PDA

View Full Version : Jnana Yoga



sarabhanga
29 March 2006, 10:18 PM
Nivrtti-Marga (the Path of Inward Movement) denies the absolute necessity of rebirth, proposing the Devayana (Way of the Gods).

Nivrtti is the path of Jñana (Knowledge ~ the irrefutable intuition of universal unity), which leads directly to the perfect realization of one’s own true Self, nothing less than becoming one with the Supreme Spirit.

And thus it leads to Moksha, the absolute Liberation of the Soul (Atma or Jiva) from all the limitation and sorrow that it apparently suffers in the plane of phenomenal embodied existence.

It is also known as the Yoga-Kanda.

ramkish42
18 April 2006, 02:51 PM
Gnana is a means for attaining Moksha but it cannot all by itself gives moksha.

Gnana should lead one to Bhakti or Karma marga, or otherwise, should lead one to Charanaagati marga.

ya vidhya vimukthaye

As education should lead to Moksha, Gnana is fruit of education, gnana should lead to moksha though an established pathway

Just my humble opinion

Arjuna
18 April 2006, 03:31 PM
Gnana is a means for attaining Moksha but it cannot all by itself gives moksha.

Sarabhanga was speaking about nondualistic Jnana (Brahma-jnana), which is same as Moksha, Freedom.
True bhakti leads to such Jnana. In fact, some call it Jnana and some call it Prema, but essence is the same.

It is always GOD who gives Jnana by His grace (this process is called in Tantras and Shaivism "shakti-[ni]pAta"), and this Jnana makes one liberated.

ramkish42
18 April 2006, 04:06 PM
Sarabhanga was speaking about nondualistic Jnana (Brahma-jnana), which is same as Moksha, Freedom.
True bhakti leads to such Jnana. In fact, some call it Jnana and some call it Prema, but essence is the same.

It is always GOD who gives Jnana by His grace (this process is called in Tantras and Shaivism "shakti-[ni]pAta"), and this Jnana makes one liberated.

Yes I do understand.

The fact goes like this.

Freedom has twosides, internal and external whereas brahma gnana is only internal. How does this addressess external aspects of freedom, i.e. Moksha i.e. absense of rebirth.

God bestows his blessings in terms of gnana is well understood, but as the query goes, does a person who has realised this brahma gnana, if he alive for next say 10 / 20 years, how do you explain his survival vis-a-vis problems faced by him Vs Moksha. Is he living in Moksha or is it otherwise

Arjuna
18 April 2006, 04:24 PM
According to Kaula-mata, liberated Yogi or Satkaula achieves Samarasya state and in a sense becomes a Rudra (woman — Yogini). Samarasya is beyond any worldly duality, thus being in body or not doesn't affect it. While living such Yogi is jivanmukta; he is not bound by samsara, but can freely enjoy the world as a manifestation of Brahman.

ramkish42
19 April 2006, 01:28 PM
According to Kaula-mata, liberated Yogi or Satkaula achieves Samarasya state and in a sense becomes a Rudra (woman — Yogini). Samarasya is beyond any worldly duality, thus being in body or not doesn't affect it. While living such Yogi is jivanmukta; he is not bound by samsara, but can freely enjoy the world as a manifestation of Brahman.
1. From when this thread fall into Kaula-mata

2. If living such yogi is jivanmukta, does that mean, as a jivanmukta, such yogi, never visits hospital on any illness, no such yogi ever been run over by a truck, no such yogi ever felt hungry or thristy? Living amidst samsara, how impact of samsara could miss a yogi? As long as a person lives in this world, he is bound by rules of samsara, he may disown or nor, irrespective of it, rules of samsara defintely affects in him.

Arjuna
19 April 2006, 02:12 PM
1. From when this thread fall into Kaula-mata

2. If living such yogi is jivanmukta, does that mean, as a jivanmukta, such yogi, never visits hospital on any illness, no such yogi ever been run over by a truck, no such yogi ever felt hungry or thristy? Living amidst samsara, how impact of samsara could miss a yogi? As long as a person lives in this world, he is bound by rules of samsara, he may disown or nor, irrespective of it, rules of samsara defintely affects in him.

1. Thread is not limited to the Doctrine of Kula of course. As i represent it, i speak from its viewpoint.

2. Jivanmukta may be ill, run over by a truck or feel hungry. But he won't be troubled by these things, since any interaction for him is an event of Bliss.

ramkish42
19 April 2006, 02:32 PM
I will be waiting for some one to reiterate the second point mentioned by Shri Arjuna so that I can post my comments on it.

Thanks

Singhi Kaya
20 April 2006, 05:45 PM
2. Jivanmukta may be ill, run over by a truck or feel hungry. But he won't be troubled by these things, since any interaction for him is an event of Bliss. There you go ramkish42 ... but why are you always waiting for someone else to reiterate his points?

btw, arjuna even our existence with body means a billion interaction with the cosmic universe at many levels, so a jivanmukta should be perpetualy at bliss, without much indulgence like common man who are bound to samsara and/or sex. I would guess purpose of a jivanmukta's (I assume a perfected being) existence on earth has to be more scientific than enjoying samsaric bliss like others.

Arjuna
21 April 2006, 04:04 AM
As i already had said, Jivanmukta (Siddha-yogi, Satkaula) is not dependant upon any outer act, since his very being is samyoga with Mahashakti. Though he may enjoy sex, perhaps he will do so only with his beloved, and thus NOT for the sake of physical enjoyment (he has enough of it), but for the sake of pure Love. If he is single, he is likely not to have any external sex, which is not a restraint of any kind but natural behaviour.

ramkish42
21 April 2006, 11:24 AM
There you go ramkish42 ... but why are you always waiting for someone else to reiterate his points?

btw, arjuna even our existence with body means a billion interaction with the cosmic universe at many levels, so a jivanmukta should be perpetualy at bliss, without much indulgence like common man who are bound to samsara and/or sex. I would guess purpose of a jivanmukta's (I assume a perfected being) existence on earth has to be more scientific than enjoying samsaric bliss like others.


2. Regarding Jivanmuktha - As long as jivanmuktha stays on earth is bound by all rules of earth, he may be runned over by a truck, may suffer from thrist and hunger, and words THIS DOES NOT AFFECT HIM, does not refer to his body but to his SOUL. Verily such illness does not affect his soul but will affect his body in toto. He may be forced to sit in one place for his leg does not allow him to move, but jivanmuktha does not bothers about it a lot unlike others for he has realised his soul, however, this does not mean, he is unaffected by such illness and still can move.

The importance of this is difference between bodily pleasure and pain vis-a-vis pleasure of soul.

Sex is verily a bodily pleasure and if you have objections against it, request you to post a separate thread and give me an indication in ramkish42@toughguy.net so that it can be discussed out.

As sex is verily a bodily pleasure, no mumukshu goes behind bodily pleasure, hence abstains from it for it gives nothing.

Sex for pure love is absurd thinking. Pure love does not call for sex but for accomodation and respect.

Many times I feel, Harold Robbins and Nancy Friday could explain sex for eternity better than any Tantri

Jai shree Krishna

edited by satay
ps: please refrain from making things personal with other members. thanks.

Arjuna
22 April 2006, 06:12 AM
The importance of this is difference between bodily pleasure and pain vis-a-vis pleasure of soul.
Sex is verily a bodily pleasure.

Of course it is not only bodily pleasure, but it is a sparkle of the Bliss of Brahman.
Any "bodily" pleasure for Yogi is Ananda, and sex especially since it is a Shakti-samayoga.


As sex is verily a bodily pleasure, no mumukshu goes behind bodily pleasure, hence abstains from it for it gives nothing.

This has no logic. Mumukshu is that one who strives to Moksha, which doesn't imply he becomes uncapable of enjoying the world. The world is not "evil" or opposite to spirituality. Quite the opposite, it is a blissful manifestation of God.
Yogi who sees world as composed of consciousness, enjoys every particle of it. Similarly as he enjoys Ananda while looking at Deity or partaking of naivedya, he enjoys Ananda while looking at his wife (or any woman), seeing Devi-vigraha, and enjoying sexual union with her.

If U say sex is a body function only (which is verily not), even then there is no problem. Mumukshu continue eating, drinking, walking and doing his own duties, right? Then why should he specially abstain from copulating with his wife? If U take it as body function, there is no problem for consciousness.

Attitude U depict is para-christian one and in fact anti-Vedic. Vedas never prohibit sex with one's wife and never say it is a sin or an obstacle.


Sex for pure love is absurd thinking. Pure love does not call for sex but for accomodation and respect.

Sex is a natural part of pure Love between male and female. This was depicted by Sri Krishna BTW, who did not stop on respect to gopis but enjoyed sex with them!

Jagadguru Shivaya Subramuniya Swami (not at all a Tantric, but an orthodox Shaiva-siddhantin) in his "Dancing with Shiva" (Upanishad 6, Dampati Mandala, 74) acknowledges sex as an expression of love. This is a Hindu view, and not what U say.

ramkish42
22 April 2006, 09:11 AM
Of course it is not only bodily pleasure, but it is a sparkle of the Bliss of Brahman.
Any "bodily" pleasure for Yogi is Ananda, and sex especially since it is a Shakti-samayoga.

Before proceeding, I thank Satayji for his advice, as I just seen this, I had posted something similar texts few moments before. My apologies for it. But request Moderators to send me a PM with entire deleted contents so that I will know what exactly I did and there might by some reference I could take from it.

Dear Arjuna,

Sex as sparkle of Bliss of Brahman is yet to proved by you, there is no point in repeating it again in different threads. As you prefer, request you substantiate with some proof either here or in vamachara thread. Once this is done then only the question of Bodily pleasure being Ananda comes in. Also request you to post what you mean exactly by Ananda. It could mean totally different thing to me from Vaishnavite point of view


This has no logic. Mumukshu is that one who strives to Moksha, which doesn't imply he becomes uncapable of enjoying the world. The world is not "evil" or opposite to spirituality. Quite the opposite, it is a blissful manifestation of God.
Yogi who sees world as composed of consciousness, enjoys every particle of it. Similarly as he enjoys Ananda while looking at Deity or partaking of naivedya, he enjoys Ananda while looking at his wife (or any woman), seeing Devi-vigraha, and enjoying sexual union with her.

This has logic - only it is that you look it from different angle. I did not said, Mumukshu is uncapable of enjoying the word, but I said and insist Mumukshu does not and should not divulge in enjoying this world

I think I had mentioned the following in the forum earlier

shreyascha preyascha manushya metatsow sampareetya vivinakthidheerah |
Shreyosi dheero api preyaso vrunite preyomandhe yogakshemaan vrunite ||

If a man goes behind pleasures, he will asking for all wordly pleasures perpetually. A person who opts for good things is called Dheera (corrollary, Dheera opts only for good things and not pleasures)


If U say sex is a body function only (which is verily not), even then there is no problem. Mumukshu continue eating, drinking, walking and doing his own duties, right? Then why should he specially abstain from copulating with his wife? If U take it as body function, there is no problem for consciousness.

