in accordance with respective philosophy and make things clear

ramkish42

19 April 2006, 07:45 AM

ramkish42

19 April 2006, 07:50 AM

It is logical to use "god" or "diety" for deva/devatA, which doesn't divert the meaning.

Hierarchy of devatas is somewhat relative; for Shaivas Vishnu is one of 5 faces of Shiva, while for Vaishnavas Shiva is an aspect of facet of Vishnu. In any case we can see by the context who is meant by this or that name.
For example, sometimes "Shiva" means Paramashiva, Anuttara, while in another context it is a name of Sadashiva (aspect of Revelation or Grace of God) or even some minor diety.

Finally, some deities are always viewed as aspects (kaLAMsharUpANi) of Godhead and not GOD (Purnabrahman), like Hanuman, grama-devatas or Graha-devatas.

I agree with the first line. Devata can easily be depicted as deity.

However, I deny using the term minor deity as the word minor always stands as qualifying word for the very word deity - this is in sharp contrast with the word demigod which is a single word and as separate listing in english dictionary.

I am very surprised about this word usage. I know this word even before this word was popularised by Prabhupada, which is used by christians to refert to angels. I have no objection for your views against Gaudia Vaishnav for I see both of us belong to different sect, but philosophy is different from english language. Let us understand it

Arjuna

19 April 2006, 11:26 AM

As you will remember the discussion is on Murthi Puja - having said, Agama and Veda are two halves of sruthi, and agamas having texts pertaining to establishing temples, rituals of temples, its guidelines, sytle of murthi's kept in the temples, it should mean, Murthi puja is as old as Veda

Agamas historically are obviously post-Vedic and approximately of same period as Puranas. Thus, murti-puja is of course not as old as Vedas.
But Agamas have equal to Veda authority (practically even higher), thus murti-puja is accepted according to Shruti.
Historical and religious dimension are different.

Arjuna

19 April 2006, 12:26 PM

Namaste,

Shiv and Shakti are esstentially mythological. I do not understand how mythology is symbolic

OK, let me put it in more detail.
Shiva/Shakti is REALITY, Brahman, and thus cannot be essentialy mythological. Of course in Puranas, Itihasas and to a lesser degree in Agamas we have many mythological cicles dealing with figures of Mahadeva and Devi � but this is not the essence, this is symbolism put in a figurative form. All descriptions of Shiva as a guy with blue throat, snakes, pinaka-bow and trident are mythological (and symbolic), but Shiva Himself is not a fairy tale personage! He is GOD.

Mythology is symbolic (maybe not as a whole, but in its essence), and all major myths can be viewed in this way. I do not want to go into long descriptions here, since it was done by many people. Just for instance, U may know Goddess Chinnamasta: her cut-off head is a rich symbolic depiction of that aspect of Chiti which she embodies.

In pure philosophical terms Shiva is called Prakasha, Light of Consciousness, while Shakti is Vimarsha, Power of Self-Awareness. These Prakasha and Vimarsha are two aspects of ONE Absolute Consciousness, Anuttara (Parabrahman or Paramashiva).
Yogi experiences these two, and for sure this is not a mythological event, but pratyakShAnubhava, direct experience. Logically we come to the conclusion (anumAna) that these two has to exist. And Agamas confirm this view.

The basic problem with such tenants is inconsistency - If brahman has both passive and active forces emboided in it. Once you try to divide active part as shakti and passive part of Shiv this goes against your monism. Further more it is aggrevated by your logic of union of Shiv and Shakti in the name of Yoga where in it is clearly shows the division is real. When the division is real how do you corroborate it with monism.

There is no inconsistency at all.
If we think of Brahman (GOD or REALITY) as only passive, he becomes non-distinguishable from mere emptiness, void. In this case he is nothing, not aware of his own being and obviously not able to create/emanate the world. Then, there cannot be any souls and the world. This contradicts the fatcs � we know we have consciousness (though limited) and we can percieve the world. When one "beholds the Face of God", he sees not mere emptiness, but THE LORD (or Goddess), who has Will and Consciousness of His own.
The theory of passive Brahman doesn't stand any criticism. Moreover, to explain the existence of world, one has to invent some other force, separate from Brahman (Maya, "illusion"). Thus, monism vanishes, we have a pseudo-monistic system. If Maya is one with Brahman, then she is Real (Sat) and same as Shakti of Tantras. But if we say she is not Brahman, but something else, we come to a logical contradiction. World cannot but mere illusion in its essence, though it is an illusion in a relative sense � since our limited consciousness does not percieve it as God.

The only possible monism has to admit that Brahman is both passive and active. This doesn't make Brahman divided into two separate parts, of course. Brahman is still ONE, but that One has two "sides".
I would suggest U to read "Specific Principles of Kashmir Shaivism" by Balajit Nath Pandit. I cannot sit for hours explaining the Doctrine of Paradvaita (Pratyakshadvaita) of Tantrism. This book is a simple and very good summary on Tantric philosophy. If U get the basics, we can proceed further.

Arjuna

19 April 2006, 12:31 PM

We are here discussing about vamachara and murti puja

Let us not confuse ourselves with so many ideas. Let us try to classify ideas in accordance with respective philosophy and make things clear

Then what is the necessity to discuss here the definitions of "devatA", "demigod" and alike? What is the connection with Vamachara?
Vama-marga is a path to GOD, Parashakti. It isn't a worship of Indra, Hanuman or Shani!

ramkish42

19 April 2006, 12:59 PM

How does a intercourse comes in as union of Prakasha and Vimarsha?

In the second part you are finely missing out the query put across.
Further more it is aggrevated by your logic of union of Shiv and Shakti in the name of Yoga where in it is clearly shows the division is real is unanswered

ramkish42

19 April 2006, 01:08 PM

Then what is the necessity to discuss here the definitions of "devatA", "demigod" and alike? What is the connection with Vamachara?
Vama-marga is a path to GOD, Parashakti. It isn't a worship of Indra, Hanuman or Shani!

Your previous posting

All paths which are really to God, are valid and proper for certain groups of people
called for it.

There are so many paths which are really god, we really believe, Lord Buddha is incarnation of Shri Hari, which came to divert people. As you yourself agreed not to go for logic of Shunya as propounded by Buddha, though being a path of god. To explain this I gave a citation from much revered book

Even otherwise, if Vamachara is worship of Parashakthi, your goodself should be prompted by explaining it in the thread or posting links for such explanation. I am reading this thread for past three days from OP, still I could not find one. Request your goodself to post one

ramkish42

19 April 2006, 01:11 PM

Further I would like to add the following

Request the readers to check the following verse in Bhagavat Gita

Chap 7 Sloka 19

Arjuna

19 April 2006, 02:02 PM

How does a intercourse comes in as union of Prakasha and Vimarsha?

In the second part you are finely missing out the query put across. is unanswered

1. Maithuna is a direct means of realising blissful pulsation of Consciousness, Spanda. Moreover, in any kind of union of the opposites this Spanda is manifested, as well as in any intense experience.
This is taught for example in Spanda-karika and Vijnana-bhairava.

2. I have answered in another thread:
"Of course, Yoga is not an actual "bringing together two separate things and making them one", but rather a realisation of ever-existent Unity.
Shiva and Shakti are two aspects of one Consciousness; uniting Shiva with Shakti means realising they are one."

ramkish42

19 April 2006, 02:13 PM

Maithuna is a direct means of realising blissful pulsation of Consciousness

You have to explain this. Blissful pulsation is realised in maithuna is agreed, how it is realted to Consciousness is dubious. Natural impulse of Maithuna is exact opposite of realising consciousness in the sense of Prakasha and Vimarsha. Where does Vimarsha - power of self awarness comes in. moments of Maithuna really acts as moments where self awarness is missing.

Arjuna

19 April 2006, 03:35 PM

Your previous posting called for it.
There are so many paths which are really god, we really believe, Lord Buddha is incarnation of Shri Hari, which came to divert people. As you yourself agreed not to go for logic of Shunya as propounded by Buddha, though being a path of god. To explain this I gave a citation from much revered book

Even otherwise, if Vamachara is worship of Parashakthi, your goodself should be prompted by explaining it in the thread or posting links for such explanation. I am reading this thread for past three days from OP, still I could not find one. Request your goodself to post one

I was speaking about paths to GOD (and not deva-devata worship). One may call GOD as Shiva, Vishnu/Krishna or Kalika/Lalita, it doesn't matter. What matters is authentic sampradaya and proper intention of upasana.

Vamachara is an esoteric part of Shaktism, and Shaktism is an upasana of Parashakti.

ramkish42

19 April 2006, 03:40 PM

Arjuna

19 April 2006, 03:41 PM

You have to explain this. Blissful pulsation is realised in maithuna is agreed, how it is realted to Consciousness is dubious. Natural impulse of Maithuna is exact opposite of realising consciousness in the sense of Prakasha and Vimarsha. Where does Vimarsha - power of self awarness comes in. moments of Maithuna really acts as moments where self awarness is missing.

How it is related to Consciousness � take a look at Kamakala-vilasa for example.
In maithuna there is a great possibility to bring awareness to a higher level. If it doesn't happen with someone, there are two reasons: no Love (bhakti-bhAva) is there; person indulged has no Jnana and dhyana capacity. It is not a problem of Tantric path, but of person concerned.

Arjuna

19 April 2006, 03:46 PM

This is the third thread where I am marking my visit.
I do not want to reply back to person who does not pay due respect to great gurus. Request some one to reiterate the views so that I can mark my comments on it.
Thanks

Whether U reply or not is up to U.

Ur statement about "due respect" is baseless and i have replied to Ur claim in another thread. If i am wrong, moderators will warn me, not to worry.

Arjuna

20 April 2006, 10:10 AM

Some people were doubtful about my statement that Vamachara sadhana is mentioned in Pancharatra Lakshmi-tantra. I found a proof:

"Moreover, it (Lakshmi-tantra) alludes to the peculiar sadhana of the left-handed Tantras that requires a female partner." (History of the Tantric Religion, N.N. Bhattacharyya, New Delhi 1987. P. 47)

It provides further two references: XXIIV. 44-47; XLII. 30-31

ramkish42

20 April 2006, 12:14 PM

Submissions of Mr. NN Bhattacharya is absolutely wrong.

Six aspects of surrender are described in many pA'ncarAtra samhitA-s such as ahirbudhnya samhitA, lakshmI-tantra etc. The order of importance is not the same for these six aspects in the two samhitA-s referred to above, but the aspects are same. Sometimes one or more of these is considered the principal one, and the others are considered aspects that are needed for achieving the primary ones.

lakshmI tantra give the following:
"AnukUlyasya samkalpah prAtikUlyasya varjanam | rakshishyatIti viSvAso goptRtva varaNam tathA || AtmA nikshepa kArpaNye shadvidhA SaraNagatih || (lakshmI-tantra17, 59-61)

Thus the order of the a'nga-s given in lakshmI-tantra is: AnukUlya samkalpam, prAtikUlya varjanam, mahA viSvAsam, goptRtva varaNam, Atma nikshepam, and kArpaNyam. In ahribudhnya samhitA, the order given is: Atma nikshepam or nyAsam, kArpaNyam, mahA viSvAsam, goptRtvam, prAtikUlya varjanam, and AnukUlya sampakpam. svAmi deSikan has addressed these confusions in his nyAsa vimSati Slokam 12, and concludes that those who know praptti SAstra well agree that there are five a'nga-s to prapatti, and the different positions taken in respect of the number and sequence of importance etc. of the aspects of prapatti really say the same thing in the end (sarva vAkya eka kaNThyam). Atma nikshepam or nyAsam is considered the main ingredient of prapatti - the conviction that one's own effort in attaining Him will not bear fruit, and placing oneself directly under His care and giving up ownership of one's own protection or the benefits from any actions to Him. The other five are then the a'nga-s for nyAsa, that are of equal importance as conveyed to us by svAmi deSikan. Thus, for performing surrender or Atma nikshepa or nyAsam, one needs absolute humility (kArpaNyam), AnukUlya samkaplam, prAtikUlya varjanam, etc

Request for female partner is always there even for samanya dharmas like Dhaana. The point to be noted that it has nothing to do with intercourse as given by Vamachara

I request Tantris not to talk about Smaarta and Vaishnava sects for they have not read any of their texts not do they understand the ideas. They verily accuse gurus for hiding facts from their devotees whereas no sadana is deemed so secret not to be revealed to any of the disciples, if so, no sadanas will be available for next generations

I am waiting for some other tantri / some one else to reitterate views of Shri Arjuna so that I can post my comments

For the other readers, Paancharaatra has four parts gnAna (knowledge), yoga (meditation - this is totally different from Tantri's Yoga), kriyA (making i.e., construction and consecration of temples and images), and caryA (doing i.e., the religious and social observances, daily rites, festivals, varNASrama dharma- s). This no way corroborates views of Tantris

Arjuna

20 April 2006, 01:37 PM

Submission of Bhattacharyya is RIGHT, sunce i read at least one of these two passages with my own eyes.

If U have the text, why don't U give sanskrit verses? I don't have a book currently i cannot get it until go to India.

ramkish42

20 April 2006, 02:18 PM

If I read any book, that statement substantiates what I saw but that does not corroborate what I read is correct in toto.

This is another false example for Tantri views. Once a tantri reads a book, he assumes that books is correct irrespective of facts

Arjuna

21 April 2006, 04:09 AM

Arjuna

21 April 2006, 04:11 AM

ramkish42

21 April 2006, 11:35 AM

Once again if U haven't understood: i read the passage describing sexual ritual in Lakshmi-tantra myself and in the sanskrit original of it. Since i do not possess a book of LT currently, i couldn't find an exact reference. Accidentally i have found it in Bhattacharyya's work.
Unless U provide those two passages and prove we are wrong, Ur statements are baseless. What is the point in mere stubborn denial of facts?

If you do not possess the book, how does the onus falls on my head??

I will wait till you find the passage. Better understand how the argument proceeds for calling for proof. Proof has to submitted by person who asserts.

ramkish42

21 April 2006, 11:44 AM

And BTW Bhattacharyya is not a Tantric, but a scholar. He has no reason to imagine such things and falsify the words of Lakshmi-tantra, since any person can check up his statements and see if he is right or wrong.

Where did I said Shri Bhattacharya is tantric. Request Shri Arjuna to abstain from such claims??

Neither I am accusing him for imagining things and making a false statement.

I said his submissions are wrong. This does not mean, Shri Bhattacharya did know the reality and falsely claimed.

Lakshmi Tantra deals with Prapatti marga and not sex and its aspects of sex in religion. For that fact, Pancharatris are more stringent in intercourse than other (Vaikanasa) Vaishanavs. Their sexual intercourse is guided more tithi and kala. Every special puja day they abstain from sex. Person who enters temple in Pancharatri sect abstains from sex for the whole day.

All my contentions are this - Let us not speak about a sect in which we have not knowledge. As I am not commenting anything on beliefs of Tantri rituals unless it falls in non Tantri threads, in the same way I expect, trantris not to say anything about other sects.

Further, to my reply to my original posting, I doubt many did understand. As the submission was in native tongue, it said, Every one have their own rituals and god, they will get from the god what they deserve and their gods are as capable to give the boon to them. Simple. I also said, I will just protect my sect from Vamachara as my sect has no place for it.

All the other comments are pulled up from me

Arjuna

21 April 2006, 01:27 PM

If you do not possess the book, how does the onus falls on my head??
I will wait till you find the passage. Better understand how the argument proceeds for calling for proof. Proof has to submitted by person who asserts.

Bhattacharyya's evidence is enough. TWO people who read that passage in Lakshmi-tantra say it exists, and U who never read it say it is wrong. Isn't Ur position awkward? :D

Arjuna

21 April 2006, 01:34 PM

Where did I said Shri Bhattacharya is tantric. Request Shri Arjuna to abstain from such claims??
Neither I am accusing him for imagining things and making a false statement.
I said his submissions are wrong. This does not mean, Shri Bhattacharya did know the reality and falsely claimed.
All my contentions are this - Let us not speak about a sect in which we have not knowledge. As I am not commenting anything on beliefs of Tantri rituals unless it falls in non Tantri threads, in the same way I expect, trantris not to say anything about other sects.
Further, to my reply to my original posting, I doubt many did understand. As the submission was in native tongue, it said, Every one have their own rituals and god, they will get from the god what they deserve and their gods are as capable to give the boon to them. Simple. I also said, I will just protect my sect from Vamachara as my sect has no place for it.
All the other comments are pulled up from me

Situation is very simple. At least in one Agama of Pancharatra there exists a description of sexual ritual. That was told by me (since i read it in original) and same thing is written by Bhattacharyya.
If U say his submission is wrong U imply that either he is uncapable of understanding sanskrit or that he deliberately makes a false statement.

I never ascribed U a statement that Bhattacharyya is a Tantric. Read the post carefully ;). I told that Bhattacharyya is not a Tantric but a scholar � and thus he has no reason to cheat everyone and divert facts, saying there is some sexual practice in Pancharatra, as U or anyone else might have thought.

ramkish42

21 April 2006, 03:53 PM

Situation is very simple. At least in one Agama of Pancharatra there exists a description of sexual ritual. That was told by me (since i read it in original) and same thing is written by Bhattacharyya.
If U say his submission is wrong U imply that either he is uncapable of understanding sanskrit or that he deliberately makes a false statement.

I never ascribed U a statement that Bhattacharyya is a Tantric. Read the post carefully ;). I told that Bhattacharyya is not a Tantric but a scholar — and thus he has no reason to cheat everyone and divert facts, saying there is some sexual practice in Pancharatra, as U or anyone else might have thought.
Even I had read Lakshmi Tantra hence I deny such existence.

Now that you are insisting that it contains it is for your to present the evidence.

As you are able to quote Bhattacharya it is evident that you possess a copy of either Bhattacharya or Lakshmi Tantra, hence waiting for you to present what you actually read.

Arjuna

22 April 2006, 06:44 AM

Even I had read Lakshmi Tantra hence I deny such existence.
Now that you are insisting that it contains it is for your to present the evidence.
As you are able to quote Bhattacharya it is evident that you possess a copy of either Bhattacharya or Lakshmi Tantra, hence waiting for you to present what you actually read.

Evidence is a text of LT, exact passages i referred to.

Of course i have Bhattacharyya's book, but no LT original currently.

ramkish42

22 April 2006, 06:53 AM

As you could not reply aptly for this day on this thread, let me tell you more without mentioning the original texts

Lakshmi-tantra XXIIV. 44-47 - Makes no sense. I still cannot figure out what XXIIV is, either it should be XXII or XXIV, or XXVI, out of this only XXII has 47 verse which is talking about Banyan tree analogy

Lakshmi-tantra XLII. 30-31 again makes no sense with respect to meaning. These phrases talks about having a auspicious dream and tells few examples of auspicious dreams, where in (after few listings), the worshipper should request a pious couple and request them to represent Narayana and Lakshmi, offer them argya, paadya, aachamaniya and surrender to them with view that they are verily God and his consort.

Now you should understand the reason for my procrastination.

1. Your idea of I have not read my vaishnav scriptures is wrong.
2. Opinion of Shri Narendra Nath Bhattacharya is wrong if he really mentioned those phrases
3. You idea of Panchaaraatra Samhita and Lakshmi Tantra is wrong.

Still I feel as you are able to quote Bhattacharya it is evident that you possess a copy of either Bhattacharya or Lakshmi Tantra, hence waiting for you to present what you actually read

Will be waiting for you

ramkish42

22 April 2006, 06:59 AM

Late thought XXIIV could also be XXVII wrongly typed.

but 44 verse here says, when an adept sees a surpassingly virtuous young beautiful women, bearing me in mind (Bearing Mother Lakshmi in mind) he should not look at her with lust

This does not matches

Better I will wait for Shri Arjuna to correct his atypo error

ramkish42

22 April 2006, 07:08 AM

I never ascribed U a statement that Bhattacharyya is a Tantric. Read the post carefully ;). I told that Bhattacharyya is not a Tantric but a scholar � and thus he has no reason to cheat everyone and divert facts, saying there is some sexual practice in Pancharatra, as U or anyone else might have thought.

Read the bolded submission of yours. Dear Arjuna, I can read a typical tantri mind, that is why I am still replying to your submissions. (Of course, many of friends do insisted that I should continue with this, that is another reason). Sitting in different places and without seeing you, by the guidance given by my revered guru, I can also tell you what phrases will make you belligerent, to what extent you will be logical and when you will divert the topic

I agree, my posting was little bit ahead, still, by mentioning, BTW Bhattacharya is not Tantri, you really meant I assumed shri Narendra Nathji as Tantri, thus I made my submission saying do not ascribe me for saying Shri NN Bhattacharyaji is Tantri

ramkish42

22 April 2006, 08:09 AM

For other readers instead of reading the thread from OP, I present here
the gist of it
Topic started with Shri R Kannan Swami submitting Vamachara is
condemned by Shri Adi Sankara Bhaghavatpada

Shri Arjuna and Shri Kannan Swami debated on few replies about validity
of Vamachara where Kannan Swami replied, Vamachara is non vedic and is
condemned by veda and gurus whereas Shri Arjuna providing some points
proving the sect is verily a part of Hinduism

Moderator objected in between for calling Hindu Puranas Bogus (This
shows moderator does not sees any hindu purana as bogus but fully
authoritative)

As the discussion was going on, I submitted my view that Dharma changes
for each and every person, and also submitted my opinion that Agamas
regulate Vamachara practise.

As the posting also consisted of something related to Murthi puja, Shri
Arjun said Murthi Puja is totally absent in Veda and further gave
opinion that Murthi puja has no vedic authority. I objected to this
relating it to Idol worship without avahanaadi procedure vis-a-vis
Murti puja with invocation of godly powers. To conclude this part of
Murti puja, I further submitted Agamas regulate the system of murthi
puja and temples, where in Shri Arjuna felt Agamas are more superior to
Veda, thus it automatically conclude according to Shri Arjuna that
Murthi Puja as better authority. (thought the opinion of Arjuna that
Agamas are superior to veda is in dispute still, as per the contention
of Arjuna, Murthi Puja has better authority irrespective of fact he
himself has different opinion on that. This is the first controversy I
found, hence I could easily conclude that Shri Arjuna is a typical
Tantri full of controversies, and will deny one point and will accept
it as most authoritative in another instance - he denied murthi puja
having vedic authority and projected as if murthi puja is condemned and
all of sudden in a small twist said Agamas prescribing Murthi puja as
superior to veda)

Just before this, the thread sightly deviated with ideas of Devatas as
said in Shrimad Bhaghavat Gita and historical dates pertaining to
Puranas and Vedas

As devatas are said mortal in mythology, I had presented it and Shri
Arjuna has objections to mythology itself as whole, and opined that
Shiva and Shakti is verily non Mythological - This particular part of
thread regardig mythology is left at this level and may be proceeded
further if time and Shri Arjuna permit

As Shri Arjuna drifted to Devatas and demigod words, I had remainded
him to discuss about Vamachara at this juncture

After few replies Shri Arjuna accepted Murthi Puja has shruti
acceptance

From here in referring to mythology thread moved to Yoga of Shiva and
Shakti in the name of Prakasha and Vimarsha, explicitly questioning
intercourse

For a day or two I abstained from answering for Shri Arjuna accused
Shrimad Ramanuja for hiding realities (Few of my friends object to my
restraint, for this is not my practise in Faith Freedom International
Forum) For want of consistency in my treatment and reitreation by Shri
Singhi Kaya on other thread questioning my restraint, hence I answered)

At this Juncture Shri Arjuna made a statement "In maithuna there is a
great possibility to bring awareness to a higher level" referring to
intercourse has great possibility of bringing awarness of soul and also
provided few citation as to Pancharaatra containing text pertaining to
Maithuna.

To this I objected again saying Pancharaatra has no reference to
intercourse bringing higher awarness thus Pancharaatra does not
subscribe to the view of Tantri that Sexual intercourse can lead to
eternity (if regulated properly)

Shri Arjuna provided some verse numbers which turned out to be untrue
Now this thread has two questions

1. Is mythology rejectable as it is symbolic
2. Can sexual intercourse can bring in greater Awarness of soul as per
tantric view

As we will deal with the first question probably in some other thread
as it is general thread and no direct reference to Tantric, second
question stands.

As I had shown Paancharaatra has no reference, Shri Arjuna has to reply
back with original verses to prove Sexual practise has place in
Paancharaatra acceptance.

As veda has no reference to sexual practise leading to bliss, it is
only agamas which may opine so. As presented in "What does sanakara
mean?" thread, the authority of such agamas has to be discussed out and
relevance of sexual practise in realising soul has also to be discussed
out.

Now shri arjuna has three choices

1. Insist and show where does pancharaatra has shown sexual practise
prescribed for bliss - If shown I have no other go than to accept it as
it is verily a vaishavite sect and I am a vaishavite, hence sexual
practise is acceptable for both of us. (At this point some one else
has to jump in taking my stance from Shaivite point or other sect point
whereas I will resign back to enjoy life with my wife than seeking
bliss through other means) - possibility on this occurence is very very
meagre

2. Leave pancharaatra and start with sex can actually lead to eternal
bliss through authoritative texts - AUTHORITATIVE TEXTS - more
discussions are expected on how to consider a text a authoritative

3. Leave Pancharaatra and start with sex can actually lead to eternal
bliss without referring to Agamas through Logic - More discussions on
sources of knowledge, means of understanding Atma and realisation are
expected in this line

Request Shri Arjuna to start a separate thread if interested to discuss
Mythology and your objections to mythology

As my plan for this thread is clearly etched out, with the co-operation
of Shri Arjuna, I think this thread will get 5 star rating (excellent)

Baliyaasi Kevalam Ishvarecha.
As my perceptor rephrased
Tvayi pravrute mama kim prayaasai
Tvayya pravrute mama kim prayaasai

Tanmaamaavet, Tadvaktaaramavet, Aavetmaam, Aavet vaktaaram
Om Shanti: Shanti: Shanti:

Arjuna

22 April 2006, 09:37 AM

Late thought XXIIV could also be XXVII wrongly typed.
but 44 verse here says, when an adept sees a surpassingly virtuous young beautiful women, bearing me in mind (Bearing Mother Lakshmi in mind) he should not look at her with lust
This does not matches
Better I will wait for Shri Arjuna to correct his atypo error

If U do have the text of LT, what is the problem to provide mentioned sanskrit verses?
Then we can see who is right and who is wrong ;)

ramkish42

22 April 2006, 09:59 AM

If U do have the text of LT, what is the problem to provide mentioned sanskrit verses?
Then we can see who is right and who is wrong ;)
I am sorry, I am bound to my words given not to disclose Lakshmi Tantra (for that fact any Paancharaatra verses) verses to a non vaishavite

I can give you translations

Arjuna

22 April 2006, 11:17 AM

No, translations are of no proof. It is published text, there is nothing to keep secret. Anyway, sooner or later i will surely get needed verses. Let's leave the matter till then.

rkannan1

22 April 2006, 11:56 PM

Namaste all,

This discussion has run to too many pages in just one week I suppose. I am too busy nowadays and unable to post. I think I will be able to come back only after a month for I will be busy travelling.

ramkish42

23 April 2006, 01:54 AM

No, translations are of no proof. It is published text, there is nothing to keep secret. Anyway, sooner or later i will surely get needed verses. Let's leave the matter till then.
You are welcome to make the references

Once you make an entry, request you to send me an indication to ramkish42@toughguy.net so that I can be relieved in checking this thread often pls

Further this restraint is NOT related with secrecy but qualification to educate others with original texts. I am authorised to tell you what it indicates and teaching of Paancharaatra texts and original slokas are meant for Vaishnavites, for uttering original slokas to non vaishnavites is treated as educating and vaishnavites as submissions to check my knowledge on the text

For other vaishnavite I become a student and receptor has authority to test me on Paancharaatra texts

ramkish42

23 April 2006, 01:55 AM

Your absense is really felt. hope you will come back soon

Arjuna

23 April 2006, 08:52 AM

Further this restraint is NOT related with secrecy but qualification to educate others with original texts. I am authorised to tell you what it indicates and teaching of Paancharaatra texts and original slokas are meant for Vaishnavites, for uttering original slokas to non vaishnavites is treated as educating and vaishnavites as submissions to check my knowledge on the text
For other vaishnavite I become a student and receptor has authority to test me on Paancharaatra texts

Ok, no probs. Sooner or later we get sanskrit original of discussed verses :)

Arjuna

24 April 2006, 03:34 PM

Also it is clearly mentioned in this upanishad that Brahman world is attainalble only through Brahmacharya(8:5:2). It is because of these explcit statements in upanishads like this that vAmAchArA needs to be rejected as anti-Vedic.

Well, i have seen mentioned section of Chandogya. Good example on how people take out of context the words of Shruti to support their speculation.
There is nothing special about celibacy there. It simply says about importance of brahmacharya as a stage of life (before grihasthashrama).
Academic translation i have got now translates brahmacharya in this case as "learning" or "study".

