PDA

View Full Version : What is tantrik monism



Singhi Kaya
03 April 2006, 03:54 PM
I have some idea of Tantras - but not from scolarly standpoint. Tantra was defined to me as "Sanatana Sadhan Tantra". Sanatan Dharma being the philosphical and dharmic aspect while Tantra being the Upasana aspect. It's ture many tantra's (some I know with little knowledge like the mahanirvana) give philosophical discourses as well, but is it not primarily the sastras on "How to Worship?". ??

If there is a seperate philosophy in Tantra's how is it different from other's within Sanatan Dharma?

If someone with better knowledge of tantras (Arjuna??) than me can explain please ...

Btw, by Tantra I mean only hindu tantra.


PS:My first day here, and I'm on a roll. Better pack stuff for the day:D

Arjuna
03 April 2006, 06:52 PM
Greetings!

1. In the sense used from at least 9th century e.v. word "Tantra" refers to the distinct trend in Hinduism, which is complete and perfect in itself. To be more precise we use the term "Kaula-tantrism" or "Shakta-tantrism".
(In ancient Vedic religion "tantra" meant ritual procedure, that's right. But Tantrism is a mystical tradition that has philosophy and pratical method of its own.)
Tantrism is "practical" not in the sense it is all about rituals etc, not at all. It is practical because it leads to live realisation of metaphisical Truth, to Moksha in the very normal life, to God-realisation being in the world.

2. Tantrism has a distinct, though not "separate" philosophy. There are some other schools similar to Tantrism is certain points. Of course, basic revelations of Upanishads and Gita are aqknowledged by Tantrism.
However, there are differences also. Tantric monism is called Paradvaita, "the highest monism". It is in fact the only pure monism, since so called avdaita of Shankara is not pure monism (not to mention other schools). Only some rare Shaiva and Vaishanava schools (original Nathism, Shuddhadhvaita of Vallabha) can be concidered to be monistic in proper sense — and these were influenced by Tantric doctrine.
Tantrism emphasised the necessity of Yoga — which is quiet different if not opposite to Patanjali and later Natha teaching. While the latter two schools in fact promote dualism, viyoga, separation of Purusha from prakriti (which naturally leads to asceticism), Tantrism states non-dualism, unification of Siva and Shakti (naturally leading to union of mukti and bhukti, consciousness and power, male and female).
Tantrism teachs that spiritual development is a result of Divine grace only. It rejects technical approach of modern "yoga" and "tantra". Essentially Tantrism is bhakti doctrine, but unlike Vaishnava schools, a monistic kind of it.

I could suggest U to read B. N. Pandit's book about principles of Kashmir Shaivism. It is very good and also written in a simple and easy-to-understand manner, which makes it more accessible than Tantra-sara in original :)
For some idea on Tantric philosophy U may also study Paramarthasara of Sri Abhinavagupta and Svatantrya-darpana by B. N. Pandit.

Singhi Kaya
04 April 2006, 11:44 AM
Thanks for the information, will have to put some effort into studying the books.

Purusha and prakriti in sankhya are 2 entities in this creation.
Naturally in Shakta language they are 2 aspect/better 2 movements of mahashakti.
Iswara of Yoga is beyond pursha and prakriti. (That's what I though, sankhya coined purusha and prakriti, 2 aspects whcich keeps the word dynamic, it didn't accpt an Iswara beyond this).
Iswara is thus neither mahashakti nor purusha.

In all these conflict we have the vedas to fall back on, where brahma is described as being faster than mind yet unmoving. One aspect being mahashakti, other being unmoving brahma.

Same as Krishna suggests that he is the doer but in the last chapter says Atma doesn't do any work.

I'm not a scolar nor a student of philosophy, so I may be wrong in all this.

Only one aspect isn't clear to me:-


Tantrism teachs that spiritual development is a result of Divine grace only. It rejects technical approach of modern "yoga" and "tantra".
But for tantras divine is the active brahma or mahashati, I can understand what it may be saying. But interpretated as a pure mental bhakti it render's tantrik kriyas which is the greatest gift of that wing to mankind meaningless. Why not spend all day in bhajan/kirtan. I'm sure it is not as simple as that.

Also I think asceticism is very much an integral part of tantras when it comes to the divachari vehcle? It is aplauded as the highest path I think. I have heard most published tantras are of the Virachari wing. Is this true? And effort there was to build a system complete in itself?
Do you have any idea of published work of any divyachari sect?

As a modern day hindu, I think everything has to be founded in Vedas and the Gita. Those are our source of all inspirations. Brahmins made those their property and rest created their own sampradayas - the result from the colllective standpoint was disastrous.

Arjuna
04 April 2006, 12:19 PM
Purusha and prakriti in sankhya are 2 entities in this creation.
Naturally in Shakta language they are 2 aspect/better 2 movements of mahashakti.
Iswara of Yoga is beyond pursha and prakriti. (That's what I though, sankhya coined purusha and prakriti, 2 aspects whcich keeps the word dynamic, it didn't accpt an Iswara beyond this).
Iswara is thus neither mahashakti nor purusha.

No U are wrong ;). In Sankhya Ishvara is a special kind of Purusha, but nothing like "beyond" (Sankhya simply has no tattva beyond Purusha) — same with Yoga of Patanjali. There is even atheistic school of Sankhya; in fact, Ishvara is unnecessary addition to Sankhya system as it is. Theory of Sankhya is close to Jainism in this matter.

While in Tantrism, which recognizes 36 tattvas, Ishvara is not Purusha (he is above the latter), but he is lower that Parashakti (in fact, he is one of Her aspects or powers).


In all these conflict we have the vedas to fall back on, where brahma is described as being faster than mind yet unmoving. One aspect being mahashakti, other being unmoving brahma.

This is correct.


Only one aspect isn't clear to me:-
But for tantras divine is the active brahma or mahashati, I can understand what it may be saying. But interpretated as a pure mental bhakti it render's tantrik kriyas which is the greatest gift of that wing to mankind meaningless. Why not spend all day in bhajan/kirtan. I'm sure it is not as simple as that.

Who said that love/devotion is equal to sentimental stuff like singing bhajans? Bhakti of Tantras is the total one, purna. It is all-including (and for sure not merely "mental"). Love is active side of Parabrahman, it is the essence of Chiti Herself.
In the Kaula mode of bhakti, one is making Ananda manifest on every plane including physical.
I am not sure what U personally mean by "tantric kriyas" — U may put it in more detail. But in any case Tantrism being dhrama of Love in its heart, incorporates every side of our being. Thus, in practical life it is karma-yoga, not bhajan singing (although beautiful and sincere singing is also yoga).


Also I think asceticism is very much an integral part of tantras when it comes to the divachari vehcle? It is aplauded as the highest path I think. I have heard most published tantras are of the Virachari wing. Is this true? And effort there was to build a system complete in itself?
Do you have any idea of published work of any divyachari sect?

What is referred to as divya-bhava is a summit of vira-bhava. While viras follow Vamachara, divyas follow Kaulachara (which is again SAME Vamachara but more deeply realised).
Highest path is Kaulachara, according to Tantras (kaulAt parataraM nahi). And in Kaulachara ascetisism is neither required nor advocated. Yes, Kaula is free to choose his path. If he wills, he may pretend to be an ascetic — while truely he is still bhogi, enjoyer. But more natural for him is to be bhogi in outer life as well.
There is NO "divyachari" sect existing. Divya-bhava is a state reached through practice of Virachara.


As a modern day hindu, I think everything has to be founded in Vedas and the Gita. Those are our source of all inspirations. Brahmins made those their property and rest created their own sampradayas - the result from the colllective standpoint was disastrous.