So does animals falling into the trap of basic instincts. Mumukshu continue eating and drinking but does not go after food. Further mumukshu does not eat, drink or walk and do this duty for pleasure. He does it as it is ordained for him to do so. He walks even if his foot aches and has to refuse lift in a vehicle even when offered. (Here is point of divulgence normally Tantris take, they argue about Modern Sankaracharyas going in Cars etc thereby disturbing the whole thred, hope this will not be a case from Arjuna, if Arjuna wants to discuss about this, I am ready but in a separate thread only on this) Should eat only once a day. Mumukshu doing his duties does it alone. Eating, drinking, walking does not require a female partner if mumukshu is male and does not require a male partner if the mumukshu is female. In some cases, where Mumukshu happens to be Grihasthi, he has to abstain from Kama and Artha in all sects other than Sri Vaishanava, where relaxation is given for Artha for the pleasure of God and to serve his temples, lords devotees etc. Under any case Kama is void for mumukshu. Hence, in common parlence, people are grihastis and have kama relationship cannot be Mumukshus


Attitude U depict is para-christian one and in fact anti-Vedic. Vedas never prohibit sex with one's wife and never say it is a sin or an obstacle.

This is the third time you are making a statement on my behalf and condemning it there itself inspite of the fact I never ascribed myself to the original statement.

I agree Veda does not prohibit sex with one's wife in toto and never says it is sin in toto, regarding "obstacle" part it is too vague to reply at this juncture

Instead veda regulates sex with one's wife. It insists sex has to be avoided on some days and not on all days. It never says it is sin, but on few occasions it is treated a sin for not paying due homage and reverence, with respect the event that regulates so. I had given some instances earlier, Amavaasya and Shraardha, where in you objected for Amavaasya and said nothing about Shraardha, it itself shows you agree that on Shraardha days it has to abstained. I may be wrong for it is your statement hence you have to clarify it.


Sex is a natural part of pure Love between male and female. This was depicted by Sri Krishna BTW, who did not stop on respect to gopis but enjoyed sex with them!

Pure love is always compassion, accomodation irrespective of minor faults, Objections raised and estoped when erred, being supportive; furthermore pure love never ever determined by sex or valour in sex. If your point is correct people who cannot indulge in sex (becaue of some ailments) fails to love others purely, which I think you will not subscribe your acceptance. If your view is otherwise, then we will discuss this first.

Believe me or not, your BTW statements always shows your cunningness. In Tarka (debates) this is called weak escapism. Such analogies are given to hide the weakness of the submission, and when submitted it looks as if it the best of the argument. Once the analogy is answered and refuted, the whole argument fails like a castle of cards

May I be permitted to tell you a small story of analogies of this kind here, pls.

one of my ancient revered gurus, by the name Brahmatantra Swatantra (verily this incident got this name for him) went for debate. His opponent finding his difficult to handle, resorted to this kind of analogy. His Opponent said, Swamin, I see you still wear yajnopavita, still not tonsured your head and sporting a purvasika, painted all over your body with so called foot of the lord, all this looks similar to the vesha (dressing style) of Ravana who came in disguise to kidnap Sita. How do you think this is going to offer you eternity. Prima facie, our guru was compared to Ravana, an Asura, with Malafide intention and this statement sounds as good argument. Our guru humbly replied, Dear, as this vesha (dressing style) resulted in ischyapurthi for Ravana (He intended to take holy mother to his abode and this verily resulted in his favour) so it will for us. Indeed Ravana intended to take holy mother in toto to his abode, but what we want is much smaller than that, all we want is one single phrase, tataastu (So be it) from our mother, when we request paahimaam (Save me). What makes you think this will not yield.

Thanks for your patience

Now with Shri Krishna Bhagawan, there are texts that shows he had dance, flirting etc but I fail to understand where does any texts says about he having sex with gopis. On the contrary after the completion of Mahabharata War, when found Pariksheet (my posting with "i" instead of "ee" results with four astrieks, Request moderator to look into this, actually [space]shee(i)t is to replaed by four asteriks, when the word is said without spaces in either side, bugging it off, is really troublesome considering the sytle of Sanskrit, on the other thread, I was trying to refer a person of great knowledge known after the Diksha he had obtained, system changed it, it was really ackward for myself to read it) fully burnt, Lord declared if a real Brahmachary (Person who has maintained his celibacy) touches this Pariksh(i)t (To moderator, will this be ok?) shall be alive, when no one forwarded, Shri Krishna himself offered himself at service, as soon as he touched, Pariksh(i)t came alive. You should had read this also as you seem to know quite a lot. Still why such statements for which indeed you yourself know the answers. May I conclude you are trying to cheat or May I conclude you are trying write me off for being very ignorant. Verily both are false. I know the tantri mind and as Satayji asked me not to comment, I refrain


Jagadguru Shivaya Subramuniya Swami (not at all a Tantric, but an orthodox Shaiva-siddhantin) in his "Dancing with Shiva" (Upanishad 6, Dampati Mandala, 74) acknowledges sex as an expression of love. This is a Hindu view, and not what U say.
I too agree. Sex is an expresson of love. But the question here is 1. Is sex is the expression of PURE LOVE and 2. Is sex alone is the expression of love. Verily both questions has to be answered negatively

Request you to abstain from accusing me directly for not presenting Hindu View. Verily you know for sure there is atleast one sect in Hinduism that subscribes my view, hence I also represent Hinduism. In due course you will understand, my views are predominantly Hindu than your views

Jai shree krishna

Arjuna
22 April 2006, 05:13 PM
Namaste,


Dear Arjuna,
Sex as sparkle of Bliss of Brahman is yet to proved by you, there is no point in repeating it again in different threads. As you prefer, request you substantiate with some proof either here or in vamachara thread.

I am happy that discussion is becoming reasonable.

On this point i can say the following: my statement is based on:
1. Agamas. For example, just what i remember by heart: saMyoge jAyate saukhyaM paramAnandalakShaNam (Shyama-rahasya 9.97 and other Tantras). There is a clear doctrine of this in Tantraloka, 29 Ahnika.
2. Teaching of alive Kaula-gurus — i know the tradition from "first hands", being initiated into three different lineages. For instance, U may see text of revelation of Kamakhya in Shri Amritananda's site, i think it is available openly. Shri Amritananda is not my guru, but i know him personally and respect very much.
3. Sattarka: logic based on Kaula-doctrine and direct experience.
4. Pramana: direct experince itself. As an upasaka and Kaulavadhuta i can speak from my own practice.

I can understand that this may not be a point of view of every sampradaya, and do not try to convince anyone. I simply witness the truth as i know from my Gurus and Devi.

But let me again note that Kaula-tantrism is not at all "everything about sex". In actual practice sexual side is very small (in duration comparatively to other sadhanas) part of upasana, though it is indeed very sacred and has a special place at the heart of Kula-mata.
Moreover, ONLY that sex which is in Love has a spiritual value, and verily not mere egoistic self-pleasure. When sex is a part of Love, it is sacred; otherwise it is no more than any other bodily function.


Once this is done then only the question of Bodily pleasure being Ananda comes in. Also request you to post what you mean exactly by Ananda. It could mean totally different thing to me from Vaishnavite point of view

Ananda is "Bliss" or "Joy". It is not dependant on objects, but is an inherent nature of the Subject. And through contact with objects (when they are seen as an aspects of One Consciousness) this subjective Ananda becomes manifest. This is directly related to Spanda (vibration) doctrine of Kashmir Shaivism.

Vijnana-bhairava Agama says: "Wherever one's mind has enjoyment, there one should hold it. In that very place he experinces the bliss of Brahman".
(Maybe not literal translation, i put it from memory; but the meaning is exact.)


This has logic - only it is that you look it from different angle. I did not said, Mumukshu is uncapable of enjoying the word, but I said and insist Mumukshu does not and should not divulge in enjoying this world

But logically, WHY?
I know that Shankara's Vedanta teaches so, as well as some other schools. But i see no logic in that indeed.

Anyway, this is not a matter of arguement. Let everyone follow his own dharma and achara, which is right.
I am eager to stop at this point. Having expressed Kaula view, i see no use to argue which view is right. Everyone chooses a path according to his level of understanding and vasanas of past. And above everything, it is God who leads us. Those who are meant for Kaula-mata, will follow it. Others have to follow their sampradayas and that's it.


If a man goes behind pleasures, he will asking for all wordly pleasures perpetually. A person who opts for good things is called Dheera (corrollary, Dheera opts only for good things and not pleasures)

There is a huge difference between "going after pleasures" and free enjoyment. Pashu is attached and self-unaware, while Kaula-yogi is not attached to objects and enjoys Vimarsha through objects, which are non-separated from Samvit.


Under any case Kama is void for mumukshu. Hence, in common parlence, people are grihastis and have kama relationship cannot be Mumukshus

I do not understand clearly what U mean by "kAma" here.
This word is used in rather different meanings in Shastras.
If U mean to say a grihasthi cannot love his wife and enjoy sex with her, at the same time being mumukshu, this is generally wrong. Till now i haven't seen any Agama or Veda prescribing this.

Arjuna
22 April 2006, 05:34 PM
Pure love is always compassion, accomodation irrespective of minor faults, Objections raised and estoped when erred, being supportive; furthermore pure love never ever determined by sex or valour in sex. If your point is correct people who cannot indulge in sex (becaue of some ailments) fails to love others purely, which I think you will not subscribe your acceptance. If your view is otherwise, then we will discuss this first.

Pure love between man and woman is always subtly sexual (and may or may not include physical aspect, since there are situations when it is impossible). It is called Shringara-rasa in Bengali Vaishnavism.
Of course, pure Love is self-surrender and in implies sacrifice of oneself for beloved. On this level sexual union becomes something very different from genital-frictions, indeed not a worldly event, but a manifestation of That Love of Shiva/Kalika or Krishna/Radha. In such union there is descent of Parakundalini (Shaktinipata) and it results in samavesha.

It is essential to see woman as Sakshaddevi, Bhairavi — she is actually Divine, it is felt in bhAvanA. This is called Aropa by Bengali Vaishnavas. Similarly, woman sees her beloved as Bhairava.

In Kalika-purana there is a formula of Shakta union:
bhairavIM pratigRihNAmi bhairavo.ahaM pratigrahI (Kaula says this to his shakti).

Sexual act in Kaula-naya is a DIVINE act of Shiva/Shakti manifested in the world. It is "They" who are in Love, and this is reflected in two bodies which have one heart, filled with Ananda.

To the last points:
1. Yes, sex is an expression of pure Love in shringara-rasa (which is the highest rasa out of all five).
2. No, it is not the only expression of Love, of course.

Arjuna
22 April 2006, 05:40 PM
Now with Shri Krishna Bhagawan, there are texts that shows he had dance, flirting etc but I fail to understand where does any texts says about he having sex with gopis.

I am surprised U do not know.

Please, one reference is Gita-govinda of Jayadeva, which is highly authorative among many Vaishnava traditions (for a fact, of Orissa and Bengal). Do U need exact verses? I think i may find, since i had a book somehwhere.