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (3.6.4.2) says that it is needed to unite with woman sexually since Prajapati did this after creating a woman.
Then it describes sexual act as a yajna without saying anything about it is for procreation, but saying man has a benefit from that similar to benefit of Vajapeya sacrifice.
In same Brahmana further (9-10) it is said how to enjoy sex with a woman and not make her pregnant.

Thus, Shruti doesn't say sex is for procreation only.

Krishna in Gita says he is Kama which is dharma-aviruddha.
Shiva is called Kameshvara and his Shakti (Lalita) is Kameshvari. Kameshvara is not due to mythological event of burning of Kamadeva, but verily due to Shiva's nature as Love/Passion.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad when speaking about Purusha (2.3.9.10+), names several aspects of it; it mentions Purusha established in Kama and says that his deity are women. And this kind of Purusha is said to be also a highest support of Atman!

In Vedic religion there is no anti-sexual attitude. Never it is said that one aiming at Mukti has to abstain from sex when he is grihasthi.

Brihadaranyaka (2.4.3.21) says: "Like husband in embrace of beloved wife knows nothing external or internal, same way this Purusha in embrace of knowing Atman knows nothing external or internal."
(Translation is sanskrit-russian-english, since i have no sanskrit original presently. If anyone has objections or corrections, welcome to provide the original verse.)

Once again to RKannan or/and Ramkish, WHICH SHRUTI SAYS THAT GRIHASTHI WHO WANTS MOKSHA HAS TO STOP SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH HIS WIFE?
Till present moment U people are silent with proofs, only baseless claims are repeated again and again.

ramkish42

24 April 2006, 04:05 PM

Well, i have seen mentioned section of Chandogya. Good example on how people take out of context the words of Shruti to support their speculation.
There is nothing special about celibacy there. It simply says about importance of brahmacharya as a stage of life (before grihasthashrama).
Academic translation i have got now translates brahmacharya in this case as "learning" or "study".

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (3.6.4.2) says that it is needed to unite with woman sexually since Prajapati did this after creating a woman.
Then it describes sexual act as a yajna without saying anything about it is for procreation, but saying man has a benefit from that similar to benefit of Vajapeya sacrifice.
In same Brahmana further (9-10) it is said how to enjoy sex with a woman and not make her pregnant.

Thus, Shruti doesn't say sex is for procreation only.

I am not very sure whether I should be posting a reply for this statement made Shri Kannan Swami. By all means, he is should be the right person to reply for this.

I will just make some enquires to ascertain few facts

Does all these quotations deal with MUMUKSHUs. I had time and again told Arjun that in Samaanya Grihasti dharma sex is allowed in full. No savings in that. I am Samaanya Grihasti too, I know my dharma in full.

Again, Is this for Mumukshu??????

Krishna in Gita says he is Kama which is dharma-aviruddha.

Thanks for reading Shrimad Bhagavat Gita. The person who make others Gita is blessed, thanks for getting the blessing (I thank you on behalf of Shri Kannan Swami as he is not here now)

Shiva is called Kameshvara and his Shakti (Lalita) is Kameshvari. Kameshvara is not due to mythological event of burning of Kamadeva, but verily due to Shiva's nature as Love/Passion.

It is verily a mythological event. Otherwise you have submit your proof

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad when speaking about Purusha (2.3.9.10+), names several aspects of it; it mentions Purusha established in Kama and says that his deity are women. And this kind of Purusha is said to be also a highest support of Atman!

Is this for Mumukshu

In Vedic religion there is no anti-sexual attitude. Never it is said that one aiming at Mukti has to abstain from sex when he is grihasthi.
Does any of this submission is valid of Mumukshus?

Brihadaranyaka (2.4.3.21) says: "Like husband in embrace of beloved wife knows nothing external or internal, same way this Purusha in embrace of knowing Atman knows nothing external or internal."
(Translation is sanskrit-russian-english, since i have no sanskrit original presently. If anyone has objections or corrections, welcome to provide the original verse.)

The subject matter here is purusha embracing Atma, thus establishing both are different with an analogy of husband and wife. The idea is dualist idea in sharp contrast with your monistic idea. How does this corroborate you Kaula views?

Once again to RKannan or/and Ramkish, WHICH SHRUTI SAYS THAT GRIHASTHI WHO WANTS MOKSHA HAS TO STOP SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH HIS WIFE?
Till present moment U people are silent with proofs, only baseless claims are repeated again and again.

Merely for my name reference I was answering all the above, but you should take answers for this from Shri Kannan Swami.

As to my levels, my style is different, I will quote shruthis saying grihasti who wants moksha has to stop sexual relationship with his wife only as last resort, till then let me deal with your own texts. By this time, I had posted in some other threads which you could comment.

Waiting for the original Lakshmi Tantra quotes

ramkish42

24 April 2006, 05:19 PM

I trust Vamachara is roughly translated to Left handed which in sharp contrast with Dakshinachara

Further to this, we are discussing about sexual practises in too many threads, request you to consider the idea of discussing other vamachara practises in this thread and confine sexual practises to other threads

Arjuna

24 April 2006, 05:53 PM

Does all these quotations deal with MUMUKSHUs. I had time and again told Arjun that in Samaanya Grihasti dharma sex is allowed in full. No savings in that. I am Samaanya Grihasti too, I know my dharma in full.

1. Nowhere Shruti says these quotations are not applicable for grihasthi mumukshus. Moksha is one of 4 Purusharthas and is not opposed to other three. There is no logical and no scriptural reason to put mumukshus apart from all "common" grihasthis.

2. As i remember, some people including RKannan claimed that sex is only for procreation. Thus i wanted to show an evidence of Shruti that this is not so.

It is verily a mythological event. Otherwise you have submit your proof

Devi did not take part in burning of Kamadeva, but She is named Kameshvari. Agamas describe Shiva and Shakti as existing in the state of Kamakala, and since they are Kameshvara and Kameshvari.
Direct meaning of Kameshvara is "Lord of Passion/Desire/Love/Will". There is no reason to reject it. Mythological explanation is an obvious speculation, though it may be also valid as secondary explanation.

The subject matter here is purusha embracing Atma, thus establishing both are different with an analogy of husband and wife. The idea is dualist idea in sharp contrast with your monistic idea. How does this corroborate you Kaula views?

Monistic is not my idea, but Reality :)
Upanishads are OK with monism, it is only language that makes impression of dualism in some cases. No language can express the Truth perfectly.

As to my levels, my style is different, I will quote shruthis saying grihasti who wants moksha has to stop sexual relationship with his wife only as last resort, till then let me deal with your own texts.

Do U say this as Ur personal opinion or in which way?

Arjuna

24 April 2006, 05:59 PM

I trust Vamachara is roughly translated to Left handed which in sharp contrast with Dakshinachara

Vamachara primarily means "Following the Woman/Beautiful (vAmA)".

But it is also "Path of the Left", which refers to Nivritti-naya or Viparita-marga - the direct way back to God. Dakshinachara is preceding level which deals with Pravritti, wordly existance. Dakshinachara is under the laws of Karma, while Vama is above.

ramkish42

24 April 2006, 06:06 PM

1. Nowhere Shruti says these quotations are not applicable for grihasthi mumukshus. Moksha is one of 4 Purusharthas and is not opposed to other three. There is no logical and no scriptural reason to put mumukshus apart from all "common" grihasthis.

No need to split, only referece to mumukshu is enough. Did any of the text you had quoted earlier pertaining to mumukshus as such?

2. As i remember, some people including RKannan claimed that sex is only for procreation. Thus i wanted to show an evidence of Shruti that this is not so.

This is general Hindu View as such, anyways, I leave this to Kannan Swami to answer

Devi did not take part in burning of Kamadeva, but She is named Kameshvari. Agamas describe Shiva and Shakti as existing in the state of Kamakala, and since they are Kameshvara and Kameshvari.
Direct meaning of Kameshvara is "Lord of Passion/Desire/Love/Will". There is no reason to reject it. Mythological explanation is an obvious speculation, though it may be also valid as secondary explanation.

Wife of Kamaeswara hence kameswari. Eswara and Eswari is common parlance, hence there is no need to explain it. Though the direct meaning is correct the name reason is given as Eswara who overcame Kama (Madana), thus referring person who does not fall into the pit of Kama. Commentaries of Shiva Sahasranama Storas compliments my views

Monistic is not my idea, but Reality :)
Upanishads are OK with monism, it is only language that makes impression of dualism in some cases. No language can express the Truth perfectly.
My submission is not about Monism you subtly and conveniently miss my query, as the submitted texts establishes duality directly comparing it with Husband and Wife with act of embracing (not sexual union, hence dual) how does it corroborates your ideas or otherwise your reality

Do U say this as Ur personal opinion or in which way?
OK, the phrase is confusing.

I intended to say, I will submitt those proofs only as my last resort and till then I will deal with the texts known to you.

If Shri Kannan Swami wants to present those proof and close this thread, it is his prerogative, I have nothing to object.

ramkish42

24 April 2006, 06:07 PM

Further to this, we are discussing about sexual practises in too many threads, request you to consider the idea of discussing other vamachara practises in this thread and confine sexual practises to other threads

Is this OK or not, there is no comment on this

Arjuna

24 April 2006, 06:59 PM

No need to split, only referece to mumukshu is enough. Did any of the text you had quoted earlier pertaining to mumukshus as such?

If Shastras say something it is applied to the whole group under discussion, unless some groups are specifically excluded. This is logical.
It would be extremely odd to say every time "this is meant for grihasthis, which include mumukshus, arthakamis, vidyarthis etc". And even more ridiculous would be to ask then: "But does it refer to vaishyas?" or to followers of Nyaya!
Since there is no prohibition of sex for mumukshu-grihasthis in Shruti, there are no grounds to imagine it.

Of course we may say that mumukshu is supposed to control his senses (which is right) and not to get attached to outer pleasures (which is also right). But these verily doesn't mean he has to stop having sex with his wife.

This is general Hindu View as such, anyways, I leave this to Kannan Swami to answer

THIS IS NOT GENERAL HINDU VIEW!
Shruti doesn't support it, Agamas do not, Gita doesn't. Which general Hinduism U are talking about!?

Till now the only quotation mentioning such view was that one from Bhagavata-purana, which was said in rather specific context and not as a general rule.
But there are plenty of quotations from Shruti and Agamas supporting the opposite view, which is in fact general Hindu. Sex has two aims, both of which Hinduism acknowledges.

Wife of Kamaeswara hence kameswari. Eswara and Eswari is common parlance, hence there is no need to explain it. Though the direct meaning is correct the name reason is given as Eswara who overcame Kama (Madana), thus referring person who does not fall into the pit of Kama. Commentaries of Shiva Sahasranama Storas compliments my views

Some dualistic Shaivas may think so. But the very idea about "falling into a pit of Kama" is neither Vedic nor Agamic ;).
Krishna says in Gita, that he is Dharma-aviruddha Kama in beings. What is the problem to admit simply and direct meaning of Shiva's name and invent some crooked explanations?

My submission is not about Monism you subtly and conveniently miss my query, as the submitted texts establishes duality directly comparing it with Husband and Wife with act of embracing (not sexual union, hence dual) how does it corroborates your ideas or otherwise your reality

I see no duality implied in that verse.

Embrace is an usual euphemism of sexual union.

Arjuna

24 April 2006, 07:02 PM

Is this OK or not, there is no comment on this

This thread is originally about Vamachara, so here it would be natural to discuss sexual practices.

Just put all Ur submissions on the topic here, that's it.

ramkish42

25 April 2006, 02:41 AM

This thread is originally about Vamachara, so here it would be natural to discuss sexual practices.

Just put all Ur submissions on the topic here, that's it.
So, by this can I assume, we will confine sex only to this thread and leave other two threads for it own dealing with general views

Can we take sex out of Jnana Yoga and What did Sankara meant threads and confine it to this place????

ramkish42

25 April 2006, 03:35 AM

If Shastras say something it is applied to the whole group under discussion, unless some groups are specifically excluded. This is logical.
It would be extremely odd to say every time "this is meant for grihasthis, which include mumukshus, arthakamis, vidyarthis etc". And even more ridiculous would be to ask then: "But does it refer to vaishyas?" or to followers of Nyaya!
Since there is no prohibition of sex for mumukshu-grihasthis in Shruti, there are no grounds to imagine it.

As I am unable to find the cited slokas in Bruhadaaranyaka Upanishad, by raising this question I thought you will check and get back, which has failed.

Pls clarify which edition of Bruhadaaranyaka Upanishad you have which has these lines - I think it could not be bruhadaaranyaka Upanishad for I have a copy of Ramakrishna Mutt publication

Of course we may say that mumukshu is supposed to control his senses (which is right) and not to get attached to outer pleasures (which is also right). But these verily doesn't mean he has to stop having sex with his wife.
So you mean sex is not outer pleasure but internal pleasure??

THIS IS NOT GENERAL HINDU VIEW!
Shruti doesn't support it, Agamas do not, Gita doesn't. Which general Hinduism U are talking about!?

Till now the only quotation mentioning such view was that one from Bhagavata-purana, which was said in rather specific context and not as a general rule.
But there are plenty of quotations from Shruti and Agamas supporting the opposite view, which is in fact general Hindu. Sex has two aims, both of which Hinduism acknowledges.

There was no citation from either you or Shri Kannan Swami. You attempted with Lakshmi Tantra where in your citation numbers are wrong, Verse does not match so on and so forth, yet you want me to submit the original slokas

Has I had submitted the citation by Shri NN Bhattacharya is not mistake nor negligence, let me make it clear now, being a research person, he has taken the very phrase - just copied word by word - from PREFACE of a translation of Lakshmi Tantra where in later passages in the same preface acknowledged the absense of the said contexts and very translation done by the same author does not susbscribe to the statement borrowed by Shri NN Bhattacharya. Being a research student I know this is how research works - check with as many texts as possible, try to assimilate views that favours and try to categorise views submitted against the hypothesis in groups so that it can be dealt as a bunch, in that attempt the said passage is copied by Shri NN Bhattacharji, hence I ascribed no malafide intentions to him, as I know no research scholar can spend time with voluminous work like Lakshmi Tantra cover to cover just to take few lines

I cited some slokas trying to bring a conclusion by logic, which could not happen,

Why shift the onus on me when you yourself has not quoted any texts

Anyways, past is past, we had wasted ample space in circling around the issue without getting into it

I had already started with some citations in terms of Vijnana Bhariva, first referred by you, Kaulavalinirnaya and Kaulachudamani. Hope this discussion will benefit both of us

Some dualistic Shaivas may think so. But the very idea about "falling into a pit of Kama" is neither Vedic nor Agamic ;).
Krishna says in Gita, that he is Dharma-aviruddha Kama in beings. What is the problem to admit simply and direct meaning of Shiva's name and invent some crooked explanations?
Thanks for acknowledging that this is not my sectarian view but view of Shiava Siddantha. Verily Monistic Advaitins of Kamakoti Peetam acknowledge this meaning

Anyways, as you have choice of meanings and you choose what you like, let me stay with what I feel is correct

Request you quote the verse from Gita

I see no duality implied in that verse.
Embrace is an usual euphemism of sexual union.

As research scholars has acknowledged Chaandogya Upanishad is vehemently Advaitin and Bruhadaaranyaka Upanishad is vehemently dualistic, there are lot of possibility for dualism implied herewith.

As I had said, you choose Monistic view of Bruhadaaranyaka and I choose Dualistic interpretations of Chaandogya there is no problem unless we discuss this. As the present context is not this, this issue is remote, hence we will discuss more about the second line in the submission and leave the first line to individual faith

Arjuna

25 April 2006, 06:34 AM

ramkish42

25 April 2006, 06:47 AM

1. Regarding Brihadaranyaka:
There are 6 chapters divided into 3 sections. Numeration i provided incude section, chapter, brahmana and verse. If in Ur edition no section division is there, just omit the first number. Chapter, brahmana and verse are enough to find.
Not much help.

I will check for the book in my father's library sometime later

2. On Lakshmi-tantra: Bhattacharyya provided two exact references and not simply quoted a sentence from preface (which he might have did or not). Certainly he wouldn't have done that without checking, it is not a big deal to read three-four verses. And again, i have read at least one passage myself.
Please, leave this issue until somebody provides sanskrit verses.
As you yourself casting dubious status on Shri NN Bhattacharji, request you to tell me what does XXIIV means, which you call exact reference

3. dharmAviruddho bhUteShu kAmo.asmi � verse from Gita.
It was discussed previously in some thread in these forums.
The very phrase you had submitted means - I AM THE DHARMA AVIRUDDHA KAMA - which means, lord categorically divides kama into two one is viruddha and another is aviruddha. He responded with he is the one which is aviruddha.

I do not understand how this statement helps you, what exactly you want to state by quoting this

ramkish42

25 April 2006, 06:50 AM

So, by this can I assume, we will confine sex only to this thread and leave other two threads for it own dealing with general views

Can we take sex out of Jnana Yoga and What did Sankara meant threads and confine it to this place????
any response for this?

Arjuna

25 April 2006, 11:08 AM

The very phrase you had submitted means - I AM THE DHARMA AVIRUDDHA KAMA - which means, lord categorically divides kama into two one is viruddha and another is aviruddha. He responded with he is the one which is aviruddha.
I do not understand how this statement helps you, what exactly you want to state by quoting this

No, there is no such division necessarily implied. It can be put in two ways, either as U said or it may mean that Kama by itself is not contrary to Dharma. Expression used makes both versions possible.
In fact both interpretations are valid and logical, since in its essence Kama is divine (and thus cannot be contrary to Dharma), but in its forms it can go against dharma due to ignorance of a person.

In any of these two cases, it is sure that at least that Kama, which is not contrary to Dharma, is Divine. This is stated by Krishna and not me.

I quoted this in relations to two issues: Kameshvara name of the Lord, and some Ur anti-Kama statements.

The matter is very transparent.

ramkish42

25 April 2006, 11:54 AM

No, there is no such division necessarily implied. It can be put in two ways, either as U said or it may mean that Kama by itself is not contrary to Dharma. Expression used makes both versions possible.
In fact both interpretations are valid and logical, since in its essence Kama is divine (and thus cannot be contrary to Dharma), but in its forms it can go against dharma due to ignorance of a person.

In any of these two cases, it is sure that at least that Kama, which is not contrary to Dharma, is Divine. This is stated by Krishna and not me.

I quoted this in relations to two issues: Kameshvara name of the Lord, and some Ur anti-Kama statements.

The matter is very transparent.
There is no point in stating this.

I had given my concurrence for practise of Kaama as far as grihastis are concerned. No one has right to say Kaama is Adharma - lest entire Human race would have been vanquished by now.

What I really object is

1. Mumukshu practising Kaama
2. Maithuna in Puja, and insistence of Maithuna during religious rituals.
3. Claiming Maithuna will lead to Eternity for being part of some ritual
4. Maithuna during rituals is mandatory for Vaishnavas

These are the only four points I had been objecting.

If you are not aware, you can check Prasanopanishad, which gives to an extent idea of creation of progeny on how Maithuna is considered as sacrament, how creation of progeny does not only depend on Maithuna but also on other factors religiously. No one objects to this

There is no point in occupying server space in the name reasonable discussion, where you present a view, I concur, you keep repeating the points to which I had given my concurrence, I keep on insisting on points which you had given concurrence - once concurred let us drop it, unless there is more subtle points which you want to present which could compliment our concurrence, which could lead to more religious knowledge.

Pls quote my anti kama statements where I insisted Grihastis, who are not mumukshus, should abstain from Kaamartha

Arjuna

26 April 2006, 05:07 AM

Namaste,

1. Regarding usage of “jivhopasthaparityAgi” by Kaulavali-nirnaya (1.43) about Jnani:
Again, the problem is taking out of the context. It further says what is bondage and what is Liberation (1.45), in fact quoting from Kularnava-tantra: “mine”-feeling and “not mine”, mama & nirmama. It is clear that parityaga means not necessary physical abstinence from usage of tongue and genitals, but absence of attachment: Jnani doesn’t identify his “ego” with these activities, since he has no “ego” of his own. It would be clearly ridiculous to admit that Jnani cannot use his tongue — for a fact we know that thousands of Jnanis did continue to use it and only minority preferred mauna. Vedic Rishis who spoke out the Word of Veda used their tongue — they never wrote the texts. Like that, they used their genitals, which is again known from Shruti.
Thus, this expression doesn’t mean that Jnani has to stop activities of jihva and upastha, but has to stop thinking of these as “his own”. Which is in total accordance with Gita teaching, Tantric teaching and Hinduism in general.

2. Regarding two verses of Vijnana-bhairava Agama, which mention sexual union. Let me provide originals:
shaktisa~Ngamasa~NkShubdha shaktyAveshAvasAnikam.
yatsukhaM brahmatattvasya tatsukhaM svAkyamuchyate..69..
lehanAmanthanAkoTaiH strIsukhasya bharAtsmR^iteH.
shaktyabhAve.api deveshi bhavedAnandasamplavaH..70..
While the second verse says that “[even] in the absence of a woman just by remembrance of enjoyment with her, numerous kisses and frictions, overflow of Bliss occurs”, first one says: “The orgasm (lit. completion of entrance into a woman), aroused by coition with a woman, is that Joy of the Brahman-Nature which is called inherent”.

Arjuna

26 April 2006, 05:41 AM

What I really object is

1. Mumukshu practising Kaama
2. Maithuna in Puja, and insistence of Maithuna during religious rituals.
3. Claiming Maithuna will lead to Eternity for being part of some ritual
4. Maithuna during rituals is mandatory for Vaishnavas

These are the only four points I had been objecting.

Pls quote my anti kama statements where I insisted Grihastis, who are not mumukshus, should abstain from Kaamartha

Onto these points:

1. There is no Vedic or Smarta prohibition. Thus, as a general Hindu view, mumukshu-grihasthi can have sex (since no prohibition is there), and have to make his wife happy, which is a part of Dharma compulsory for ANY grihasthi � thus, if wife wants sexual pleasure, he must give her that.
I state this again, since U every time ignore the matter and deny the facts. Till now i have seen no proof from U of this claim of Urs.

2. Maithuna as a part of Puja is mainly a Tantric practice, which is beyond doubt. Do U argue on this and more evidences needed?
To some extent it is a Vedic practice (there were no "pujas" at that time, so i refer to the Vedic cult in general).
I never said maithuna is a part of Puja in all Hindu traditions. But in several it verily is.

3. Shakta- and Bhairava-agamas teach this. Since U are a Shri-vaishnava, U do not have to accept this view. But this teaching is existing in Hinduism, that's all.
I do not want to argue on the point "is this teaching actually true", since no use in such arguement is there. It is not taught by Ur sampradaya and Ur Guru � forget that, this method is not meant for U. It is taught by my sampradaya � please allow me to follow it and speak about it.

4. Ritual maithuna is NOT mandatory for Vaishnavas in a whole. I never stated it is, in fact. Two things i said are:
There is at least in one Pancharatra text a reference to ritual maithuna. I do not remember what Lakshmi-tantra says about results o such ritual � may be it is not aimed at Mukti, but is just a part of special upasana.
In SOME Vaishnava traditions maithuna was a part of sadhana � namely in Bengali and Orissan Vaishnavism. Of course, U may say this is a result of Shakta influence, which can be true. But as a matter of fact, such is the case about maithuna.
I can add that sexual rituals were widely practiced among Vaishnava Gurus of Vallabha sampradaya at certain time. U may argue that was just their indulgence and not a sadhana � to this no objection can be made, since i have no idea about personalities of those people. Were they saints of sex-addicts remains a question.

5. U have used an expression "to fall into a pit of kama", which i see as anti-Kama statement. Moreover, U deny the possibility of sexual union for grihasthi-mumukshu, and this is not taught in Shruti, Gita or Agama.

ramkish42

26 April 2006, 07:49 AM

Namaste,

1. Regarding usage of �jivhopasthaparityAgi� by Kaulavali-nirnaya (1.43) about Jnani:
Again, the problem is taking out of the context. It further says what is bondage and what is Liberation (1.45), in fact quoting from Kularnava-tantra: �mine�-feeling and �not mine�, mama & nirmama. It is clear that parityaga means not necessary physical abstinence from usage of tongue and genitals, but absence of attachment: Jnani doesn�t identify his �ego� with these activities, since he has no �ego� of his own. It would be clearly ridiculous to admit that Jnani cannot use his tongue � for a fact we know that thousands of Jnanis did continue to use it and only minority preferred mauna. Vedic Rishis who spoke out the Word of Veda used their tongue � they never wrote the texts. Like that, they used their genitals, which is again known from Shruti.

The problem of taking out of context arises with you submission verily. Jnani who is supposed to discard his toungue and genital are understood too literally by you. Where ever such words are used, it meant to mean control over speech and control over intercourse. This verily talks about his intentions - Jnani is supposed to supress his intentions to speak up and should abstain from sex

If taken out of context in the sense you mean, this could result in Jnani should in mounvrata for ever and should not respond to jala ubhaada which is not the intention

This is one more time you are missing the point subtly for very literal meanings

Thus, this expression doesn�t mean that Jnani has to stop activities of jihva and upastha, but has to stop thinking of these as �his own�. Which is in total accordance with Gita teaching, Tantric teaching and Hinduism in general.

This is in accordance with teachings of Gita and general Hindu view. As we are discussing about Tantric teaching, I should verily say what I found is an exceptional case for Tantric teaching and goes against general Tantric practise

When such two different views are bridged, such bridging is valid for only for the particular practitioner. Let me take an analogy - the position of Shri Lakshmi in Vaishnavite sect - One feels that she is on par with Shriman Narayana and other feel she is only another Atma, Nithyaatma, highly blessed to be consort of Shriman Narayana - if I try to bridge these two views, such bridge is valid only for Vaishnavas, for general view, both are valid, and which ever is more logical becomes general view, and bridge is non authoritative of non vaishnavites as whole.

Hence, bridging is authoritative for particular practitioner, for general view, there are both practices equally valid in Tantric practises and aligning with one amongst it, is to be guided by logic

[/quote]2. Regarding two verses of Vijnana-bhairava Agama, which mention sexual union. Let me provide originals:
shaktisa~Ngamasa~NkShubdha shaktyAveshAvasAnikam.
yatsukhaM brahmatattvasya tatsukhaM svAkyamuchyate..69..
lehanAmanthanAkoTaiH strIsukhasya bharAtsmR^iteH.
shaktyabhAve.api deveshi bhavedAnandasamplavaH..70..
While the second verse says that �[even] in the absence of a woman just by remembrance of enjoyment with her, numerous kisses and frictions, overflow of Bliss occurs�, first one says: �The orgasm (lit. completion of entrance into a woman), aroused by coition with a woman, is that Joy of the Brahman-Nature which is called inherent�.[/quote]

I agree there are references to sexual events which I had accepted earlier also.

My point of differences

1. Reference to Bliss of Love without referring to bliss of eternity, and there is no referece as to how bliss of sexual love leads to bliss of eternity

2. to be specific with verse 69, yat sukham brahmatatvasya, with qualifying words, Yat and Asya, does not make the joy is of Brahman nature but refers only to "Like that of Brahman Nature". This makes there is lot of possiblity referring to procreation leading to progeny. Yat - Tat usages refers to upamaana and not otherwise

3. Verse 70, has references supporting my view that Maithuna could be substituted, thus falling into general view of all hindus

Further there is no comments from you where my references are made to other points of Vijnana Bhairava

ramkish42

26 April 2006, 08:16 AM

Onto these points:

1. There is no Vedic or Smarta prohibition. Thus, as a general Hindu view, mumukshu-grihasthi can have sex (since no prohibition is there), and have to make his wife happy, which is a part of Dharma compulsory for ANY grihasthi � thus, if wife wants sexual pleasure, he must give her that.
I state this again, since U every time ignore the matter and deny the facts. Till now i have seen no proof from U of this claim of Urs.

2. Maithuna as a part of Puja is mainly a Tantric practice, which is beyond doubt. Do U argue on this and more evidences needed?
To some extent it is a Vedic practice (there were no "pujas" at that time, so i refer to the Vedic cult in general).
I never said maithuna is a part of Puja in all Hindu traditions. But in several it verily is.

3. Shakta- and Bhairava-agamas teach this. Since U are a Shri-vaishnava, U do not have to accept this view. But this teaching is existing in Hinduism, that's all.
I do not want to argue on the point "is this teaching actually true", since no use in such arguement is there. It is not taught by Ur sampradaya and Ur Guru � forget that, this method is not meant for U. It is taught by my sampradaya � please allow me to follow it and speak about it.

1 & 2. Let me first refer texts known to you pertaining to substitution of Maithuna, thus making Maithuna not mandatory. Further, the problem is attaching Maithuna with several puja

3. I am saying the teachings are false. If there are teachings they are true, and binds the practitioners of the revelation. My problem is attaching with others in generally

As Maithuna is not part of non tantric pujas, now I am looking for texts that excludes Maithuna in tantric pujas - I am trying to make tantrism more applicable to people at large, even to orthodox people

Till this point I am not sure, why you are objecting, still as the discussion goes on, I trust this will benefit all at large

4. Ritual maithuna is NOT mandatory for Vaishnavas in a whole. I never stated it is, in fact. Two things i said are:
There is at least in one Pancharatra text a reference to ritual maithuna. I do not remember what Lakshmi-tantra says about results o such ritual � may be it is not aimed at Mukti, but is just a part of special upasana.
In SOME Vaishnava traditions maithuna was a part of sadhana � namely in Bengali and Orissan Vaishnavism. Of course, U may say this is a result of Shakta influence, which can be true. But as a matter of fact, such is the case about maithuna.