It is practically impossible to rely on Vedas (if we mean 4 samhitas by this word) nowadays. As it is said in Agamas, for kali-yuga the only way to Moksha is that which is given in Tantras.
And this is in fact true. All Hindu mystical traditions are Tantric in their essense (if not in form).

Singhi Kaya
04 April 2006, 01:30 PM
Let me make the word asceticism more clear. I meant brahmacharya, may not involve leaving as a complete ascetic. I know it was the foundation of vedic sadhana. I know it is non-negotiable (one has to be a brahmachari to be initiated) in at least some vehcle of divyahcara.

I have this vague idea that in virachara and paswachara brahmacharya is not stressed. Is this true? Since so much of mis-interpretation goes on this 2 traditions (google search tantra will take you to porn sites perhaves!), I can not put much weight to these ideas.

I'm only shakta-abhishiktya - initiated to the first dikshya of shakti sadhana.
Thus I can do kali puja, nothing beyond it. So my idea of tantrik kriya's was essentially bhutasuddhi and nasya.

I agree that all modern hindu sects and even normal daily rituals are totally influenced by the Tantra. Anyone who has perticipated in a hindu ritual and has some idea of Tantra will know this.

Arjuna
04 April 2006, 03:22 PM
Let me make the word asceticism more clear. I meant brahmacharya, may not involve leaving as a complete ascetic. I know it was the foundation of vedic sadhana. I know it is non-negotiable (one has to be a brahmachari to be initiated) in at least some vehcle of divyahcara.

Again, this is wrong at every point.

1. Brahmacharya in Vedic sense was a stage of life (of youth who studied with guru), and not a "foundation of sadhana" at all. Nowhere Vedas require being a celibate. Vedic Rishis were usually married and had children. Vedas teach to view sex and sacred act pleasant to gods. Again, sex was a part of some Vedic major rituals.
For grihastha (married grown-up) celibate is not only unnatural, but adharma. It is AGAINST sadhana. To satisfy wife sexually is a dharma of every husband (of course if she wants that), be he common man or upasaka.

2. Again, there're no such specific Tantric sects which are divyachari. Divya-bhava is a STAGE of Kaula sadhana, reached through Vamachara — which involves necessarily sexual side. Thus, to become divya one HAS TO get initiation into Vama-marga. There is no other way. And no one (apart from Shiva Himself) will or can make U divya straighaway.
However for one who had reached a stage of divya (he became siddha or satkaula) every path is open and possible. He MAY live as a celibate or may not. His sexual union is permanent — with the Goddess.

3. Finally, in Kaula-tantra brahmacharya has different, specific meaning. It is revealed in Tantraloka of Sri Abhinavagupta, 29 Ahnika. There the Master says that there are three kinds of bliss present in body, all of which are forms of Brahman (as it is said, Anando brahmaNo rUpaM tachcha dehe vyavasthitam), one of these is essential and two additional. First one is bliss of sexual union, other two of wine and flesh. He who adheres to these three kinds of bliss is a true brahmachari. He who abstains from these three, has no adhikara for Tantric sadhana.


I have this vague idea that in virachara and paswachara brahmacharya is not stressed. Is this true? Since so much of mis-interpretation goes on this 2 traditions (google search tantra will take you to porn sites perhaves!), I can not put much weight to these ideas.

Brahmacharya (as a celibate) is nowhere required in the whole of Kaula-tantra. However in pashu-bhava more restrictions are there. For example, pashu cannot take part in chakranushthana, especially bhairavi- and other chakras. But in normal life he is free to have sex (if he is married, it is a must). According to Smriti he is supposed to have sex only in a case he is married — but this is general case for adult.


I'm only shakta-abhishiktya - initiated to the first dikshya of shakti sadhana.
Thus I can do kali puja, nothing beyond it. So my idea of tantrik kriya's was essentially bhutasuddhi and nasya.

Then how can U judge beyond Ur level of diksha and knowledge of Agama?;) That too if have no diksha into Vamachara, U are still on a level of pashu-sadhana. Prescriptions of pashu-bhava are not applicable to vira and moreover to divya.

Of course, in Ur personal practice U have to follow Ur guru. But if we discuss Kaula doctrine, i have a full right to correct U in a context of general discussion. Hope U don't mind this :)

Singhi Kaya
04 April 2006, 04:05 PM
There is nothing to mind here.

My ideas are quite different on some of the above points, but I don't belong to a known lineage. Maybe we follow many practices which are intrinsically tantrik, but doesn't belong to any tantrik sampradaya. The 5 Ma-kar's (you refer to 3, I see here) have quite a subtle meaning to me. But my knowldege of published tantras is limited to argue on this.

I know about bramhacharya in vedas, but it is the foundation to what follows next and hence so much stressed.
About my case I have studied what follows beyond the basic shakta diksha.
(since in this life I don't expect to go beyond the basic leve, and the lieage is dead). So I know brahmacharya is must from 1st to last. I think it is a seperate lineage and not a general kaula tradition. But since practices are tantrik, I was engaged in the discussion:).

If you don't mind, are you a sadhak in the kaula tradition or a student/scolar? PM me if you don't want to disclose here. If don't want to disclose at all, then also ok :p

Arjuna
04 April 2006, 05:27 PM
1. Here we have to see not our personal ideas (these are irrelevant to the topic) but truth. If one admits himself to be a Kaula he has to accept authority of Kaula tradition (including Agama, Guru and avadhuta).
There is no requirement of brahmacharya as celibacy in Kaula-tantra (in general case). I would say in any case — the only one exception (always individual) is prescription of one's Kaula-guru. This is no my opinion, but Dharma of Kula.
Pashu-sadhakas are not Kaulas proper, thus they may follow rules set by Smriti or by sect they belong to.

2. Brahmacharya became (note the word) stressed due to a confusion after time of Adi Shankara. Never before it was a rule for every upasaka. Celibacy in Hindu tradition is prescribed ONLY for vaidika sannyasins and brahmacharins (young people before marriage). This is laid down by Smriti-shastras. Those who state that Hinduism requires brahmacharya for married people simply lie against truth.
Mahanirvana-tantra says that in kaliyuga only two ashramas are present: grihastha and avadhuta. In this pattern only some types of avadhutas have to keep celibacy (those who are not Kaulas).

3. If U take celibacy (let me use this term, 'coz brahmacharya for Kaula is smth opposite) as a rule, U have to take vaidika sannyasa. Otherwise it is adharma. Of course, U cannot marry then and cannot go into Tantrism any further (beyond pashu level).
But what is the reason for that? The ONLY valid reason is individual prescription of Kaula-guru (another one — phisical incapability, which is anadhikara for Tantra).

4. What happenned to Ur guru? What is Ur exact sampradaya?
ALL Shakta-tantric schools are Kaula. U are from Bengal, so possibly belong to some branch of Kali-kula.
What do U mean by "lineage is dead"?

5. I am both, but upasaka in the first place. From my name U could have understood that i had purnabhisheka. My Parameshthi-guru in Tara-vidya is Sri Bamakhepa, whom U must have heard about.

Singhi Kaya
06 April 2006, 03:29 PM
Many thanks for your replies. It has been quite insightful for me. In free time I must try to devote some time in studying the tantras and books. My ideas are still very vague it seems.