I am sure there are depictions in Bhagavata-purana, but i have no complete text of it and have no time to search it through.

ramkish42
23 April 2006, 12:25 AM
On this point i can say the following: my statement is based on:
1. Agamas. For example, just what i remember by heart: saMyoge jAyate saukhyaM paramAnandalakShaNam (Shyama-rahasya 9.97 and other Tantras). There is a clear doctrine of this in Tantraloka, 29 Ahnika.
2. Teaching of alive Kaula-gurus — i know the tradition from "first hands", being initiated into three different lineages. For instance, U may see text of revelation of Kamakhya in Shri Amritananda's site, i think it is available openly. Shri Amritananda is not my guru, but i know him personally and respect very much.
3. Sattarka: logic based on Kaula-doctrine and direct experience.
4. Pramana: direct experince itself. As an upasaka and Kaulavadhuta i can speak from my own practice.

I can understand that this may not be a point of view of every sampradaya, and do not try to convince anyone. I simply witness the truth as i know from my Gurus and Devi.

But let me again note that Kaula-tantrism is not at all "everything about sex". In actual practice sexual side is very small (in duration comparatively to other sadhanas) part of upasana, though it is indeed very sacred and has a special place at the heart of Kula-mata.
Moreover, ONLY that sex which is in Love has a spiritual value, and verily not mere egoistic self-pleasure. When sex is a part of Love, it is sacred; otherwise it is no more than any other bodily function.
My query was specific. How does Sex leads to eternal bliss?

You had quoted Shyama Rahasya text which has some relevance, where in the word Samyoge (samyoga) as understood stands for conjunction, meeting point for two different objects. "Sharir indriye satva atma samyoge dhari jivitam iti ayu" as given in Charaka Samhita or "deha prana samyoge ayuhu" all refers the word Samyoga to conjunction. I want you to be specific where does the clear reference is given.

Pertaining to Shri Abhinavagupta's work, than a mere reference it will be better if you can produce the script or translation so that we can discuss on that. There is no point where you give references and I search it down all by myself. If you give the reference better you quote. If you have any objections, request you to make it clear so that I can do some alternative arrangements


Ananda is "Bliss" or "Joy". It is not dependant on objects, but is an inherent nature of the Subject. And through contact with objects (when they are seen as an aspects of One Consciousness) this subjective Ananda becomes manifest. This is directly related to Spanda (vibration) doctrine of Kashmir Shaivism.
Thanks, it saves much.


Vijnana-bhairava Agama says: "Wherever one's mind has enjoyment, there one should hold it. In that very place he experinces the bliss of Brahman".
(Maybe not literal translation, i put it from memory; but the meaning is exact.)
Assuming the translation is exact, the point in discussion is 1. Sex might lead to eternal bliss and now this also adds 2. Sex is enjoyment of mind. If this is carries blanket acceptance, a child molester mind might seek enjoyment verily in his activity, so does a drug addict and so does a murderer. Now, how do you relate Vijnana Bhairava text with the question in context, "Sex leading to eternal bliss". The text actually reads - "Wherever you find satisfaction, the very essence of bliss will be revealed to you if you remain in this place without mental wavering". This is well known. When your mind is tranquil, essence of bliss will be revealed. Now again it is for you to show, how does sex leads to this tranquil mind

All I understand verily from Vijnana Bhairava text can be summarised shortly - Referring to Letters, Chakras and similar practises in our present context, it responds "All these concepts taught in the scriptures are aimed at those whose mind is still too immature to grasp the supreme reality. They are mere appetizers meant to spur aspirants toward ethical behavior and spiritual practice so that they can realize some day that the ultimate nature of Bhairava is not separate from their own Self"

Neither I am unable to understand Vijnana Bhairava texts from 69 to 72 does not describe how it leads to supreme bliss, but the word is used verily. More over, the said texts also says even without union, mind can give you the sensual pleasure, thus making intercourse unnecessary. The only bliss Vijnana Bhairava talks about during sex ritual is bliss of love and how do you relate this to eternal bliss?



But logically, WHY?
I know that Shankara's Vedanta teaches so, as well as some other schools. But i see no logic in that indeed.

Anyway, this is not a matter of arguement. Let everyone follow his own dharma and achara, which is right.
I am eager to stop at this point. Having expressed Kaula view, i see no use to argue which view is right. Everyone chooses a path according to his level of understanding and vasanas of past. And above everything, it is God who leads us. Those who are meant for Kaula-mata, will follow it. Others have to follow their sampradayas and that's it.
This is what I was saying earlier, being in threads pertaining to Sankara bhagavatpada's system or other system, let us abstain from making statements pertaining to our sampradaya. Further, If you are making statements pertaining to your Kaula sect, also request you to acknowledge what is said first and then point what your sect says, otherwise it is evident that you are trying to make your views as the only correct versions. This is a suggestion.

The problem here is, if you do not acknowledge what the other sect says in the first hand, you may end up debating with some one else like this


There is a huge difference between "going after pleasures" and free enjoyment. Pashu is attached and self-unaware, while Kaula-yogi is not attached to objects and enjoys Vimarsha through objects, which are non-separated from Samvit.
You misunderstood my point, however, I do not deny stating that, for it is a part of submission. After mentioning a mumukshu does not go after pleasures, my submission, if you carefully read, also has references drawn to self implied limitation as to free enjoyment in terms of selection of modes of enjoyment. Mumukshu does not enjoy what ever that comes to him freely and does not enjoy free enjoyment. His enjoyment is perpetually fixed on Lord. Request you not to miss such points and make me reiterate things again


I do not understand clearly what U mean by "kAma" here.
This word is used in rather different meanings in Shastras.
If U mean to say a grihasthi cannot love his wife and enjoy sex with her, at the same time being mumukshu, this is generally wrong. Till now i haven't seen any Agama or Veda prescribing this.
Many times I had told my views pertaining to Sex and Grihasta - I say it again, I do not deny the fact that Grihasta can have sex, but mumukshu cannot have sex. If you still do not know this it means you have not exposed yourself to other philosophies other than Kaula

ramkish42
23 April 2006, 12:52 AM
Pure love between man and woman is always subtly sexual (and may or may not include physical aspect, since there are situations when it is impossible). It is called Shringara-rasa in Bengali Vaishnavism.
Of course, pure Love is self-surrender and in implies sacrifice of oneself for beloved. On this level sexual union becomes something very different from genital-frictions, indeed not a worldly event, but a manifestation of That Love of Shiva/Kalika or Krishna/Radha. In such union there is descent of Parakundalini (Shaktinipata) and it results in samavesha.
1. Pure love is not ALWAYS sex as you presume.
2. Not only Bengalis all call this Shringaara
3. Bengali school (Dayabhaga) Hindu tattvas are always different from practise of in other place in toto. In fact Vaishnavites and Shaktha practises of Bengal is not clearly etched out as it happened in all other places
4. Time and again, I request not to impose on what you consider as dharma on Vaishnavites
5. Union as suggested by you in Radha Krishna bhakthi bhava is absolutely wrong as that pertains children of 7 years old. There is no reference of Radha being crossed the level of puberty. Your accusations leads to calling Hindu Gods for pedophilia. Better know the consequences of your statement and abstain from making such statements
6. Shiva and Parvati relationship is more complex and opinions of Southern Shaivites, Maratha views and Bengali views. We will discuss this separately


It is essential to see woman as Sakshaddevi, Bhairavi — she is actually Divine, it is felt in bhAvanA. This is called Aropa by Bengali Vaishnavas. Similarly, woman sees her beloved as Bhairava.
I agree with this. Even my sect views similarly. We assign all beautiful things and women to Goddess Lakshmi


In Kalika-purana there is a formula of Shakta union:
bhairavIM pratigRihNAmi bhairavo.ahaM pratigrahI (Kaula says this to his shakti).
You never considered puranas are authoritative. Better be consistent with your ideas. There is no point in making a statement and retracting it without due notice


Sexual act in Kaula-naya is a DIVINE act of Shiva/Shakti manifested in the world. It is "They" who are in Love, and this is reflected in two bodies which have one heart, filled with Ananda.
There is no question of divinity here. If this is the question, I would have concurred with you. But the query is "Can this lead to eternal bliss"


To the last points:
1. Yes, sex is an expression of pure Love in shringara-rasa (which is the highest rasa out of all five).
2. No, it is not the only expression of Love, of course.

1. Out of five - is not it nine?
2. I concur with you for the second point

ramkish42
23 April 2006, 12:58 AM
I am surprised U do not know.

Please, one reference is Gita-govinda of Jayadeva, which is highly authorative among many Vaishnava traditions (for a fact, of Orissa and Bengal). Do U need exact verses? I think i may find, since i had a book somehwhere.

I am sure there are depictions in Bhagavata-purana, but i have no complete text of it and have no time to search it through.

First understand the difference between religious treatises and books that talk about religion. Gita Govinda is book of poetry by Shri Jayadeva which is book of poetry first and subject is religion. This is on par with Harivamsa and Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa. People who quote these texts quote this for support and never these texts are taken as authoritative texts

Religious treatises are authoritative texts. This includes Shrithi, Smritis, Itihaasas, puraanas, commentaries written on these texts. Based on the philosophy few prefer to deny the superiority of certain agamas and smritis as it verily goes against their philosophy. For that various stotras written by great gurus are treated as supportive texts and referred to know the opinions of great gurus but not authoritative for vedanta views / Philosophical quest. I can see without knowing the basics you had moved up hence such problems arises

Arjuna
23 April 2006, 07:54 AM
Namaste,

I am not a Vaishnava in my practice or beliefs, and not a pandita in Vaishnava-shastras. But i will try to find exact references to Bhagavata and other main Vaishnava texts.

However, Gita-govinda is not mere poetry, it is authorative text for Orissan and Bengali Vaishavism. If it included any "heretical" ideas, it wouldn't be treated with such respect. Jayadeva was traditional Vaishnava and not a Tantric or Shakta-upasaka. Thus i see no reason to suspect him of deliberate imagining of facts of Krishna's life and sports.

Arjuna
23 April 2006, 08:18 AM
My query was specific. How does Sex leads to eternal bliss?

Well, i never said that "sex leads to eternal bliss", these are Ur words.
I said it is a means to realise Divine Bliss, which is different. Also, it includes certain essential prescriptions, without which sex turns to mere body function.


You had quoted Shyama Rahasya text which has some relevance, where in the word Samyoge (samyoga) as understood stands for conjunction, meeting point for two different objects. "Sharir indriye satva atma samyoge dhari jivitam iti ayu" as given in Charaka Samhita or "deha prana samyoge ayuhu" all refers the word Samyoga to conjunction. I want you to be specific where does the clear reference is given.

It is clear and exact in the context.
Of course, i am aware of given meaning of "samyoga", but in this case it refers primarily to sexual union. You may compare this with Shrividya's Jnanarnava-tantra, it is available online in sanskrit.
I cannot type the whole Tantras here just for the sake of arguement. As a representative of the Tradition, i can speak on its behalf.