With Lakshmi Tantra you had suspended the issues for original texts, we will wait for that before making any comment on that.

Regarding Vaishnav traditions of Bengal and Orissa, I am not sure what you are talking about. If you have any references, like you to submit it.

I can add that sexual rituals were widely practiced among Vaishnava Gurus of Vallabha sampradaya at certain time. U may argue that was just their indulgence and not a sadhana � to this no objection can be made, since i have no idea about personalities of those people. Were they saints of sex-addicts remains a question.

I am not very sure whether followers of Vallabhacharya will concur with view treating them as Vaishnav in general. Their philosophy is called Suddha Advaita, typically Monistic teaching. Many feel that Smaarta tradition is a vaishnav tradition, but in practise this is not seen - the point here is Vaishnavs in general are dualist, they agree with bhedhaabheda, unity in diversity - emanating from one, but different - with references to Body soul theory and the like

By and large, if you see sexual rituals with Suddha Advaita request you to submit the evidences you have.

5. U have used an expression "to fall into a pit of kama", which i see as anti-Kama statement. Moreover, U deny the possibility of sexual union for grihasthi-mumukshu, and this is not taught in Shruti, Gita or Agama.
Pit of Kaama is not treated as anti-kaama statement. If so there are so many similar statements cautioning about vibharidha nature of Maithuna and similar objectionable practises in Tantric texts, I cannot come to conclusion based on that Tantric texts has anti-kaama statements. You came with a name, I explained the name for you

On the contrary, the word Kama is also used to refer to iccha, I did not made the meaning as person who grants the boon for the word Kaameswara

Linguistically, I can split the word into Ka+Mesha+Eswara, thus making the word refer to Who is the lord of Mesha (Goat) or referring to Lord of the first zodiac sign etc.

However, I know these are wierd meaning which are not in common parlence.

I am submitting all these stuff just to refer, I am not the kind of person which you expect. I am adhering to general rules and common parlence, and to make me a person with Anti-kaama ideologies, you should come up with better proof

Arjuna

26 April 2006, 08:27 AM

The problem of taking out of context arises with you submission verily. Jnani who is supposed to discard his toungue and genital are understood too literally by you. Where ever such words are used, it meant to mean control over speech and control over intercourse. This verily talks about his intentions - Jnani is supposed to supress his intentions to speak up and should abstain from sex

No, this is merely Ur interpretation based on non-Tantric philosophy. Please, do not apply Vaishnava or Shankara's Vedanta ideas to Kaula-shastras, this is confusing the matter.
Mentioned verse talks about non-attachment, but verily not about suppression.

This is one more time you are missing the point subtly for very literal meanings

It is U who try to divert the meaning of the verse. Once again, we talk about Kaula text and it has to be understood in the context of Kaula teaching (and the TEXT ITSELF), and not Ur personal views.

Tantras never teach any kind of suppression of whatsoever, sepecially for Jnanis. They teach that in advanced Kaula sadhana "the niyama is following one's own will" (svechchhA niyama). Metioned passage simply states that Jnani doesn't see speech and sexual activity as his "own actions", for he is one with Bhairava and doesn't possess any personal ego (mamatva).

I agree there are references to sexual events which I had accepted earlier also.
My point of differences:
1. Reference to Bliss of Love without referring to bliss of eternity, and there is no referece as to how bliss of sexual love leads to bliss of eternity

It clearly says that bliss experienced in an intercourse is Bliss of Brahma-tattva (yat sukhaM brahmatattvasya), which is Bliss of the Absolute.

And previously discussed verse about pleasure of mind speaks about Parananda, highest Bliss:
yatra yatra manastuShTir manastatraiva dhArayet.
tatra tatra parAnandasvarUpaM sampravartate..74..

2. to be specific with verse 69, yat sukham brahmatatvasya, with qualifying words, Yat and Asya, does not make the joy is of Brahman nature but refers only to "Like that of Brahman Nature". This makes there is lot of possiblity referring to procreation leading to progeny. Yat - Tat usages refers to upamaana and not otherwise

U completely misunderstand the meaning. There is no word "asya" ("its"), but "brahma-tattvasya", where "sya" is the ending of genetivus. Thus it means "sukha of Brahma-tattva".
Verily there is not even a slight reference to procreation and progeny.
Yat-tat here stands for Sukha of maithuna, which is Brahma-sukha, and Svakya-sukha, one's own inherent bliss, Atmananda. It simply states that bliss of Brahman experienced in maithuna is not external bliss, but inherent.

3. Verse 70, has references supporting my view that Maithuna could be substituted, thus falling into general view of all hindus

It can be substituted when a woman is absent. And this verily implies that there must be an experience of maithuna, otherwise how a remembrance can be there.

Further there is no comments from you where my references are made to other points of Vijnana Bhairava

I haven't searched for a photocopy of the whole book. I had these three verses written out separately as referring to Vama-sadhana. I did that in course of research work.

ramkish42

26 April 2006, 08:35 AM

Regarding usage of 5M by brahmanas, there is no consistency about first three in Agamas. Some Agamas do permit to use anukalpas for wine, meat and fish for brahmanas, but it is argued by another Agamas. This polemics is evident in Kulapujana-chandrika, where one may find many pros&contras — but the resume is that brahmanas should use wine as well (this is supported by Tantraloka and Kularnava).

This verily goes against guide rules made by Manu which has general appliation and more authoritative for it is Law of Hindus in general. Similar ban for Wine is also seen in Naaradeeya Dharmasaastra and Yaajnavaalkya smriti

But there is no legacy to substitute maithuna with anukalpa on the basis of brahmana-varna. In some cases physical maithuna is not possible, as then anukalpas are used. Since Shruti never prohibit sexual act for grihastha-brahmanas, there is no point for substitutes. Only in cases of group rituals brahmanas nowadays frequently use anukalpas, since the full practice of Shrichakrarchana demands very high level of bhAva from all participants

I am not suggesting the exclusions are particular to Brahmana Varna - but in general

Exclusion of 5M's including wine are in general. I also found few passages in some books of tantra referring Blanket ban of Manu does not apply to Kaula for intoxicating does not affect a Kaula, which I understand is true only when a Kaula does not feel dizzy after taking wine for verily he is not taking it

Once Maharishi Veda Vyasa after taking buttermilk from a vendor, asked the vendor to cross the river afer making the vow that Let the vendor float if Veda Vyasa is really fasting for the day, story corroborates, vendor verily floated. Upon enquiry, he replied, buttermilk was taken by Paramaatma inside Veda Vyasa and not by Veda Vyasa. Similar should be the result even with wine and other similar things.

More over, we should deal with this wine first for such references will make many confuse revealtion of agamas to hallucinations of intoxication.

Moreover, your point verily proves Maithuna can be substituted

ramkish42

26 April 2006, 09:24 AM

No, this is merely Ur interpretation based on non-Tantric philosophy. Please, do not apply Vaishnava or Shankara's Vedanta ideas to Kaula-shastras, this is confusing the matter.
Mentioned verse talks about non-attachment, but verily not about suppression.
I am not applying non Kaula interpretations but general ideas of Sanskrit interpretation.

When the text says about discarding genital, how could take the meaning otherwise with question pertaining to discarding in whole? If you mean this is discard is discard in whole, it should mean Jnani should not respond to jala ubhaadha, on the other hand, discarding is not in general, the only other use of genital is intercourse. As jala ubhaadha cannot be controlled only controllable and discardable use is intercourse. How it became Vedanta view, I do not understand.

What I is use is called Logical Deduction and not Vedanta interpretation.

It is U who try to divert the meaning of the verse. Once again, we talk about Kaula text and it has to be understood in the context of Kaula teaching (and the TEXT ITSELF), and not Ur personal views.

Where is my view here, I am just pointing out what is in Kaula text. If you are bridging, then bridge is valid only for the particular sect, in general, people who belong to non-kaula sees both as authoritative.

Let me give you another analogy.

Wine - You and I had submitted both views of Kaula - allowed & substitution - Now that another Kaula texts talks about controlling of Tongue, one should not go behind the taste of Wine could also be the meaning, is further corroborrated by view of Manu and ideas of substituting wine, I can verily conclude Kaula Wine is not must, this is the general logic of deduction

similarly with Maithuna. It is not must. Some other Kaula texts is against substitution, as you said (I have to check with those texts) - Does this render the authority the previous text invalid is the question you have answer. If both the text are valid, person chooses what he feels is correct. If you trying to bridge, then the bridge verily is valid for Kaula, but this bridge adds one more choice for person who chooses

Tantras never teach any kind of suppression of whatsoever, sepecially for Jnanis. They teach that in advanced Kaula sadhana "the niyama is following one's own will" (svechchhA niyama). Metioned passage simply states that Jnani doesn't see speech and sexual activity as his "own actions", for he is one with Bhairava and doesn't possess any personal ego (mamatva).

If this is the case, then discarding should not be the word used

Otherwise, if Svechcha is to be followed, this leaves doors open for Jnani either to opt for maithuna or not, as rituals making things mandatory does not curtail his Svechcha. Thus it is for Jnani to choose between Maithuna, its substitution or abandon in whole. Is this what you mean?

If he chooses out of his own will to go with Maithuna, how to support your cause it is not jnani's own action

If he has free will not to choose maithuna then my point is correct, - in Kaula Sex is not mandatory, even in sex rituals, for Jnani can abandon sex even in sex ritual out of his own will

U completely misunderstand the meaning. There is no word "asya" ("its"), but "brahma-tattvasya", where "sya" is the ending of genetivus. Thus it means "sukha of Brahma-tattva".
Verily there is not even a slight reference to procreation and progeny.
Yat-tat here stands for Sukha of maithuna, which is Brahma-sukha, and Svakya-sukha, one's own inherent bliss, Atmananda. It simply states that bliss of Brahman experienced in maithuna is not external bliss, but inherent.

All scriptures were the word tattvasya occurs, it split as Tattva+Asya. Even otherwise, Yat-Tat phraseology does not refer Maithuna Sukha, as it refers directly to analogy.

I concur with your last line, Maithuna sukha is not external bliss as many Kaula texts talks about experiencing it even in its absence physically. Having said that, Yat-Tat reference to analogy become more stronger, As sukha felt in Brahma Tattva, so the sukha is felt in Maithuna. As and So words cannot substantiate your statement - Sukha of maithuna, which is Brahma-sukha, where in you yourself has stated is many places it is not so

It clearly says that bliss experienced in an intercourse is Bliss of Brahma-tattva (yat sukhaM brahmatattvasya), which is Bliss of the Absolute.

To this verily the same books speaks, bliss experienced is bliss of love as in verse 68

It can be substituted when a woman is absent. And this verily implies that there must be an experience of maithuna, otherwise how a remembrance can be there.
Out of own will, can be susbtituted even when women are present.

Verily remembarance needs experience of Maithuna, which does not point out experience must be that of Jnani. Person before being a Jnani could have such experience, which he could remember after being a Jnani.

I haven't searched for a photocopy of the whole book. I had these three verses written out separately as referring to Vama-sadhana. I did that in course of research work.

No problems

Arjuna

26 April 2006, 12:06 PM

1 & 2. Let me first refer texts known to you pertaining to substitution of Maithuna, thus making Maithuna not mandatory.

It is compulsory on a certain stage of sadhana in this or that form (with one's own wife, parakiya-shakti or in chakrarchana). There is no substitution for maithuna as such.
Substitution is prescribed for certain issues, and even that is rejected by some Agamas and Gurus. Thus, in Tantraloka-viveka it is said that if woman for intercourse is not available, chakra-puja should not be done. Other texts hold more mild position and allow inner maithuna (my tradition does allow this). In any case, substitutions (like combination of two flowers or special mudras) are used in some cases, but never as a legacy to avoid maithuna as such.
Yoni-tantra 8. 2 says, maithunena vinA muktirnaiva shAstrasya nirNayaH, "there is no Liberation without maithuna". And other Agamas confirm this view, stating that no Shakta-upasana can be done without Vamachara.
This doesn't mean that every puja has to include maithuna, of course. But for a Kaula Vama-sadhana is a must. The question is only its particular form, which depends on sampradaya, Guru and his own will.

Further, the problem is attaching Maithuna with several puja

3. I am saying the teachings are false. If there are teachings they are true, and binds the practitioners of the revelation. My problem is attaching with others in generally

As Maithuna is not part of non tantric pujas, now I am looking for texts that excludes Maithuna in tantric pujas - I am trying to make tantrism more applicable to people at large, even to orthodox people

Perhaps U wanted to say "I am not saying the teachings are false". Anyway, of course there are plenty rituals in Tantras which do not include sexual element of any kind. It isn't a big deal to find such!
The fact is that maithuna is a necessary part of Kaulachara. If one stops at the level of pashu-bhava (dakshina- or samayachara), no ritual sex may take place (and if it has place, then it is restricted to one's own wife only). But if one wills to go further on Kaula path, and achieve Rudra-hood/Yogini-hood in this very life, it becomes a necessary part.

Regarding Vaishnav traditions of Bengal and Orissa, I am not sure what you are talking about. If you have any references, like you to submit it.

I specifically talk about Sahajiya branch of Gaudiya-vaishnavism and Jagannatha cult of Orissa. References are many, U may easily find them in studies of these two cults.
What i have read myself are "Obscure Religious Cults" by Dasgupta (still available in India) and "The Place of the Hidden Moon � Erotic Mysticism in the Vaishnava-sahajiya Cult of Bengal" by E. C. Dimock. Some material is present in "Criminal Gods and Demon Devotees", an academical digest by several scholars and some other works.

Regarding sexual practice in Bengal Vaishnavism (adopted by mystical sect of Bauls also) there are many original treateses in bengali. Unfortunately almost none are published and translated in whole, but many quotations can be found in two books i mentioned.

By and large, if you see sexual rituals with Suddha Advaita request you to submit the evidences you have.

I have no idea whether they have sexual rituals as a part of Vaishnava practice. What i said, these were practiced by several Gurus of Vallabha sect � successors of Vallabhacharya. This is a historical fact, and some were even brought to court in times of British colonisation!
There is a possibility that those Gurus simply used their position to enjoy many women. We cannot be sure in this matter.

Linguistically, I can split the word into Ka+Mesha+Eswara, thus making the word refer to Who is the lord of Mesha (Goat) or referring to Lord of the first zodiac sign etc.

Linguistically U definitely cannot! Goat is meSha (and not mesha), and U would have had "kameSheshvara" instead.
Be so kind not to kill sanskrit, please.

ramkish42

26 April 2006, 01:32 PM

It is compulsory on a certain stage of sadhana in this or that form (with one's own wife, parakiya-shakti or in chakrarchana). There is no substitution for maithuna as such.
Substitution is prescribed for certain issues, and even that is rejected by some Agamas and Gurus. Thus, in Tantraloka-viveka it is said that if woman for intercourse is not available, chakra-puja should not be done. Other texts hold more mild position and allow inner maithuna (my tradition does allow this). In any case, substitutions (like combination of two flowers or special mudras) are used in some cases, but never as a legacy to avoid maithuna as such.
Yoni-tantra 8. 2 says, maithunena vinA muktirnaiva shAstrasya nirNayaH, "there is no Liberation without maithuna". And other Agamas confirm this view, stating that no Shakta-upasana can be done without Vamachara.
This doesn't mean that every puja has to include maithuna, of course. But for a Kaula Vama-sadhana is a must. The question is only its particular form, which depends on sampradaya, Guru and his own will.

Perhaps U wanted to say "I am not saying the teachings are false". Anyway, of course there are plenty rituals in Tantras which do not include sexual element of any kind. It isn't a big deal to find such!
The fact is that maithuna is a necessary part of Kaulachara. If one stops at the level of pashu-bhava (dakshina- or samayachara), no ritual sex may take place (and if it has place, then it is restricted to one's own wife only). But if one wills to go further on Kaula path, and achieve Rudra-hood/Yogini-hood in this very life, it becomes a necessary part.

If you feel Maithuna is necessary, how do you corroborate

1. maithuna Substitution
2. Discarding Genitals
3. Avoidance of Maithuna by the will of Yogi out of Svechcha

without rendering the parts of the teaching invalid, is what I want to hear from you

I specifically talk about Sahajiya branch of Gaudiya-vaishnavism and Jagannatha cult of Orissa. References are many, U may easily find them in studies of these two cults.
What i have read myself are "Obscure Religious Cults" by Dasgupta (still available in India) and "The Place of the Hidden Moon � Erotic Mysticism in the Vaishnava-sahajiya Cult of Bengal" by E. C. Dimock. Some material is present in "Criminal Gods and Demon Devotees", an academical digest by several scholars and some other works.

Regarding Sahajiya I cannot comment now for I am not sure how good I am in their philosophies and teaching. Probably after some time.

The comment I can make now is Gaudia Vaishnavs belong to Maadhava Sampradaya (Dvaitins, Tattvavada) in toto with complimented views taken from Ramanuja Sampradaya of Bhedaabheda tattva. Sahajiyas reject this Idea, does not fall in Vaishnav in real sense which is verily accpeted by many Gaudia Vaishnav. All people who pray to Krishna and Narayana cannot be Vaishnav in real, unless they fall in two broad groups
Group A - Ramanuja Sampradaya
Group B - Madhva Sampradaya

These two only are Dualistic philosophies which are verily Vaishanv cultures.

Sri Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada, Sri Vallabhacharya, Sri Nimbaarka all propounded Vaishnava sampradaya (One can claim all are vaishnav teachers but there are no takers for such views for many of the practitioners are not) but verily objected dualistic teachings, hence in strict sense they are not vaishnav

Regarding sexual practice in Bengal Vaishnavism (adopted by mystical sect of Bauls also) there are many original treateses in bengali. Unfortunately almost none are published and translated in whole, but many quotations can be found in two books i mentioned.

I do not know whether I will be interested in those sects for I am niether a Maadhvi nor a Gaudia. Still let me give a try

I have no idea whether they have sexual rituals as a part of Vaishnava practice. What i said, these were practiced by several Gurus of Vallabha sect � successors of Vallabhacharya. This is a historical fact, and some were even brought to court in times of British colonisation!
There is a possibility that those Gurus simply used their position to enjoy many women. We cannot be sure in this matter.

Things where both of us cannot provide any proof should be out of discussion. Let us leave this Suddha Advaita

Linguistically U definitely cannot! Goat is meSha (and not mesha), and U would have had "kameSheshvara" instead. Be so kind not to kill sanskrit, please.

There is no point in telling me "you cannot" for what I said "I wont". When I said I am not doing this and I am not going to do this, I do not Arjun to tell me Ramkish cannot do this. This requires some common sense.

I am more kind to sanskrit than you, please

Arjuna

26 April 2006, 04:43 PM

This verily goes against guide rules made by Manu which has general appliation and more authoritative for it is Law of Hindus in general. Similar ban for Wine is also seen in Naaradeeya Dharmasaastra and Yaajnavaalkya smriti

na mAMsabhakShaNe doSho na madye na cha maithune � Manavadharma-shastra
"There is no sin in eating meat, in wine and in coitus".

Though generally Shastras may prohibit wine usage for brahmanas, it refers to common use and not ritual one. Since Agamas prescribe ritual usage of wine for all Kaulas, and since in Kaula-chakra no varna-bheda exists, brahmanas partake of wine as well as kshatriyas or others.

In Shrividya tradition wine is a necessary part of vishesharghya offering in puja. And priests do add it, though usually unnoticed by people.

I am not suggesting the exclusions are particular to Brahmana Varna - but in general
Exclusion of 5M's including wine are in general. I also found few passages in some books of tantra referring Blanket ban of Manu does not apply to Kaula for intoxicating does not affect a Kaula, which I understand is true only when a Kaula does not feel dizzy after taking wine for verily he is not taking it

U understood in it a wrong way. Agamas say that Kaula should drink wine in a way that he doesn't have mano-bhrama and drishti-bhrama, so he is fully self-aware and controls himself. Verily he takes wine, but is perfectly conscious. Unlike common people who are unconscious even without wine, Yogi is self-aware always. He drink wine in order to manifest Ananda, and never to become unconscious.
Anando brahmaNo rUpaM tachcha dehe vyavasthitam.
tadabhivya~njakaM madyaM yogibhistena pIyate..
(Kularnava-tantra 5. 80)

Moreover, your point verily proves Maithuna can be substituted

It can be if it is not possible. But it should be done when possibility is there.
Great yajnas also can be substituted; this doesn't mean they are useless. People rarely do Vedic yajnas not because they are inferior to pauranika sustitutes, but because they are complicated and demand high qualification of priests.
Maithuna has to be substituted in several cases � but not in upasana in total. Of course Tantric priests cannot perform physical maithuna before public in temples, thus they do once bhavana and mudras. But privately they practice 5M. That was and i believe is the case in many great temples.

Arjuna

26 April 2006, 04:43 PM

When the text says about discarding genital, how could take the meaning otherwise with question pertaining to discarding in whole? If you mean this is discard is discard in whole, it should mean Jnani should not respond to jala ubhaadha, on the other hand, discarding is not in general, the only other use of genital is intercourse. As jala ubhaadha cannot be controlled only controllable and discardable use is intercourse. How it became Vedanta view, I do not understand.
What I is use is called Logical Deduction and not Vedanta interpretation.

The text here speaks only about absence of attachment to functions of tongue and genitals, and not suppressing these. This is clear, since one cannot stop function of a tongue (and should not), both eating and speech, but has to stop beaing attached to food and talk; same is applied to genitals, of which both functions, urinatory and sexual are not to be discarded, but attachment to them should cast off.

Tantras teach that Liberation and enjoyment go together and should not be separated. Ur interpretation of parityaga is against Tantric doctrine and against the context of that passage, for right after that it goes on with telling that Bandha is mamatva and Mukti is nirmamatva, but not action or suppressing.
Once again, please do not pervert the meaning of Agama.

Wine - You and I had submitted both views of Kaula - allowed & substitution - Now that another Kaula texts talks about controlling of Tongue, one should not go behind the taste of Wine could also be the meaning, is further corroborrated by view of Manu and ideas of substituting wine, I can verily conclude Kaula Wine is not must, this is the general logic of deduction
similarly with Maithuna. It is not must. Some other Kaula texts is against substitution, as you said (I have to check with those texts) - Does this render the authority the previous text invalid is the question you have answer. If both the text are valid, person chooses what he feels is correct. If you trying to bridge, then the bridge verily is valid for Kaula, but this bridge adds one more choice for person who chooses

As here we discuss specifically Tantric doctrine, let us keep to authority of Agamas and Kaula-gurus.
Kaulagamas definitely state that without maithuna no Liberation can be achieved and no Shakti-sadhana is possible. This is the general view for all Kaulas.

What U say about substitues is special case only, and never a general rule. Tantras never say that substitute usage is preferrable, it is only allowed in some cases. Do not divert the meaning and put everything up side down.

Again, as per Smriti, maithuna is a part of grihastha-dharma and thus it is compulsory. If we add to this Agama prescription of maithuna, logically it summs to necessity of maithuna.

Otherwise, if Svechcha is to be followed, this leaves doors open for Jnani either to opt for maithuna or not, as rituals making things mandatory does not curtail his Svechcha. Thus it is for Jnani to choose between Maithuna, its substitution or abandon in whole. Is this what you mean?

If by Jnani we mean Siddha-yogin then he is totally free as a Rudra upon earth. He is following his own will, which is same as Divine. And verily he doesn't need any sadhana, rituals or rules. As an avadhuta, he is free from any kind of regulations of Vedas, Agamas and Smritis.
This Siddha (Divya or Satkaula) may have physical sex or may not, since he is forever in Yogini-melana state. His very existance is Mahamaithuna, be he with a woman or single.

If we talk about Vira, who is also Jnani but not Purnasiddha, to him rules of Kulachara apply. And for him maithuna is an essential part of the path to Bhogamoksha-samarasya.

All scriptures were the word tattvasya occurs, it split as Tattva+Asya.

There is no point to argue even. U have no basic knowlegde of sanskrit grammar, this is evident. Go ask some pandita or read a grammar book.
tattvasya = "of tattva"
What U imagine is tattvAsya = tattva + asya = "its tattva"

Even otherwise, Yat-Tat phraseology does not refer Maithuna Sukha, as it refers directly to analogy.

Once again, U merely misunderstand sanskrit verse.

Kularnava 9. 50 says:
alimAMsA~NganAsa~Nge yatsukhaM jAyate priye.
tadeva mokSho viduShAm abudhAnAntu pAtakam..
"O my Beloved! The joy derived from wine, meat and coition with women is Liberation for the wise, but a sin for the ignorants."

Verily remembarance needs experience of Maithuna, which does not point out experience must be that of Jnani. Person before being a Jnani could have such experience, which he could remember after being a Jnani.

Nowhere this is said. There are no reasons to think that to become a Jnani one has to avoid maithuna (we speak about Tantric path). Moreover, maithuna is a needed part of sadhana, thus to become a Jnani it is necessary.
And after one reachs Perfection, then only only free will remains. Before that one has to freely choose to follow prescriptions of Agamas and Kaula-guru.

U again forget that we talk about grihasthis, for whom maithuna is a natural part of life and a part of their dharma. So to avoid it would be unnatural and adharma.
It is not that Tantrism is all about sex, but it is a path mainly for those of whose life sex is a natural part. When one is married, it is very natural to use sex in upasana to reach Parabhakti and Jnana and not to avoid it or suppress. Verily the one who loves his wife won't avoid sexual union with her; and verily the one who sees Devi in his wife will love her.

Arjuna

26 April 2006, 04:51 PM

If you feel Maithuna is necessary, how do you corroborate
1. maithuna Substitution
2. Discarding Genitals
3. Avoidance of Maithuna by the will of Yogi out of Svechcha

To this just replied in previous two posts.

There is no point in telling me "you cannot" for what I said "I wont". When I said I am not doing this and I am not going to do this, I do not Arjun to tell me Ramkish cannot do this. This requires some common sense.
I am more kind to sanskrit than you, please

There IS a point. U told linguistically U can interpret in that way � but linguistically interpretation suggested by U is not valid, IT IS WRONG.
Thus "U cannot do" in a technical sense, no one can do like that.

It is U who divert the meaning of simple grammar. When U prove Urself unable to recognise genetivus ending in "tattvasya" and imagine sandhi of tattva+asya instead, there are reasons to accuse U of killing sanskrit!

ramkish42

26 April 2006, 05:09 PM

na mAMsabhakShaNe doSho na madye na cha maithune � Manavadharma-shastra
"There is no sin in eating meat, in wine and in coitus".

Though generally Shastras may prohibit wine usage for brahmanas, it refers to common use and not ritual one. Since Agamas prescribe ritual usage of wine for all Kaulas, and since in Kaula-chakra no varna-bheda exists, brahmanas partake of wine as well as kshatriyas or others.

In Shrividya tradition wine is a necessary part of vishesharghya offering in puja. And priests do add it, though usually unnoticed by people.

U understood in it a wrong way. Agamas say that Kaula should drink wine in a way that he doesn't have mano-bhrama and drishti-bhrama, so he is fully self-aware and controls himself. Verily he takes wine, but is perfectly conscious. ......(Kularnava-tantra 5. 80)

It can be if it is not possible. But it should be done when possibility is there.
... Of course Tantric priests cannot perform physical maithuna before public in temples, thus they do once bhavana and mudras. But privately they practice 5M. That was and i believe is the case in many great temples.

Can I confine these views to Kaula marga as this deals directly with Kaula?

Arjuna

26 April 2006, 05:30 PM

Shri Sarvananda in his "Sarvollasa" (24. 7a) says:
AnandArthe pibenmadyamAnandaM muktidAyakam .
"One should drink wine for the sake of Bliss, Bliss brings Liberation."

In Brihannila-tantra (8. 90) it is said:
striyo devAH striyaH prANAH striya eva vibhUShaNam .
strImelanaM sadA kuryAtsundarIbhirvisheShataH ..
"Women are divine, women are breaths of life, women are the ornament.
One should always unite with women, especially with beautiful."

Gandharva-tantra (40. 51b-52a), Shrividya Agama states:
bhagali~NgasamAyogAdyadAnandaH prajAyate ..51..
brahmaiva tadvijAnIyAdanantaM mokShasAdhanam .
"That Bliss which is born out of union of yoni and linga,
should be known as [Bliss of] Immense Absolute and a path to Liberation."

And Devi-rahasya (Uttarardha 58. 11a) states:
AnandarasapUjAyAM tuShyate parameshvarI .
"Parameshvari is satisfied through the worship of taste of Bliss."