1. Here we have to see not our personal ideas (these are irrelevant to the topic) but truth. If one admits himself to be a Kaula he has to accept authority of Kaula tradition (including Agama, Guru and avadhuta).
There is no requirement of brahmacharya as celibacy in Kaula-tantra (in general case). I would say in any case — the only one exception (always individual) is prescription of one's Kaula-guru. This is no my opinion, but Dharma of Kula.
Pashu-sadhakas are not Kaulas proper, thus they may follow rules set by Smriti or by sect they belong to. Agreed. I agree our own idea will vary and what is generally accepted must be discussed here. Plus I'm not at all qualified to speak on Kaula tradition in general. But I accept the authoruty of the guru (param guru for that matter) and believe that brahmacharya is essential as a sadhak. This is my idea from my param guru. So may be it is wrong from a general kaula stand point. I don't think Anandamatha tradition is kaula tantra. It has it's own stages of initiations which is indeed very long and use of tantrik yoga is the main basis. But beyong Tantrik yoga, Tantra may have little influence on the path.


2. Brahmacharya became (note the word) stressed due to a confusion after time of Adi Shankara. Never before it was a rule for every upasaka. Celibacy in Hindu tradition is prescribed ONLY for vaidika sannyasins and brahmacharins (young people before marriage). This is laid down by Smriti-shastras. Those who state that Hinduism requires brahmacharya for married people simply lie against truth.
Mahanirvana-tantra says that in kaliyuga only two ashramas are present: grihastha and avadhuta. In this pattern only some types of avadhutas have to keep celibacy (those who are not Kaulas). In this respect I (with ovious lack of knowledge in the subject) will accept your view point. Brahmacharya is a high virtue and foundation for a happy familiy life in a vedic society. That everyone must become a celebate came from shankara, which may be a tactics to weaken the buddhist society. Only I'll add that tantras generally speak in a very plain language, hence chance of miss-interpreting is easy as many western scholars have done. But since you are a sadhak I accept your point of view with regards to kaula tradition in general. I understand basic goal of any sadhana is to overcome the bondages in mind. One may choose the path of celibacy and shun the object of sensual bondage or may indulge in a controlled manner and be free from it's bondage. I'm no one to speak on this if non-celebacy an accepted method in the general kaula tradition. Only I was little apprehensive when you quoted that one who shuns himself from the triple pleasure of wine , sex and flesh (meat)..I knew 5 of them..is doing adharma. Those words may have a meaning for a sadhaka in a particular stage of vama-marga and as I say may have a subtle meaning which only a guru can reveal. But such phrases can be very easily mis-interpreted by the modern mind to think tantra as a erotic and mystic art of how to make love-which it is not. They have done some good harm for the tradtion in general. One has to go through pasu marga first to enter vama marga. pasu's must not be fed with such words.

Anandamatha tradition as I understand doesn't not involve any rituals of the bamamarga and borrows from yogic aspects of kaulachar . As per my param guru's writings this tradition is abyakta (hidden) and is more than 2000 years old. So it is well older than when many moder tantrik texts.


3. If U take celibacy (let me use this term, 'coz brahmacharya for Kaula is smth opposite) as a rule, U have to take vaidika sannyasa. Otherwise it is adharma. Of course, U cannot marry then and cannot go into Tantrism any further (beyond pashu level).
But what is the reason for that? The ONLY valid reason is individual prescription of Kaula-guru (another one — phisical incapability, which is anadhikara for Tantra). Since Anandamatha tradition was not tantrik in that respect -just a very old hidden mystic cult, I will have a different idea.


4. What happenned to Ur guru? What is Ur exact sampradaya?
ALL Shakta-tantric schools are Kaula. U are from Bengal, so possibly belong to some branch of Kali-kula.
What do U mean by "lineage is dead"? I'm a follwer of swami satyananda saraswati. You will find some writings in the website I linked in the appropiate sections. He died before I discovered the philosophy. I don't think it is any of the shakta-tantrik sampradays though the entire stages of initiation are all about tantrik yoga. The first guru in kali yuga was Guarapada swami. GovindaPada swami was the 2nd. acharya Shankaracharya (adi shakaracharya) was the 3rd. So this lineage is indeed very old, much before modern tantrik texts were written. Swami satyananda was 142nd in the line. He founded the shaktibad dharma, but didn't pass on the lineage (or nobody I heard completed all the levels of initiations) as he expressed at this juncture of yuga change, samaj dharma and preserving hinduism is more important than individual sadhana. We will perish anyway if we contnue in the manner we have lived for past 2000 years-anyways off topic.


A few of his follwers were empowered to give the first stage of the diksha - which is shakta diksha. So I received that from one of them. It is more of upasana at a social level. But I have found that even basic scientific upasana has a lot of power to make one self calm in life (not claiming I'm calm though ). I aspire to be a karma yogi. If I feel that more serious spiritual initiaon is required beyond the basic I'll have to search for a spiritual guru. Philosophically and mentally I'm a shaktibadi and it is a social dharma for the worker.


5. I am both, but upasaka in the first place. From my name U could have understood that i had purnabhisheka. My Parameshthi-guru in Tara-vidya is Sri Bamakhepa, whom U must have heard about. I just wanted to know because as I have said I feel that only scolars cannot be true to the description of our heritage. Yes I have been to tarapeeth at least twice very recently. From my study of anandamatha tradition purnabhisheka comes after krama diksha which is the 2nd step after the basic shakta diksha. But it may not be same. If it is, then quite interesting.

Arjuna
06 April 2006, 07:55 PM
I don't think Anandamatha tradition is kaula tantra. It has it's own stages of initiations which is indeed very long and use of tantrik yoga is the main basis. But beyong Tantrik yoga, Tantra may have little influence on the path.

I am not quiet sure what is meant by Anandamatha. Do U refer to Anandamarga, a sect recently founded by Sarkar (forgot his first name) and still existing in Bengal?
I saw some swamis from that organization in Kolkata. They aren't kaulas and the whole of Anandamarga teaching is a kind of mixture of yoga and politics. I heard some things about illegal dealings of Sarkar himself but not sure if these are true.
Please correct me if i am mistaken.
Or do U refer to some local bengali tradition "Anandamata" (teaching of bliss)?


Only I was little apprehensive when you quoted that one who shuns himself from the triple pleasure of wine , sex and flesh (meat)..I knew 5 of them..is doing adharma. Those words may have a meaning for a sadhaka in a particular stage of vama-marga and as I say may have a subtle meaning which only a guru can reveal.

That phrase refers specifically to Kaulas (not to every Shakta-upasaka of course).
The idea of 5 Makaras is a latter development, we do not find it in early Tantras. Tantraloka was written in 10th century e. v., while all bengali and other Kaula-tantras that mention 5M were written significantly later.
Of course, in current practice five dravyas are used — in my paramparas also.


But such phrases can be very easily mis-interpreted by the modern mind to think tantra as a erotic and mystic art of how to make love-which it is not. They have done some good harm for the tradtion in general. One has to go through pasu marga first to enter vama marga. pasu's must not be fed with such words.

That's true, but i think that those who just want to drink, eat meat and f##k can easily do that without alleging Tantra. Nowadays there is no such a problem, one doesn't have to hide his inclinations. In fact it's troublesome for pashu to go through rituals or dhyana in order to fill his stomach :D
However i agree that without pashu-bhava there is usually no vira-bhava (BTW this is a statement of Kalivilasa-tantra).


Anandamatha tradition as I understand doesn't not involve any rituals of the bamamarga and borrows from yogic aspects of kaulachar . As per my param guru's writings this tradition is abyakta (hidden) and is more than 2000 years old. So it is well older than when many moder tantrik texts.

Well, regarding 2000 years that cannot be proved. Personally i doubt any such teaching could survive from that time. And no evidences are there.
Even Vedism is finished (there are shrauta-brahmanas even now, but they are a small minority and do not follow THAT Vedic religion anyway), what to say of any marginal cults. Vratyas also didn't survive, although some sects go in their line.
While U mention writings of Ur Paramaguru, why don't U reveal his name? He is not a secret person if he published books. Of course, that's up to U.