Pertaining to Shri Abhinavagupta's work, than a mere reference it will be better if you can produce the script or translation so that we can discuss on that. There is no point where you give references and I search it down all by myself. If you give the reference better you quote.

I can provide sanskrit text if U'd like. But i cannot go on translating each and every passage here, sorry.
BTW 29th Ahnika of Tantraloka is published in english by J. Dupuche as "Abhinavagupta. The Kula Ritual" or something like that - check with google.com if interested.


Assuming the translation is exact, the point in discussion is 1. Sex might lead to eternal bliss and now this also adds 2. Sex is enjoyment of mind. If this is carries blanket acceptance, a child molester mind might seek enjoyment verily in his activity, so does a drug addict and so does a murderer. Now, how do you relate Vijnana Bhairava text with the question in context, "Sex leading to eternal bliss". The text actually reads - "Wherever you find satisfaction, the very essence of bliss will be revealed to you if you remain in this place without mental wavering". This is well known. When your mind is tranquil, essence of bliss will be revealed. Now again it is for you to show, how does sex leads to this tranquil mind

Since sex in love and inside marriage is in total accordance with all Hindu scriptures, there is no reason not to apply given method of VBh. Do not confuse the issue with acts of violence or ignorance, please, which clearly go against Dharma.
Then, there is another passage in VBh which speaks specifically about sexual act. I can find it if i dig the book out, i have it in photocopy somewhere.


The only bliss Vijnana Bhairava talks about during sex ritual is bliss of love and how do you relate this to eternal bliss?

I doubt that VBh uses expression "bliss of love". This is needed to be checked.
Brahmananda is not eternal in a conventional sense, since it is out of time. One moment of direct anubhava of That is an experince of Eternity, it is not placed in time.

Scriptures say Shiva is Love. Thus, bliss of love verily is Eternal Bliss, Brahmananda.


This is what I was saying earlier, being in threads pertaining to Sankara bhagavatpada's system or other system, let us abstain from making statements pertaining to our sampradaya. Further, If you are making statements pertaining to your Kaula sect, also request you to acknowledge what is said first and then point what your sect says, otherwise it is evident that you are trying to make your views as the only correct versions. This is a suggestion.

I have clearly written that Kaula-naya is to be followed by Kaulas only. And each one has to follow his sampradaya.
But, some points U say are againts general Vedic or Hindu view - these only i argue with. Like that, grihasthi intending for Moksha do not have to abstain from sex for two reasons: it is simply not required by Shastras and moreover goes against his ashrama-dharma.
If some gurus taught this view (i haven't seen till now ANY proof of this from Ur side or from Kannan), it is mere personal opinion which in fact contradicts Vedic teaching.


Many times I had told my views pertaining to Sex and Grihasta - I say it again, I do not deny the fact that Grihasta can have sex, but mumukshu cannot have sex. If you still do not know this it means you have not exposed yourself to other philosophies other than Kaula

Yes, i know it is Ur view.
But verily this is not Hindu Dharma or Vedic teaching.

Arjuna
23 April 2006, 08:35 AM
1. Pure love is not ALWAYS sex as you presume.

I did not say this. Please, see again.
What i said is sex is natural manifestation of love between man and woman (shringara-rasika love). Of course it is not a necessary part in each case! We were discussing specially relationships of husband and wife - and in this particular case sex makes their feelings perfectly manifested. Since we live in "material world", expression of bhAva into physical actuality is natural. And since sexual love is natural and pure (note, LOVE and not "sex only"), it is no obstacle to upasana and Jnana, but quite the opposite - it helps to reach God.


2. Not only Bengalis all call this Shringaara

I did not say this, again :D
Simply i know Bengali tradition of Vaishnavism somewhat better, thus i speak what i know. I wasn't sure Shrivaishnavas use the same term.


5. Union as suggested by you in Radha Krishna bhakthi bhava is absolutely wrong as that pertains children of 7 years old. There is no reference of Radha being crossed the level of puberty. Your accusations leads to calling Hindu Gods for pedophilia. Better know the consequences of your statement and abstain from making such statements

U have to tell this to Sri Jayadeva and other Vaishnavas who thought so! This is not imagined by me or Tantric gurus.
As i know, no Scripture makes any notes on Radha's age. Moreover, she was married, as most gopis - they were parakiya-shaktis to Krishna! This implies they were mature enough.


I agree with this. Even my sect views similarly. We assign all beautiful things and women to Goddess Lakshmi

Then what is the reason to abstain from sexual relationships with one's wife in case of mumukshu?


You never considered puranas are authoritative. Better be consistent with your ideas. There is no point in making a statement and retracting it without due notice

I never considered Puranas as equal authority to Vedas and Agamas. But when Puranic view doesn't go against Shruti (Agamas included), it is authorative as well.
What i quoted is Tantric teaching - Kalika-purana is verily Tantric scripture written in Assam.


1. Out of five - is not it nine?

Bengali Vaishnavas have a system of 5 rasas, unlike more early system of 9 or 12 (i may be wrong in numbers, but i think 12 was also there).

ramkish42
23 April 2006, 02:09 PM
Well, i never said that "sex leads to eternal bliss", these are Ur words. I said it is a means to realise Divine Bliss, which is different.

"Of course it is not only bodily pleasure, but it is a sparkle of the Bliss of Brahman." Whose words are this?

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. Your statement in Vamachara thread page 3

1. Maithuna is a direct means of realising blissful pulsation of Consciousness Your (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=155&page=6Your) statement in Vamachara page 6 where in you say maithuna realises pulsation of consciousness and not eternal bliss - Pulsations of consciousness is a result of self inquiry and eternal bliss is a result of inquiry on God(Brahmajinjaasa, as put in by Maharishi Ved Vyasa)

Thus the very enjoyment is upasana — when the attitude is such. For this reason Yoni-tantra says: “Happiness is achieved through enjoyment and Liberation is achieved through enjoyment Your statement in What is tantrik monism referring to sexual rituals page 7

Vijnana-bhairava Agama says: "Wherever one's mind has enjoyment, there one should hold it. In that very place he experinces the bliss of Brahman". is again your statement referring to sex as suggested by Vijnana Bhairava

It will be better if you are consistent with your statements in this forum


Of course, i am aware of given meaning of "samyoga", but in this case it refers primarily to sexual union. You may compare this with Shrividya's Jnanarnava-tantra, it is available online in sanskrit.
That is your assumption. If you want to mean Samyoga for Sexual union you are free to do it. As it is not so in general practise (non kaula sects) it will be better if you abstain from making such statements in general threads like this

Furthermore, there must be a reason if samyoga means sexual rituals here. Request you to provide us that reason

(A sample of such reason I had given while discussing the nature of the word narayana being proper noun and interpretation for the elephant word meaning ordinary elephant and lord - there are similar other examples also which I can provide with)


I can provide sanskrit text if U'd like. But i cannot go on translating each and every passage here, sorry.
I welcome any original quote


BTW 29th Ahnika of Tantraloka is published in english by J. Dupuche as "Abhinavagupta. The Kula Ritual" or something like that - check with google.com if interested. I am not interested in part translations. if the text is available in full, let me know it. If the need arises, I have good access to religious texts, I know how to take it, thanks for your suggestion, Do inform me incase the entire translations are available online


Since sex in love and inside marriage is in total accordance with all Hindu scriptures, there is no reason not to apply given method of VBh. Do not confuse the issue with acts of violence or ignorance, please, which clearly go against Dharma. Then, there is another passage in VBh which speaks specifically about sexual act. I can find it if i dig the book out, i have it in photocopy somewhere.
It is not me who is confusing indeed it is you. You perpetually shift you base from normal Grihasti to Mumukshu. My quotations was indeed talks about mumukshu. Again you are missing a query posted - How does Sex leads to tranquility of mind?

My comparisons was specific. I am talking about enjoyment concept as you suggested, suddenly you bring in adharma ignoring the very word you had used to refer sex - "Enjoyment".

You can dig out a copy, I had given you verse numbers where all sex is dealt in Vijnana Bhairava, from verse no 69 to 72, but it has only referece to sexual ritual and no where it says you can feel or realise supreme bliss. Check and get back to me on this

On the contrary, the very Vijnana Bhairava talks about
49. O beauty! Senses disseminated in your heart space, perceive the essence of the Shakti as indescribably fine gold powder which glitters in your heart and from there pours into space. Then you will know supreme bliss. (meditation)

53. See the entire world as a blazing inferno. Then, when all has turned into ashes, enter bliss.

64. In any activity, concentrate on the gap between inbreath and outbreath. Thus attain bliss
This is the what Vijnana Bhairava suggest about how to know supreme bliss

Whereas it is not clear about how bliss will come in while referring in other places, but just suggests reader to taste bliss by tasting food and drink (I should check my current translations with some two or three other translations, my present translations sounds as if bliss of intoxication, which I doubt 72. At the time of euphoria and expansion caused by delicate foods and drinks, be total in this delight and, through it, taste supreme bliss.)


I doubt that VBh uses expression "bliss of love". This is needed to be checked.
You can check again.

My version says this 68. When you practice a sex ritual, let thought reside in the quivering of your senses like wind in the leaves, and reach the celestial bliss of ecstatic love

It further till 71 quotes about bliss of love and not about eternal bliss.

Correct me if I am wrong for this shows verily I should buy another book on Vijnana Bhairava, if your version is true and my version is wrong


Brahmananda is not eternal in a conventional sense, since it is out of time. One moment of direct anubhava of That is an experince of Eternity, it is not placed in time.
You should describe your second statement well. First you say it is not eternal and in the very next you say it is eternal. May I understand Brahmanada is not eternal conventionally but eternal in modern sense? I am unable to make this up


Scriptures say Shiva is Love. Thus, bliss of love verily is Eternal Bliss, Brahmananda.

Shiva is love - correct; but this love is not sex. it is verily Samanya prema Bhava like love for cow, birds and other living organism - Sneha should be the right word considering the phrase as rendered in Dravidian Languages. English vocabulary is not strong for expressing "Love", like Sanskrit, Telugu, Tamil, Kanada and Malaylam (I stop here for this is what I know, I can also generalise all Indian Languages, but I wont be able to corroborate)- Prema, abhilasha, Sneha, Raaga:, Vaatsalya, Anuraaga:, pranaya:, shrungara, kaama, anangaraaga, daya, krupa, abhinivesha, madanavashya, - trust you and sarabhangaji can list more

How this love corroborates your view is unknown still, where as snehabhaava to other living creatures with the view that god lives in all and all living creatures are viewed as god, can lead to eternal bliss - falling into bhakthiyoga


I have clearly written that Kaula-naya is to be followed by Kaulas only. And each one has to follow his sampradaya.
I doubt as this is verily mere words of yours. You say sankara is really Kaula, Ramanuja has hidden Kuala tattvas from Vaishnav sects, trust both of us are new to this forum less than a year, (this forum is also very young, I trust), lest I will able to give more such instances.