I hope this clarifies several issues as per doctrine of Tantras.

ramkish42

26 April 2006, 06:10 PM

The text here speaks only about absence of attachment to functions of tongue and genitals, and not suppressing these. This is clear, since one cannot stop function of a tongue (and should not), both eating and speech, but has to stop beaing attached to food and talk; same is applied to genitals, of which both functions, urinatory and sexual are not to be discarded, but attachment to them should cast off.

Tantras teach that Liberation and enjoyment go together and should not be separated. Ur interpretation of parityaga is against Tantric doctrine and against the context of that passage, for right after that it goes on with telling that Bandha is mamatva and Mukti is nirmamatva, but not action or suppressing.
Once again, please do not pervert the meaning of Agama.

Request you not to use the term Pervert. It is done by John Woodroffe, he used the word DISCARD.

I had told you discarding cannot be taken literally still by taking this literally you are undermining you own Kaula texts. Request you not to do this to yourself.

As here we discuss specifically Tantric doctrine, let us keep to authority of Agamas and Kaula-gurus.
Kaulagamas definitely state that without maithuna no Liberation can be achieved and no Shakti-sadhana is possible. This is the general view for all Kaulas.

Request you to quote those statements

What U say about substitues is special case only, and never a general rule. Tantras never say that substitute usage is preferrable, it is only allowed in some cases. Do not divert the meaning and put everything up side down.[quote]
Cool down, I am not upseting your boat, but trying to understand you Kaula for texts with me gives me different picture than what you are giving.

Request you to quote your texts which is verily against such substitutes

[quote]Again, as per Smriti, maithuna is a part of grihastha-dharma and thus it is compulsory. If we add to this Agama prescription of maithuna, logically it summs to necessity of maithuna.

I am telling you again, this is not about grihasti but Mumukshu. You verily want to bring the topic of Grihasti and generalise this thread only with Grihasti, where in I am insisting about mumukshu

1. You said Kaula is for all; I had furnished you Kaula texts rejecting the authority for trivarnis
2. You say Maithuna is mandatory - I had provided you what substitutions are, and you had provided another point to me called Svechcha, by which mumukshu can avoid Maithuna

To condradict this you had submitted few other verses. But the point is all the cited texts are verily Kaula, now it is for you to bridge it up

Either you should reject the authority of the citation I made, or bring in more evidence to the stance of yours, not by mere quoting another Kaula texts

Without understanding this, You are loosing your patience slowly, which I can see verily in your words

Once again, U merely misunderstand sanskrit verse.

Kularnava 9. 50 says:
alimAMsA~NganAsa~Nge yatsukhaM jAyate priye.
tadeva mokSho viduShAm abudhAnAntu pAtakam..
"O my Beloved! The joy derived from wine, meat and coition with women is Liberation for the wise, but a sin for the ignorants."
Though this is against common parlence, I will take this a pure Kaula view

Nowhere this is said. There are no reasons to think that to become a Jnani one has to avoid maithuna (we speak about Tantric path). Moreover, maithuna is a needed part of sadhana, thus to become a Jnani it is necessary.

It is for you to search the reason for. If Jnani's have no intention of avoiding at all, why should Kaula texts carry details pertaining to Substitution. The very idea shows some has such intentions. As these texts are not made now, public affairs cannot be a defence. What it should be is a matter of guess for me, verily you can furnish, probably after consulting few other Rahasya texts or by consulting a guru on this

U again forget that we talk about grihasthis, for whom maithuna is a natural part of life and a part of their dharma. So to avoid it would be unnatural and adharma.
It is not that Tantrism is all about sex, but it is a path mainly for those of whose life sex is a natural part. When one is married, it is very natural to use sex in upasana to reach Parabhakti and Jnana and not to avoid it or suppress. Verily the one who loves his wife won't avoid sexual union with her; and verily the one who sees Devi in his wife will love her.

No, it is you who forget we are discussing about Mumukshus and there are people who are not grihastis, for whom Kaula according to you makes the Maithuna ritual mandatory

I had time and again given my consent ordinary grihastis can practise sexual rituals and can engage in sex, which is verily valid for him. Asking such grihastis to desist sex is Dharma Viruddha, I agree.

Let us leave this grihasti and talk about mumukshu and only mumukshus. He can be Brahmacharya, Grihasti, Vanaprasti and Sanyasi. Is maithuna mandatory for other three Ashramas for liberation? is my question

ramkish42

26 April 2006, 06:33 PM

To this just replied in previous two posts.
Inadequately

There IS a point. U told linguistically U can interpret in that way � but linguistically interpretation suggested by U is not valid, IT IS WRONG.
Thus "U cannot do" in a technical sense, no one can do like that.

It is U who divert the meaning of simple grammar. When U prove Urself unable to recognise genetivus ending in "tattvasya" and imagine sandhi of tattva+asya instead, there are reasons to accuse U of killing sanskrit!

Again you miss the point. I had given you one correct non accepted interpretation and one wrong (anyways, no talk of accepting wrong arises) analysis of given name - Kamaveshwara, which is verily logical while giving unaccepted terminology, this is common practise of giving examples from all varities. What I gave as no 1 is grammatically correct, still not accepted and no 2 was grammatically incorrect hence not accepted

Asya can also be sandhi and can also refer to objects pertaining to the context -
tad (http://vedabase.net/t/tad) antar (http://vedabase.net/a/antar) asya (http://vedabase.net/a/asya) sarvasya (http://vedabase.net/s/sarvasya)
tad (http://vedabase.net/t/tad) u (http://vedabase.net/u/u) sarvasyāsya bāhyataḥ (http://vedabase.net/b/bahyatah)

There is no point for me to get into debate on this. Citation is your text, If you deny the meaning with adequate proof, I have no objection

Arjuna

26 April 2006, 07:24 PM

Request you not to use the term Pervert. It is done by John Woodroffe, he used the word DISCARD.
I had told you discarding cannot be taken literally still by taking this literally you are undermining you own Kaula texts. Request you not to do this to yourself.

Then what was the point of making this quotation, if U admit this shouldn't be taken literally?

Request you to quote those statements

Do U read what i actually post?
For instance, i had provided ardhashloka from Yoni-tantra (8. 2) which says:
"There is no Liberation without maithuna, such is the verdict of Shastras."

Then, just a few examples:

Kali-tantra 12. 22:
"O Lady of gods, on the way of Kula Perfection is achieved not by pujas, nyasas or snanas, but only by japa in union with a woman."
Kali-tantra 9. 23b-24a:
"He who knows the heart of Kalika, who does Vama-sadhana with a woman, becomes divine and achieves eternal Liberation."
Kulamrita-dipika says:
"Sayujya is achieved through sexual union, there is no doubt in this".

Cool down, I am not upseting your boat, but trying to understand you Kaula for texts with me gives me different picture than what you are giving.
Request you to quote your texts which is verily against such substitutes

Tara-rahasya 3. 8:
vAmAchAraM parityajya pUjanaM vA japa~ncharet .
sa gachchhennarakaM ghoraM yAvadindrAshchaturdasha ..
"The one who is doing puja or japa [of Devi] without Vamachara, goes to the terrible hell for a period of 14 lives of Indra."

Vamachara refers only to pratyaksha usage of 5M (while anukalpas are used by pashus, in samayachara, and inner practice of 5M can be done in kaulachara when complete 5M aren't possible).

Avalon's intro is not a Kaula text.

I am telling you again, this is not about grihasti but Mumukshu. You verily want to bring the topic of Grihasti and generalise this thread only with Grihasti, where in I am insisting about mumukshu

There is no such an ashrama as mumukshu. Mumukshu refers to intention of sadhana. EVERY Kaula is mumukshu, it cannot be otherwise. The aim of Tantra is Mahamoksha.
Since Tantric practice involves sexual aspect, according to Smriti it is possible only for grihasthis.
Tantras however do not put such restriction, since they allow sexual practice with parakiyas.

1. You said Kaula is for all; I had furnished you Kaula texts rejecting the authority for trivarnis

I had already shown U invalidity of Ur understanding of this. All Tantras were written by trivarnis and not shudras! What a nonsense to say that Kaula-marga is not for them. Virtually all Tantric Gurus were and are brahmanas.
U had found one vague line in Kulachudamani, and not "furnished me" with proofs from texts. That line refers to non-Kaula brahmanas, and verily doesn't imply that Kaula path is not meant for trivarnis.

2. You say Maithuna is mandatory - I had provided you what substitutions are, and you had provided another point to me called Svechcha, by which mumukshu can avoid Maithuna

I cannot explain dozens of times. Thus, lastly: substitutes are provided (U did not discover anything new for me) for certain cases when pratyaksha is impossible. For example, if Kaula went somewhere and his shakti is temporarily away from him, he does only bhAvanA of maithuna in ritual. Same is applied to temple worship or any worship in the presence of pashus. Kaula sacraments cannot be disclosed in pashu-samsarga.
Upasana itself cannot be limited to substitutes.

It is for you to search the reason for. If Jnani's have no intention of avoiding at all, why should Kaula texts carry details pertaining to Substitution. The very idea shows some has such intentions. As these texts are not made now, public affairs cannot be a defence. What it should be is a matter of guess for me, verily you can furnish, probably after consulting few other Rahasya texts or by consulting a guru on this

Substitutes are given not for Jnanis but for archakas. Or U have seen any Kaula text saying that Jnani should use anukalpas of 5M? Please, reference :D

No, it is you who forget we are discussing about Mumukshus and there are people who are not grihastis, for whom Kaula according to you makes the Maithuna ritual mandatory

ALL Kaulas are mumukshus. And all Kaulas have shakti, be she their own wife (by Brahma-vivaha), temporary wife (by Shaiva-vivaha), parakiya or yogini.
Naturally all men enter grihasthashrama and then may practice with their wives. In a case one is single he has to take a temporary wife for chakrarchana. Sexual partner is a must for certain advanced dikshas. Yes, maithuna is mandatory for all Kaula-upasakas � at least occasionly.

I had time and again given my consent ordinary grihastis can practise sexual rituals and can engage in sex, which is verily valid for him. Asking such grihastis to desist sex is Dharma Viruddha, I agree.
Let us leave this grihasti and talk about mumukshu and only mumukshus. He can be Brahmacharya, Grihasti, Vanaprasti and Sanyasi. Is maithuna mandatory for other three Ashramas for liberation? is my question

It is mandatory for all Kaulas irrespectively of their varna and ashrama.
Brahmacharin (as a celibate) cannot go beyond dakshinachara and pashu-bhava, thus he cannot be a Kaula. Only starting from Grihasthi one may enter Kaula-marga. Optionally one may not be married, but have a sexual partner for sadhana.
Kaulagamas reject vanaprastha and sannyasa ashramas, substituting Avadhutashrama for them. Kaulavadhuta may have wife or another woman for his sadhana.
When one takes Mahavrata of Kaulachara, he is freed from all other vratas and dharmas. If sannyasi or whosoever who gave a vow of celibacy enters Kaula-marga, he has to follow its rules. Advanced sadhana and corresponing dikshas cannot be possible without female partner.

Arjuna

26 April 2006, 07:32 PM

Inadequately

Perhaps the problem is that U have no wish to understand Kaula teaching, but have a wish to argue with me :p

Again you miss the point. I had given you one correct non accepted interpretation and one wrong (anyways, no talk of accepting wrong arises) analysis of given name - Kamaveshwara, which is verily logical while giving unaccepted terminology, this is common practise of giving examples from all varities. What I gave as no 1 is grammatically correct, still not accepted and no 2 was grammatically incorrect hence not accepted

U stated that Ka+Mesha+Ishvara as linguistically correct: "Linguistically, I can split the word into Ka+Mesha+Eswara" (end of quote).
And now U try to divert the issue. Matter is simple, U made a wrong statement and that's it.

Asya can also be sandhi and can also refer to objects pertaining to the context -
There is no point for me to get into debate on this. Citation is your text, If you deny the meaning with adequate proof, I have no objection

This CANNOT be sandhi, since it is "tattvasya" and not "tattvAsya" :D
Hope U do not try to make out of it "tattu + asya" :p

ramkish42

27 April 2006, 08:24 AM

Then what was the point of making this quotation, if U admit this shouldn't be taken literally?

The idea of discarding is discarding as to sex. This apt and clear.

There is no point in making discarding very literally and arguing against jala ubhada, vaak etc, where I had shown you there are only two significant uses of Genitals, One is excretion another is intercourse, as we cannot discard excretion, discard should refer only intercourse

Do U read what i actually post?
For instance, i had provided ardhashloka from Yoni-tantra (8. 2) which says:
"There is no Liberation without maithuna, such is the verdict of Shastras."

Then, just a few examples:
........
Vamachara refers only to pratyaksha usage of 5M (while anukalpas are used by pashus, in samayachara, and inner practice of 5M can be done in kaulachara when complete 5M aren't possible).

Avalon's intro is not a Kaula text.

It still seems you do not understand my point.

There are some texts which says, about discarding genital, substituting maithuna so on.

You have some texts which says no need for all such things, and making Maithuna mandatory. You also accept the svechcha of Yogi, where in he can abstain from Maithuna out of own will.

Kaula has two sets both; both are in two extremes, I would like to stay at the right wing, establishing discarding genital, substituting maithuna etc, and you opt to stay at left, insisting on it.

Now the point is as both are Kaula, and I do not represent Kaula here, it is for you to establish my right handed view is wrong and verily left handed view is correct.

Numbers of verses quoted serves no purpose unless to deal with right handed views directly. Can you either say, tantras which says right handed views are wrong or unauthoritative; or is there any texts or analysis done by any tantri in past or recently, analysising both views and making left handed view authoritative.

This is what you have to present. If you cannot, I see, there is no problem in Kaula for those who want to go with Left handed core practises can opt for it, where in Kaula also makes way in for Right handed view, concurring general Hindu practises, and those like me, who opt to take right handed view can take it verily being within Kaula

There is no such an ashrama as mumukshu. ......
Tantras however do not put such restriction, since they allow sexual practice with parakiyas.

Can I conclude, Brahmacharya, Vanaprasti and Sanyasi has no place in Kaula is my question I posted earlier. Your description says, as I understand, non grihasti has no place in Kaula.

I had already shown U invalidity of Ur understanding of this. All Tantras were written by trivarnis and not shudras! What a nonsense to say that Kaula-marga is not for them. Virtually all Tantric Gurus were and are brahmanas.
U had found one vague line in Kulachudamani, and not "furnished me" with proofs from texts. That line refers to non-Kaula brahmanas, and verily doesn't imply that Kaula path is not meant for trivarnis.

I had given you a citation, you had given me citation, now the query is whose citation is authoritative? As both are Kaula texts, you have bridge it, and onus is not on me

I am taking about your texts, and to the maximum extent I can, I had furnished you data. Kulachudamani Tantra Chap II Verse 25 says it.

As I am not Kaula, I do not carry sanskrit texts with me either in my home or in office. I managed to track this down during my last visit to Theosophical Library.

Now you have two choices, Wait for me till I visit again and produce you the verse or tract it down with the data I had given you and comment on that.

I had also given you data pertaining to same text Chap I verse 31 indicating this knowledge not passed to Brahminical versions of gods like Vishnu, Brahma or Ganapati, but disclosed to Bhairava, whose status is also furnished earlier

I am here only to take concurrence. I am not here to stop you from you vamachara, I am here just to make vamachara acceptable to all and to understand right handed view amongst Kaula texts.

Concurrences can be of two ways

1. You can either say, the views of yours is strictly Kaula and not a general Hindu View as such, as 5M in puja is not strictly General view, but Kaula view; The moment you say this, I am out of this thread, I have no purpose in continuing

2. or, you can say, Kaula is general hindu view, but gives option, who can do Left handed can go with left handed, and who want to be strictly right handed version of Kaula can opt for it, - again after this, I will reiterate this and will be out of this thread. In second, probably, if I stick to this forum for long, I will object strict left views to be inserted in general thread with right handed view of Kaula

Simple and I hope now you will be clear

I cannot explain dozens of times. Thus, lastly: substitutes are provided (U did not discover anything new for me) for certain cases when pratyaksha is impossible. For example, if Kaula went somewhere and his shakti is temporarily away from him, he does only bhAvanA of maithuna in ritual. Same is applied to temple worship or any worship in the presence of pashus. Kaula sacraments cannot be disclosed in pashu-samsarga.
Upasana itself cannot be limited to substitutes.

Again you are just quoting verses in favour of you. I want to know how does your citation makes my citations invalid. If it makes my citations invalid, is that means entire nigama is not a Kaula nigama or Kaula nigama of unauthoritative in nature. HOPE YOU WILL UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION

I thought I will abstain from referring to temple practises, as you are insisting, if Maithuna is not offense in puja, Madyam is not offense in Puja, what stops Kaula from practising it in Temple, in saba as such.

As the provision of substitution goes, those who choose for substitution can go for it even when the objects are available.

In general parlance, susbtitution is well known and equally authoritative like that of upasana.

As far as I know, as to vetaalasiddhi it is either not practised or if practised, is practised with substitutes, otherwise using the upasana is verily illegal. Now if you contentions are true, 1. You cannot leave this upasana for this is verily Kaula, 2. You cannot use the mandatory requirements for it is illegal. As within Kaula context, using the mandatory requirements are not illegal, verily one can do this upasana.

This analogy of vetaalasiddi provides two points

1. You can abstain from an upasana
2. You can use substitutes if you want to go with the upasana

Now having said all this, I have one more question on substitution. Where did you find the phrase "substitution is not allowed" said in Kaula texts

Substitutes are given not for Jnanis but for archakas. Or U have seen any Kaula text saying that Jnani should use anukalpas of 5M? Please, reference

As I am not Kaula, request you furnish me where the Kaula texts says in specific substitution is only for Archakas :D :D ; if possible also furnish why archakas cannot be jnani :D :D

ALL Kaulas are mumukshus. And all Kaulas have shakti, be she their own wife (by Brahma-vivaha), temporary wife (by Shaiva-vivaha), parakiya or yogini.
Naturally all men enter grihasthashrama and then may practice with their wives. In a case one is single he has to take a temporary wife for chakrarchana. Sexual partner is a must for certain advanced dikshas. Yes, maithuna is mandatory for all Kaula-upasakas � at least occasionly.

Very first asumption itself is wrong.

There are so many upasanas furnished in Kaula which is not for Moksha but only for different siddhis. Hence, Kaula marga is also like general hindu paths, if one wants Moksha there is clear path and those who are satisfied with other siddhis have other path.

If time permits, I can post, better in separate thread, what are various siddhis available to Kaula, which does not lead to moksha, and methods to obtain it. As I am not Kaula, I will make it like an outline so that some one can further take it up and describe how to practise such upasana error free.

It is mandatory for all Kaulas irrespectively of their varna and ashrama.
Brahmacharin (as a celibate) cannot go beyond dakshinachara and pashu-bhava, thus he cannot be a Kaula. Only starting from Grihasthi one may enter Kaula-marga. Optionally one may not be married, but have a sexual partner for sadhana.
Kaulagamas reject vanaprastha and sannyasa ashramas, substituting Avadhutashrama for them. Kaulavadhuta may have wife or another woman for his sadhana.
When one takes Mahavrata of Kaulachara, he is freed from all other vratas and dharmas. If sannyasi or whosoever who gave a vow of celibacy enters Kaula-marga, he has to follow its rules. Advanced sadhana and corresponing dikshas cannot be possible without female partner.

I read history of author of Sarvollasa, where in he was forced to marry again, where in it clearly indicates, one need not to have a wife. Regarding substituting another woman, I am not sure, for I trust there is substitute for woman and need not to another woman

I am yet to find a concept of Kaulavadutha, hence need more time on this.

Want to see where Kaulagams reject Vanaprasta and Sanyaasa, need not be original sanskrit text, (though preferred) but any references to it

Arjuna

27 April 2006, 08:50 AM

The idea of discarding is discarding as to sex. This apt and clear.
There is no point in making discarding very literally and arguing against jala ubhada, vaak etc, where I had shown you there are only two significant uses of Genitals, One is excretion another is intercourse, as we cannot discard excretion, discard should refer only intercourse

This is a blatant divertion of original meaning. If discarding sex was meant, it would have been said ONLY upastha-parityaga. Since jihva is used as well, BOTH cannot be taken literally (otherwise it becomes nonsense), but only as referring to non-attachment.

Why so many efforts to divert and confuse Kaula scriptures? Either U simply cannot accept U are wrong (which U couldn't do even when it was absolutely obvious, as with "Kameshvara" issue and "tattvasya") and thus argue, or have some problem with Kaula doctrine, inspite of Ur claims of respect to every Hindu tradition.
U tried to confuse very plain verse of Vijnana-bhairava, now U try to confuse this issue, taking a verse out of its context. This is not a method of treating scripture...

Arjuna

27 April 2006, 09:23 AM

It still seems you do not understand my point.

There are some texts which says, about discarding genital, substituting maithuna so on.

You have some texts which says no need for all such things, and making Maithuna mandatory. You also accept the svechcha of Yogi, where in he can abstain from Maithuna out of own will.

Kaula has two sets both; both are in two extremes, I would like to stay at the right wing, establishing discarding genital, substituting maithuna etc, and you opt to stay at left, insisting on it.

Now the point is as both are Kaula, and I do not represent Kaula here, it is for you to establish my right handed view is wrong and verily left handed view is correct.

I perfectly understand what U try to say, and understand as well that Ur position is wrong. Reading an intro by Avalon and some chapters of one Nigama doesn't make U an expert in Kaula-shastras.
I have read on Vaishnavism somewhat more, but i do not claim i know it and do not start teaching Vaishnavism to Vaishnavas!

But U feel no problem in having taken out of context some two verses start explaining the tradition to which U do not belong and which U studied for some three weeks. Great thing...

Tantras clearly say about succession of bhavas and acharas. "Right hand" view is valid for pashu-bhava and dakshinachara, no problem in this. But it is inferior to "Left-hand" path, which is prescribed for vira-sadhakas.

Numbers of verses quoted serves no purpose unless to deal with right handed views directly. Can you either say, tantras which says right handed views are wrong or unauthoritative; or is there any texts or analysis done by any tantri in past or recently, analysising both views and making left handed view authoritative.

I have provided several passages that clearly state that without Vamachara no Shakti-upasana can be done. And if it is done, it results in going to hell only.
All substitutes have their place, but either for pashus (who cannot be Kaulas proper) or for Kaulas in pashu-mandala (like in opened temple).

This is what you have to present. If you cannot, I see, there is no problem in Kaula for those who want to go with Left handed core practises can opt for it, where in Kaula also makes way in for Right handed view, concurring general Hindu practises, and those like me, who opt to take right handed view can take it verily being within Kaula

U cannot take any "hand path" unless U get diksha. And U cannot get any diksha above pashu-diksha unless U enter Vama-marga.
What U think and consider is Ur personal stuff, and not a Kaula doctrine.

Can I conclude, Brahmacharya, Vanaprasti and Sanyasi has no place in Kaula is my question I posted earlier. Your description says, as I understand, non grihasti has no place in Kaula.

Vanaprasthi or sannyasi if enters into Kaula-naya, has to go in the same way as grihasthi. There is no necessity in having wife, but female partner is a must.

I had given you a citation, you had given me citation, now the query is whose citation is authoritative? As both are Kaula texts, you have bridge it, and onus is not on me

Ur citation is a case of Ur misunderstanding. And this is proved by actual facts: most of Kaulas were and are brahmanas and kshatriyas.
It is ridiculous to object to this, since it is easy to check. Do U think that Sri Bhaskararaya, Purnananda, Bhatta Kallata, Abhinavagupta, Maheshvarananda, Amritananda, Amritavagbhava and many many other great saints and Masters were shudras? Verily they were not!

I am here only to take concurrence. I am not here to stop you from you vamachara, I am here just to make vamachara acceptable to all and to understand right handed view amongst Kaula texts.

Right-hand view is valid for pashus and not Kaulas proper.

1. You can either say, the views of yours is strictly Kaula and not a general Hindu View as such, as 5M in puja is not strictly General view, but Kaula view; The moment you say this, I am out of this thread, I have no purpose in continuing

All teaching about 5M and Vama-marga are verily Tantric and not general Hindu, this is right and i never stated the opposite. Yes, these practices exist in esoteric cores of many traditions which are outwardly Shaiva or Vaishnava. But only in Kaulism they occupy a prominent place.

The only thing i argued about general Hindu view is this:
Grihasthi-mumukshu does not have to avoid sex with his wife � and the opposite view contradicts Shruti and Smriti.
But none apart from Tantrikas is supposed to practice 5M etc, which demand special dikshas.

2. or, you can say, Kaula is general hindu view, but gives option, who can do Left handed can go with left handed, and who want to be strictly right handed version of Kaula can opt for it, - again after this, I will reiterate this and will be out of this thread. In second, probably, if I stick to this forum for long, I will object strict left views to be inserted in general thread with right handed view of Kaula

One cannot make Kaula Path according to his own beliefs or ideas. If he cannot accept Vama-naya, Kaula Path is not for such person.

ramkish42

27 April 2006, 10:48 AM

This is a blatant divertion of original meaning. If discarding sex was meant, it would have been said ONLY upastha-parityaga. Since jihva is used as well, BOTH cannot be taken literally (otherwise it becomes nonsense), but only as referring to non-attachment.

Why so many efforts to divert and confuse Kaula scriptures? Either U simply cannot accept U are wrong (which U couldn't do even when it was absolutely obvious, as with "Kameshvara" issue and "tattvasya") and thus argue, or have some problem with Kaula doctrine, inspite of Ur claims of respect to every Hindu tradition.
U tried to confuse very plain verse of Vijnana-bhairava, now U try to confuse this issue, taking a verse out of its context. This is not a method of treating scripture...
You perpetualy making statement without supporting your views.

How does the usage of Jihva used along with Upasthaparityaga refers to non attachment? Similarly with other issues you just make statements and want me to consult pandits, anyways, I ignore for such statements does not make any relevance here, but your first statement does.

Why Jihva used with upasthaparityaga should refer non attachment, when it clear and plain meaning in the same sense as you refer vijnana Bhairava indicates discarding?

This indicates, you are trying to interpret text as to show what you prefer to mean than what it means.

I had given you plain meanings of Vijnana Bhairava, anyways, we will discuss that out litttle bit later

Arjuna

27 April 2006, 11:02 AM

Again you are just quoting verses in favour of you. I want to know how does your citation makes my citations invalid. If it makes my citations invalid, is that means entire nigama is not a Kaula nigama or Kaula nigama of unauthoritative in nature. HOPE YOU WILL UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION

Every citation has to be seen in its context. Substitutes are given for a certain reasons, which U continue to ignore.
There is no Tantra that says one goes to hell if he doesn�t use substitutes (or follow dakshinachara), but there are many that say Vama-sadhana is a must and without Vamachara one never achieves Mukti and goes to hell. Thus it is very clear that Vamachara is essential, while anukalpas are only for particular cases.

I thought I will abstain from referring to temple practises, as you are insisting, if Maithuna is not offense in puja, Madyam is not offense in Puja, what stops Kaula from practising it in Temple, in saba as such.

People who come to temples are pashus, and Vama rituals cannot be done in presence of pashus. But priests do use wine in archana, and in some temples secret upasana is done in night time.

As the provision of substitution goes, those who choose for substitution can go for it even when the objects are available.

It is very clearly said that Vama-sadhana is a must for a Kaula. Thus, Ur assumption is wrong.

As far as I know, as to vetaalasiddhi it is either not practised or if practised, is practised with substitutes, otherwise using the upasana is verily illegal. Now if you contentions are true, 1. You cannot leave this upasana for this is verily Kaula, 2. You cannot use the mandatory requirements for it is illegal. As within Kaula context, using the mandatory requirements are not illegal, verily one can do this upasana.

This sadhana (it�s NOT an upasana) is not a Kaula one, though it is Tantric. I am not dealing with these lower occult things and do not know what exactly U mean by mandatory requirements. As a general rule, in all occult sadhanas prescriptions are to be followed to very letter, and no substitutes will do.

This analogy of vetaalasiddi provides two points
1. You can abstain from an upasana
2. You can use substitutes if you want to go with the upasana

Upasana is �worship� and �devotion�. Kaulas never worship vetalas, bhutas or other spirits. Sadhanas are there to control these beings, which is totally opposite to upasana.
U misuse this word :p

Whether U can use substitutes or can�t depends upon Agamic prescriptions. In a case of Vamachara, maithuna cannot be substituted in all cases, but only in some.

Very first asumption itself is wrong.
There are so many upasanas furnished in Kaula which is not for Moksha but only for different siddhis. Hence, Kaula marga is also like general hindu paths, if one wants Moksha there is clear path and those who are satisfied with other siddhis have other path.

There is only one upasana in Kaulachara and that is Shakti-upasana of Kaulopasana.
Sadhanas (practices) are many, and some are aimed at minor things such as specific siddhis. These sadhanas aren�t specific to Kaulas but exist in ALL Hindu traditions, starting from Atharvana-veda. Occult prayogas exist in Shaiva schools (see Tirumantiram, chapter about Bhairava worship), in Vaishnava (especially Shrivaishnava: worship of Jvala-nrisimha, Sudarshana-chakraraja, Apamarjana, Varaha etc), Yoga traditions and virtually all other. Thus, occult practices are a part of Hinduism right from the Vedic time and till now, they aren�t specifically Tantric.
The only essential to Tantrism upasana is 5M, which aim is verily God-realisation.