I'm a follwer of swami satyananda saraswati. You will find some writings in the website I linked in the appropiate sections. He died before I discovered the philosophy. I don't think it is any of the shakta-tantrik sampradays though the entire stages of initiation are all about tantrik yoga. The first guru in kali yuga was Guarapada swami. GovindaPada swami was the 2nd. acharya Shankaracharya (adi shakaracharya) was the 3rd. So this lineage is indeed very old, much before modern tantrik texts were written. Swami satyananda was 142nd in the line. He founded the shaktibad dharma, but didn't pass on the lineage (or nobody I heard completed all the levels of initiations) as he expressed at this juncture of yuga change, samaj dharma and preserving hinduism is more important than individual sadhana. We will perish anyway if we contnue in the manner we have lived for past 2000 years-anyways off topic.

So U have got initiations into two lines, one of Swami Satyananda and another — that Anandamata U mentioned previously?
About Satyananda i heard of course, some of his books have been published here in Russia. He was not a Kaula teacher (i cannot say whether he was an adept; it's typical for India to teach openly pashu-dharma and keep inside Virachara) but gave a kind of kriya-yoga.


A few of his follwers were empowered to give the first stage of the diksha - which is shakta diksha. So I received that from one of them. It is more of upasana at a social level. But I have found that even basic scientific upasana has a lot of power to make one self calm in life (not claiming I'm calm though ). I aspire to be a karma yogi. If I feel that more serious spiritual initiaon is required beyond the basic I'll have to search for a spiritual guru. Philosophically and mentally I'm a shaktibadi and it is a social dharma for the worker.

I understood :)


I just wanted to know because as I have said I feel that only scolars cannot be true to the description of our heritage. Yes I have been to tarapeeth at least twice very recently. From my study of anandamatha tradition purnabhisheka comes after krama diksha which is the 2nd step after the basic shakta diksha. But it may not be same. If it is, then quite interesting.

Something like that :)
Although i am not sure the diksha system is everywhere the same even in Bengal. Usually purnabhisheka and kaulabhisheka are taken as synonims. And yes, it comes after initial diksha (samanya) and specific (vishesha).

Singhi Kaya
09 April 2006, 03:32 AM
I am not quiet sure what is meant by Anandamatha. Do U refer to Anandamarga, a sect recently founded by Sarkar (forgot his first name) and still existing in Bengal?
I saw some swamis from that organization in Kolkata. They aren't kaulas and the whole of Anandamarga teaching is a kind of mixture of yoga and politics. I heard some things about illegal dealings of Sarkar himself but not sure if these are true.
Please correct me if i am mistaken.
Or do U refer to some local bengali tradition "Anandamata" (teaching of bliss)?

:eek:

No I don't belong to anandamarga. I only know about that organization as one which had clashes with the communist regime in bengal. There was a famous incident more than a decade back when some of the monks of that order were murdered in broad day light. I don't know much about their belief, little I have heard points to a bhavabadi organization (the term we use for spiritual oraganizations who use sentimentalism and imagination istead of sceintific yoga and philosophy). Neither I refer to "Anandamata".
AnadaMatha (Matha as in JoshiMatha) is the tradition of swami satyananda saraswati ji - the founder of Shaktibad doctrine. Details of what I know will be provided below.




That phrase refers specifically to Kaulas (not to every Shakta-upasaka of course).
The idea of 5 Makaras is a latter development, we do not find it in early Tantras. Tantraloka was written in 10th century e. v., while all bengali and other Kaula-tantras that mention 5M were written significantly later.
Of course, in current practice five dravyas are used — in my paramparas also.
Oviously, I didn't knew about this.



That's true, but i think that those who just want to drink, eat meat and f##k can easily do that without alleging Tantra. Nowadays there is no such a problem, one doesn't have to hide his inclinations. In fact it's troublesome for pashu to go through rituals or dhyana in order to fill his stomach :D
However i agree that without pashu-bhava there is usually no vira-bhava (BTW this is a statement of Kalivilasa-tantra).
And without Vira-bhava there is no Divya bhava? - may be true in the general sense. AnandaMatha tradition as I have read, didn't involve any Vira-Bhava rituals.


Well, regarding 2000 years that cannot be proved. Personally i doubt any such teaching could survive from that time. And no evidences are there.
Even Vedism is finished (there are shrauta-brahmanas even now, but they are a small minority and do not follow THAT Vedic religion anyway), what to say of any marginal cults. Vratyas also didn't survive, although some sects go in their line.
While U mention writings of Ur Paramaguru, why don't U reveal his name? He is not a secret person if he published books. Of course, that's up to U.
.
Well there is an element of faith on my part here. swamiji has written, there were texts which he had read which show the tree from Gaurapada swami (the param guru of Adi Shankaracharya) to his time. He was 142nd in the line. Simple arithmatic imples it actually should be much older than 2000 years - may be couple of thousand years more. Both Gourapada swami and Govindapada swami were said to be alive for 1000 years. All these enters a realm which doesn't make much meaning to me. I accept it since swamiji wrote it somewhere, and is quite insignificant a point to me since it doen't mean anything for Shaktibad. Had swamiji been alive and I was following the path of the anandamatha tradition beyond the basic, it may been much more important.



So U have got initiations into two lines, one of Swami Satyananda and another — that Anandamata U mentioned previously?
About Satyananda i heard of course, some of his books have been published here in Russia. He was not a Kaula teacher (i cannot say whether he was an adept; it's typical for India to teach openly pashu-dharma and keep inside Virachara) but gave a kind of kriya-yoga.
Swami Satyananda=Anandamatha Tradition :)
And Kriya Yoga (if you mean the shamyacharan lahiri's line which is still alive in bengal and elsewhere in the world) has little to do with this. I have got very little knowledge of Tantras. But to me the entire anadamatha tradition starting from the basic is divya bhava upasana. It's focus is in Tantrik Yoga. I'll elaborate in the next post.



Something like that :)
Although i am not sure the diksha system is everywhere the same even in Bengal. Usually purnabhisheka and kaulabhisheka are taken as synonims. And yes, it comes after initial diksha (samanya) and specific (vishesha).
Anadamatha has 8 stages of initiation - swamiji wrote in his autobiography, that it took 10-12 years to complete all initiations and enter Raja Yoga.

Singhi Kaya
09 April 2006, 04:28 AM
Anandamatha Tradition:-

There were 3 hidden Mathas before adi shankaracharya established the 4 Mathas in 4 corners of bharat.

The 3 hidden Mathas are
Matha – SumeruKhestra – Kailash
Sampradaya – kArshikA

Matha – ParamattmaKhestra – Manasarovar
Sampradaya – Satya

Matha – AnandaKhestra – Anubhuti
Sampradaya – Brahmananda (Gaurapada swami)


So this is an ancient lineage. Sannyasins of this tradition take the title of saraswati after completing all stages of initiation. This title should not be confused with the Das-nami Saraswati.

Very Brief description of the stages of initiation as in auto-biography of satyananda ji:-

Shaktabhishek – Upasana of Kali and the mahanisha sandhya.
Krama Bhishek – Upasana of Tara.
Purnabhishek – Upasana of Tripura These 3 initiations are to introduce the 3 principal movements of mahashakti
Kali = iccha shakti – the movement in mahashakti towards creation
Tara = kriya shakti – the movement in mahashakti against creation
Tripura = Jnana Shakti – the movement in mahashakti signifying equilibrium.