You indeed want to say, Kaula is original Hindu sect and all sects support Kaula view inspite of the fact you verily acknowledge Kaula is non vedic religion whereas all other sects are vedic



This corroborates my earlier statement. You indeed want to say Kaula philosophy is indeed only Hindu/Vedic sect. Let me not take reference of all - Sankara Bhavathpada did advice mumukshu to abstain from sex, indeed he adviced to abstain from women in toto. Is this not a part of general vedic / hindu view?

[quote]Like that, grihasthi intending for Moksha do not have to abstain from sex for two reasons: it is simply not required by Shastras and moreover goes against his ashrama-dharma.

Not required only for Kaula Shastras (You forget to add), and in fact your ideas goes against Ashrama Dharma. As I had submitted, only Kama is not Grihasta dharma, even Artha is. As long as he upholds this purusharatha he remains as Grihasta. Kama as a purusharaatha is given permission to be practised by Grihasta but Grihasta is not defined on this enjoyment. As I had pointed out earlier, people of higher gnana in mythology entirely had very less children. For that fact, stories pertaining to Narada maharishi being trilokasanchaari will verify to my opinions.


If some gurus taught this view (i haven't seen till now ANY proof of this from Ur side or from Kannan), it is mere personal opinion which in fact contradicts Vedic teaching.
Point is your carefully and purposefully miss those texts, there was a similar text submitted to you for which you had replied that the submitted text belongs to Harsha. Your dismissed it saying it is independant view of Harsha. In the same way, if I reject your Kaula view that it is independant view Shri Abhinavaguptaji, I think you will be sorry for me for holding such view, in the same way I feel sorry for you for holding such views with submitted texts which you rejected as personal opinions of Shri Harsha



Yes, i know it is Ur view.
But verily this is not Hindu Dharma or Vedic teaching.
Indeed, it is your view that Kaula is only Hindu sect and all sects corroborate only Kaula

ramkish42
23 April 2006, 02:25 PM
Namaste,

I am not a Vaishnava in my practice or beliefs, and not a pandita in Vaishnava-shastras. But i will try to find exact references to Bhagavata and other main Vaishnava texts.

However, Gita-govinda is not mere poetry, it is authorative text for Orissan and Bengali Vaishavism. If it included any "heretical" ideas, it wouldn't be treated with such respect. Jayadeva was traditional Vaishnava and not a Tantric or Shakta-upasaka. Thus i see no reason to suspect him of deliberate imagining of facts of Krishna's life and sports.

I do not suggest you to be a vaishnavite or even do not advice you to change your sect.

It is more better if I stay in my sect and you in yours, for verily both sects are Hindu sects.

All I object is your interference in each and every thread spreading Kaula views irrespective of the nature of the thread clearly mentioning Kaula is the only Hindu Sect. You posting always had this attitude, lest you would not had said Sanakara is verily Kaula and Ramanuja hid Kaula traces in Vaishanvism

As far as Gita Govinda is concerned it is not authoritative text but a mere poetry. As this leads to clear discussions on basis on Vaishnavism, I suggest there must be another thread in Vaishnav part of this forum, and not here on this general thread. But I can give an analogy - for Vaishnavites, dasaavataraa does not include Buddha, as Shri Jayadeva addressed all dasa Avataaras of Shri Vishnu in order, there is no point in taking Buddha's name to complete the tenth avataraa. One view suggested to me in my private discussion group is that Buddha avataraa as it is completed avataraa and Kalki is yet to come, Shri Jayadeva could had opted for it, I submission to this is - if this has to be accepted, Shri jayadeva texts being popular in Bengal and Orissa, should had chosen Kapila Maharishi, or Dattavataraa instead of Buddha. For that fact he could had chosen any of the other 27 listed in Bhagavatha, but for the purpose of poetry, he stuck to dasavataraa sequence and when Krishnaavataraa is finished continued with Buddha as final avataraa, for poetry demands some order in the way things are depicted which in sharp contrast with sruthis and smritis which says what deems fit and correct

Reverence could not be equated with religious treatises. For that fact many of us know Harivamsa, Raghuvamsa, Meerabhai Bajans better than Rig Veda shakas (atharvana Veda sakhas could be very apt example) and former is equally popular. The fact is former cannot be religious treatises and later is not just a mere work of poetry

ramkish42
23 April 2006, 03:00 PM
I did not say this. Please, see again.
What i said is sex is natural manifestation of love between man and woman (shringara-rasika love). Of course it is not a necessary part in each case! We were discussing specially relationships of husband and wife - and in this particular case sex makes their feelings perfectly manifested. Since we live in "material world", expression of bhAva into physical actuality is natural. And since sexual love is natural and pure (note, LOVE and not "sex only"), it is no obstacle to upasana and Jnana, but quite the opposite - it helps to reach God.
This is another example, but I cannot be quoting you again and again. This part you have successfully abstained from clarifying - Sex help to reach god. I am discussing this with you for more than week now in three different threads, never you had clarified how sex helps to reach god - All you say in Kaula it is Upasana, when questioned you say even Vaishnavite has this upasana

Just tell me - are you going to clarify this or not. If yes, pls post it


I did not say this, again :D
Simply i know Bengali tradition of Vaishnavism somewhat better, thus i speak what i know. I wasn't sure Shrivaishnavas use the same term. This you did not said, I agree. As your phrase went Bengali vaishnavs call this Shrungara, I responded all call this as shrungara


U have to tell this to Sri Jayadeva and other Vaishnavas who thought so! This is not imagined by me or Tantric gurus.
As i know, no Scripture makes any notes on Radha's age. Moreover, she was married, as most gopis - they were parakiya-shaktis to Krishna! This implies they were mature enough.
This is indeed spread by Tantrics and more prominent sect of Vaishnav in Bengal - Gaudias did not subscribe to this view. They insist Shri krishna is "Param Brahmachary". If you can tell me which Vaishnavs feel so, I am duty bound to take this message to them as Gaudias are doing now.

Again you make clear that you do not read Hindu Scriptures but stick to what you Kaula guru says - No objection to that, but you should not say Shri Radha was married when she met Krishna, if so, I demand proof, if you do not submitt proof, I am going to raise a blasphemy complaint against you to moderator



Even my sect views similarly. We assign all beautiful things and women to Goddess Lakshmi Then what is the reason to abstain from sexual relationships with one's wife in case of mumukshu?
What do you suggest - to have sex with some one whom you see as your mother and mother goddess? This is ridiculous Arjun.

One of the Kaula sect member in my private discussion post suggested this and to this one smarta replied, "we verily say child is god, and if you suggest to have sex with some one whom you treat as your god, why you do not have sex with a child". All I did at that time is to shout at that smaarta for making such comment. I never thought I will be posting it in some forum like this to reply to a similar Kaula view.

RIDICULOUS CLAIM, THE MOST RIDICULOUS YOU COULD EVER POST


I never considered Puranas as equal authority to Vedas and Agamas. But when Puranic view doesn't go against Shruti (Agamas included), it is authorative as well.
What i quoted is Tantric teaching - Kalika-purana is verily Tantric scripture written in Assam.
Puraanas are as old as veda or dated very immediately to veda (this is my view) or very late dated (as per your view). If so, later works which are assigned to Maharishi Ved Vyasa (Let us not go to other rishis who compiled similar puranas for easy understanding) namely puranas and Ithihaasas should corroborate with views of agamas and Veda. I deny to accept how a person of level Maharishi Ved Vyasa could make this mistake of contradicting Agamas and Vedas. If there are any scribes in Puraanas and ithihaasas, then it should verily mean it was the intention of Maharishi Ved Vyasa, hence your idea of agama and Veda should be wrong. You do not see how to link two contradicting verses as seen by maharishi ved vyasa could be possibility.

Second possibility I had given earlier. Great gurus had a practise of denying authority of agamas but they objected to the authority of a mahapurana, indeed for any works to which Maharishi Ved Vyasa name is ascribed to. Shri Adi Sankara Bhavatpada rejected the authority of Paancharaatra for the fact, Paancharaatra suggested saranagati marga as method of eternity which is unknown for advaita. He did this falling in line with his perceptors. Whereas Shrimad Ramanuja falling in line with maharishi Bodhayana (Rishi Bodhayana is a sutrakara and smritikara, even today by his name we have Bodhayana amavasya for people who follow bodhayana sutras), accepted the authority of Paancharaatra, but denied authority to kaamika, yogaja kind of agamas. No where I read, these great gurus rejected authority of any mahapurana and itihaasas.

It is very evident that only Kaula practise varies, (non vedic philosophies varies at this), hence I deny to accept your view as general Hindu View. Yours idea is an exceptional case and not general view.


Bengali Vaishnavas have a system of 5 rasas, unlike more early system of 9 or 12 (i may be wrong in numbers, but i think 12 was also there).
I have nothing against this. I know Bangla practise varies in majority of views, with my law background, I can say, rest of India falling in Mitakshara sect of Hinduism whereas Bengal falls in Dayabhaga sect of Hinduism, hence other courts are suggested not to take precedents of Calcutta highcourt views on Hindu laws(Of course, to many instances related to marriage, succession, guardingship etc, we have generalised for we have specifically enacted laws and made our legal system almost universal, but when it comes to customary practises and issues not covered by enacted laws by Indian parliament, this blanket ban applies)

ramkish42
23 April 2006, 03:03 PM
Leaving behind all this controversies, I see, you are reaching 200 postings. By the time you read this thread, I reasonably trust you should have crossed 200 postings.

Congragulations

Arjuna
23 April 2006, 07:01 PM
"Of course it is not only bodily pleasure, but it is a sparkle of the Bliss of Brahman." Whose words are this?
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. Your statement in Vamachara thread page 3

All these statement of mine are exact. And yet i didn't use the wording U ascribed to me. I cannot say that "sex leads to eternal bliss", since this would imply that if one has sex it makes him permanently blissful, which may not be the case.
There are certain strict conditions, and i have underlined those several times quite clearly.


1. Maithuna is a direct means of realising blissful pulsation of Consciousness Your (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=155&page=6Your) statement in Vamachara page 6 where in you say maithuna realises pulsation of consciousness and not eternal bliss - Pulsations of consciousness is a result of self inquiry and eternal bliss is a result of inquiry on God(Brahmajinjaasa, as put in by Maharishi Ved Vyasa)

I do not see any 6th page in that thread. The link U provided leads to 5th page, and nothing is there what U mention. I don't know what U are reading. I never used the word "Brahma-jijnasa" in this forum and never called Vyasa by hindi title "Ved". U mix something...


It will be better if you are consistent with your statements in this forum

This is not a first case when U try to imagine inconsistency in my posts. The problem is with how U read, however...