All Kaulas are mumukshus, since the aim of Kulachara is Shiva-vyapti (Sayujya, Samarasya or Mahamoksha). Those who go after siddhis only are not Kaulikas but verily laukikas.

I read history of author of Sarvollasa, where in he was forced to marry again, where in it clearly indicates, one need not to have a wife. Regarding substituting another woman, I am not sure, for I trust there is substitute for woman and need not to another woman

There is no necessity to marry (especially on woman one doesn�t love ;) ), but female partner is a must. Sarvananda was a Vamachari and had a shakti.

Want to see where Kaulagams reject Vanaprasta and Sanyaasa, need not be original sanskrit text, (though preferred) but any references to it

Mahanirvana-tantra says there are only two ashramas in kaliyuga, grihastha and avadhuta.
Kularnava-tantra prohibits sannyasa for Kaulas.

Arjuna

27 April 2006, 11:21 AM

You perpetualy making statement without supporting your views.
How does the usage of Jihva used along with Upasthaparityaga refers to non attachment? Similarly with other issues you just make statements and want me to consult pandits, anyways, I ignore for such statements does not make any relevance here, but your first statement does.
Why Jihva used with upasthaparityaga should refer non attachment, when it clear and plain meaning in the same sense as you refer vijnana Bhairava indicates discarding?

Literal meaning is simply "parityaga of tongue [and] genitals".
Then, parityaga is:
parityAga m. (ifc. f. %{A}) the act of leaving , abandoning , deserting , quitting , giving up , neglecting , renouncing Mn. MBh. &c. ; separation from (%{sakAzAt}) R. ; (pl.) liberality , a sacrifice Hit. ; N. of wk.
As U can see, it can mean not only abandoning, but sacrifice and separation from (= non-attachment).
(From http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/)

If we understand it literally as "abandoning [functions] of tongue and genitals", it means Jnani cannot taste food, talk, have sex and urinate.
Since this is obviously ridiculous, we cannot take this saying to mean literally abandoning.

Right after this passage the same text says that Liberation is "nirmama"tva, and seeing this it is logical to select meaning of parityaga as non-attachment, separation from these functions � and verily not stopping or suppressing them.

ramkish42

27 April 2006, 11:42 AM

I perfectly understand what U try to say, and understand as well that Ur position is wrong. Reading an intro by Avalon and some chapters of one Nigama doesn't make U an expert in Kaula-shastras.
I have read on Vaishnavism somewhat more, but i do not claim i know it and do not start teaching Vaishnavism to Vaishnavas!

But U feel no problem in having taken out of context some two verses start explaining the tradition to which U do not belong and which U studied for some three weeks. Great thing...

Tantras clearly say about succession of bhavas and acharas. "Right hand" view is valid for pashu-bhava and dakshinachara, no problem in this. But it is inferior to "Left-hand" path, which is prescribed for vira-sadhakas.

Yes, for me that was a great thing, a set of rules in Kaula Saastra, hidden by you been exposed, and you are worried about that, I can see from your writings itself, that is clear case for you are not ready to deal with those verses. Similar with non hindu forums when text is plain and clear, but practise does not allow it, people who feel cornered ask me what authority I hold to interpret their texts. I said, and I am saying the same to you, I have nothing. My question is why you want to ignore the plain meaning of the text, which you are accusing me of doing with Vijnana Bhairava

There is no specific exclusion given in those texts I had cited. The context I had interpreted verily matches, but does not goes with other texts does not mean, it is taken out of context, which you subtly miss.

I have provided several passages that clearly state that without Vamachara no Shakti-upasana can be done. And if it is done, it results in going to hell only.
All substitutes have their place, but either for pashus (who cannot be Kaulas proper) or for Kaulas in pashu-mandala (like in opened temple).

If two statements from Kaula is presented representing different aspects, that means, Kaula incorportes both Ideas. If you see any one verse is not authoritative or wrong, submit your analysis and conclusion.

Instead you keep accusing me of not understanding, taking out of context, not reading scriptures and so on, is not going to help you. The reason I want to know WHY YOU PREFER TO IGNORE SUCH VERSES; IS THERE A LOGICAL ANALYSIS BEHIND SETTING ASIDE SUCH VERSES. I see nothing. Mr. Arjun wants to go with 5M logic, hence he chooses it is what I got after such discussions

U cannot take any "hand path" unless U get diksha. And U cannot get any diksha above pashu-diksha unless U enter Vama-marga.
What U think and consider is Ur personal stuff, and not a Kaula doctrine.

Chill out Mr. Arjun. I had quoted only from Kaula scriptures and Opinions of the person who had read all such books and after reading such books having logically understood the concept and capable of logical analysis, Sir John Woodroffe came to this conclusion, which is verily corroborated by the text he had referred.

Anyways, as I said, I do not want you to be a Vaishnavite hence do not expect me to get any Diksha. I do not want to see my name or second person addressing to be used with getting diksha and similar stuff.

Vanaprasthi or sannyasi if enters into Kaula-naya, has to go in the same way as grihasthi. There is no necessity in having wife, but female partner is a must.

So, Kaula is against Varna Dharma, Kaula is against Aashrama Dharma, Kaula is against Vedic philosophies (Advaita, Dvaita etc), Kaula is against saamanya dharma (with practises like Veetalasiddhi) and as the list goes, I conclude verily, what Kaula says is good and apt for Kaula and not applies for General Hindus as whole. An ordinary hindu, getting inside Kaula needs some sort of transformation like rewinding or de-learning what his eariler script says. IS THIS REWINDING IS CALLED DIKSHA? Correct?

Ur citation is a case of Ur misunderstanding. And this is proved by actual facts: most of Kaulas were and are brahmanas and kshatriyas.
It is ridiculous to object to this, since it is easy to check. Do U think that Sri Bhaskararaya, Purnananda, Bhatta Kallata, Abhinavagupta, Maheshvarananda, Amritananda, Amritavagbhava and many many other great saints and Masters were shudras? Verily they were not!
There is no point for me to misunderstad.

It is the nigama which has said that; do not blame it on me.

If nigama really feels so, then perceptors in your list would had dealt with that earlier, for I trust, not every one would had missed it.

What I am asking you is - IS THERE A REFERENCE TO THAT NIGAMA MADE BY PERCEPTORS AND IS THERE ANY ANALYSIS DONE BY THEM ON IT.

If all of them never made any reference, then there is no point in you discussing this with me, you should first discuss this out with the great perceptors first. Meanwhile, request you to allow me to stay with my conclusions

The only thing i argued about general Hindu view is this:
Grihasthi-mumukshu does not have to avoid sex with his wife � and the opposite view contradicts Shruti and Smriti.
But none apart from Tantrikas is supposed to practice 5M etc, which demand special dikshas.

When Aashrama dharma is fully appreciated in Kaula there is no point in discussing Grihasti Mumukshu and non Grihasti Mumukshu.

Many a times I had point out, Kaama of chatur purushaartha alone is not grihasta, which you had missed every time. As long as Artha dharma is upheld he is called grihasti.

I had read many texts in Hindu scriptures, Let me give you one of most hidden, NAANAA NARIM VRITHA LOKAYATRA referring to material life. Once the mumukshu related texts starts, all the scriptures in toto talks about control of senses, control in food, not to go after woman etc, I am yet to see a text which authorises mumukshu to have intercourse in non Kaula - Vedic texts. As said, If my point of view of Kaula cannot be substantiated, I will present those verses

One cannot make Kaula Path according to his own beliefs or ideas. If he cannot accept Vama-naya, Kaula Path is not for such person.

Verily accepted, each path has its own rules and regulations.

But you have yet to prove the nigama submissions are false and does not control Kaula

ramkish42

27 April 2006, 12:00 PM

Every citation has to be seen in its context. Substitutes are given for a certain reasons, which U continue to ignore.
There is no Tantra that says one goes to hell if he doesn�t use substitutes (or follow dakshinachara), but there are many that say Vama-sadhana is a must and without Vamachara one never achieves Mukti and goes to hell. Thus it is very clear that Vamachara is essential, while anukalpas are only for particular cases.

People who come to temples are pashus, and Vama rituals cannot be done in presence of pashus. But priests do use wine in archana, and in some temples secret upasana is done in night time.

It is very clearly said that Vama-sadhana is a must for a Kaula. Thus, Ur assumption is wrong.

Same old stuff

I am asking you a point blank question

HAVING SAID ALL THOSE PHRASES, IS KULACHUDAMANI AND OTHER TEXTS I HAD QUOATED, ARE THEY ARE VALID OR NOT. ARE THEY KAULA TEXTS OR NOT

This sadhana (it�s NOT an upasana) is not a Kaula one, though it is Tantric. I am not dealing with these lower occult things and do not know what exactly U mean by mandatory requirements. As a general rule, in all occult sadhanas prescriptions are to be followed to very letter, and no substitutes will do.

Upasana is �worship� and �devotion�. Kaulas never worship vetalas, bhutas or other spirits. Sadhanas are there to control these beings, which is totally opposite to upasana.
U misuse this word :p

If you do not know, you can ask me what it is.

Vetaalasiddhi is a siddhi which enables the siddha to go to any place as he deserves. This has nothing to do with Bhuta and Vetaala. If you do not know the mandatory requirement for this, then

Bhairava said: O Deveshi Chandika, if you love me, tell me how to obtain the great siddhi Vetala and the rest. Devi said: The best of sadhakas, using Nimba wood should, on a Tuesday, at midnight, sit in sexual intercourse on a corpse. After digging a pit, he should recite the Mahishamardini (vidya) 800,000 times, then offering 1,000 times in the cremation ground. Taking the ash, smear it on a staff and padukas, going to the cremation ground on a Durga eighth and offering libation there.

I am not sure why you are trying to disown these stuffs calling it lower occult
Whether U can use substitutes or can�t depends upon Agamic prescriptions. In a case of Vamachara, maithuna cannot be substituted in all cases, but only in some.

There is only one upasana in Kaulachara and that is Shakti-upasana of Kaulopasana.

All Kaulas are mumukshus, since the aim of Kulachara is Shiva-vyapti (Sayujya, Samarasya or Mahamoksha). Those who go after siddhis only are not Kaulikas but verily laukikas.

As you had disowned it, let me ask you the same query which Shri Kannan Swami as posted. IS THE MARGA REFERRED IN VETAALA SIDDHI DHARMIC? IS NOT THIS PART OF VAMACHARA?

Mahanirvana-tantra says there are only two ashramas in kaliyuga, grihastha and avadhuta.
Kularnava-tantra prohibits sannyasa for Kaulas.

No problems, I will check those and will get back to you.

Mean while, as I will posting only tomorrow after this, request you reply in one set. As and when you split up the texts, I am unable to search it through

ramkish42

27 April 2006, 12:13 PM

Literal meaning is simply "parityaga of tongue [and] genitals".
Then, parityaga is:
parityAga m. (ifc. f. %{A}) the act of leaving , abandoning , deserting , quitting , giving up , neglecting , renouncing Mn. MBh. &c. ; separation from (%{sakAzAt}) R. ; (pl.) liberality , a sacrifice Hit. ; N. of wk.
As U can see, it can mean not only abandoning, but sacrifice and separation from (= non-attachment).
(From http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/)

If we understand it literally as "abandoning [functions] of tongue and genitals", it means Jnani cannot taste food, talk, have sex and urinate.
Since this is obviously ridiculous, we cannot take this saying to mean literally abandoning.

I appreciate your tenacity.

Separating literally means cutting off, which does not apply here. Sacrifice - could be. Very aptly

The problem word is attachment. Where does the context speaks about attachment. It talks about Genitals and tongue in specific referring to usage of those. Usage of tongue is speach, taste and genital is excretion and intercourse. If the said passage talks about attachment, then there should be reference even to Money and other materials, or at least reference to Mind where attachments really exist.

Hence, there is no need to extend the submission to attachment in general, for the verse is very specific.

I found your reply as soon as I posted my last submission. See you tommorrow

Arjuna

27 April 2006, 02:22 PM

I appreciate your tenacity.
Separating literally means cutting off, which does not apply here. Sacrifice - could be. Very aptly
The problem word is attachment. Where does the context speaks about attachment. It talks about Genitals and tongue in specific referring to usage of those. Usage of tongue is speach, taste and genital is excretion and intercourse. If the said passage talks about attachment, then there should be reference even to Money and other materials, or at least reference to Mind where attachments really exist.
Hence, there is no need to extend the submission to attachment in general, for the verse is very specific.

It is totally illogical to interpret jihvopastha-parityaga as "adandoning sexual activity" � what about tongue then? There is no reason to apply parityaga to only one function of upastha, ignoring second one and both functions of jihva.

Either U have to admit that this verse prescribes not only celibacy, but mauna-vrata, and presumably stopping of eating and drinking (and thus urinating), or U have to admit that the meaning is not literally abandoning of these two or four functions.

Moreover, if abandoning sex was meant, it could have been said very clearly and without any reference to tongue.

Arjuna

27 April 2006, 02:23 PM

Yes, for me that was a great thing, a set of rules in Kaula Saastra, hidden by you been exposed, and you are worried about that, I can see from your writings itself, that is clear case for you are not ready to deal with those verses.

There was nothing hidden by me regarding this matter.
However, it is queer to read a few passages and start delivering "expert expositions" of Kaula-shastra.

Similar with non hindu forums when text is plain and clear, but practise does not allow it, people who feel cornered ask me what authority I hold to interpret their texts. I said, and I am saying the same to you, I have nothing. My question is why you want to ignore the plain meaning of the text, which you are accusing me of doing with Vijnana Bhairava

U have full authority to study Kaula-tantrism as a scholar, this doesn't require any diksha. The only problem is U have to STUDY � which doesn't mean U dig out a verse just for the sake of proving Ur opponent is wrong. U have to take into account the general teaching of Kaulagamas and actual tradition.
Without general knowledge of any religion U cannot understand properly given text of that religion, even if U know its language perfectly (which is not the case with U).

Of course, U cannot be a religious authority in Kaulachara, but U may verily be a scholarly authority. Scholar should study the tradition objectively, while U simply argue and want to prove my position is wrong.

I may mistake in some issues, especially non-Tantric matters, as i do not possess complete knowledge of Shruti&Smriti. But in this case i have more grounds to interpret Kaula texts, since i have considerably deeper and vaster knowledge of them and know the teaching of the oral tradition.

Does this clarify a matter? U can study and then discuss. But scholarly approach presupposes a sincere inquiry and not debate for its own sake.

There is no specific exclusion given in those texts I had cited. The context I had interpreted verily matches, but does not goes with other texts does not mean, it is taken out of context, which you subtly miss.

There is the context of TRADITION as a whole, represented in body of Agamas and oral teachings. If U take one verse out of the context of Kaula-mata, U cannot properly understand or apply it.

As i have said, no Tantra says substitutions are a must, but many Tantras state physical practice of 5M is a must. Isn't the conclusion obvious?

If two statements from Kaula is presented representing different aspects, that means, Kaula incorportes both Ideas. If you see any one verse is not authoritative or wrong, submit your analysis and conclusion.

Tantras incorporate pashu-sadhanas as well, no one objected that. But sadhanas aren't equal in their results and effectiveness. Pashu-sadhanas (which include substituted 5M) bring limited results and are bound by karmas, while Kaula-upasana leads directly to Moksha.

Instead you keep accusing me of not understanding, taking out of context, not reading scriptures and so on, is not going to help you. The reason I want to know WHY YOU PREFER TO IGNORE SUCH VERSES; IS THERE A LOGICAL ANALYSIS BEHIND SETTING ASIDE SUCH VERSES. I see nothing. Mr. Arjun wants to go with 5M logic, hence he chooses it is what I got after such discussions

I never ignored such verses, but i show U their proper place, which U ignore.
I already have pointed two reasons of existance of substitutions. U continue debating as if nothing was said.

It is a continuous tactics of Urs. First U question something and argue, and when U loose a control over arguement and reveal Ur misunderstanding, U simply pretend as if nothing had happened.

Chill out Mr. Arjun. I had quoted only from Kaula scriptures and Opinions of the person who had read all such books and after reading such books having logically understood the concept and capable of logical analysis, Sir John Woodroffe came to this conclusion, which is verily corroborated by the text he had referred.

If U see logic in Ur interpretation, what is the difficulty in explaining it clearly?
Very simply, U want to say that given verse means Jnani stops using tongue and genitals (that is, functions of these organs are stopped)? Then Jnani not only can't enjoy sex, but can't speak, taste food and urinate. That is a literal meaning, which proves wrong by logical analysis.

So, Kaula is against Varna Dharma, Kaula is against Aashrama Dharma, Kaula is against Vedic philosophies (Advaita, Dvaita etc), Kaula is against saamanya dharma (with practises like Veetalasiddhi) and as the list goes, I conclude verily, what Kaula says is good and apt for Kaula and not applies for General Hindus as whole. An ordinary hindu, getting inside Kaula needs some sort of transformation like rewinding or de-learning what his eariler script says. IS THIS REWINDING IS CALLED DIKSHA? Correct?

Diksha is something else, and this is irrelevant to discussed issues.

But in the whole abovesaid is right � Kaula goes beyond all Smarta prescriptions. But he doesn't go against Shruti.

BTW what relation Vetala-siddhi has to samanya-dharma? :p

Many a times I had point out, Kaama of chatur purushaartha alone is not grihasta, which you had missed every time. As long as Artha dharma is upheld he is called grihasti.

I haven't "missed" that as i know that myself ;)
So what? Yes, all 4 Purusharthas are valid for grihasthi, including artha and kama. And no scripture says that he has to abandon artha and kama for the sake of Moksha!

I had read many texts in Hindu scriptures, Let me give you one of most hidden, [COLOR=#042fa8]NAANAA NARIM VRITHA LOKAYATRA [COLOR=black]referring to material life.

"Many texts" U have read, but till present moment not even one passage from Shruti or Smriti saying that Mumukshu-grihasthi has to stop sexual activity :D. Strange, isn't it?

Regarding Ur "most hidden" verse in corrupt sanskrit and without any reference, what does in prove? "vR^ithA lokayAtrA" means "travelling [in this] world is useless", while "nAnA" is "various" and "nArI" is "woman". This is unintelligible, grammatically improper and with no reference to any particular text. Did U compose this "hidden teaching" or what? :D

Once the mumukshu related texts starts, all the scriptures in toto talks about control of senses, control in food, not to go after woman etc, I am yet to see a text which authorises mumukshu to have intercourse in non Kaula - Vedic texts.

"All the scriptures" � which and where?

Gita does say about Yoga: yuktAhAravihArasya yuktacheShTasya karmasu yuktasvapnAvabodhasya, which means balanced food, entertainment, actions and sleep/waking. It doesn't say anything about suppressing or abandoning, but balance.

"Not to go after woman" is a vague expression. Shruti and Smritis never prohibit sexual activity for grihastha, including mumukshu one.
As we can see from Puranas, Rishi Parashara went after a fisher-woman, Krishna went after many women, Rama was much attached to Sita.
Ur general claims stand for no proof. Unless U can provide a Shruti or Smriti verse prohibiting sexual activity for grihasthi who is mumukshu, U statements remain mere baseless assumptions.

Arjuna

27 April 2006, 02:56 PM

Same old stuff
I am asking you a point blank question
HAVING SAID ALL THOSE PHRASES, IS KULACHUDAMANI AND OTHER TEXTS I HAD QUOATED, ARE THEY ARE VALID OR NOT. ARE THEY KAULA TEXTS OR NOT

They are valid and are Kaula. Problem is with Ur [mis]understanding and not with texts.

If you do not know, you can ask me what it is.

Vetaalasiddhi is a siddhi which enables the siddha to go to any place as he deserves. This has nothing to do with Bhuta and Vetaala.

U are wrong, it is directly related to spirits. And verily this is NOT a Kaula upasana, but a lower occult siddhi.

I am not sure why you are trying to disown these stuffs calling it lower occult

Because they ARE lower occult siddhis, which have no spiritual (AtmArtha) value.
Kaulachara per se has nothing to do with these.
Tantras describe occult prayogas for certain reasons (they can be used in some issues but qualified sadhakas) but never say these are upasana of Kula which leads to Mukti and Devi-sayujya.

As you had disowned it, let me ask you the same query which Shri Kannan Swami as posted. IS THE MARGA REFERRED IN VETAALA SIDDHI DHARMIC? IS NOT THIS PART OF VAMACHARA?

Vetala-siddhi is not a Kaulachara and it is not a part of Vamachara. It is just a Tantric occult sadhana, and not a spiritual practice.

Occult practices appeared firstly in Shruti itself, and they are relatively dharmic.

ramkish42

27 April 2006, 04:57 PM

It is totally illogical to interpret jihvopastha-parityaga as "adandoning sexual activity" � what about tongue then? There is no reason to apply parityaga to only one function of upastha, ignoring second one and both functions of jihva.

Either U have to admit that this verse prescribes not only celibacy, but mauna-vrata, and presumably stopping of eating and drinking (and thus urinating), or U have to admit that the meaning is not literally abandoning of these two or four functions.

Moreover, if abandoning sex was meant, it could have been said very clearly and without any reference to tongue.
Any child can tell you what it realtes with tongue - IT IS TASTE DEAR

I am surprised with all your icons of expression in right places, why are missing this when this is evident. As the icon goes into the place so does this should had been.

I think you do not want to choose this, and still in a dilemma as to disowning the entire text as such.

Best wishes,

ramkish42

27 April 2006, 05:51 PM

There was nothing hidden by me regarding this matter.
However, it is queer to read a few passages and start delivering "expert expositions" of Kaula-shastra.

Why you are rejecting without supporting is not evident. This verily shows you are surprised by the citations I made. No problem. There is not point in questioning authority, but when a doubt is raised it has to be clarified. Citing another texts with opposite view does not render previous citation invalid is what you have to understand, instead, it throws two options.

There is no question of proving the opponent wrong. Let me let you this now. I am asking a doubt of Kaula which you have to clarify. Do not try to impose the rule of guru sishya and tell me, As I am guru here go, by what I say - tell me objectively or subjectively, why my citations does not applies.

1. Practise varies - That is why I say, you had hidden these stuffs, when I mentioned about Vetaalasiddhi, you even did not know what it is, this shows selective educationalism that is followed, you skip basics and come to mumukshu levels and try to understand your scripture in short cut methods. I can also mention so many stuff that you do not know. The same is the instance with me too, but I am solid with basics of my sect, I acknowledge I have move up a lot, which in sharp contrast with you where you speak much of higher phase events ignoring the basics, where in a basic query like this takes you by surprise

2. Some/many scriptures has opposite views - yes indeed, when the religion is vast there will be opposite views and practises, but this does not render each other invalid, but should compliment each other

That is why when ever you refer any scripture which is non kaula I make a detailed disposition, You could remember about Gita Govinda, I could had dispensed like what you did, claiming you have no authority to do that or your interpretation is wrong etc, but gave a disposition explaining my stance on that work

I want to see this from you now

[quote]There is the context of TRADITION as a whole, represented in body of Agamas and oral teachings. If U take one verse out of the context of Kaula-mata, U cannot properly understand or apply it.
I do not want to hear this from now on about "taking out of context". I had given you the text references and translation, try to fit it in the context of the very book I had cited and tell me why my stance is wrong.

As i have said, no Tantra says substitutions are a must, but many Tantras state physical practice of 5M is a must. Isn't the conclusion obvious?
Most illogical as possible. You do not understand the very word substitution. While making provision for substitution no one says go with substitution, but no one bars it. Physical practice of 5M and its insistance refers to discarding the practise as whole, ignoring 5M i.e. skipping 5M parts in the upasana. When 5M is insisted, it means, puja cannot be performed ignoring 5M in whole i.e. skipping the 5M section; a due respect should be given to 5M while performing puja and do it, still if you have hesitation, scripture gives you another option - OK IF YOU FEEL LIKE SKIPPING THIS WE ADVICE YOU DO NOT SKIP, INSTEAD USE THIS SUBSTITUTIONS.

The very idea of substitution does not goes with idea of barring substitution.

If texts verily insists substitution should not be made, what do you think is the use in mentioning the availability of substitution. Substitution exists for the sake of substitution; for you it only when things are not available; for some one else, always

Tantras incorporate pashu-sadhanas as well, no one objected that. But sadhanas aren't equal in their results and effectiveness. Pashu-sadhanas (which include substituted 5M) bring limited results and are bound by karmas, while Kaula-upasana leads directly to Moksha.
Does this matches the analysis and conclusion I had asked for?

I never ignored such verses, but i show U their proper place, which U ignore. I already have pointed two reasons of existance of substitutions. U continue debating as if nothing was said. It is a continuous tactics of Urs. First U question something and argue, and when U loose a control over arguement and reveal Ur misunderstanding, U simply pretend as if nothing had happened.
In toto, you have nothing to say about the authority of my citations. I never lost control of my statements, but instead of dealing with those citation, you give me another citation, which does not says my citations are wrong, but of different sort.

As you still do not understand, I will give you an analogy.

1. Scriptures ask me to drink milk. 2. Scriptures also says milk is must, 3. hence you are forcing me to take milk. 4. Now after some study, 5. I found another passage 6. which allows to drink coconut water instead of milk. 7. I also see substitution is allowed, 8. So, I can go with coconut water -

but you are objecting with point 2. What I see here is point 2 is basic one which regulates milk is must, nothing without milk to be done etc indicating importance of milk but these statements does not negates statement 6, for I am ready to go with statement 2. If statement 2 alone suffices, there is no need for statement 6. For I am incompatible with milk, I go with statement 6. When I object your statement 2, saying milk is not required at all then you statements invalidates my claim. Instead, what I say is, your statement may or may not be true, irrespective of that, scriptures has allowed to me complete this with allowance given in statement 6. Still you are objecting with statement 2. Such conclusion is CHILDISH. You are trying to undermine you own scriptures with such approaches. I never said Kaula does not need Maithuna at all; verily it is you sect, you do what you want; but do not deny substitutions are invalid, anybody can use substitution irrespective of their personal nature.

U want to say that given verse means Jnani stops using tongue and genitals (that is, functions of these organs are stopped)? Then Jnani not only can't enjoy sex, but can't speak, taste food and urinate. That is a literal meaning, which proves wrong by logical analysis.

Still you are unable to make it out; no problem.

I said Jnani shoud stop using usages of tongue and genitals which are not vital. Taste is immaterial for life; Absense of sex does not kill a person; verily no urinating or not eating food will kill the person. When the scripture says abstain, the meaning of the word abstain is taken as abstain all things which are not vital - do not do such things which will not render you dead.

If jnani chooses not to speak it is prerogative, for scripture allows him to do so. If Jnani does not take food for two days, it is allowed for scripture allows him to do so. If not speaking not taking food is killing a person, such statements are really invalid; Thus what I was expecting from you is statement pertaining to sex - DOES ABSTAINING FROM INTERCOURSE KILLS A PERSON? DOES NOT PAYING HEED TO TASTE KILLS A PERSON? If a jnani feel, yes, abstaining from sex and insipid food kills the jnani, such statement is verily against the very fundamentals thus is invalid.

I had told you earlier that I will run you through a logical analysis in your own script, this is it

On the contrary, abstaining from sex and paying no heed to taste does not kill a jnani he should practise it for scripture regulates so

BTW what relation Vetala-siddhi has to samanya-dharma? :p
Yet another BTW cunning statement. Vetaalasiddhi is against samaanya dharma for it allows to use dead body (even 7 days old) thus denying the basic right of human being to have a decent burial

"Many texts" U have read, but till present moment not even one passage from Shruti or Smriti saying that Mumukshu-grihasthi has to stop sexual activity :D. Strange, isn't it?
You are shoked with your own texts giving you opposite visions; why you are talking about general scriptures. As I said deal with your texts first, then we will deal with general scriptures

I choose to ignore your sanskrit analysis for I am not here to teach you sanskrit. If you choose to teach me, you can do it, but I reserve the right to learn

Jai shree krishna

ramkish42

27 April 2006, 06:07 PM

They are valid and are Kaula. Problem is with Ur [mis]understanding and not with texts.

I want you to say this logically and not just denying it some byhearted or "written down for reference" submissions.

Your statements talks about basics for those who are compatible with 5M. For those who see 5M as incompatible, non practisable, or irrelevant, text gives substitution

Substitution is not only to cover areas of impossibility but also incompatibility is my submission

[/quote]U are wrong, it is directly related to spirits. And verily this is NOT a Kaula upasana, but a lower occult siddhi.

Because they ARE lower occult siddhis, which have no spiritual (AtmArtha) value.
Kaulachara per se has nothing to do with these.
Tantras describe occult prayogas for certain reasons (they can be used in some issues but qualified sadhakas) but never say these are upasana of Kula which leads to Mukti and Devi-sayujya.