Swami Ji says all three are real movements which are present in creatiom’s shakti stage-beyond the Abyaka stage (Turiya Anubhuti).

The basis of the 3 stages is mainly tantrik mantra yoga. It seems only divya chari methods are used and no use of real M’kars are used. There is no charka sadhna. All upasana is done by the sadhak alone and in seclusion. Ofcourse Hatha and Laya yoga are assimilated at various stages as adviced by the Guru.

All the remaining initiations are advanced initions in Hatha and Laya yoga. I briefly name them.
The remaining abhishek’s are –

Samrajjya Diksha
Maha Samrajjya Diksha
Yoga Diksha
Mah Purna Diksha Many of the above Diksha’s have multiple stages as can be expected.

At the end of all the above initiations and finishing the purascharana’s the sadhak then takes refuge in Raja Yoga and Akash Vritti. This RajaYoga is 16 step (unlike the 8 step patanjali yoga) and is very advanced meditation technique. One has to stay in Raja Yoga for 12 years before talking Virja or Sannayasa. As we can see even being an “Tantrik” path it is fully ascetic.

Arjuna
09 April 2006, 04:36 AM
No I don't belong to anandamarga.

Happy to hear this ;)


AnadaMatha (Matha as in JoshiMatha) is the tradition of swami satyananda saraswati ji - the founder of Shaktibad doctrine. Details of what I know will be provided below.

I got it. Usually "maTha" is written in english with a dash. Since U wrote it in one word i got confused :)


And without Vira-bhava there is no Divya bhava? - may be true in the general sense. AnandaMatha tradition as I have read, didn't involve any Vira-Bhava rituals.

In this case the teaching of Ananda-matha is yogic and not tantric.
Yoga may not include any Vira-marga (although even later tradition of Natha-yoga did include sexual practices as it is evident from Shiva-samhita and Hathayoga-pradipika), like ashtanga of Patanjali. Tantras usually consider such types of yoga as leading to mitA-siddhi, limited attainment (as opposed to Kula-yoga which gives jIvan-mukti).


Well there is an element of faith on my part here. swamiji has written, there were texts which he had read which show the tree from Gaurapada swami (the param guru of Adi Shankaracharya) to his time. He was 142nd in the line. Simple arithmatic imples it actually should be much older than 2000 years - may be couple of thousand years more. Both Gourapada swami and Govindapada swami were said to be alive for 1000 years.

Adi Shankara lived appr. in 7-8th century C. E. Yes, Shri Gaudapada, paramaguru of Shankara, is considered to be a Shrividya (Tantric) master and the author of Shrividya-ratnasutras. This is not proved historically, but traditionally accepted.
Theoretically thus, lineage of Satyananda could be traced to this time (if we admit that line was unbroken and the Kula-parampara was kept).
However it isn't proper to think that each and every matha and dashanami-sannyasi is related to this Shrividya lineage through Shankara. Some are, but as i know minority. Only those who are initiated through kaulabhisheka are fully initiated into Shrividya and can be gurus to pass the lineage further.
Of course i cannot know about Satyananda being Kaula or not. As i said, it is common in India to hide one's true practice (which is literally in accordance with Tantric teaching about gupti), i even heard that Shivananda was in fact Tantric — though in his books he wrote nonsense on this subject. Mat be...


And Kriya Yoga (if you mean the shamyacharan lahiri's line which is still alive in bengal and elsewhere in the world) has little to do with this. I have got very little knowledge of Tantras. But to me the entire anadamatha tradition starting from the basic is divya bhava upasana. It's focus is in Tantrik Yoga. I'll elaborate in the next post.

No, i didn't mean Babaji's lineage of kriya-yoga (i am aware it is existing, and not only in Bengal ;) ).
There is no other Tantric yoga apart from that of Kula (in broad definition of this term). System of Satyananda is for sure yogic, but where is the reason to consider it to be Tantric? We do not know what he followed for himself (he might have been Vira, Kaula or whatever), but his teaching — at least as U put it — is not Tantric one.

sarabhanga
09 April 2006, 06:28 AM
Namaste Singhi,

Shri Shankaracarya established seven Mathas ~ four Amnaya (manifest directional) Maths and three purely “experiential” Mathas.

The fifth Matha is Sumeru, the Kshetra is Kailash, the Devi is Maya, and the Sampradaya is Kashi.

The sixth Matha is Paramatma, the Kshetra is Nabha-Sarovara (the Sky), the Devi is Manasi-Maya, and the Sampradaya is Sattva.

The seventh Matha is Sahasrarkadyuti (i.e. Ananda), the Kshetra is Anubhuti, the Devi is Cit-Shakti, and the Sampradaya is Satshishya (i.e. a true disciple of Shri Gaudapada).

All Dashanami Sannyasins who are associated with Jyotish Matha have the suffix Ananda added to their name when they are first initiated as Brahmacaris.

And only after a traditional period of 6 or 12 years are they initiated as Avadhuta, and traditionally only after another 6 or 12 years are they allowed initiation as a Naga.

At the time of Avadhuta Samskara, the Ananda is dropped, and the new Avadhuta or Naga adopts the family name of his Guru (which from Jyotishmatha would be Giri, Parvata, or Sagara).

All of this was expounded by Shri Shankaracarya in his establishment of the Dashanami Sampradaya.

In Dashanami tradition, there is no possibility of a Sarasvati Baba with the Brahmacarya title “Ananda”, because Sarasvatis are all linked to Shringeri Matha and their correct Brahmacarya suffix is Caitanya!

Other than that, Satyananda Sarasvati’s teaching on the three “secret” Mathas is taken straight from Dashanami oral traditions and the writings of Shri Shankaracarya himself.

Arjuna
09 April 2006, 07:07 AM
One more point in order to show that Ananda-matha teaching (as represented by Swami Satyananda) is not an ancient Tantric one, but yogic (with some Tantric elements incorporated) is this:
There is no such system of abhisheka correlation to Mahavidyas. In fact tradition of Tripura (i. e. Shrividya) is separate from Kali-kula (which includes or is close to Tara-kula) and is a school in itself. Although there were and are upasakas and masters initiated into both Kulas (like Purnananda for example), even they do not mix up these traditions — which is seen again from Purnananda’s Shritattvachintamani and Shyama-rahasya. In Kali-kula purnabhisheka is connected with Kali-vidya, while in Shrividya — with Shri. There is no hierarchy putting Tripura above Kali or Tara. Each of these great Devis is Parabrahma-svarupini and Paramadevata.
Also, there cannot be any purnabhisheka without this or that type of 5M and sexual involvement. Yes, nowadays i believe it is done in some traditions especially in South India, but that is a violation of Kula-dharma and a sign of degradation of parampara. However in many cases brahmans will SAY that they use none of 5M but in practice they do use all secretly. I personally know several examples of this.
Also, in Tantric tradition there cannot exist a prohibition of sexual act, for Tantra was never restricted to vaidika-sannyasins. It has always been aimed for grihasthas primarily and for avadhutas (which have no prescription for celibacy as i already noted).

Seeing all this, i would state that Satyananda’s system is not Tantra. However this doesn’t mean it is of no use or whatsoever. It has full right to exist for those who are inclined towards full sannyasa in vedic sense. Also, U may go in that way if U will. In this case U won’t be able to marry, that’s all.