That is your assumption. If you want to mean Samyoga for Sexual union you are free to do it. As it is not so in general practise (non kaula sects) it will be better if you abstain from making such statements in general threads like this

The quotation was from Kaula scripture! And i have a full right to make such statements - because truth is that. When U are not initiated into Kula-naya and haven't read discussed texts, how can U deny provided interpretation on the only basis that "U do not like it"? Isn't this really inconsistent? :p


Furthermore, there must be a reason if samyoga means sexual rituals here. Request you to provide us that reason

saMyoga m. conjunction , combination , connection (%{-ge} or %{-geSu} ifc. `" in connection with , with regard to , concerning "') , union or absorption with or in (gen. , or instr. with and without %{saha} , or loc. , or ifc.) A1past. MBh. &c. ; contact (esp. in phil. `" direct material contact "' , as of sesamum seed with rice-grains , enumerated among the 24 Gun2as of the Nya1ya cf. under %{sam-bandha}) Yogas. Kan2. Bha1sha1p. ; carnal contact , sexual union MBh. &c. ; matrimonial connection or relationship by marriage with or between (gen. , %{saha} with instr. , or comp.) Gaut. Mn. MBh. &c. ; a kind of alliance or peace made between two kings with a common object Ka1m. Hit. ; agreement of opinion , consensus (opposed to %{bheda}) R. ; applying one's self closely to , being engaged in , undertaking (%{-gaM} %{kR} , `" to undertake , set about , begin "' ; %{agnihotra-saMyogam} %{kR} , `" to undertake the maintenance of a sacred fire "') A1past. Mn. R. ; (in gram.) a conjunct consonant , combination of two or more consonants Pra1t. Pa1n2. &c. ; dependence of one case upon another , syntax Vop. ; (in astron.) conjunction of two or more heavenly bodies MW. ; total amount , sum VarBr2S. ; N. of S3iva MBh. ; %{-pRthak-tva} n. (in phil.) separateness with conjunction (a term applied to express the separateness of what is optional from what is a necessary constituent of anything) MW. [1112,3] ; %{-mantra} m. a nuptial text or formula Gaut. ; %{-viruddha} n. food which causes disease through being mixed MW.

Seeing the textual context of that statement and context of Kaula Doctrine, proper meaning in this case is "sexual union".


I welcome any original quote

Full text of Tantraloka is available in Muktabodha Online Library as PDF (with Viveka of Jayaratha) and as txt file. What i referred to is 29th Ahnika, near to beginning.


It is not me who is confusing indeed it is you. You perpetually shift you base from normal Grihasti to Mumukshu. My quotations was indeed talks about mumukshu. Again you are missing a query posted - How does Sex leads to tranquility of mind?

Who said grihasthi cannot be mumukshu, which Shastra?
And if he becomes mumukshu, dharma of grihasthashrama is still there. Moreover, do U mean to say that a grihasthi who wants to achieve Mukti has to stop loving his wife and deny her? This is a practical conclusion of Ur flowery words...

Sex MAY help to achieve tranquility of mind - when a person is meditating in sexual act or feeling. Otherwise, if he is submerged in intense love.
In orgasm mind is tranquil - the problem is that common people are unaware of themselves and [I]never notice this. When attitude and intention is proper, sexual enjoyment is a direct means to higher consciousness.

This is the aim - AWARENESS, and not making mind inactive (which is not possible and not needed). In most intense feelings Kaula is perfectly self-aware and free.

Regarding VBhT, i will see in sanskrit text. Gimme some three days, i am out of my place today and tomorrow.

Arjuna
23 April 2006, 07:45 PM
It further till 71 quotes about bliss of love and not about eternal bliss.

Personally i would really prefer bliss of love, if these two are different!
It is necessary to see exact sanskrit words used.


Correct me if I am wrong for this shows verily I should buy another book on Vijnana Bhairava, if your version is true and my version is wrong

I did not say that. The only "right" VBhT is sanskrit one, every translation is an interpretation. I have got a translation of Jaidev Singh, which i do not concider good in certain instances. But we can always compare with original and see, what is the proper meaning.


You should describe your second statement well. First you say it is not eternal and in the very next you say it is eternal. May I understand Brahmanada is not eternal conventionally but eternal in modern sense? I am unable to make this up

Well, the problem is in english word "eternal". As i understand it, it implies something unlimitedly extended in time (i may mistake, english is a foreign tongue for me). To show that i spoke about That, which is beyond time, is put it in capital letter, "Eternity".
This problem is linguistic and not essential.


Shiva is love - correct; but this love is not sex.

Shiva is verily called as "Kameshvara", Lord of Passion. And sex is a natural and sacred aspect of the most intimate kind of love.
If Shiva is love, He is also sexual love (not exclusively of course).


I doubt as this is verily mere words of yours. You say sankara is really Kaula, Ramanuja has hidden Kuala tattvas from Vaishnav sects, trust both of us are new to this forum less than a year, (this forum is also very young, I trust), lest I will able to give more such instances.

U again try to misinterpret my words.
About Shankara i told that such is the view of Kaula tradition, and historically this may not be true. About Ramanuja i said that he perhaps had known about existence of sexual ritual in Pancharatra tradition (as it is shown in LT). Since Lakshmi-tantra was written about 9-12 century, and its teaching verily existed at least some time before the text was written down, there is nothing impossible in my assumption.


You indeed want to say, Kaula is original Hindu sect and all sects support Kaula view inspite of the fact you verily acknowledge Kaula is non vedic religion whereas all other sects are vedic

Please do not use a ad-trick with "and all other toothpastes" :D
Which "all other"? Kaulism is based upon Shruti, but Agamic part of it. It is in accordance with Vedas, but its origin is not Vedic, but Agamic.
Same is the case with Pancharatra, Pashupata, Natha and many other traditions, which are based on Agamas.


This corroborates my earlier statement. You indeed want to say Kaula philosophy is indeed only Hindu/Vedic sect. Let me not take reference of all - Sankara Bhavathpada did advice mumukshu to abstain from sex, indeed he adviced to abstain from women in toto. Is this not a part of general vedic / hindu view?

He did not advice to grihasthis to abstain from their wives.
Generally, Gurus for sannyasis should be sannyasis, while Gurus for grihasthis - grihasthis. Shankara's system is essentially monastic one and not meant for grihasthis.


Not required only for Kaula Shastras (You forget to add), and in fact your ideas goes against Ashrama Dharma.

What exactly, please?
There are things in Tantra which go against Smriti, but i never promoted them for non-Kaulas.


As I had pointed out earlier, people of higher gnana in mythology entirely had very less children. For that fact, stories pertaining to Narada maharishi being trilokasanchaari will verify to my opinions.

Mythology proves nothing unless one understands its symbolism.
Moreover, in mythology Indra, Shiva and Krishna are very sex-minded! Of course, number of offsprings has no relation to the case, since one can enjoy sex and have no children at all.


Point is your carefully and purposefully miss those texts, there was a similar text submitted to you for which you had replied that the submitted text belongs to Harsha. Your dismissed it saying it is independant view of Harsha. In the same way, if I reject your Kaula view that it is independant view Shri Abhinavaguptaji, I think you will be sorry for me for holding such view, in the same way I feel sorry for you for holding such views with submitted texts which you rejected as personal opinions of Shri Harsha

Views of Sri Abhinavagupta are based upon Agamas and transmission of Jnana. This is clear from comparance his teachings with teachings of other Kaula-siddhas.
Those views which are against Agamas are not Kaulika and are to be rejected as personal opinions of biased personalities.
Abhinavagupta is such authority for Kaulism as Ramanuja for Shrivaishnavism or Shankara for Advaita-vedanta. U are supposed to have some respect to these Acharyas and their view - in frame of their traditions. I do not say Abhinavagupta should be an authority for Vaishnavas or Pashupatas, but for Kaulas he verily is.

Arjuna
23 April 2006, 09:15 PM
This is another example, but I cannot be quoting you again and again. This part you have successfully abstained from clarifying - Sex help to reach god. I am discussing this with you for more than week now in three different threads, never you had clarified how sex helps to reach god - All you say in Kaula it is Upasana, when questioned you say even Vaishnavite has this upasana
Just tell me - are you going to clarify this or not. If yes, pls post it

From the point of view of Bhakti, sexual love relationships are means to get one with Devi, as She reveals herself in a woman. For that reason woman is also called dUtI.
From the point of view of Jnana, it is a means to manifest Ananda and experience samavesha, which leads to Self-realisation.
I have written this several times, but U either do not notice (or read my posts) or simply want to go on argueing. Thank U, but for me enough. I have said too much already :). Really it won't be good to bury the truth of Love under hipes of words.


This is indeed spread by Tantrics and more prominent sect of Vaishnav in Bengal - Gaudias did not subscribe to this view. They insist Shri krishna is "Param Brahmachary". If you can tell me which Vaishnavs feel so, I am duty bound to take this message to them as Gaudias are doing now.

Again you make clear that you do not read Hindu Scriptures but stick to what you Kaula guru says - No objection to that, but you should not say Shri Radha was married when she met Krishna, if so, I demand proof, if you do not submitt proof, I am going to raise a blasphemy complaint against you to moderator

Radha was married and that is an orthodox view of Gaudiya-vaishnavism. What Sahajiyas did, they understood sexual relations of Radha and Krishna as a mode of sadhana, which is rejected by orthodox Gaudiya-vaishnavas. But both accept Radha was parakiya.
In fact some followers of Chaitanya did hold to svakiya view, but they were defeated in dispute and accepted parakiya doctrine.

I am not afraid of Ur complaints to the moderator, since there is no blasphemy in my words. Come on :p


What do you suggest - to have sex with some one whom you see as your mother and mother goddess? This is ridiculous Arjun.

What in fact is ridiculous - to see one's wife as a mother. Why then not vice versa? A queer logic if any.
Goddess is not only Mother, but Beloved. And in wife she is primarily Kameshvari (for a husband).

ramkish42
24 April 2006, 08:04 AM
All these statement of mine are exact. And yet i didn't use the wording U ascribed to me. I cannot say that "sex leads to eternal bliss", since this would imply that if one has sex it makes him permanently blissful, which may not be the case.
There are certain strict conditions, and i have underlined those several times quite clearly.
Your statement is clear, you are talking about manifesting Ananda, bliss of Brahman in the natural way - Sex. No point in saying one thing and reverting back when questioned


I do not see any 6th page in that thread. The link U provided leads to 5th page, and nothing is there what U mention. I don't know what U are reading. I never used the word "Brahma-jijnasa" in this forum and never called Vyasa by hindi title "Ved". U mix something...
The link provided takes me to 6th page, the thread has 8 pages in my system, better you check the whole thread for it is your words.

I was not saying Brahma Jijnasa is your word, It is the words of Maharish Ved Vyasa. I was clarifying what does pulsations of consiousness


This is not a first case when U try to imagine inconsistency in my posts. The problem is with how U read, however...
You do not see how your posting varies in meanings every time, I am sorry for that, If you see, my reading is different you have to clarify


The quotation was from Kaula scripture! And i have a full right to make such statements - because truth is that. When U are not initiated into Kula-naya and haven't read discussed texts, how can U deny provided interpretation on the only basis that "U do not like it"? Isn't this really inconsistent?

I understand you have every right to interpret the text, however, there is no point in saying as you authorised to intrepret you will interpret.