Vetala-siddhi is not a Kaulachara and it is not a part of Vamachara. It is just a Tantric occult sadhana, and not a spiritual practice.

Occult practices appeared firstly in Shruti itself, and they are relatively dharmic.[/quote]

It has nothing to do with spirits. The worshipped dieties in Vetaala siddhi are Katyayani, Purneshi, Chandi, Kamakhya and Dikkaravasini as per Kulachudamani.

Similarly, in Kaulavalinirnaya in verse 76, it is said, that it is the man of great strength, intelligence and courage, who is pure, free from guile. kind-hearted and devoted to the good of others who is competent to do Shava-sadhana (using dead body again)

It is also said that Shri Sarvaananda obtained this siddhi by practising as per contention of Sir John Woodroffe

Shava sadana and vetaala siddhi as I see becomes integral part; you may dispense with vetaala siddhi but Shri Sarvaananda practising shava sadana using a corpse, being a Jnani, as implies cannot be dispensed much easily as lower or even lowest occult practise.

Arjuna

28 April 2006, 04:43 AM

Any child can tell you what it realtes with tongue - IT IS TASTE DEAR

Nice standard of sajjnana! :D

There are two functions of tongue, which are accepted by common sense and by Hindu shastras both.

There are 5 jnanendriyas, and there tongue is for taste, and 5 karmendriyas, where tongue is for speech.

ramkish42

28 April 2006, 06:08 AM

Nice standard of sajjnana! :D

There are two functions of tongue, which are accepted by common sense and by Hindu shastras both.

There are 5 jnanendriyas, and there tongue is for taste, and 5 karmendriyas, where tongue is for speech.
Still you are unable to make it out. I made it clear, if Jnani feels that he can dispense with speech, he should.

As speech is a method of communication, many a times he may have to spread the knowledge he has, hence, he may or may not opt to discard it. It is always advisable to Jnani to speak less.

Many a times, I found great perceptors follow strigent Maun vrata. I have personally seen Shri Chandrasekarendra Saraswati being a ardent follower of it. He spoke very less, indeed, it took almost 45 years for his closest disciple to know the fact the Shri Jagadguru knows french, and it accidentally happened because a french crew came to meet him without much knowledge in english

So, why not speech?

Jnana word used in Jnanendriya has no connotion with Jnana of Jnani, otherwise, one needs no scriptures to know the truth, only Jnanendriya will be adequate

As said in Katopanishad, Ananya prokte gathi atra naasti, self learning using so called jnanendriya will not lead to right path (as deciphered by Shrimad Ramanuja)

Arjuna

28 April 2006, 06:43 AM

Why you are rejecting without supporting is not evident. This verily shows you are surprised by the citations I made. No problem. There is not point in questioning authority, but when a doubt is raised it has to be clarified. Citing another texts with opposite view does not render previous citation invalid is what you have to understand, instead, it throws two options.

There are rules for pashus and rules for viras, which necessarily are different.
For viras there are also rules for special cases. For example, if a pashu enters Kula-chakra, viras are supposed to start Hari-sankirtana and stop Kula ritual.
U mix all these together, and for that reason contradiction arises.

There is no question of proving the opponent wrong. Let me let you this now. I am asking a doubt of Kaula which you have to clarify. Do not try to impose the rule of guru sishya and tell me, As I am guru here go, by what I say - tell me objectively or subjectively, why my citations does not applies.

�I have to clarify U doubt� ONLY if I am Ur Guru! :D
Otherwise I do not have any obligations. Since I am not a Guru, and verily not Ur, there is no point in saying that I �have to�.
In fact, I have given an exact reply to Ur doubt. That is enough. U do not �have to understand� or agree with what I said.

1. Practise varies - That is why I say, you had hidden these stuffs, when I mentioned about Vetaalasiddhi, you even did not know what it is, this shows selective educationalism that is followed, you skip basics and come to mumukshu levels and try to understand your scripture in short cut methods.

1. Vetala-siddhi is a control over vetala, which I knew ;). It is U who made a wrong statement that vetala-siddhi has nothing to with vetalas. Do not juggle with facts.
2. Mumukshu level is BASIC, while occult additions are peripheral and unnecessary for upasana. U again confuse the matter.

I can also mention so many stuff that you do not know. The same is the instance with me too, but I am solid with basics of my sect, I acknowledge I have move up a lot, which in sharp contrast with you where you speak much of higher phase events ignoring the basics, where in a basic query like this takes you by surprise

What is basics? Oxford dictionary says: �fundamentals, essentials, rudiments, (first) principles, foundations, preliminaries, groundwork; essence, basis, core�. No doubt the basics of Kaulachara is the doctrine of Shakti-tattva and the method (Kula-yoga) of reaching Samarasya. Achieving Moksha is the basics, while getting siddhi is not.

So what is the basics of Ur sect? Is it Vishnu-bhakti or bringing a woman under control with Sudarshana-mantra? May be U think that Vaishnavism lacks these practices, but it does have them ;)

2. Some/many scriptures has opposite views - yes indeed, when the religion is vast there will be opposite views and practises, but this does not render each other invalid, but should compliment each other

And I have explained how these views coexist and what is the place of each in the tradition.

Most illogical as possible. You do not understand the very word substitution. While making provision for substitution no one says go with substitution, but no one bars it. Physical practice of 5M and its insistance refers to discarding the practise as whole, ignoring 5M i.e. skipping 5M parts in the upasana. When 5M is insisted, it means, puja cannot be performed ignoring 5M in whole i.e. skipping the 5M section; a due respect should be given to 5M while performing puja and do it, still if you have hesitation, scripture gives you another option - OK IF YOU FEEL LIKE SKIPPING THIS WE ADVICE YOU DO NOT SKIP, INSTEAD USE THIS SUBSTITUTIONS.
The very idea of substitution does not goes with idea of barring substitution.
If texts verily insists substitution should not be made, what do you think is the use in mentioning the availability of substitution. Substitution exists for the sake of substitution; for you it only when things are not available; for some one else, always

But Agamas do not say that sustitution is valid for each case or that sadhana with substitutions have the same value.
While there may be a point in substitution meat and fish for vaishnavas or smarta brahmanas, there is no reason for substituting maithuna (for it is not prohibited for brahmanas in any Shastras, unike meat, which is prohibited by some later sects).

There is no point of �if U feel like�. If one is a pashu, he CANNOT use full 5M and for him prescription of anukalpa is done. If one is a vira, for him actual 5M is a MUST. There is a special case, when a vira does ritual in presence of pashus or for pashus. In this case he is bound by rule of gupti to conceal his personal sadhana and do anukalpas only. Another exception is the physical absence of makaras.
5M is a must doesn�t mean a vira cannot do any worship at any time without 5M. He verily can. But he for his upasana physical 5M is necessary. If he is not married, maithuna may be a rare event in his sadhana, but it has to be. Otherwise he cannot get advanced dikshas and cannot take part in Kula-chakras. In other words, he cannot be a Kaula.

1. Scriptures ask me to drink milk. 2. Scriptures also says milk is must, 3. hence you are forcing me to take milk. 4. Now after some study, 5. I found another passage 6. which allows to drink coconut water instead of milk. 7. I also see substitution is allowed, 8. So, I can go with coconut water -

but you are objecting with point 2. What I see here is point 2 is basic one which regulates milk is must, nothing without milk to be done etc indicating importance of milk but these statements does not negates statement 6, for I am ready to go with statement 2. If statement 2 alone suffices, there is no need for statement 6. For I am incompatible with milk, I go with statement 6. When I object your statement 2, saying milk is not required at all then you statements invalidates my claim. Instead, what I say is, your statement may or may not be true, irrespective of that, scriptures has allowed to me complete this with allowance given in statement 6. Still you are objecting with statement 2. Such conclusion is CHILDISH. You are trying to undermine you own scriptures with such approaches. I never said Kaula does not need Maithuna at all; verily it is you sect, you do what you want; but do not deny substitutions are invalid, anybody can use substitution irrespective of their personal nature.

There is a fault in Ur discourse, which U do not notice: statements about milk and about its replacement are made for different people and different cases.
One more thing U miss is: 9. U can go with a coconut water, which has some value, but only those who drink milk get the Kamadhenu :D

I said Jnani shoud stop using usages of tongue and genitals which are not vital. Taste is immaterial for life; Absense of sex does not kill a person; verily no urinating or not eating food will kill the person. When the scripture says abstain, the meaning of the word abstain is taken as abstain all things which are not vital - do not do such things which will not render you dead.

In this case WHAT IS MEANT BY JIHVA-TYAGA?
Of course, sex is not vital, as well as speech. The only chance for U to remain logical is to admit Jnani has to abandon speech. But we know that many Jnanis (both Kaulas and non-Kaulas) did speak.
If U want to separate taste from taking food (which is practically impossible for a healthy person), then U have to separate �taste� of sexual act from the act itself.

Arjuna

28 April 2006, 06:44 AM

If jnani chooses not to speak it is prerogative, for scripture allows him to do so. If Jnani does not take food for two days, it is allowed for scripture allows him to do so. If not speaking not taking food is killing a person, such statements are really invalid; Thus what I was expecting from you is statement pertaining to sex - DOES ABSTAINING FROM INTERCOURSE KILLS A PERSON? DOES NOT PAYING HEED TO TASTE KILLS A PERSON?

1. It is said in that passage that Jnani can be jihvopastha-parityagi.
2. Parityaga here refers to jihva and upastha.
3. Jihva is used for speech and taste.
4. Upastha is used for sexual activity and urination.
5. Out of these 4 functions taste and urination are vital, while other two are not.
6. Taste is vital, since any healthy person feels taste if he takes food, which is verily vital. Not to feel taste one has to be either physically disabled or mentally. Jnani is not supposed to harm himself and not supposed to be mentally sick. With urination no difficulty is there I hope.
7. If we take parityaga to mean physical abandoning, which is a possible but not the only meaning, then two logical options are there: either we take it to refer to all four functions (which is obviously impossible and results in death of body), or we take it to refer to non-vital functions only, and thus to speech and sex.
8. In this case we have to admit that there is a Jnani who is always (and not for two days as U have said) silent and permanent celibate. Although we may assume some Jnanis can be like that, verily it isn’t a general case.
9. If we compare abovementioned view with a Kaula doctrine of Bhogamoksha-samarasya, it becomes evident that such understanding of parityaga is wrong in the context of Kaula-marga.
10. Thus, we have to take parityaga in another possible meaning of separation from actions or sacrifice. This results in non-identification (more precise than non-attachment) with actions and Atma-samarpana.
11. Exact text says: pR^ithivyAM yAni karmANi jihvopasthanimittataH, jihvopasthaparityAgI karmaNA kiM kariShyati. As it refers to karman, we have to admit that this refers to speech and sexual activity. Then, the text says: tatkarma yachcha bandhAya sA.avidyA parikIrttitA, yanna bandhAya tatkarma sA vidyA parikIrtitA.. yAvat sa~NkalpakarmAsti tAvadeva hi bandhanam, yAvattadeva naivAsti tAvadeva hi mokShaNam.. From this it is clear that problem is not action itself, but sankalpa, egoistic motivation. Moreover, the first verse can be understood as an objection to jihvopastha-parityaga even, since then no action is possible, and action freed from sankalpa is freedom and knowledge.

Arjuna

28 April 2006, 07:08 AM

You are shoked with your own texts giving you opposite visions; why you are talking about general scriptures. As I said deal with your texts first, then we will deal with general scriptures

What about a proof of Ur claim about mumukshu-grihasthis?

It has nothing to do with spirits. The worshipped dieties in Vetaala siddhi are Katyayani, Purneshi, Chandi, Kamakhya and Dikkaravasini as per Kulachudamani.

Worshipped dieties is another matter, but siddhi is over a vetala. Vetala is brought under control by power of Katyayanyadi-vidyas.
What U said about the ability to travel to any desired place is called paduka-siddhi. While vetala-siddhi, bhutini-siddhi, yakshini-siddhi and so on directly are connected with named spirits.

Similarly, in Kaulavalinirnaya in verse 76, it is said, that it is the man of great strength, intelligence and courage, who is pure, free from guile. kind-hearted and devoted to the good of others who is competent to do Shava-sadhana (using dead body again)
It is also said that Shri Sarvaananda obtained this siddhi by practising as per contention of Sir John Woodroffe
Shava sadana and vetaala siddhi as I see becomes integral part; you may dispense with vetaala siddhi but Shri Sarvaananda practising shava sadana using a corpse, being a Jnani, as implies cannot be dispensed much easily as lower or even lowest occult practise.

U mix different things. Shava-sadhana is a part of Vamachara (although not a necessary one), and is based upon Kaulagamas. But vetala-siddhi and alike practices (as outlined in Damaras and Uddishas) are not a part of upasana at all.
Homa is a part of Vedic cult, it is a part of Shiva worship and it is also used in marana-prayogas by Shaivas, Vaishnavas and Shaktas. This doesn’t make homa itself a lower occult practice, but marana verily is lower and occult.
Shava-sadhana is one of methods of worship of Devi and by itself has nothing to do with spirits and lower siddhis.

Arjuna

28 April 2006, 07:10 AM

By The Way, I have checked Avalon’s notion of substitutes — there is nothing like that in 5. 103! After saying that no caste distinction should be made in maithuna, text goes on with:
sarvasiddhirbhavatyeva pa~nchatattvanivedanAt.
dravyashuddherabhAvena nityaM karma na lopayet..103..
It simply says that one cannot stop nitya-sadhana if 5M are not available.

But it is clear that this refers to the case of absence of 5M. Otherwise, Mahakala-samhita says:
kR^itAyAM shaktipUjAyAM saphalaM nityapUjanam ..
akR^itAyAmamuShyAM tu niHphalaM nityapUjanam .
tasmAdyatnena sampUjya shaktirnityArchanAdanu ..
devIdhiyaiva sampUjya na sAmAnyavadhUdhiyA .
(Mahakala-samhita Guhyakali-khanda 10.1661b-1663a)

Without worship of a woman nitya-sadhana is futile.

ramkish42

28 April 2006, 11:31 AM

There are rules for pashus and rules for viras, which necessarily are different. For viras there are also rules for special cases. For example, if a pashu enters Kula-chakra, viras are supposed to start Hari-sankirtana and stop Kula ritual. U mix all these together, and for that reason contradiction arises.

Thanks for showing Hari-sankirtana is suitable EVEN TO any ordinary pashus.

Till now you are presenting views without dealing with the texts based on some assumptions. I demand you deal with the citations I made - make a logical analysis and come to a conclusion. Not just assuming, probably vira, probably pashu, probably something etc

1. Vetala-siddhi is a control over vetala, which I knew ;). It is U who made a wrong statement that vetala-siddhi has nothing to with vetalas. Do not juggle with facts.
2. Mumukshu level is BASIC, while occult additions are peripheral and unnecessary for upasana. U again confuse the matter.
Mumukshu level is not basic, anyways if you feel so it corroborates the point you verily skip basics.

Vetala siddhi as per chudamani, is same as what you say as paduka siddhi as per the version I have. What I can do is try to scan the page and upload to any site and put an image here

Achieving Moksha is the basics, while getting siddhi is not.
No problem, this corroborates my views, that you skip basics. Moksha is eternity where in siddhis are materialistic, you should know about siddhis and learn and practise it first before getting it into Moksha.

So what is the basics of Ur sect? Is it Vishnu-bhakti or bringing a woman under control with Sudarshana-mantra? May be U think that Vaishnavism lacks these practices, but it does have them ;)
This is old trick - I read in some tantras that smatas, vaishnavites and other orthodox people do puja to attain special siddhis using a dead body (for cremation yes, not otherwise as mentioned in tantras) were in all great perceptors are verily against any such siddhis

And I have explained how these views coexist and what is the place of each in the tradition.
You had just denied all that stuff saying 5M is mandatory

But Agamas do not say that sustitution is valid for each case or that sadhana with substitutions have the same value.
While there may be a point in substitution meat and fish for vaishnavas or smarta brahmanas, there is no reason for substituting maithuna (for it is not prohibited for brahmanas in any Shastras, unike meat, which is prohibited by some later sects).
Having said this, wine, fish and meat can be fully substitutied for those there is an injunction. I trust this also goes true for those who do not like consuming such things, say Orthodox Shaiva Siddantas etc

As you also said, agamas do not say substitution is not valid for each case, request you to specify where does it says, "no substitution is allowed for this case"

There is no point of �if U feel like�. If one is a pashu, he CANNOT use full 5M and for him prescription of anukalpa is done. If one is a vira, for him actual 5M is a MUST. There is a special case.... If he is not married, maithuna may be a rare event in his sadhana, but it has to be. Otherwise he cannot get advanced dikshas and cannot take part in Kula-chakras. In other words, he cannot be a Kaula.

My citations are silent about pashus and viras. I want to know why you curtail it down and on what basis you do that?

One more thing U miss is: 9. U can go with a coconut water, which has some value, but only those who drink milk get the Kamadhenu
Verily not. I agree I cannot go without coconut water, but I deny to accept those who drink milk get the kamadhenu, for as saastra has allowed me to drink coconut water instead of milk, there is no reason about assuming this.

Only problem I see with my analogy is you are unable to comprehend it for you are just assuming results only for milk drinkers before denying my statements

As I understand I have go with either milk or coconut water, my question is you can have milk if you prefer and I can have coconut water when I prefer, how does the view that milk is mandatory becomes general hindu view, where in you own texts says it is substitutable?

In this case WHAT IS MEANT BY JIHVA-TYAGA?

You had posted a separate reply for this, I will answer this section there

Jai shree krishna

ramkish42

28 April 2006, 12:28 PM

9. If we compare abovementioned view with a Kaula doctrine of Bhogamoksha-samarasya, it becomes evident that such understanding of parityaga is wrong in the context of Kaula-marga.
Now that if the said passage does not match with Kaula Doctrine, my question why does this been included in the Kaula texts.

10. Thus, we have to take parityaga in another possible meaning of separation from actions or sacrifice. This results in non-identification (more precise than non-attachment) with actions and Atma-samarpana.
The problem with non identification doctrine is it does not goes out well with tongue. What a jnani has got to disown as far his tongue is concerened is the basic question left unanswered in your analysis.

As we are discussing here about a Jnani and not about an ordinary man, Jnani happens to be man who is bound by ritualistic nature of Kaula, the basic tenant of Bogha-moksha-samarasya does not applies to him verily within the context for rituals that make 5M mandatory and Bogha which is direct result of such 5M's mandatory does not binds him, as rituals itself does not applies to him. If such is the case there is no point in stretching this principle to take privilege of the clear meaning of the text - calling for a Jnani to control his taste and Sexual intercourse

If the same words are said about a Pashu or vira (as per your tenant) this absense of mamatatva is implied, but we are talking about Jnani

11. Exact text says: pR^ithivyAM yAni karmANi jihvopasthanimittataH, jihvopasthaparityAgI karmaNA kiM kariShyati. As it refers to karman, we have to admit that this refers to speech and sexual activity. Then, the text says: tatkarma yachcha bandhAya sA.avidyA parikIrttitA, yanna bandhAya tatkarma sA vidyA parikIrtitA.. yAvat sa~NkalpakarmAsti tAvadeva hi bandhanam, yAvattadeva naivAsti tAvadeva hi mokShaNam.. From this it is clear that problem is not action itself, but sankalpa, egoistic motivation. Moreover, the first verse can be understood as an objection to jihvopastha-parityaga even, since then no action is possible, and action freed from sankalpa is freedom and knowledge.

Very intelligently played but I can see the cunningness.

As we are talking about a Jnani, what does the word "Karma" refers to here. It refers to ritualistic Karma - as the text verily says, if you take this ritualistic karma it results in bhandhanam - bondage, else not, thus concurs with my view that Jnani - need not to be indulged in any rituals hence no 5M.

The problem point, let me tell you, is - stretched meaning Jihvo-pastha-parityaagi and taking literal meaning for Sankalpakarmaasti - if you go with literal meaning go with literal meaning for both, when the impossibility stops the literal meaning of the earlier key word, so it affects the later key word also. Hence so stretched meaning of sex and taste (speech as the case may be) should be in relation with stretched meaning for sankalpakarmaasti, indicating rituals started with intentions to complete and cannot mean

Where in I checked this up with three translation available in local theosophical library, they concurred with my view and not with absence of mamatatva.

Further more the word Sankalpa used normally with conception or idea or notion formed in the mind or heart , (esp.) will , volition , purpose , definite intention or determination or decision or wish - this normally indicates the vow taken before begining of any ritual the intention of performer to complete it.

Now if I take what you submit as correct, now that, during upasana where 5M is mandatory (according to you), jnani does not feels he has done, and verily we conclude he has not done, then how this upasana will give him the moksha (or bhoga) which he has not done along with bhoga as per the contention of Kaula Mata. Such absense of mamatattva denies both bhoga and Moksha, (bhoga for he voluntarily disowns that he has not done (or he is not doing) and moksha as result of disowning) - this is inconsistency factor.

One place you say Moksha along with Bhoga and another point you verily conclude no moksha and no bhoga (probably Moksha but no bhoga).

Now as an escapism, if you say, he just disowns the performance but still enjoys the intercourse, then this amounts to blatant lie on the part of Jnani. I trust Kaula does not allows to tell lie esp a person at the level of Jnani

Request you to think and post from now onwards

Jai shree krishna

TruthSeeker

28 April 2006, 12:57 PM

ramkish42

28 April 2006, 12:59 PM

What about a proof of Ur claim about mumukshu-grihasthis?

One more example of selective learning. You ignore the very point I had submitted. I said " You are shoked with your own texts giving you opposite visions; why you are talking about general scriptures. As I said deal with your texts first, then we will deal with general scriptures"

I took this from the quote you used, let me deal with you texts first, verily that is what I am doing

Worshipped dieties is another matter, but siddhi is over a vetala. Vetala is brought under control by power of Katyayanyadi-vidyas. What U said about the ability to travel to any desired place is called paduka-siddhi. While vetala-siddhi, bhutini-siddhi, yakshini-siddhi and so on directly are connected with named spirits.

It is your religion you can conclude it as you please, I am no way a part of this, all I am interested in Moksha part not with siddhis. But I am yet to find a text telling me Vetalasiddhi is to control vetala.

U mix different things.
You jump to conclusions quickly. Even after reading my phrase where i said
Shava sadana and vetaala siddhi as I see becomes integral part; you may dispense with vetaala siddhi but Shri Sarvaananda practising shava sadana using a corpse clearly points out I treated both differently. Can you, atleast from now, stop jumping to conclusons pls

marana verily is lower and occult.
There is nothing of this sort attached with Death. Cremating the dead and other rituals are treated as duty of a person. There is no point in attaching occultism with duty rituals. Daily prayer is mandatory. Does this makes daily prayer higher and a sadhana - it is duty. Treat a duty as duty and treat special rituals otherway

Shava-sadhana is one of methods of worship of Devi and by itself has nothing to do with spirits and lower siddhis.
The point I made earlier is when corpse can be used (even 7 days old corpse), and sadhaka has sit on the very corpse, do not you see this has relevance to the very topic of this discussion? Do not you see this has direct link to very statement of mine regarding exclusion given by nigama for trivarnis with the fact that trivarnis are not supposed to touch a corpse unless it is for cremation?

ramkish42

28 April 2006, 01:02 PM

By The Way, I have checked Avalon�s notion of substitutes � there is nothing like that in 5. 103! After saying that no caste distinction should be made in maithuna, text goes on with:
sarvasiddhirbhavatyeva pa~nchatattvanivedanAt.
dravyashuddherabhAvena nityaM karma na lopayet..103..
It simply says that one cannot stop nitya-sadhana if 5M are not available.

But it is clear that this refers to the case of absence of 5M. Otherwise, Mahakala-samhita says:
kR^itAyAM shaktipUjAyAM saphalaM nityapUjanam ..
akR^itAyAmamuShyAM tu niHphalaM nityapUjanam .
tasmAdyatnena sampUjya shaktirnityArchanAdanu ..
devIdhiyaiva sampUjya na sAmAnyavadhUdhiyA .
(Mahakala-samhita Guhyakali-khanda 10.1661b-1663a)

Without worship of a woman nitya-sadhana is futile.

I will check this up again and will get back to you.

Even your statement goes "It simply says that one cannot stop nitya-sadhana if 5M are not available", with your insistance to 5M, this amounts to, do nitya with substitution. Thus making subtitution fully valid

Unable to see how this help you?:D :D

TruthSeeker

28 April 2006, 01:31 PM

Finally, some deities are always viewed as aspects (kaLAMsharUpANi) of Godhead and not GOD (Purnabrahman), like Hanuman, grama-devatas or Graha-devatas.

Ahankara arising out of avidya should be understood apart from the one arising out of Maya. In case of avidya, the jiva does not know its essential nature, and it is such gods that are called devas or devatas, loosely translated as demigod. In case of Maya, there is never a moment when the entity is not concious of its essential nature of Brahman - that is called an aspect or avatar of Brahman. Obviously, different traditions have different ideas on who is in avidya or who is Maya - hence the conflict.

Grama-devatas are actually Karma devatas, who have risen to become devatas through their merit. They are unlike permanent devatas(abimani devatas), who exist since the time of creation. All these devatas come only under the mode of avidya( including Brahma!!), which is resolved only in Pranjna consciousness.

Arjuna

29 April 2006, 04:38 AM

Is Vamacharya Dharmic? Maybe or may not be, that is an individual opinion. For eg, Buddhism may be called Dharmic because Dharma finds its roots here in the form of basic disciplines of Buddhism, similar to Yama and Niyama.

Is Vamacharya vedic? Obviously no. There is some reasonable criteria to met to qualify as a vedic religion. Present a commentary on the important works - the Brahma sutras, the Bhagavad Gita, upanishads to justify the fundamentals your faith etc. If a commentary cant be provided, atleast the followers of the faith must hold vedas in authority like the Shankyas or Vaisheshikas and follow its teachings, both in theory and practice, or atleast in practice. Without meeting any of these requirements, there is no way a religion can be called vedic.

Vamachara is verily Dharmic since it is firmly based upon Agama and Amnaya (Tradition).

It is not Vedic in its origin, but rather pre-Vedic. However some parallels with Vedic cult are there; as a minimum, Vama-naya is compatible with Vedic teaching.

There are Tantric commentaries upon complete Prasthana-traya: Gita (Gitartha-sangraha), Brahma-sutra (Shakti-bhashya) and Upanishads (not all, but several out of Muktika canon).
There are also some Tantric commentaries upon Vedic samhitas.

Tantras acknowledge the authority of Vedas, but consider Agamic authority higher.

Arjuna

29 April 2006, 04:45 AM

I will check this up again and will get back to you.

Even your statement goes "It simply says that one cannot stop nitya-sadhana if 5M are not available", with your insistance to 5M, this amounts to, do nitya with substitution. Thus making subtitution fully valid

Unable to see how this help you?:D :D

U are unwilling to see ;)

When 5M are unavailable, Kaula has to do nityarchana with anukalpas. When 5M are available, they are used as pratyakshas. But at least occasionly physical usage of 5M is a must. Otherwise all upasana turns to be nishphala, useless, or even leads to hell � due to direct violation of Agamic prescriptions.

Once again, only 5th makara (shesha-tattva) cannot be substituted, while madya and mamsa can be � if sampradaya allows it (they do differ). Thus, shakti-puja is essential for Kaula-upasana and advanced (vira and above) initiations.

ramkish42

29 April 2006, 06:51 AM

U are unwilling to see ;)

When 5M are unavailable, Kaula has to do nityarchana with anukalpas. When 5M are available, they are used as pratyakshas. But at least occasionly physical usage of 5M is a must. Otherwise all upasana turns to be nishphala, useless, or even leads to hell � due to direct violation of Agamic prescriptions.

Once again, only 5th makara (shesha-tattva) cannot be substituted, while madya and mamsa can be � if sampradaya allows it (they do differ). Thus, shakti-puja is essential for Kaula-upasana and advanced (vira and above) initiations.

Jai shree Krishna

From the point of time this thread has begun, I thought I am the only person having the opinion, where in I insist 5M is not mandatory, Sex rituals are not mandatory, Jnani should abstain from sex etc, in further course, I found similar analysis done by another person much earlier and it had been published as a book.

Others (Agehananda Bharati in his The Tantric Tradition, Rider & Co, 1965), make the picture a little cloudier by insisting that sexual contact is the main point of tantrism, whether Buddhist or Hindu. "The central sadhana of tantrism, Buddhist and Hindu alike, is the exercise of sexual contact under tantric 'laboratory' conditions. It is irrelevant, in the final analysis, whether these sadhanas were or are literally performed, or whether they are hypostasized entirely into mental configurations." (Bharati, Chapter IX).

I am happy that my views are correct

I also find many people are doing good business using the very tantras while the opposite is the real truth. I am not in the level to fall in line with materialistic ideas west to curtail the real truth of Hindu Spirtualism

Jai shree krishna

Arjuna

29 April 2006, 07:43 AM

Now that if the said passage does not match with Kaula Doctrine, my question why does this been included in the Kaula texts.