Arjuna
09 April 2006, 07:08 AM
In fact tradition of Shankara (and of Gaudapada) was Kaula one, which included of course 5M and chakra-sadhanas. However unlike Kali- and Tara-kulas, Shrividya took more conventional, brahmanic appearance, hiding Kaula path from public. It’s outer shell, meant for pashu-sadhakas, was called samayachara (following prescriptions). We can see that Vidyaranya Yati, who was in Shankara’s lineage (Gaudapada—Govindapada—Shankara—Acharya Vishnu Sharma—Pragalbhacharya—Vidyaranya Yati), advocated Kaula tradition in his Shrividyarnava. Moreover, ALL major Shrividya texts are Kaula ones (Vamakeshvari-mata, Parashuramakalpa-sutra, Tripurarnava, Shritattva-chintamani etc.).

Only Lakshmidhara tried to put everything up side down and say that samayachara is the highest one. His point of view became spread in South India, although authentic lineaged kept original Kula-vidya. Other degraded into mere ritualism and yoga. Supremacy of Kaula interpretation (which is original one) was then stated again by Shri Bhaskararaya and his successors. My guru in Shrividya comes from this lineage; he told that original Shankara’s doctrine was Kaula one. Same was confirmed by Amritanandanatha, modern Shrividya Tantric master living in Devipuram, AP (http://www.vi1.org/index.shtml).

Singhi Kaya
09 April 2006, 07:20 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

Case cleared in that case. May be it is Yogic. Though at this stage I'm confused between what is Yoga and what is Tantra.

I used the word tantra, because it is used in his works to describe upasana and in his Guru's books on the subject. I think the view held is all upasana by nature is tantrik. Shakti Upasana in itself is much older than tantras were compliled. Satyananda has clearly written that ananda matha is a direct lineage of Gaurapada swami. But what ever is expressed in his writings on this subject and his Guru's writings doesn't involve vira-bhava rituals. What kaula's call tantrik must be through Vira-Marga as you put it. Hence the confusion. About MitA siddhi vs Mukti, I haven't read anything like Shaktibad before where work is so clearly expounded. Shaktibad comes from the level of development of purushottama-the highest perfection, so I'll ignore that part;).

Thanks for the info - clears some mist. And untill I gather more knowledge I should not be using the term Tantra in fornt of a Tantrik:).

Singhi Kaya
09 April 2006, 07:42 AM
Seeing all this, i would state that Satyananda’s system is not Tantra. However this doesn’t mean it is of no use or whatsoever. It has full right to exist for those who are inclined towards full sannyasa in vedic sense. Also, U may go in that way if U will.

Mukti Perfection whatever one calls it depends on how our awareness is progressing towards perfection. Once state metal development is can be easily classified using Shaktibad (Ganesh, Surya, Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti).
Tantra, Mantra or Yoga are just scientific tools to develop from one stage to next. I don't think any of them is realization but aid to it. One's state of realization is expressed faintly in their thought and speech and much more clearly in work. In this long journey one has to choose whatever (Karma, Yoga or Tantra) suits him/her the best in tht point of time. My idea of realization is not abstract one thanks to Shaktibad. Ganesh Surya and Vishnu are sates in chitta. At the end of the Vishnu one encounters the ahang (ego) or rudra granthi. (Surya and Vishnu have been traditionally called brahma and Vishnu Granthis). This is the greatest barrier to development, this is where we as jiva's identify with our existence - for other this is Jiva. Evil is born from here. As one crosses this one becomes a shiva and a jivan mukta. He/She need not born again. But cosmic conciousness develops to the higest Shakti level which is purushottama. Attaining that level in realization is next to impossible. Krishna was a rare one of them. But our work/karma should be based on principles of Shakti.

As long as I remember this - whatever suits to specific spritual needs should be fine. No? Of course it has to be scientific.


In this case U won’t be able to marry, that’s all.
My question is if I don't marry can I still be initiatedto tantra :) (this hypothetical though)

Arjuna
09 April 2006, 07:53 AM
Original tradition of Gaudapada and Shankara was Kaula one. It was divided into teaching for grihasthas and for sannyasins. For grihasthas vamachara (not extreme one of course) was there, while sannyasins kept brahmacharya. I am not sure whether there existed kaulavaduta-dom in this tradition. Thus, if Satyananda states that brahmacharya is required for sannyasins, it's OK. If for EVERYONE, this is wrong according to Hindu-dharma, to Tantras and to his own parampara.
Vedic sannyasa is the ONLY exception from literal vamachara for all Shakta-upasakas.

Arjuna
09 April 2006, 08:18 AM
My question is if I don't marry can I still be initiatedto tantra :) (this hypothetical though)

Of course there is no such a requirement to get married (although it is normal to Hindu-dharma and beneficial for Tantra-upasana to do so).
Preliminary (sAmAnya or pashu) dikshas are not connected with 5M or anything like that, but basically with giving of vidya (mantra). As U get vidya of Guru-paduka U join that lineage. It is supposed that U do not stop here and progress to next level, vira-bhava. At this stage U have only three options to go further:
1. U get married (if not already) and practice with Ur wife, svakiya-shakti.
2. If for some reason U do not want to marry, or if Ur wife is against sadhana, U practice with another initiated woman, parakiya-shakti (either unmarried or somebody's else wife — but never of Guru or another Kaula).
3. Third possibility is trying to "jump" to sannyasa directly, that is to siddhantachara level of sadhana. There is NO legacy for this in Tantras (in other words, it should not be done), however practically it may be possible if Guru agrees (normally he won't without some special valid reason).

To get purnabhisheka U have to have a partner (if not wife then temporary one). Sannyasa case is in fact awkward, for there is no reason to go into Kaula-tantra if U desire to be an ascetic. There are many other traditions like Natha or Vira-shaiva that do not prescribe Vamachara.

Divya is a level succeeding vira, one cannot turn from pashu to divya directly (unless through exceptional direct grace of Devi). Of course, chakrasadhana is not a must (it's a rare blessing), but stri-puja and maithuna is.

Begali Kaula-saint Brahmananda Giri in Tara-rahasya said that if one worships Tara without vamachara, he goes to hell. Similar statements are there in many other Tantras. There is no Mahavidya worship without worship of live incarnations of Devi — women.

In fact it is possible that the doctrine Satyananda describes openly is a pashu-level of his own teaching. That i cannot say.

Singhi Kaya
09 April 2006, 08:38 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

Thanks for your replies. They celar some mist from my mind.

As for satyananda ji's doctrine. Shaktibad is not a sadhna doctrine but a samaj dharma as I have said. I never met the man so not sure what he tought to his direct deciples. He has written that anyone is free to choose his spiritual path within sanatana dharma - so it doesn't matter much and has little to with Shaktibad. About sadhna he expressed briefly but deeply in his auto biography. Brajmachari is not for all, only for those who want to take that path. The reason I have high regards for brahmacharya is different.

But many thanks for your posts (spl last one). It does make things clear for me.

sarabhanga
09 April 2006, 08:43 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

Shri Shankara did not regularly use or recommend Panca-Makara, and he did not practise Cakra-Puja in any Kaula sense. I am not positive about Shri Gaudapada (having seen no evidence either way), but is seems unlikely that Shankaracarya would have altered something that would have been the most sacred ritual of his Paramaguru (if what you suggest is true). Can you please provide some evidence for this remarkable claim?

Singhi Kaya
09 April 2006, 08:45 AM
Namaste Singhi,

Shri Shankaracarya established seven Mathas ~ four Amnaya (manifest directional) Maths and three purely “experiential” Mathas.

The fifth Matha is Sumeru, the Kshetra is Kailash, the Devi is Maya, and the Sampradaya is Kashi.

The sixth Matha is Paramatma, the Kshetra is Nabha-Sarovara (the Sky), the Devi is Manasi-Maya, and the Sampradaya is Sattva.