Further there is no point in assuming I havenot read any text


Seeing the textual context of that statement and context of Kaula Doctrine, proper meaning in this case is "sexual union".
This is what I am asking for, if your case is verily context of the statement, describe it, how Samyoga fits into your context


Who said grihasthi cannot be mumukshu, which Shastra?
And if he becomes mumukshu, dharma of grihasthashrama is still there. Moreover, do U mean to say that a grihasthi who wants to achieve Mukti has to stop loving his wife and deny her? This is a practical conclusion of Ur flowery words...
My words saying Grihasti cannot be mumukshu is a qualified word in terms of Sex. When Grihasti want to be practising sexual union with his partner he cannot be Mumukshu. You can understand this, as I verily pointe it out in many instances, that Sex alone is not Grihasti, even Artha part of chatur purushaartha is. I also pointed out only shri vaishnava sect allows grihasta to be mumukshu even if he after Artha, which is limited only for bhavath preeti.

Mumukshu does not stop loving his wife, but starts loving all living organisms as such, there is no separate treatment for his wife vis-a-vis others. i do not know what you mean by Dening her


Sex MAY help to achieve tranquility of mind - when a person is meditating in sexual act or feeling. Otherwise, if he is submerged in intense love. In orgasm mind is tranquil - the problem is that common people are unaware of themselves and never notice this. When attitude and intention is proper, sexual enjoyment is a direct means to higher consciousness.

What is that attitude and what is the intention?


This is the aim - AWARENESS, and not making mind inactive (which is not possible and not needed). In most intense feelings Kaula is perfectly self-aware and free.

Regarding VBhT, i will see in sanskrit text. Gimme some three days, i am out of my place today and tomorrow.

You have to explain this.

You are welcome to quote the original text after referring to it pls

ramkish42
24 April 2006, 08:35 AM
Personally i would really prefer bliss of love, if these two are different!
It is necessary to see exact sanskrit words used.
That is ok. Now you have show how does this bliss of sexual love will lead to tranquility of mind or eternity


I did not say that. The only "right" VBhT is sanskrit one, every translation is an interpretation. I have got a translation of Jaidev Singh, which i do not concider good in certain instances. But we can always compare with original and see, what is the proper meaning.
Is that available online, I do not want to spend money in buying books, online is easy and advantageous


Well, the problem is in english word "eternal". As i understand it, it implies something unlimitedly extended in time (i may mistake, english is a foreign tongue for me). To show that i spoke about That, which is beyond time, is put it in capital letter, "Eternity".
This problem is linguistic and not essential.
Either rephrase in english, or furnish original Sanskrit text or rephrase it in Hindi


Shiva is verily called as "Kameshvara", Lord of Passion. And sex is a natural and sacred aspect of the most intimate kind of love.
If Shiva is love, He is also sexual love (not exclusively of course).
All Advaitins and Shaivist agree with the view that Lord Shiva got the name of Kameshvara not be being the lord of Passion but by his virtue of overcoming the sense of Kama. The story of Manmada Dahana is verily popular, only after this dahana, Lord shiva is called Kameshvara. What I present is not vaishanavite view but views of all Shaivist.


U again try to misinterpret my words.
About Shankara i told that such is the view of Kaula tradition, and historically this may not be true. About Ramanuja i said that he perhaps had known about existence of sexual ritual in Pancharatra tradition (as it is shown in LT). Since Lakshmi-tantra was written about 9-12 century, and its teaching verily existed at least some time before the text was written down, there is nothing impossible in my assumption.
Historically, Lakshmi Tantra is dated after 1100AD. Further, there is no reference of sexual practise for mumukshu in lakshmi Tantra. Lakshmi Tantra talks about 4 methods for Moksha, which I had submitted already. Entire paancharaatra warns about sexual intercourse for it might divert vaishanavites from their concentration of Moksha and Lord.

Further, I remember you had asked a question to Shri Kannan about authenticity of Lakshmi Tantra, I thought Shri Kannan will get back to you on that, as I now see, Shri Kannan is not going to be here in for sometime, I reply to that in appropriate thread


Please do not use a ad-trick with "and all other toothpastes" :D
Which "all other"? Kaulism is based upon Shruti, but Agamic part of it. It is in accordance with Vedas, but its origin is not Vedic, but Agamic.
Same is the case with Pancharatra, Pashupata, Natha and many other traditions, which are based on Agamas.
If this is your actual idea, what is point in replying to What does Sankara meant thread, with Kaula views instead of replying with Sankara Views?


He did not advice to grihasthis to abstain from their wives.
Generally, Gurus for sannyasis should be sannyasis, while Gurus for grihasthis - grihasthis. Shankara's system is essentially monastic one and not meant for grihasthis.
Request you to reiterate your last line so that you will not retract it later.

Verily Sankara did not advice Grihasti to abstain from their wives but mumukshus should abstain from sex. From time and again I am saying this and marking it again here.

Sanyaasi guru for sanyaasi and grihasti guru for grihasti is verily your view and not the view of Hindu sect. People of three major philosophies, plus, gaudias, vallabacharya's disciples, followers of Sai baba - the list goes on and on for Sanyaasi gurus for people at large. It is your statement, and onus lies on you to prove it


Mythology proves nothing unless one understands its symbolism.
Moreover, in mythology Indra, Shiva and Krishna are very sex-minded! Of course, number of offsprings has no relation to the case, since one can enjoy sex and have no children at all.
Mythology is History recorded for Hinduism. Indra is sex minded, to some extent yes, but no where it is recorded he is mumukshu aiming for eternity. Regarding Shiva and Krishna sex mindedness does not apply, after making such statements I request you to read the mythology again


Views of Sri Abhinavagupta are based upon Agamas and transmission of Jnana. This is clear from comparance his teachings with teachings of other Kaula-siddhas.
Those views which are against Agamas are not Kaulika and are to be rejected as personal opinions of biased personalities.
Abhinavagupta is such authority for Kaulism as Ramanuja for Shrivaishnavism or Shankara for Advaita-vedanta. U are supposed to have some respect to these Acharyas and their view - in frame of their traditions. I do not say Abhinavagupta should be an authority for Vaishnavas or Pashupatas, but for Kaulas he verily is.
I have reverence for knowledge where ever it is whether they are aacharyas for a sect or not.

ramkish42
24 April 2006, 08:47 AM
From the point of view of Bhakti, sexual love relationships are means to get one with Devi, as She reveals herself in a woman. For that reason woman is also called dUtI.
From the point of view of Jnana, it is a means to manifest Ananda and experience samavesha, which leads to Self-realisation.
I have written this several times, but U either do not notice (or read my posts) or simply want to go on argueing. Thank U, but for me enough. I have said too much already :). Really it won't be good to bury the truth of Love under hipes of words.

I can see these statements occur often, every time you quote it to me, I am asking you to explain how does this actually happens. Never you had described this


Radha was married and that is an orthodox view of Gaudiya-vaishnavism. What Sahajiyas did, they understood sexual relations of Radha and Krishna as a mode of sadhana, which is rejected by orthodox Gaudiya-vaishnavas. But both accept Radha was parakiya.
In fact some followers of Chaitanya did hold to svakiya view, but they were defeated in dispute and accepted parakiya doctrine.
As this deals not with Kaula view, unless you give adequate proof, this merely stays as your personal opinion. When Shri Radha was Married, where is the record for the intercourse is yet to be submitted by you to corroborate you statements


I am not afraid of Ur complaints to the moderator, since there is no blasphemy in my words. Come on :p
I have not started this practise of complaining, for still this point I can handle it by myself, I thank my perceptors for the gift of debating.


What in fact is ridiculous - to see one's wife as a mother. Why then not vice versa? A queer logic if any.
Goddess is not only Mother, but Beloved. And in wife she is primarily Kameshvari (for a husband).
Seeing wife a Goddess Lakshmi does not authorise intercourse, verily true. However, there are some exceptions in viewing wife as Goddess Lakshmi. the most popular is rajasvala stris. They are not seen as Godess Lakshmi.

I had pointed out earlier that in Amavaasya and Shrardha, intercourse is barred, it is based on this view, that in these days, Woman in toto is seen verily as Goddess Lakshmi.

In general, in three major philosophies, and gaudias and suddha Advaitis, treat sex as tool for Pitruyagna, to have children, hence, during such events, husband does not see wife as goddess but invites her saying the truth behind his actions

I can provide you more logic if you feel this is inadequate, but request some time for it

ramkish42
24 April 2006, 01:43 PM
As i already had said, Jivanmukta (Siddha-yogi, Satkaula) is not dependant upon any outer act, since his very being is samyoga with Mahashakti. Though he may enjoy sex, perhaps he will do so only with his beloved, and thus NOT for the sake of physical enjoyment (he has enough of it), but for the sake of pure Love. If he is single, he is likely not to have any external sex, which is not a restraint of any kind but natural behaviour.

As this was purely Kaula view, I was not reponding to this, however, as I found some passage I would like to quote.

Ritualistic observances, it is said, should be followed so long as the Self is not purified by the acquisition of Knowledge (Jnana). When this has been accomplished and the Sadhaka has succeeded in conquering hit senses and to use the language of the book, in discarding his tongue and sexual organ (Jihvopasthaparityagi), then there is no necessity for ritualistic observances, for as has been said later on (Ch. XVII. v. 171)

Kaulavalinirnaya

Preface given by Sir John Woodroffe (Aurthur Avalon)

Though the context is rituals, the idea here is conquering hit senses, hence abstaining from sex should also be a part of Kuala.

I am not sure of this, hence, leaving to Arjun to comment

I am posting this here, for this also talks about Jnana

Further the following is also what I found in the text, hope it helps

The fifth Chapter speaks of the purification of the elements of worship. A portion of verse 102 is disordered. It says that no distinction of caste should be made when partaking of wine, (Madira) and in Maithuna. In verse 103, it is said, the Brahmana may use as substitutes (Anukalpa) of wine, honey or milk in a copper vessel or coconut water in a bell-metal vessel. The Kshatriya should use Goudi and the Vaishya Madhvi, and the Shudra may use any wine. The substitute for flesh is garlic or ginger and that for fish is thickened milk or any fruit or root roasted over fire. The substitute for Maithuna is the union of the flower of Aparajita (Clitoria Tornata) with Hayari (Nerium Odorum)


Hence Maithuna need not to be part of any ritual, even if it is sexual ritual as suggested in other Kaula texts, request Arjun to comment on this too

Arjuna
24 April 2006, 04:46 PM
Namaste,

Tomorrow i come home and check with Kaulavali. Then i will give detailed reply on this matter.

ramkish42
24 April 2006, 05:10 PM
Namaste,

Tomorrow i come home and check with Kaulavali. Then i will give detailed reply on this matter.
I am not sure whether Kaulavali is same as Kaulavalinirnaya.