It matches with Kaula Doctrine, and i have shown U in which way.
Moreover, that passage is descriptive and not prescriptive. It doesn't even prescribe "parityaga", and doesn't necessarily apply given description to a Jnani. Interpretation of any passage of Scripture isn't independant, but has to be done seeing the context of particular scripture and Doctrine in the whole.
U may not agree to accept Kaula teaching, no problem in this. U may also assume any type of explanations for Urself and hold any kind of views.
I do not see any valid reason for Ur denial of my interpretation, however. It is logical in the context of given system.

The problem with non identification doctrine is it does not goes out well with tongue. What a jnani has got to disown as far his tongue is concerened is the basic question left unanswered in your analysis.

In which way it "doesn't go"? Verily it does.
Bound person, jiva, is thinking of himself as an "actor" and of objects as "related to himself". Mukta has no self, since there is no actor and no possessor apart from Atman.
Whether Mukta speeks (uses tongue) or enjoyes sex (uses genitals), there is an action, but no personal agent of action. This is non-identification, since the only identity of a Mukta is Atman.

As we are discussing here about a Jnani and not about an ordinary man, Jnani happens to be man who is bound by ritualistic nature of Kaula, the basic tenant of Bogha-moksha-samarasya does not applies to him verily within the context for rituals that make 5M mandatory and Bogha which is direct result of such 5M's mandatory does not binds him, as rituals itself does not applies to him. If such is the case there is no point in stretching this principle to take privilege of the clear meaning of the text - calling for a Jnani to control his taste and Sexual intercourse

Only bound person can "control", since Mukta is in a sence absent, there is no "himself". Actually "self" is a byproduct of wrong identification only, while essence is pure Consciouness.
One of the 5 functions of Consciousness is Ananda. Sajjnani who sees the world as a manifestation of Samvit, enjoys this Ananda in the world itself and through its objects. As Gita says about satisfying deities, which in Kaula view are deities of sense-organs, Kaula manifests Bliss inherent in Atman through interaction with "creation". This happens naturally, spontaneously, and is free from sankalpa and vikalpa.
As Vatulanatha-sutra says, mahAsAhasavR^ittyA svarUpalAbhaH. It is through spontaneity one realises his true Nature. There is no "control" for a Jnani, but there is Bhukti for him (rather for God, since Jnani lacks an illusory "self").

If the same words are said about a Pashu or vira (as per your tenant) this absense of mamatatva is implied, but we are talking about Jnani

Exactly to Jnani this is applied, while pashu cannot be free from mamatva by very definition of pashu!

Very intelligently played but I can see the cunningness.
As we are talking about a Jnani, what does the word "Karma" refers to here. It refers to ritualistic Karma - as the text verily says, if you take this ritualistic karma it results in bhandhanam - bondage, else not, thus concurs with my view that Jnani - need not to be indulged in any rituals hence no 5M.

It doesn't specifically refer to ritualistic karma.

The problem point, let me tell you, is - stretched meaning Jihvo-pastha-parityaagi

It is verily jihvopastha-parityagi and never jihvo-pastha :D
A+u results in "o", which doesn't belong to jihva, but is a sandhi.

and taking literal meaning for Sankalpakarmaasti - if you go with literal meaning go with literal meaning for both, when the impossibility stops the literal meaning of the earlier key word, so it affects the later key word also. Hence so stretched meaning of sex and taste (speech as the case may be) should be in relation with stretched meaning for sankalpakarmaasti, indicating rituals started with intentions to complete and cannot mean

I cannot grasp Ur english in this passage. If it is significant, please put it in more intelligible form.
Generally, there is no reason to restrict "karma" to rituals here. It is just "action".

Where in I checked this up with three translation available in local theosophical library, they concurred with my view and not with absence of mamatatva.

It is surprising that there are three (!) translations of Kaulavali-nirnaya. I knew of none :). Could U please provide details of those (place and year of publishing)? It isn't critical, just curious to know.
Theosophical Society translations which i have seen aren't very good.

Further more the word Sankalpa used normally with conception or idea or notion formed in the mind or heart , (esp.) will , volition , purpose , definite intention or determination or decision or wish - this normally indicates the vow taken before begining of any ritual the intention of performer to complete it.

Sankalpa here stands for phsycic intention resulting from ahamkara, and not for "shrIbhagavadAj~nayA... asyAM shubhatithau..." stuff :)

Sajjnani has no personal sankalpas, since he is above mind, living in unmana-avastha. His will is pure spontaneous Ichchha-shakti of Atman.

Now if I take what you submit as correct, now that, during upasana where 5M is mandatory (according to you), jnani does not feels he has done, and verily we conclude he has not done, then how this upasana will give him the moksha (or bhoga) which he has not done along with bhoga as per the contention of Kaula Mata. Such absense of mamatattva denies both bhoga and Moksha, (bhoga for he voluntarily disowns that he has not done (or he is not doing) and moksha as result of disowning) - this is inconsistency factor.
One place you say Moksha along with Bhoga and another point you verily conclude no moksha and no bhoga (probably Moksha but no bhoga).
Now as an escapism, if you say, he just disowns the performance but still enjoys the intercourse, then this amounts to blatant lie on the part of Jnani. I trust Kaula does not allows to tell lie esp a person at the level of Jnani
Request you to think and post from now onwards

Again baseless insults... Thank U for such a Vaishnava attitude ;)

Jnani verily "has" Bhoga and Moksha, but Enjoyer is not a personal ego but Sadashiva. As Kularnava says about a jiva, karmamukto sadAshivaH. Absence of mamatva makes enjoyment complete and eternal.

For Kaula-yogi the whole of creation is 5M and every interaction with it (prakriti) is maithuna.

Arjuna

29 April 2006, 07:44 AM

One more example of selective learning. You ignore the very point I had submitted. I said " You are shoked with your own texts giving you opposite visions; why you are talking about general scriptures. As I said deal with your texts first, then we will deal with general scriptures"

Though it is fully up to U, but Ur claim about mumukshu-grihasthis was made earlier than current trick with general scriptures vs �my texts� :)
U imagine I am �shoked� but cannot provide a proof of Ur own statement.

It is your religion you can conclude it as you please, I am no way a part of this, all I am interested in Moksha part not with siddhis. But I am yet to find a text telling me Vetalasiddhi is to control vetala.
You jump to conclusions quickly. Even after reading my phrase where i said clearly points out I treated both differently. Can you, atleast from now, stop jumping to conclusons pls

These are Ur words: "Shava sadana and vetaala siddhi as I see becomes integral part." See the dictionary for what "integral" means if U do not know :D
Oxford Dictionary says: integral |?intigr?l; in?teg-| adjective 1 necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental.
But fact is that one can do Shava-sadhana as Devi-upasana and not bhuta-vetala prayoga, and can do vetala-sadhana without performing Shava-sadhana.

There is nothing of this sort attached with Death. Cremating the dead and other rituals are treated as duty of a person. There is no point in attaching occultism with duty rituals. Daily prayer is mandatory. Does this makes daily prayer higher and a sadhana - it is duty. Treat a duty as duty and treat special rituals otherway

U misunderstood what i have said. Marana (mAraNa) is one of Hindu occult practices, namely "causing death".

The point I made earlier is when corpse can be used (even 7 days old corpse), and sadhaka has sit on the very corpse, do not you see this has relevance to the very topic of this discussion? Do not you see this has direct link to very statement of mine regarding exclusion given by nigama for trivarnis with the fact that trivarnis are not supposed to touch a corpse unless it is for cremation?

Trivarnis CAN touch a corpse in this case, if they are Kaulas. This is testified by Agama and Amnaya. Moreover, never it is said that Shava-sadhana is meant for shudras and mlechchhas only.
There is no caste distinction inside Kaula-mata. EVERY Kaula is a brahmana inside Kula-chakra (though in society he retains his caste unless he becomes an Avadhuta).

Arjuna

29 April 2006, 07:52 AM

Others (Agehananda Bharati in his The Tantric Tradition, Rider & Co, 1965), make the picture a little cloudier by insisting that sexual contact is the main point of tantrism, whether Buddhist or Hindu. "The central sadhana of tantrism, Buddhist and Hindu alike, is the exercise of sexual contact under tantric 'laboratory' conditions. It is irrelevant, in the final analysis, whether these sadhanas were or are literally performed, or whether they are hypostasized entirely into mental configurations." (Bharati, Chapter IX).
I am happy that my views are correct

The existance of certain view among some exponents doesn't make this view correct. Agehananda makes a mistake which coinsides with Ur ideas, that's all. But it contradicts Kaula Doctrine.
Was Agehananda a Kaula? That is a question. In any case, i would prefer authority of Agamas and great Masters, and not some dubious investigators.

Hari OM

ramkish42

29 April 2006, 11:37 AM

Whether Mukta speeks (uses tongue) or enjoyes sex (uses genitals), there is an action, but no personal agent of action. This is non-identification, since the only identity of a Mukta is Atman.
When Mukta speaks or enganges in intercourse as per your contention without identification, verily it is not mukta who is doing the action of speaking and intercourse. How as person who logically not doing a activity can enjoy it?

Only bound person can "control", since Mukta is in a sence absent,

How could the mukta who is absent can enjoy sex. Under such context it is clear what the passage says is verily correct, Mukta has to abstain from the very act of intercourse.

As we are talking about a Jnani, what does the word "Karma" refers to here. It refers to ritualistic Karma
It doesn't specifically refer to ritualistic karma.

I really do not see any other karma applied to Jnani other than ritualistic ones in Kaula. If a Jnani and Mukta has some other Karma request you to indicate where does Kaula texts says it?

I cannot grasp Ur english in this passage. If it is significant, please put it in more intelligible form.
Generally, there is no reason to restrict "karma" to rituals here. It is just "action".
The text has two key words based on which the interpretation is done. For one you are opting for extended meaning and to another (Sankalpakarmaasti) you are verily curtailing yourself to literal translation.

My point is if you are streching, stretch both key words or go with literal meaning for both words.Hence stretched meaning of sex and taste (speech as the case may be) should be in relation with stretched meaning for sankalpakarmaasti, indicating rituals started with intentions and not just actions

Theosophical Society translations which i have seen aren't very good.
Easy choice, reject what is not in your favour

Sajjnani has no personal sankalpas, since he is above mind, living in unmana-avastha. His will is pure spontaneous Ichchha-shakti of Atman.

How you are relating bodily pleasure to atman I could not comprehend

Again baseless insults... Thank U for such a Vaishnava attitude

I do not condemn people if they do not support my views unlike regular Kaula practise - vows like LET LORD VATULA DRINK THE BLOOD OF THE DERACTORS. Insulting Shri Prabupada for he does not support Sahajiya - I can read a mind - Thanks for this

I do not understand where the insult is in the entire passage

Jnani verily "has" Bhoga and Moksha, but Enjoyer is not a personal ego but Sadashiva. As Kularnava says about a jiva, karmamukto sadAshivaH. Absence of mamatva makes enjoyment complete and eternal.
Incomprehensible statement. If enjoyer is not Jnani there is no bhoga for him for enjoyer is sadashiva and not the jnani. Absense of mamatva does not make enjoyment complete for there is no person to enjoy verily. When a person is mentally absent in an activity there is no reason to assume he enjoyed what he did for meantally he is present in some other place and events happening in someother place will give him enjoyment and not the maithuna what he is doing (without presence)

Insisting that Jnani who is absent verily becaue of mamatva is enjoying repeat again amounts a blatant lie on part such Jnani

ramkish42

29 April 2006, 12:15 PM

Trivarnis CAN touch a corpse in this case, if they are Kaulas. This is testified by Agama and Amnaya. Moreover, never it is said that Shava-sadhana is meant for shudras and mlechchhas only.
There is no caste distinction inside Kaula-mata. EVERY Kaula is a brahmana inside Kula-chakra (though in society he retains his caste unless he becomes an Avadhuta).

Even If trivarnis touches what is your answer for the fact that this practise denies the fundamental right - DECENT BURIAL?

ramkish42

29 April 2006, 12:18 PM

The existance of certain view among some exponents doesn't make this view correct. Agehananda makes a mistake which coinsides with Ur ideas, that's all. But it contradicts Kaula Doctrine.
Was Agehananda a Kaula? That is a question. In any case, i would prefer authority of Agamas and great Masters, and not some dubious investigators.

Hari OM
OOps

When a scholar NN Bhattacharya can say something on Tantras, which you want me to believe, why there is a need for Agehananda Bharati to be Kaula. He is verily a scholar, he has written a details book on Tantric Tradition - all details are furnished in original quote

Jai shree krishna

Arjuna

29 April 2006, 01:00 PM

OOps

When a scholar NN Bhattacharya can say something on Tantras, which you want me to believe, why there is a need for Agehananda Bharati to be Kaula. He is verily a scholar, he has written a details book on Tantric Tradition - all details are furnished in original quote

Jai shree krishna

U again mix two different things. When Bhattacharyya spoke about Lakshmi-tantra, he simply provided a plain textual fact � Vamachara sadhana is mentioned there.
When Agehananda says about Tantric path, that is his view � which isn't necessarily a fact or may be even contradicting facts (which is the case).

Not all interpretations of scholars are right. Moreover they often deliver different ideas, incompatible with each other. Do not try to juggle again ;)

Arjuna

29 April 2006, 01:04 PM

Even If trivarnis touches what is your answer for the fact that this practise denies the fundamental right - DECENT BURIAL?

If a corpse, scull or bones of deceased person are used in Kaula rituals, that person verily gets punya. Such practice if properly done brings benefit to that person, similarly to the case of animal sacrifice.

Arjuna

29 April 2006, 01:55 PM

When Mukta speaks or enganges in intercourse as per your contention without identification, verily it is not mukta who is doing the action of speaking and intercourse. How as person who logically not doing a activity can enjoy it?

How could the mukta who is absent can enjoy sex. Under such context it is clear what the passage says is verily correct, Mukta has to abstain from the very act of intercourse.

U miss the point (or do not read my posts completely). Mukta is free from ego, but he is CONSCIOUS. Verily "he" can and does enjoy!

Truely speaking, any joy is not from ego; even when pashu is enjoying and joyful, that joy is spark of Chidananda.

I really do not see any other karma applied to Jnani other than ritualistic ones in Kaula. If a Jnani and Mukta has some other Karma request you to indicate where does Kaula texts says it?

Karma means "action". Please read again original passage. It speaks nothing about rituals, but simply says "all actions on earth are dependant upon tongue (= speech) and genitals (= sex); the one who is parityagi of these two, how can he do any action?"

The text has two key words based on which the interpretation is done. For one you are opting for extended meaning and to another (Sankalpakarmaasti) you are verily curtailing yourself to literal translation.
My point is if you are streching, stretch both key words or go with literal meaning for both words.Hence stretched meaning of sex and taste (speech as the case may be) should be in relation with stretched meaning for sankalpakarmaasti, indicating rituals started with intentions and not just actions

I do not see any sense in this assumption. Any ritual starts (and should start) from sankalpa, which in this case actually invokes Divine Power, as an upasaka says: "shrI bhagavad Aj~nayA", "by will/order of Sri Bhagavan". This verily cannot be meant since such ritual is not towards bandhana (if it is done for the sake of Bhagavan and not for personal desires).
Kaulavali 1. 48 says: yAvatsa~NkalpakarmAsti tAvadeva hi bandhanam. Karma in this case is simply an action, and this interpretation makes sense. Action with sankalpa, here "personal desire" as a function of manas, leads to karmaphala and thus is bandhana. Action free from sankalpa � and it is free from it since Mukta lives in permanent unmani (aka sahaja-samadhi) � doesn't bind, and thus it is mokshana.

Easy choice, reject what is not in your favour

Funny saying, for U even are unaware of which translations i mean!
Theosophical Society has its own doctrine which is more Buddhist + masonic and has a little connection to Hinduism. Thus i assume they have all grounds to divert certain things.

I did not mean Tantric texts, but conventional Hindu. As i remember i have seen their edition of some classical Upanishads, and translation was really bad.

How you are relating bodily pleasure to atman I could not comprehend

Tantras reject dualist philosophy, and in their view any pleasure is joy of Consciousness.
The difference between Jnani and pashu is this: pashu identifies himself with nama-rupadi and thus has an illusory "person", he gets attached to objects and thinks of pleasure as resulting from usage of some objects; Jnani has no ego, and his enjoyment is bliss of Chidananda. Jnani doesn't separate body, mind and Atman, since this very separation is a function of ego (mind). Jnani is self-aware, and sees the whole as One. Every object is an aspect of the same Consciousness, and body for sure is not excluded from it.

I do not condemn people if they do not support my views unlike regular Kaula practise - vows like LET LORD VATULA DRINK THE BLOOD OF THE DERACTORS. Insulting Shri Prabupada for he does not support Sahajiya - I can read a mind - Thanks for this

There are similar prayers to Lord Narasimha as well ;). Once again, lower occult is not Kaula-marga, though it has a place in Tantras (in fact, it originated from Atharvana-veda itself!).

Prabhupada was insulting Sahajiyas, and i merely state this as a fact. There were many Sahajiyas among great Vaishnavas of Bengal, as i have mentioned the younger wife of Prabhu Nityananda was a Sahajiya Guru (and she was worshipped by Goswami's of Vrindavana when she came there), but for Prabhupada they are still a kind of perverts.
This is an aparadha and nothing else.

Incomprehensible statement. If enjoyer is not Jnani there is no bhoga for him for enjoyer is sadashiva and not the jnani. Absense of mamatva does not make enjoyment complete for there is no person to enjoy verily. When a person is mentally absent in an activity there is no reason to assume he enjoyed what he did for meantally he is present in some other place and events happening in someother place will give him enjoyment and not the maithuna what he is doing (without presence)

There is great difference between personality (ego-mind) and Consciousness.
Ramana Maharshi did speak and responded when somebody called him by name, but he was totally free from ego. This is just for example.
In maithuna at the time of Ananda-samplava, orgasm, there is no mind and no personality, but pure consciousness only. I have cited Vijnanabhairava verse about this.

Finally, get the experience and U will understand. Otherwise these are mere words. Only anubhava can show the Truth.
I do not mean necessarily maithuna-anubhava, i speak about unmani. Then U won't ask such questions.

Insisting that Jnani who is absent verily becaue of mamatva is enjoying repeat again amounts a blatant lie on part such Jnani

Leave it. U cannot understand or accept this in theory, and lack the needed experience practically.
There is no problem to have any views on Tantrism. U are not the first one to condemn and not the last. Time may show what is right and what is wrong. Or may not � this depends on U and ultimately on HER...

I would request U to write only important things. This discussion becomes too time-consuming and i have other things to do :cool:
But i may still reply if the arguement is reasonable and non-repetitive.

I really tryed to explain and hope i succeeded to a certain degree � for those sincerely interested and free from prejudication. I have no desire to convince U or impose my opinion. Having witnessed the truth of Kula-mata, i would prefer to stop unnecessary debates.

By The Way, thank U for giving a chance to elucidate Kaula Doctrine. Without Ur opposition i wouldn't have said this much :)

Saubhagyamastu,
A

Arjuna

29 April 2006, 04:57 PM

Taittiriya Upanishad 3.6.1: �Bliss is Brahman.�

Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7.1: �He (Brahman) is Rasa. Having known that Rasa, one becomes blissful. Who could have breathed or inhaled if no bliss was in this space? For He only is the cause of bliss.�

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Yajnavalkyakanda 3.9.28: �Knowledge and Bliss are Brahman.�

Shvetashvatara Upanishad (?):
AnandayoniH Anando brahma brahmaivaiShA devI ekAnekaprapa~nchA syAt chaturthapauruShArthe AnandarUpeti ..
�Yoni of Bliss, Bliss is Brahman. Brahman is this Devi, who is One in multitude of creation and form of Bliss in four Purusharthas.�

Subalopanishad:
annamayo bhUtAtmA, prANamaya indriyAtmA, manomayaH sa~NkalpAtmA, vij~nAnamayaH kAlAtmA, Anandamayo layAtmA ..

Brahma-sutra 1.1.12 states that �Anandamaya� refers to Brahman.

Gandharva-tantra 27.36b-37a:
AnandaM brahmaNo rUpaM tachcha dehaM vibhAvayet ..36..
tasyAbhivya~njakAH pa~ncha makArAdyAH prakIrttitAH .
�Bliss is the form of Brahman, which should be known through the body.
The five Makaras are glorified as manifesting this Bliss.�
Exactly the same is said in Tantraloka of Shri Abhinavagupta (29th Ahnika).

Devi-rahasya, Uttarardha 58.11a:
AnandarasapUjAyAM tuShyate parameshvarI .
�Parameshvari is satisfied in the worship of Rasa of Bliss.�

Kularnava-tantra 7.101:
AnandAttR^ipyate devI mUrchchhayA bhairavassvayam .
vamanAtsarvadevAshcha tasmAttrividhamAcharet ..
�By bliss Devi is satisfied, by orgasm Bhairava himself.
By sexual emission all deities [are satisfied], thus one should worship in this three ways.�

Kaula Doctrine of Bliss is in total accordance with Vedic Shruti. Agamic Shruti introduced a new method of upasana and Brahma-jnana, but its �object� (Brahman) and basic principle is verily Vedic.

Znanna

29 April 2006, 06:14 PM

Thanks to y'all for such an interesting discussion.

I have a question. If SHE is EVERYTHING, how can one not accept all as Holy?

I am no scholar, so please do not be offended by this simplicity. It just seems to me that only in taking in what would repel, that the notion of there being no difference between one and another is realized?

Love,
ZN

Arjuna

29 April 2006, 07:03 PM

Thanks to y'all for such an interesting discussion.

I have a question. If SHE is EVERYTHING, how can one not accept all as Holy?

Prashna Upanishad 4. 7-9:

"O dear, as birds gather on a tree, which is their home, in a same way all these things verily gather in the highest Atman:

Earth, and particles of earth, and water, and particles of water, and fire, and particles of fire, and wind, and particles of wind, and space, and and particles of space, and eye, and seen, and ear, and what is heard, and sense of smell, and what is smelled, and taste, and what is tasted, and skin, and what is touched, and speech, and what is spoken, and hands, and what is held, and genitals, and what is enjoyed, and anus, and what is excreted, and legs, and a path, and intellect, and what is understood, and comprehension, and comprehended, and self-awareness, and that which is aware of self, and thought, and what is thought, and brilliance, and what is illuminated, and breath, and sustained.

For He is the Atman who sees, touches, hears, smells, tastes, understands, comprehends, acts and recognizes. He is established in the highest, eternal Atman."

Singhi Kaya

30 April 2006, 07:42 AM

Tantras clearly say about succession of bhavas and acharas. "Right hand" view is valid for pashu-bhava and dakshinachara, no problem in this. But it is inferior to "Left-hand" path, which is prescribed for vira-sadhakas.

Reading through some of the posts quite randomly, got caught in the above phrase. With little more study behind me this time I would only say the way you have put it gives wrong impression. It is true but the language gives a different impression.

Dakhshinachara is not inferior to vamachara but a prelude and pre-requisite. One who has not been successfull in dakshinachara cannot be a vamachari. Thus inclusion of sex in tantra comes only after rigorous practice of celebacy. Undermining celebacy (has various meaning depending on the ashram of the sadhak) is not correct(actually very wrong) for it's the primary vehcle till the sadhak reaches vamahcara. Vamachara is again a stage. When when becomes siddha in this, sex is no longer required as a part of the sadhna.

Also dakshinachara is not pashu bhava but 1st stage of vira bhava. Pashu bhava comprises of 3 stages. Brahmacharya is must in pashu bhava.
Vamachara is the 3rd stage of vira bhava. This is followed by 3 more stages of divya bhava. All in all 9 stages (9th being kaula or avadhuta who is free) to free the human from 8 bondages. Only in vamachara sex and other M's is un-avoidable. But viewed in the context of all stages it gives a very different picture. Just like vedic ashramas where brahmacharya forms the basis of success in others, here pashu bhava which is brahmacharya is the basis of rest. Sex comes in 1/9th portion of the path. And this sex is entirely different from normal desire. When looking completely kaula path doesn't undermine celebacy and does not provide an alternative way to those who cannot control their desire..

Those who are not able to control the sensual desires are not yet ready for strict sadhana let alone vamachara.

So for a normal person who is not yet initiated to tantra, it gives a inverted picture when one says sex is superior to brahmacharya. And if a person is bound by normal sexual desire and thinks himself as a vamachari~he/she is actually just a byabhichari~a fallen sadhak.

*Above is taken from the writings of a tradition and not Singhi Kaya's personal openion~however he firmly believes in the above now.;)

Singhi Kaya

30 April 2006, 08:36 AM

The only essential to Tantrism upasana is 5M, which aim is verily God-realisation.

again a random point picked up.

Tantrik upsana is an integral yoga to free the being from sensual bondage.
5M comes as the central common theme at all levels~the meaning and proyog changes as one proceeds. There is sthula 5M as well as skhuksma 5M's for pashu's, actual 5M's for vira's and ati-shukshma 5M's for divyas.

I'm a bit concerned that discussion on tantra in a layman's world revolve around the actual 5M's of vira stage.

Let me just say again, that control of sensual desire is the key in tantra, just like anywhere else. desire comes from ego~the final obstacle to being free. Though sex is used at a quite higher stage of the path, this has nothing to do with sexual desire as we understand. Let's not bring down a very high esoteric ritual to our level and our symantics. Meaning here is very different than what sex means to us. I was throughly confused last time.

The key is that someone who is bound by desire is not a vamachari.

Finally, I have a feeling that tantra as it is pictured now, seems to have forgotten the various stages nvolved in the path. Practitioners are speaking of 1/9th of the practice as tantra. I have seen and heard that many people who are fully addicted to sexual lust call themselves virachari. Please do remember they are just byabhicharis. Just as hell awaits for those who claim to be shakti siddha without going through vamachara at some stage, greater hell awaits the byabhicharis who use tantra to hide their inabilities and worse spread misunderstanding and lies about the supreme path.

I'm not contradicting Arjuna~but just putting it in a different language, so that it doesn't sound like "tantra is sex". For pashu's like us, brahmacharya is sacred~and there is absolutely no way to bypass it just as there is no way to bypass vamachara if one intends to complete the path. It is said in tantras that many births spend in devotion and sadhna prepares one for vamachara. It's siddha guru's job to see whether an aspirant is capable of vamachara or should spend the life in paswachara.

*above taken (in theme not exact word by word) from the teachings of a tradition and not Singhi Kaya's personal view.

Arjuna

30 April 2006, 02:27 PM

Dakhshinachara is not inferior to vamachara but a prelude and pre-requisite. One who has not been successfull in dakshinachara cannot be a vamachari. Thus inclusion of sex in tantra comes only after rigorous practice of celebacy. Undermining celebacy (has various meaning depending on the ashram of the sadhak) is not correct(actually very wrong) for it's the primary vehcle till the sadhak reaches vamahcara. Vamachara is again a stage. When when becomes siddha in this, sex is no longer required as a part of the sadhna.

This is partly right. Dakshinachara is needed as a base, though not necessarily in traditional form � time had changed. Traditionally YES, there cannot be any Vira-bhava without previous siddhi in pashu-bhava.
In simple words, there is no Vama-upasana without shraddha and jnana acquired in dakshinachara.
But, celibacy is prescribed only for brahmacharis and sannyasis, and never to grihasthis. Brahmacharya for grihasthis is not a celibacy, but a sexual life according to ashrama-dharma � that is, sex in marriage.
Regarding whether sex is a must on highest levels of upasana, namely siddhantachara and kaulachara, it is a complicated question. In a sense yes � but for Satkaula life itself is a maithuna, thus he is above a need of physical sadhana. But he is not a celibate truely speaking, since his brahmacharya is ultimate bliss of Shakti-melana!

Also dakshinachara is not pashu bhava but 1st stage of vira bhava. Pashu bhava comprises of 3 stages. Brahmacharya is must in pashu bhava.

No, dakshinachara is still in a realm of pashu-bhava.
Brahmacharya is a principle of any sadhana, since it is merely "going to Brahman". As itself, brahmacharya doesn't refer to celibacy at all.
In pashu-bhava Smarta-dharma is a must (in Hindu society), but celibacy is a must only for non-married sadhakas in pashu-bhava (again, in Hindu society).

Vamachara is the 3rd stage of vira bhava. This is followed by 3 more stages of divya bhava. All in all 9 stages (9th being kaula or avadhuta who is free) to free the human from 8 bondages.

Let us not argue on classifications. Maybe Ur guru developed his own system, which is OK.
Usually in Agamas we have 7 acharas (Yoni-tantra, 4. 12-14), of which three are above pashu-bhava (Vama-, Siddhanta- and Kaula-).

Only in vamachara sex and other M's is un-avoidable. But viewed in the context of all stages it gives a very different picture. Just like vedic ashramas where brahmacharya forms the basis of success in others, here pashu bhava which is brahmacharya is the basis of rest.