The seventh Matha is Sahasrarkadyuti (i.e. Ananda), the Kshetra is Anubhuti, the Devi is Cit-Shakti, and the Sampradaya is Satshishya (i.e. a true disciple of Shri Gaudapada).

All Dashanami Sannyasins who are associated with Jyotish Matha have the suffix Ananda added to their name when they are first initiated as Brahmacaris.

And only after a traditional period of 6 or 12 years are they initiated as Avadhuta, and traditionally only after another 6 or 12 years are they allowed initiation as a Naga.

At the time of Avadhuta Samskara, the Ananda is dropped, and the new Avadhuta or Naga adopts the family name of his Guru (which from Jyotishmatha would be Giri, Parvata, or Sagara).

All of this was expounded by Shri Shankaracarya in his establishment of the Dashanami Sampradaya.

In Dashanami tradition, there is no possibility of a Sarasvati Baba with the Brahmacarya title “Ananda”, because Sarasvatis are all linked to Shringeri Matha and their correct Brahmacarya suffix is Caitanya!

Other than that, Satyananda Sarasvati’s teaching on the three “secret” Mathas is taken straight from Dashanami oral traditions and the writings of Shri Shankaracarya himself.
Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

Thanks for your answer.

About the brahmachari name Ananda and the title Saraswati, it may be that it is the practice of the 3 abyakta Mathas? For I have met a sannayasin from sumeru peeth as well. He also held the title xxxxxxxxxananda saraswati.

Arjuna
09 April 2006, 10:36 AM
Namaste Arjuna,

Shri Shankara did not regularly use or recommend Panca-Makara, and he did not practise Cakra-Puja in any Kaula sense. I am not positive about Shri Gaudapada (having seen no evidence either way), but is seems unlikely that Shankaracarya would have altered something that would have been the most sacred ritual of his Paramaguru (if what you suggest is true). Can you please provide some evidence for this remarkable claim?

Namaste,

I cannot provide any exact evidence myself. This was told to me by two Shrividya gurus (one of them has a degree of Shastri) and also by Pt. Hemen Chakravarti, one of leading scholars on Tantrism in VNS, student of Pt. Gopinath Kaviraj.
As an indirect evidence i gave an example of Shrividyarnava, which is from Gaudapada—Shankara tradition.
My Guru and Shri Amritananda (Dr. Prahlad Shastri) explained 11th verse of Saundarya-lahari as describing bhairavi-chakra.
Thus, i follow my parampara in this statement and also taking in account certain scientific data.

Of course, neither or us can state what Shankara in fact did or did not. We weren't there, and all our statements are more or less valid assumptions.

Arjuna
09 April 2006, 10:40 AM
Namaste Arjuna,
As for satyananda ji's doctrine. Shaktibad is not a sadhna doctrine but a samaj dharma as I have said. I never met the man so not sure what he tought to his direct deciples. He has written that anyone is free to choose his spiritual path within sanatana dharma - so it doesn't matter much and has little to with Shaktibad.

I got the point, thanks for putting it in clear words.

Singhi Kaya
09 April 2006, 10:49 AM
Can anyone provide me some info on natha sampradaya?
Are they active in India? Are they fully ascetic (meaning one has to take similar to sannyas vows after initiation, including do not seek employment;))?
What are their main centres in India? etc.
Web pointers will be appreciated.
I'm not putting up a new thread on this related question.

Arjuna
09 April 2006, 12:38 PM
Basically there are two branches of Nathism: original, Kaula tradition of Matsyendranatha (as described in Kaulajnana-nirnaya) and later one, Gorakshanatha's. Nowadays it's hard to find original Naths, although as i heard from my Guru and as Sarabhanga also said once, they are still existing. They hold on to Kaula mode of sadhana and practice with women.

Gorakshanathis are widely spread, publish many books and their basic center is Gorakhpur, UP. They are involved in rituals and hatha-yoga mostly, although some hidden practices may still survive among them (such as indicated in Hathayoga-pradipika and Shiva-samhita). As i heard from my friend who is Nath-avadhuta they have 12 main sampradayas, he himself got darshanas from guru of Ai-panth, so to say shakta-sampradaya of Nathism.

Perhaps Sarabhanga can tell much more on Nathism, he is an expert in that.

Singhi Kaya
09 April 2006, 01:57 PM
It is world is divided by-polar between a complete ascetic or woman...isin't there anything in between? sigh!

Arjuna
09 April 2006, 02:28 PM
That's natural, isn't it? ;)

Arjuna
09 April 2006, 03:58 PM
BTW regarding Adi Shankara:
according to opinion of B. N. Pandit (Professor of sanskrit, University of Himachal and Jammu, one of the leading experts in Kashmiri Shaivism), Shankara composed all his vedantic treateses in his young age and thus his darshana happened to be immature, but later turned to Shakta-darshana and exposed his views in Saundarya-lahari.

sarabhanga
09 April 2006, 08:43 PM
Namaste Arjuna,

Your information may come from Pundits, but (with respect) they are not members of Shankaracarya’s order of Dashanami Sannyasins.

How can you claim that Vishnusharman was a disciple of Shri Shankara?

And I realize that some Shaktas take verse 11 from the Saundaryalahari as a description of the external performance of Cakra-Puja, but it is a description of the Shri Cakra, and the Kaula Cakra-Puja is based on that eternal Shri Yantra, so of course there is a concordance. But that does NOT mean that Shankaracarya practised any outward ritual like that of the Kaulas!

I am not personally acquainted with Adi Shankaracarya, although I am a member of his Sampradaya and have received instruction from his Dashanami Gurus!

Meat is absolutely forbidden for all Dashanami Sadhus.

Alcohol is absolutely forbidden for all Dashanami Sadhus.

Sex is absolutely forbidden for all Dashanami Sadhus.

Now, unless there has been some great perversion of Shri Sankaracarya’s instructions, how can there possibly have been any Kaula Cakra-Puja or Pancamakara in his tradition?

Indeed, we have had our own Panca for thousands of years before medieval Shaktism came along. ;)

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 01:44 AM
Here is an explanation of 5M's given in auto biography which he said was a part of his sadhna-
Matsya - Ira, Pingala and Susmna are Ganga Yamuna and Saraswati in our body. Subtle breath flows in them. Know it as the fish. Eating that fish (i.e doing pranayama) one awakens the kundalini.
Meat - Our tongue is the meat. Few eat his by practicing Khechari Mudra. We believe Bak-Samyama is correct Meat eating. When mind attains sunnyata then we have the correct bak-samyama. Keeping quite in speech but creating heaven and hell in mind is no bak-samyama!
Mudra - Generally refers to various types of fried food. In the path of sadhna the sadhak has to practice various types of imaginations and visualizations. Sat chakras, guru paduka, nyasa etc kriyas are somewhat imaginary visualizations. Sadhak on his way of sadhna will use visualizations in various places and various nerve centres. One must get enjoyment and peace in these visualizations. Gathering this enjoyment and peace in what satrted as purelu imaginary visualzations is Mudra-Bhokkhon.
Madira - Soma rasa is continiously flowing from the soma kendra situated in our brain. As sadhak gets more relaxed and calm and gets a feeling of this flow, he becomes more Jnani
Maithun - The bliss in unioun Purush and Prakriti is Maithun. These Purush and Prakriti tattwas are active in sadhaks own body. On one side of Abyakta Peetha is prakriti tattwa and anothet sode is purusha. The creation and destruction process of this universe are but various bliss currents of this unioun. When sadhaka cross the barrier of the "Ahang Granthi", the entire universe becomes his play ground and he can directly feel the unioun bliss of purusha and prakriti in the cosmos. This is maithun. A fraction of this bliss is present in the "Milan" of a man and a woman. Hence every Jiva is so much attracted and attached to ot.