In Vaishanavite system such names verily indicates different books, not sure about Kaula views

We treat one as original text and Nirnaya text is a supportive text which either describes the original or validates the authority of the original

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
24 April 2006, 06:16 PM
This is another example, but I cannot be quoting you again and again. This part you have successfully abstained from clarifying - Sex help to reach god. I am discussing this with you for more than week now in three different threads, never you had clarified how sex helps to reach god - All you say in Kaula it is Upasana, when questioned you say even Vaishnavite has this upasana

Just tell me - are you going to clarify this or not. If yes, pls post it

This you did not said, I agree. As your phrase went Bengali vaishnavs call this Shrungara, I responded all call this as shrungara


This is indeed spread by Tantrics and more prominent sect of Vaishnav in Bengal - Gaudias did not subscribe to this view. They insist Shri krishna is "Param Brahmachary". If you can tell me which Vaishnavs feel so, I am duty bound to take this message to them as Gaudias are doing now.

Again you make clear that you do not read Hindu Scriptures but stick to what you Kaula guru says - No objection to that, but you should not say Shri Radha was married when she met Krishna, if so, I demand proof, if you do not submitt proof, I am going to raise a blasphemy complaint against you to moderator


What do you suggest - to have sex with some one whom you see as your mother and mother goddess? This is ridiculous Arjun.

One of the Kaula sect member in my private discussion post suggested this and to this one smarta replied, "we verily say child is god, and if you suggest to have sex with some one whom you treat as your god, why you do not have sex with a child". All I did at that time is to shout at that smaarta for making such comment. I never thought I will be posting it in some forum like this to reply to a similar Kaula view.

RIDICULOUS CLAIM, THE MOST RIDICULOUS YOU COULD EVER POST


Puraanas are as old as veda or dated very immediately to veda (this is my view) or very late dated (as per your view). If so, later works which are assigned to Maharishi Ved Vyasa (Let us not go to other rishis who compiled similar puranas for easy understanding) namely puranas and Ithihaasas should corroborate with views of agamas and Veda. I deny to accept how a person of level Maharishi Ved Vyasa could make this mistake of contradicting Agamas and Vedas. If there are any scribes in Puraanas and ithihaasas, then it should verily mean it was the intention of Maharishi Ved Vyasa, hence your idea of agama and Veda should be wrong. You do not see how to link two contradicting verses as seen by maharishi ved vyasa could be possibility.

Second possibility I had given earlier. Great gurus had a practise of denying authority of agamas but they objected to the authority of a mahapurana, indeed for any works to which Maharishi Ved Vyasa name is ascribed to. Shri Adi Sankara Bhavatpada rejected the authority of Paancharaatra for the fact, Paancharaatra suggested saranagati marga as method of eternity which is unknown for advaita. He did this falling in line with his perceptors. Whereas Shrimad Ramanuja falling in line with maharishi Bodhayana (Rishi Bodhayana is a sutrakara and smritikara, even today by his name we have Bodhayana amavasya for people who follow bodhayana sutras), accepted the authority of Paancharaatra, but denied authority to kaamika, yogaja kind of agamas. No where I read, these great gurus rejected authority of any mahapurana and itihaasas.

It is very evident that only Kaula practise varies, (non vedic philosophies varies at this), hence I deny to accept your view as general Hindu View. Yours idea is an exceptional case and not general view.


I have nothing against this. I know Bangla practise varies in majority of views, with my law background, I can say, rest of India falling in Mitakshara sect of Hinduism whereas Bengal falls in Dayabhaga sect of Hinduism, hence other courts are suggested not to take precedents of Calcutta highcourt views on Hindu laws(Of course, to many instances related to marriage, succession, guardingship etc, we have generalised for we have specifically enacted laws and made our legal system almost universal, but when it comes to customary practises and issues not covered by enacted laws by Indian parliament, this blanket ban applies)

Just a comment or two here. You routinely accuse others of not providing evidence, posting blasphemy, and making ridiculous claims yet it is you who is the one consistently derailing threads into different topics than were originally intended. This thread started out with the purpose of discussing Jnana Yoga and for the most part in a non-sectarian sense. From the very beginning, you have been preaching your own sectarian views and telling others who don't even follow the same sect as yours that they are wrong. You frequently throw code words such as Gaudiya or Tantric around indicating that you are unable to discuss any Hindu topic without breaking it down into which sect one is following. Additionally, your views on this topic are only shared by a rather small minority of Hindus so it is unreasonable for you to preach to the rest of us. It is time to accept that not all Hindus follow the same dharma school as you nor have the same views.

I cannot speak for the others here on this board, but I am personally tired of reading these constant right vs. wrong debates that are started by you when the other users had no such intent. The original post as far as I can remember it either threw out an opinion on Jnana Yoga from a non-sectarian point of view or from a particular school that is not one of the ones you have referred to in your posts. Before complaining about other people posting "blasphemy" every time they post something you don't agree with, I am complaining that you are turning virtually every thread on this forum into a debate of your school vs. everyone else's. Please listen to your own words and understand that all of Hinduism doesn't revolve around your school or your own opinions. This is a Hindu board not a board just for your school. Namaskaar. ~BYS~

ramkish42
24 April 2006, 06:31 PM
Just a comment or two here. You routinely accuse others of not providing evidence, posting blasphemy, and making ridiculous claims yet it is you who is the one consistently derailing threads into different topics than were originally intended. This thread started out with the purpose of discussing Jnana Yoga and for the most part in a non-sectarian sense. From the very beginning, you have been preaching your own sectarian views and telling others who don't even follow the same sect as yours that they are wrong. You frequently throw code words such as Gaudiya or Tantric around indicating that you are unable to discuss any Hindu topic without breaking it down into which sect one is following. Additionally, your views on this topic are only shared by a rather small minority of Hindus so it is unreasonable for you to preach to the rest of us. It is time to accept that not all Hindus follow the same dharma school as you nor have the same views.

Dear moderator

Thanks for your advice.

If you see this thread (Post 5) and What does Sanakra meant thread (Post 12), references to Kaula was first started by Shri Arjuna and not by me.

Whereever I had posted I had posted it as my independant views never with an intention to debate on those.

This is verily your forum, but request not to accuse me for what is started by some one else

Even in this thread, I had asked Shri Arjuna why he is breaking this thread into sectarian thoughts, but this missed you scrutiny


I cannot speak for the others here on this board, but I am personally tired of reading these constant right vs. wrong debates that are started by you when the other users had no such intent. The original post as far as I can remember it either threw out an opinion on Jnana Yoga from a non-sectarian point of view or from a particular school that is not one of the ones you have referred to in your posts. Before complaining about other people posting "blasphemy" every time they post something you don't agree with, I am complaining that you are turning virtually every thread on this forum into a debate of your school vs. everyone else's. Please listen to your own words and understand that all of Hinduism doesn't revolve around your school or your own opinions. This is a Hindu board not a board just for your school. Namaskaar. ~BYS~

No where I had mentioned people to accept my sect views of Hinduism. I am discussing about their sect which they want to post.

If you do not want me to be part of this forum, request you to indicate it in clear terms

Request you to show me evidence where does I had derailed the thread before someone made it derailed

If the moderator considers no views against Tantrism should be made, request you to indicate that also in clear terms pls

Arjuna
24 April 2006, 06:32 PM
I am not sure whether Kaulavali is same as Kaulavalinirnaya.
In Vaishanavite system such names verily indicates different books, not sure about Kaula views
We treat one as original text and Nirnaya text is a supportive text which either describes the original or validates the authority of the original

Do not worry, i simply used a short name :)
Text is the same, and even edition might be the same as well.

I have never heard of any Kaula text named simply "Kaulavali".

Jalasayanan
25 April 2006, 01:13 PM
As this was purely Kaula view, I was not reponding to this, however, as I found some passage I would like to quote.

Ritualistic observances, it is said, should be followed so long as the Self is not purified by the acquisition of Knowledge (Jnana). When this has been accomplished and the Sadhaka has succeeded in conquering hit senses and to use the language of the book, in discarding his tongue and sexual organ (Jihvopasthaparityagi), then there is no necessity for ritualistic observances, for as has been said later on (Ch. XVII. v. 171)

Kaulavalinirnaya

Preface given by Sir John Woodroffe (Aurthur Avalon)

Though the context is rituals, the idea here is conquering hit senses, hence abstaining from sex should also be a part of Kuala.

I am not sure of this, hence, leaving to Arjun to comment

I am posting this here, for this also talks about Jnana

Further the following is also what I found in the text, hope it helps

The fifth Chapter speaks of the purification of the elements of worship. A portion of verse 102 is disordered. It says that no distinction of caste should be made when partaking of wine, (Madira) and in Maithuna. In verse 103, it is said, the Brahmana may use as substitutes (Anukalpa) of wine, honey or milk in a copper vessel or coconut water in a bell-metal vessel. The Kshatriya should use Goudi and the Vaishya Madhvi, and the Shudra may use any wine. The substitute for flesh is garlic or ginger and that for fish is thickened milk or any fruit or root roasted over fire. The substitute for Maithuna is the union of the flower of Aparajita (Clitoria Tornata) with Hayari (Nerium Odorum)


Hence Maithuna need not to be part of any ritual, even if it is sexual ritual as suggested in other Kaula texts, request Arjun to comment on this too
Great Findings.

I was also looking for these texts

Thanks

Arjuna
26 April 2006, 06:02 AM
Namaste,

I have replied to some scriptural points in the thread on Vamachara, including the true meaning of jihvopastha-parityaga. Please see it there.

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).
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.

ramkish42
26 April 2006, 08:22 AM
Namaste,

I have replied to some scriptural points in the thread on Vamachara, including the true meaning of jihvopastha-parityaga. Please see it there.

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).
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.
Thank you, we will continue all our discussion in one thread.

We will let this thread to deal with Jnana in general

ramkish42
26 April 2006, 08:43 AM
Yes I do understand.

The fact goes like this.

Freedom has twosides, internal and external whereas brahma gnana is only internal. How does this addressess external aspects of freedom, i.e. Moksha i.e. absense of rebirth.

God bestows his blessings in terms of gnana is well understood, but as the query goes, does a person who has realised this brahma gnana, if he alive for next say 10 / 20 years, how do you explain his survival vis-a-vis problems faced by him Vs Moksha. Is he living in Moksha or is it otherwise

I made this query adding to general view of this thread. As it detracted by some other it is left at that point itself.

Any comments on this query

Arjuna
18 May 2006, 06:46 AM
I made this query adding to general view of this thread. As it detracted by some other it is left at that point itself.

Any comments on this query

A yogi sees the world as non-different from Consciousness.

atanu
16 June 2006, 05:52 AM
God bestows his blessings in terms of gnana is well understood, but as the query goes, does a person who has realised this brahma gnana, if he alive for next say 10 / 20 years, how do you explain his survival vis-a-vis problems faced by him Vs Moksha. Is he living in Moksha or is it otherwise

I made this query adding to general view of this thread. As it detracted by some other it is left at that point itself.

Any comments on this query

Namaskar

A person who realises Brahma jnana dies?

Brahma jnani is not the body that onlookers believe Him to be. So, these questions are valid (may be) from the point of onlooker who is not a jnani.

Brahma jnani may shed his body voluntarily or may be required to do so as per the destiny ruling the body, but does the spirit die? God bestowing jnana may mean different things to different people but brahma jnana is nectar of immortality.

The spirit does not die. I am the spirit is the brahma jnana. And for spirit there is no external and internal.

Om