This gives a wrong impression. Sex is irrelevant to sadhana previously to Vama-naya, and starting from it sex becomes a sacrament, upasana and a direct means to Shivanubhava.
But essence of pashu-bhava is never a celibacy, but verily shraddha (vishvasa) and jnana of darshana. Practical aspect of pashu-bhava is reflected in 5 yamas and 5 niyamas.

Sex comes in 1/9th portion of the path. And this sex is entirely different from normal desire.

No, it isn't [I]entirely different, though it is indeed different.

When looking completely kaula path doesn't undermine celebacy and does not provide an alternative way to those who cannot control their desire..
Those who are not able to control the sensual desires are not yet ready for strict sadhana let alone vamachara.

I do not like the word "control" for it gives a very wrong impression. There is no "control" in Tantra, but AWARENESS is there.
Even a "good" pashu is supposed not to control himself, but to devote his desires and actions to Bhagavan.

So for a normal person who is not yet initiated to tantra, it gives a inverted picture when one says sex is superior to brahmacharya. And if a person is bound by normal sexual desire and thinks himself as a vamachari~he/she is actually just a byabhichari~a fallen sadhak.

If a person is proud of himself being a celibate or a "vamachari", he is equally in delusion.

If a person truely loves a woman, he is a true Vamachari (not in traditional Tantric sense but in essence). And if his love is complete and he rejects his ego for the sake of beloved, he reaches a state of a Siddha.
Thus, verily celibacy is inferior to erotic LOVE (which includes sex as its aspect).

Arjuna

30 April 2006, 02:28 PM

Let me just say again, that control of sensual desire is the key in tantra, just like anywhere else. desire comes from ego~the final obstacle to being free. Though sex is used at a quite higher stage of the path, this has nothing to do with sexual desire as we understand. Let's not bring down a very high esoteric ritual to our level and our symantics. Meaning here is very different than what sex means to us. I was throughly confused last time.

Desire is NOT to be controlled (which is unnatural and ultimately impossible, since Kama is a Mahashakti Herself), but to be transformed. Kama aimed at an object is bandhana, Kama aimed at God is mokshana.

Kaula sexual ritual cannot be mixed with "normal copulation", this is right. But it includes "sexual desire as we understand" as well, since Kama is eesentially the same, but its object is different. If one sees woman as an object to enjoy, this is laukika, but if one sees woman as Devi, this is kaulika.

There is nothing to stop a normal religious person to see the Goddess in his beloved and transform sexual union into deep meditation and pure Prema.

The only matter special to Vamachara (which requires vishesha-diksha and upadesha) is ritualistic part: mantras, nyasas and specific usage of tattvas.
But anyone can make his sexual life divine, and this has to be clearly said to all.

The key is that someone who is bound by desire is not a vamachari.

This is right.
Vamachari is following his Will and uses his desires for the sake of Atman.

Finally, I have a feeling that tantra as it is pictured now, seems to have forgotten the various stages nvolved in the path. Practitioners are speaking of 1/9th of the practice as tantra. I have seen and heard that many people who are fully addicted to sexual lust call themselves virachari. Please do remember they are just byabhicharis. Just as hell awaits for those who claim to be shakti siddha without going through vamachara at some stage, greater hell awaits the byabhicharis who use tantra to hide their inabilities and worse spread misunderstanding and lies about the supreme path.

U see, i never advocate that ridiculous "sex-tantra" common in the West nowadays — it is a kind of business and nothing more, as modern fitness-yoga.
There is nothing wrong or unnatural for a person in being attached to sex. Problem is not this, but the lack of Self-awareness (or we may say the lack of Bhakti). Sex without Love is natural, but useless. Sex in Love is spiritual.

Yes, i know of many people in India claiming to be "kaulas" who are just fond of drinking and sex. This is very wrong (not drinking and sex, but using the name of Kaulism). But i can say that those hypocrites who deny sex, and claim sexual life and spiritual to be incompatible, are far more perverted, ugly and dangerous to society. They pose as saints, but actually live as suppressed and sufferring or as perverts of every kind (i won't use any names, but there are some well-known cases).
Another violation of Dharma is business-gurudom, which is again far more ugly and wrong than mere satisfying of one's senses in the name of religion.

I'm not contradicting Arjuna~but just putting it in a different language, so that it doesn't sound like "tantra is sex". For pashu's like us, brahmacharya is sacred~and there is absolutely no way to bypass it just as there is no way to bypass vamachara if one intends to complete the path. It is said in tantras that many births spend in devotion and sadhna prepares one for vamachara. It's siddha guru's job to see whether an aspirant is capable of vamachara or should spend the life in paswachara.

There is no problem with what U are saying. In most points U are right.
But don't forget that most people are married and thus have to follow different path from that of a celibate pashu.

Bhakti Yoga Seeker

30 April 2006, 08:09 PM

Moderator Note:

To Arjuna:

Do not post foul language or profanity in your posts. This includes saying the words but replacing one or more letters with "*". Please find a comparable but appropriate word to describe your thoughts.

Do you have any questions or comments about moderation policy? If so, please send a private message to Bhakti Yoga Seeker or contact one of the other administrators on this website.

Singhi Kaya

01 May 2006, 03:31 AM

Namaste Arjuna,

Thanks for the replies. In tantra it is said that even reciting them without initiation makes one hell bound~which in essence means one can understand them only in light of his/her own parampara, lineage and guru. I shared some aspects of a tradition because if gives a slightly different picture (though not at all contradictory to yours) in essence and doesn't contradict brahmacharya. Celebacy is not same for everyone. For a grihi in pashu stage it means not to excessively indulge in sensual pleasure. Parimita is the key word there. With gradual sadhna his egoistic desire will naturally go away and prepare him for vamachara. For a single man celebacy naturally means abstenance~ow he is going to prostitutes etc which is against dharma and asurik. If a man is unable to stay celebate, he should marry. That is all.

I'm not qualified to talk on vamachara 5M's and their true essence~but as it has been convincingly said--it's not normal sexual desire.

At the end of the day whatever external differences are there doesn't matter that much as internally idea is to free oneself from the 8 bondages so that we can experience and enjoy the world as it is and not by skewed egoistic mind. And this is possible when mother kundalini rises and gives us the power to master the various stages of knowledge. Same as tattva jnana for yogis. God realization is not a magic.

As long as a practice is not shrouded hypocracy and not asurik~it's within sanatan dharma. Essence of vedas is not to be asurik and not to be a weakling. It is not about rigid rules which were followed 5000 years ago~times were different then, humans were more capable and powerful.

ramkish42

01 May 2006, 05:47 AM

U again mix two different things. When Bhattacharyya spoke about Lakshmi-tantra, he simply provided a plain textual fact � Vamachara sadhana is mentioned there.
When Agehananda says about Tantric path, that is his view � which isn't necessarily a fact or may be even contradicting facts (which is the case).

Not all interpretations of scholars are right. Moreover they often deliver different ideas, incompatible with each other. Do not try to juggle again ;)
I see both has mere textual facts provided.

There was no discussions with other Vaishnav to find out the reality in case of Shri Bhattacharji and same should be the case with Shri Bharatiji. Both read the texts and come to there own conclusions.

When I say not all scholars are correct, you objected and insisted that original texts be posted, where in you repeat the same, and to support this I had already posted original texts pertaining to
1. Substitution
2. Discarding genitals

Jai shree krishna

ramkish42

01 May 2006, 06:43 AM

U miss the point (or do not read my posts completely). Mukta is free from ego, but he is CONSCIOUS. Verily "he" can and does enjoy!

Truely speaking, any joy is not from ego; even when pashu is enjoying and joyful, that joy is spark of Chidananda.

Jai shree krishna

Let the lord give the real bliss of knowledge to all.

Enjoyment of worldly pleasures are result of ego.

There is no point in treating "I am enjoying it" when I already said "I am not doing it". If I am a jnani and say the above, it is indeed the worst lie I can ever say.

Karma means "action". Please read again original passage. It speaks nothing about rituals, but simply says "all actions on earth are dependant upon tongue (= speech) and genitals (= sex); the one who is parityagi of these two, how can he do any action?"
I am sorry Arjun, with all your sanskrit knowledge, you are missing the qualifying word for karma, "Sankalpa", thus referring it to ritual practises. Text reads, "Sankalpakarma".

I do not see any sense in this assumption. Any ritual starts (and should start) from sankalpa, which in this case actually invokes Divine Power, as an upasaka says: "shrI bhagavad Aj~nayA", "by will/order of Sri Bhagavan". This verily cannot be meant since such ritual is not towards bandhana (if it is done for the sake of Bhagavan and not for personal desires).
All rituals are based on this sankalpa. I agree. As you know it translates as BY THE ORDER OF LORD. Further many people say TO PLEASE THE LORD. As the order has to excuted, the very excutioner says "I took the order and completed it". Whether it is order of Lord or otherwise, activities that create bandhana will never fail to create it.

Kaulavali 1. 48 says: yAvatsa~NkalpakarmAsti tAvadeva hi bandhanam. Karma in this case is simply an action, and this interpretation makes sense. Action with sankalpa, here "personal desire" as a function of manas, leads to karmaphala and thus is bandhana. Action free from sankalpa � and it is free from it since Mukta lives in permanent unmani (aka sahaja-samadhi) � doesn't bind, and thus it is mokshana.
Even assuming such possibility, when some one does not identify himself as the performer or doer of an activity, this results in HE DID NOT PERFORMED THE SAID ACT. Thus there is no place of enjoyment of acitivity which he has not done. All enjoyment really are attached with I SEE, I FELT, I SMELL, I TASTE, I REMEMBER or I HEAR.

Funny saying, for U even are unaware of which translations i mean! Theosophical Society has its own doctrine which is more Buddhist + masonic and has a little connection to Hinduism. Thus i assume they have all grounds to divert certain things.
Pretty funny, you are not even aware of the theosophical society I am talking about. I am talking about Adyar Theosophical Society which is not attached with any sect as such.

This is what I am saying - BEFORE KNOWING THE ACTUAL FACTS DO NOT JUMP FOR CONCLUSIONS. Had you ever asked me which theosophical society it is or what is the nature of the society, I would have clarified it to you.

If you ever had a chance of visiting Chennai, pls visit this adyar library so that you can clarify for yourself the status of this Theosophical society

I did not mean Tantric texts, but conventional Hindu. As i remember i have seen their edition of some classical Upanishads, and translation was really bad.
I am sorry for that. Why do not you ask for Adyar Library editions printed by Adyar Theosophical society. All such publications are translated by religious authorities or scholars drawn from the same sect, and most important point for adyar theosophical library is they do not print religious works done by atheist or people who do not concur with the sectarian view to which the text pertains to.

Tantras reject dualist philosophy, and in their view any pleasure is joy of Consciousness.
The difference between Jnani and pashu is this: pashu identifies himself with nama-rupadi and thus has an illusory "person", he gets attached to objects and thinks of pleasure as resulting from usage of some objects; Jnani has no ego, and his enjoyment is bliss of Chidananda. Jnani doesn't separate body, mind and Atman, since this very separation is a function of ego (mind). Jnani is self-aware, and sees the whole as One. Every object is an aspect of the same Consciousness, and body for sure is not excluded from it.

There are similar prayers to Lord Narasimha as well ;). Once again, lower occult is not Kaula-marga, though it has a place in Tantras (in fact, it originated from Atharvana-veda itself!).
Find the difference between enemy and detractors. This will solve this confusion. Enemy is against action, intention and very person of an activity where in detractors are specifically with action only. Detractors may or may not concur with intention. In this case, your intention of reaching moksha is well appreciated but action is condemned. If I am your enemy, entire Arjuna is condemned.

Prabhupada was insulting Sahajiyas, and i merely state this as a fact. There were many Sahajiyas among great Vaishnavas of Bengal, as i have mentioned the younger wife of Prabhu Nityananda was a Sahajiya Guru (and she was worshipped by Goswami's of Vrindavana when she came there), but for Prabhupada they are still a kind of perverts.
This is an aparadha and nothing else.
Again it is purely condemning the action. There were many calls given by ISKCON to leave the practises. Condemning an action which carries no concurrence given by the mahaguru, Shri Chaitanya mahaprabhu does not end up in aparadha. Going against the intention of Mahaguru where in shri guru has concurred with marriage of Shrimat Radha with Lord and Sahajiya thinking otherwise will not lead to aparadha. It is sahajiyas who share the this aparadha. Once they reject Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, they can hold individual view or after accepting Shri guru, they should not go against their guru, simple as that.

There is great difference between personality (ego-mind) and Consciousness. Ramana Maharshi did speak and responded when somebody called him by name, but he was totally free from ego. This is just for example.
Nice to see you quote a sanyasi. Shri maharishi never carried the credit for what he has done, never said what he has done in the state of egoless gave him enjoyment.

In maithuna at the time of Ananda-samplava, orgasm, there is no mind and no personality, but pure consciousness only. I have cited Vijnanabhairava verse about this.
There is no point in repeating again. There is no such reference in Vijnana Bhairava. What you cited is wrong.

Finally, get the experience and U will understand. Otherwise these are mere words. Only anubhava can show the Truth.
I do not mean necessarily maithuna-anubhava, i speak about unmani. Then U won't ask such questions.
Good support argument. Can I be permitted to do the same. If so, I invite you join the 5 great perceptors line and take sanyaasa so that you will learn the truth by anubhava. I also want to repeat, then you wont ask such doubts:p

Leave it. U cannot understand or accept this in theory, and lack the needed experience practically.

Neither you could establish 5M is mandatory, nor you could establish my citations regarding discarding genitals, nor you could establish Kaula view is the general view of all hindus (I can see is most places, you had confined it to Kaula), now you want me to have the experience to know the truth.

There is no problem to have any views on Tantrism. U are not the first one to condemn and not the last. Time may show what is right and what is wrong. Or may not � this depends on U and ultimately on HER...

As you suggested (leave it phrase) this will be my last post on this thread. I can see others stepping in, let them take it up. I am not condemning tantrism in whole you should understand. I had established right handed view also has place in tantrism. At the conjunction of ME & HER, I will buzz you again

I would request U to write only important things. This discussion becomes too time-consuming and i have other things to do. But i may still reply if the arguement is reasonable and non-repetitive.
No more interested as you are yet to prove my citations are wrong or does not apply, in any of my statement for pages.

I also have a request for you. When you deal with other gurus better you show some restraint. You did with Shrimad Ramanuja and Shri Prabupada, now after some checking up, Shri Shivananda also joins this table. You had commented that Shri Shivananda knows the truth, (referring to Kaula and as per you and your shrividya shri guru, knows the tantric is correct) but abstained from publishing in his books. I want to point out, he has abstained not only in books but also in practise. There is no point in accusing great gurus of knowing the truth and yet they preach, practise & publish what is not truth. In short you are accusing great gurus of telling lies

As I too have some better things to do, let this be last reply herewith.

I pray God to bestow you with the best

Jai shree krishna

Arjuna

02 May 2006, 05:30 AM

Arjuna

02 May 2006, 06:21 AM

Namaste Arjuna,
In tantra it is said that even reciting them without initiation makes one hell bound~which in essence means one can understand them only in light of his/her own parampara, lineage and guru.

Namaste,

This statement refers to ritual usage of 5M. That is, without Kula-diksha one cannot practice any specific Vama rituals and sadhanas. If he does so, he violates Agamic rules and gets a punishment from Dharmapalas.

But Tantras never prohibit or restrict meat eating or sexual life outside a realm of upasana. This is a prerogative of Smriti and ultimately of one's own will.

And verily Tantras do not and cannot restrict Love. To love a woman one doesn't have to get Vama-diksha! ;)

Arjuna

02 May 2006, 06:40 AM

I am sorry Arjun, with all your sanskrit knowledge, you are missing the qualifying word for karma, "Sankalpa", thus referring it to ritual practises. Text reads, "Sankalpakarma".

saMkalpa m. (ifc. f. %{A}) conception or idea or notion formed in the mind or heart , (esp.) will , volition , desire , purpose , definite intention or determination or decision or wish for (with loc. dat. , or ifc.) , sentiment , conviction , persuasion ; (ibc. often = `" intentionally "' , `" purposely "' , `" on purpose "' , `" according to will "' , &c. ; acc. with %{kR} , `" to form a resolution , make up one's mind "') AV. &c. &c. ; idea or expectation of any advantage W. ; a solemn vow or determination to perform any ritual observance , declaration of purpose

karman %{a} n. (%{A} m. L.) , (%{kR} Un2. iv , 144) , act , action , performance , business RV. AV. S3Br. MBh. &c. ; office , special duty , occupation , obligation (frequently ifc. , the first member of the compound being either the person who performs the action [e.g. %{vaNik-k-}] or the person or thing for or towards whom the action is performed [e.g. %{rAja-k-} , %{pazu-k-}] or a specification of the action [e.g. %{zaurya-k-} , %{prIti-k-}]) S3Br. Mn. Bhartr2. &c. ; any religious act or rite (as sacrifice , oblation &c. , esp. as originating in the hope of future recompense and as opposed to speculative religion or knowledge of spirit) RV. AV. VS. Ragh. &c. ; work , labour , activity (as opposed to rest , %{prazAnti}) Hit. RPra1t. &c. ; physicking , medical attendance Car. ; action consisting in motion (as the third among the seven categories of the Nya1ya philosophy ; of these motions there are five , viz. %{ut-kSepaNa} , %{ava-kSepaNa} , %{A-kuJcana} , %{prasAraNa} , and %{gamana} , qq. vv.) Bha1sha1p. Tarkas. ; calculation Su1ryas. ; product , result , effect Mn. xii , 98 Sus3r. ; organ of sense S3Br. xiv (or of action see %{karme7ndriya}) ; (in Gr.) the object (it stands either in the acc. [in active construction] , or in the nom. [in passive construction] , or in the gen. [in connection with a noun of action] ; opposed to %{kartR} the subject) Pa1n2. 1-4 , 49 ff. (it is of four kinds , viz. a. %{nirvartya} , when anything new is produced e.g. %{kaTaM@karoti} , `" he makes a mat "' [258,3] ; %{putraM@prasUte} , `" she bears a son "' ; b. %{vikArya} , when change is implied either of the substance and form e.g. %{kASThaM@bhasma@karoti} , `" he reduces fuel to ashes "' ; or of the form only e.g. %{suvarNaM@kuNDalaM@karoti} , `" he fashions gold into an ear-ring "' ; c. %{prApya} , when any desired object is attained e.g. %{grAmaM@gacchati} , `" he goes to the village "' ; %{candraM@pazyati} , `" he sees the moon "' ; d. %{anIpsita} , when an undesired object is abandoned e.g. %{pApaM@tyajati} , `" he leaves the wicked "') ; former act as leading to inevitable results , fate (as the certain consequence of acts in a previous life) Pan5cat. Hit. Buddh. , (cf. %{karma-pAka} and %{-vipAka}) ; the tenth lunar mansion VarBr2S. &c.

Singhi Kaya

02 May 2006, 10:34 AM

And verily Tantras do not and cannot restrict Love. To love a woman one doesn't have to get Vama-diksha! ;)
Thanks for this tip;)
I could have done with some kama-sutra tips from you in the canteen section~but mods will not approve

Arjuna

02 May 2006, 03:54 PM

Thanks for this tip;)
I could have done with some kama-sutra tips from you in the canteen section~but mods will not approve

This kind of tips U may easily get without my assistance! :p

Arjuna

05 May 2006, 12:35 PM

What i knew from my Acharya, Shri Amritananda and some of my more knowledgeble friends regarding existence of sexual rituals in Vedic cult, now is proven:

�The dialogue of the priests and the queens, as if found in the Vajasaneyi-samhita XXIII.22-31, was likewise meant to be a part of an older ritual act in which a man, evidently a priest, had to unite with the queen � the part played by the horse here � and after his ceremonial sexual union he was put to death.
The Vajasaneyi verses mentioned above tell us that the queen and the priest are to be raised up high by a few persons and in that position they are required by the ritual to have sexual intercourse. In Uvata�s commentary on the Vajasaneyi-samhita, this rite is explained in greater detail. Shatapatha-brahmana (XIII.2.7-9) also refers to the queen�s union with the priest. This ritual was later transformed into the Ashvamedha sacrifice in which a horse was used as a substitute for the priest.�
(N. N. Bhattacharyya, History of the Tantric Religion, New Delhi, 1987. P.124)

Arjuna

06 May 2006, 02:19 AM

In a commentary upon the name Kamarupini, Shri Bhaskararaya writes:
“796. [She who is in] the form of the desire. Kama, the supreme Shiva. The Kameshvara is he who desires to create the universe as described in the Shruti: “He desired, let me become many, let me create beings” (Taittiriyopanishad, II.5). About whom the Brihadaranyakopanishad speaks: “He is the Purusha consisting of desire, it is He, o Shakalya, who is his deity? He replied, woman is his deity” (III.9.11).

Kathopanishad (III.11) says: “Beyond the Person Purusha there is nothing. This is the goal, and the supreme abode.”

Agamas say: “Women are divine, women are life-breaths, women are ornaments. One should always be with a woman, another’s or his own.”

Vamachara is literally “following a woman” and it leads to Kamakala, essence of the Godhead. Kulachudamani states that “without a woman one never attains the Perfection, thus one should take a refuge in a woman.”
Meru-tantra (X.67) says: “Only he whose love (bhakti) is strong, attains the Perfection on the Vama-path.” And then (XX.153) also: “Linga is Shiva, bhaga (vagina) is Shakti, emission is water of Ganga. Being aware of this in sexual enjoyment the follower of Vama achieves Liberation.”

sarabhanga

06 May 2006, 11:28 PM

Namaste Ramkish,

A Mumukshu is any Sage striving after emancipation. There are Gosain or Aughar or Jangama Mumukshus who live as householders; and there are renunciate Mumukshus who live as Sannyasins. And all Vamacara Mumukshus will necessarily be living as Grihasthas!

sarabhanga

07 May 2006, 12:46 AM

Namaste Ramkish,

What is this �fundamental right� of burial ?

In traditional Hindu Dharma, only Sannyasins and Shudras are buried !

Only the Abrahamic religions and some medieval Hindu sects, who have entirely rejected the concept of Varna (treating all members as veritable Sadhus ~ such as the Lingayats), have any such notion of universal burial rites.

ramkish42

07 May 2006, 01:03 PM

Arjuna

08 May 2006, 05:45 AM

To the theme of Vama-naya, one interesting note:

"The point to be noted here is that no Vedic rite could be performed by any one without a wife. The idea is that the woman, as the Shakti of man, shares the act and its fruit with him whose Shakti she is."
(Shri Kapali Shastriar in "Further Lights on the Veda.")

Arjuna

11 May 2006, 04:28 AM

To the point of Jivanmukta enjoying the world:

In Sadhana-samrajyam Shri Kapali Shastri writes:

“na khelan nAkhelan bhuvanabhavanasthemavilayairudAste yadyAtmA kimu jaDacittostarhi na bhidA.
jagatkrIDArAmo visR^ijati harannevamiti cennirarthe kiM kArye prabhuravataredarbhaka iva..3..
If neither in play nor not in play with the world’s birth, duration and death the Atman, the Self stays aloof, is there then no difference between the insentient and sentient? If finding joy in the world-play he releases (creates) even as he breaks, does the Lord come down like a child for an act that is vain?

Not so, say some Vedantins. He, the Self, the Atman does not take part in the play, he is not involved in it. Adapting the position taken up by the Sankhyas and equating the Purusha with the Atman they hold that the Atman does not participate in the movement of the universe, which is being worked out by the Prakriti. The Atman simply watches the diverse activities manifested by her. He does not play, if play it can be called. […] If in fact such is the nature of the Self of the world, a question arises: what then is the difference between a sentient thing, such as the Atman is understood to be and the insentient? For the insentient is absolutely aloof from active participation in the life around. It stands all contacts and absence of contacts with a severe aloofness, indifference. If such also is the nature of the Atman, whom we are taught to believe as the very source of sentience, consciousness, then verily there could be no distinction between the two.
Or perhaps, it may be urged that the Lord takes delight in the play, lila, of the birth, duration and death of the world. He creates out of his own being, creates in delight and for the delight of a completer enjoyment of his own power. […] The entire creation is a Brindavan of Lord Krishna.”

Arjuna

12 May 2006, 05:01 AM

�Abhinavagupta, in the course of discussing one of the basic principles of Kaula doctrine, namely, that purity and impurity is not an inherent quality of things but a mental projection which must be overcome along with all other thought-constructs to achieve the pure conscious state of liberation says that: �such was also (the insight of) the ancient sages (muni) by virtue of their state free of thought-constructs but who, in order not to disrupt the order of the world, concealed it.� (Tantraloka, IV. 243b-4a).�
(M. Dyczkowsky in �The Canon of the Saivagama,� p. 140).

Arjuna

12 May 2006, 07:49 PM

From Tirumantiram:

19 PARIYANGA YOGA

825: Pleasures of Sex Union Will Abide
If Breath Control is Properly Practiced
Anointing her body with unguents diverse
Bedecking her tresses with flowers fragrant
Do you enjoy the damsel in passion's union;
If you but know how to shoot
Prana breath through the Spinal Cavity
Your enjoyment never ceases.
826: If Breath is Controlled Delicious Enjoyment
For Partners in Sex Union Results
When they seek enjoyment
The breath stands still;
The full breasted damsel and the goodly man
Stand in union exalted;
As liquid silver and gold
Their passion's emissions
In rapture commingles.
827: Duration of Enjoyment Lengthens
If Breath is Controlled
In the copulatory yoga that is practised
By the hero and the heroine
Upward they drive the coach of breath
That has its wheels in regions right and left;
There they collect the waters of the heaven
And never the organs tiring know.
828: Restraint of Semen Flow Through Breath Control
This the meaning of that union;
When in the sex act semen flows
The yogi lets it not;
But checks it
And attains within;
And a Master he then becomes.
829: Effect of Restraint of Semen Flow
He becomes master of Jnana all
He becomes master of enjoyment all
He becomes master of himself
He becomes master of senses five.
830: Sex Union Through the Pariyanga Lasts Five Ghatikas and is Bliss
This is Pariyanga Yoga
That lasts five ghatikas;
Beyond in the sixth
The damsel sleeps in the arms of lover
In union blissful
That fills the heart
And passes description.
831: Successful Practitioners Alone Can Resort to Pariyanga Yoga
Unless it be,
He had in success practised
The Pariyanga yoga
Of five ghatika length
No yogi shall
A woman embrace.
832: Lord Siva Practised Pariyanga Yoga
Who may you ask,
Is He that achieved this audacious Yoga;
The lord is He that wears heavenly Ganga on His matted lock;
For ghatika* five
He embraced Sakti of speech ambrosial sweetness
Thinking and thinking not of the act performed.
*070a time span of 24 minutes or nazhi kai
833: The Age of the Couple for Pariyanga Yoga
For practise of this yoga,
Twenty the age apt for damsel
And thirty for lover;
Then does high rapture ensue;
The five senses of woman desert her,
Her mind exhausted becomes,
When she climax reaches;
But no weariness the man knows
Neither does his silvery emission flow.
834: Only Those Who Have Practised Kecari Can Resort to Pariyanga
Lest the silvery liquid into the golden flow,
The artful goldsmith (practitioner) covered it up with yogic breath
The sparks (Kundalini) that flew travelled up by the way of Spinal tube
There above,
He contained them with tongue's tip (Kecari).
835: Pariyanga Yogi is Exalted
The Yogi who is in ecstatic joy
Unexcited performs this yoga with woman
Becomes radiant like the sun,
An acknowledged master in directions ten,
And of Ganas of groups eighteen.
836: Pariyanga Yogi Practiced With Kecari Yoga Also
Espousing Wisdom that is denoted by Budha*, (Mercury)
Who stands middle of sun and saturn
The youthful Yogi who embraced the damsel
Knew joy infinite;
Lest the male silvery liquid flow not
Ahead of female golden one
He had his red mouth buried in the Mystic Moon.
(Note: This Budha spelling is the author's dub on Buddha)
837: Pariyanga Yoga is Yogic Wisdom That Retains the Semen
They who perfect wisdom
And embrace woman in wisdom's beauty
Will know grief none,
Though by woman's side he be;
The liquid silver remains unspent
And flows not into the vaginal bag of woman.
838: Freedom From Sexual Union is Attained by Pariyanga Yoga
This body that melts like wax over fire
(By sexual union)
Will no more indulge in it,
When wisdom dawns;
To those who have attained Wisdom of Void
The liquid silver no exit knows.
839: Vision of Void in Pariyanga Yoga
When You know the Void
And the light in that Void
Your mind shall be strong as a chistle of bronze;
After having tasted of the nectar
I saw the Void
With goodly Nandi guiding;
Beyond, I knew not.
840: Pariyanga Yoga was Expounded by Sadasiva to Sakti
Who are those that rank high above?
Mal, Brahma and Nandi (Rudra) art they;
In the Fourth is that Sadasiva,
Who to the slender-waisted Sakti
This expounded.
841: Immortality for Those Who Unite in Sivasakti in Cranium
If you can get to Sakti and Siva
Inside the Golden Circle within (Cranium)
And then join them in union,
You may live on earth
A million, trillion years.

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/tirumantiram/TantraThree.html