Little of what satyananda ji has written about his sadhana seem mostly tantrik with detail use of mantra, subtle bhutasuddhi, nyasa and all in all worship of mahavidya. Also lot of what is known as yoga. He himself called this divyachari tantrik sadhna. I feel this may have been the original sadhana of shankara. Actual inclusion of sex in tantra may be due to buddhist influence.

David Frawley also claims a similar anceint and monastic form of tantra practiced by ganapati Muni. It is tantra because it is worshp of maha vidyas, it involves most things of what is found in kaula tantras but direct practice external 5M's were avoided and strict yoga practice was accompanied. Indeed many of satyananda ji param guru's writings borrow from well known kaula tantrik texts to make a point in sadhna.

Since this lines are not well known and is oviously asncient, they may well have been predecessor of modern tantra.

Sad is such a pure yet deep scientific tantra lineage doesn't exist any more.

sarabhanga
10 April 2006, 04:57 AM
Namaste Singhi,

Since Sumeru Matha is the very atmosphere of the whole earth (the “Ocean of Sky”) I cannot guess your Svami Xxx-ananda Sarasvati’s true origins!

However, the combination “…-ananda Sarasvati” is characteristic of the Guru lineage of Vishvananda Sarasvati, whose student Svami Shivananda Sarasvati was a prolific author and founder of the Divine Life Society. Shri Shivananda is the Guru of Satyananda Sarasvati, who founded the Bihar School of Yoga; and now Svami Niranjanananda Sarasvati continues his Gurus’ traditions.

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 06:12 AM
Namaste, Sarabhanga,

Not sure, but doesn't Sri Amritanandanatha Sarasvati belong to Dashanamis also?
One more thing, what about Tirthanatha order of Bengal? Is it related to Dashanamis or not?

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 06:53 AM
Here is an explanation of 5M's given in auto biography which he said was a part of his sadhna-
Little of what satyananda ji has written about his sadhana seem mostly tantrik with detail use of mantra, subtle bhutasuddhi, nyasa and all in all worship of mahavidya. Also lot of what is known as yoga. He himself called this divyachari tantrik sadhna.

Given interpretations are present in several Tantras, but they are ADDITIONAL to literal application and never replace it. Exception may be there for Siddhas (divya) who are above doing and undoing, good and bad.
It is rather clearly told that for all sadhakas of middle level (above pashu, i. e. viras) 5M in TOTAL of it's performance is a must.
To divert this into mere inner yogic practice is against Achara. This interpretation is valid for pashu-sadhakas and as additional one to viras.

Key word here is "himself called". There is no problem to incorporate into yoga some element of Tantra, this doesn't make it Tantrism. If teaching goes AGAINT Tantras and against living Kaula tradition, in what way it is Tantric? We can either assume that it is pervertion of Tantra or that it is not Tantra but yoga — let us do so :)


I feel this may have been the original sadhana of shankara. Actual inclusion of sex in tantra may be due to buddhist influence.

Let us leave the theme of Shankara, we do not know for sure. What is my view on this i already explained and gave my grounds.
Regarding buddhist influence this is utterly wrong assumption. Rather vice verse, buddhist sahajiyas took their doctrine from hindu Kaulas. Hindu sexual rituals go back to Vedas and ancient vratya-tradition on another hand.


David Frawley also claims a similar anceint and monastic form of tantra practiced by Ganapati Muni. It is tantra because it is worshp of maha vidyas, it involves most things of what is found in kaula tantras but direct practice external 5M's were avoided and strict yoga practice was accompanied.

I am aware of Frawley. It's easy to say, but how he knows what Ganapati Muni practiced? He must have done 5M as he was initiated into Chhinnamasta-vidya. And he was MARRIED, his wife was tantric yogini initiated into Tara-vidya. Don't U think they practiced 5M?
BTW in Shrividya Kamakala-dhyana sex is also involved.

Folk in Bengal and Kerala also worship Kali or Tara, it doesn't make them Kaulas or Tantrikas ;). Tantra is particular DOCTRINE and it's practical application, and not usage of words Kali or abhisheka :D


Indeed many of satyananda ji param guru's writings borrow from well known kaula tantrik texts to make a point in sadhna.

If i quote from Kur'an, do i become muslim?
BTW again, Satyananda himself may well be a authentic Kaula-upasaka, while keeping this from public. Like Sachchidananda Ganapati, who secretly does Vama-sadhanas but openly never speaks about it ;)


Since this lines are not well known and is oviously asncient, they may well have been predecessor of modern tantra.
Sad is such a pure yet deep scientific tantra lineage doesn't exist any more.

There is not even one evidence proving that it is either ancient or "pure". Nor "Tantra" at all.
Sexual practices were there in Vedic cult itself, they were there in yoga tradition of Nathas and tamil Shaiva-Siddhas, they are present even in Vaishnava cults! How U can say it is "modern"?
The most deep and pure expression of Tantrism known nowadays is Tantraloka of Sri Abhinavagupta (with Sri Jayaratha's Viveka) — and it hold on strictly to pure Kaula views.

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 06:54 AM
Namaste Singhi,

Since Sumeru Matha is the very atmosphere of the whole earth (the “Ocean of Sky”) I cannot guess your Svami Xxx-ananda Sarasvati’s true origins!

LOL

I think I'll have to try catch up with him - he was a tara vidya sadhak among other things. But definately not a kaula.
Before chatting up with Arjuna and with no knowledge about Tantrism, I never thought that pure divya chari yogic-tantrik(sorry arjuna, i use the term tantrik, but satyananda ji even did kumari puja on many occations) sects are not heard of otherwise.


However, the combination “…-ananda Sarasvati” is characteristic of the Guru lineage of Vishvananda Sarasvati, whose student Svami Shivananda Sarasvati was a prolific author and founder of the Divine Life Society. Shri Shivananda is the Guru of Satyananda Sarasvati, who founded the Bihar School of Yoga; and now Svami Niranjanananda Sarasvati continues his Gurus’ traditions.

So I should check him out too? :)

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 07:04 AM
Divyachara is NOT a sect but a LEVEL of upasakas, which succeeds Vira. What U describe is pashu-achara, preceding Vira.
After one gets this yogic stuff he may procede if Guru admits him into practical application of it in Vama-sadhana. THEN he may through grace of Shiva transcend all bounds and become Siddha eternally united with his Yogini, Divyachari.
One who just abstains from sex or meat and does some external sadhanas be it ritual or yogic, is not a divya (what is the difference of such "divya" from pashu then?)

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 07:26 AM
post deleted.

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 07:32 AM
Divyachara is NOT a sect but a LEVEL of upasakas, which succeeds Vira. What U describe is pashu-achara, preceding Vira.
After one gets this yogic stuff he may procede if Guru admits him into practical application of it in Vama-sadhana. THEN he may through grace of Shiva transcend all bounds and become Siddha eternally united with his Yogini, Divyachari.
One who just abstains from sex or meat and does some external sadhanas be it ritual or yogic, is not a divya (what is the difference of such "divya" from pashu then?)

This is clearly wrong. Isin't manas puja regarded as higest form of woship in tantra far above any external ritual??? Pasu is supposed to do devotional external rituals. None except divyas can sustain on manas puja and yoga alone. Plus if you look at the original stages, its indeed very long and the sequence of dikshas takes the sadhaka through various levels of God realization. It is stages of mental development attainable and brought to focus of the sadhak that perhaves make it divya. What is a pasu, that will give the answer. It's a bhava. And that bhava is clearly not here. Anadamatha tradition aims at full perfection and not just Mukti. I'll agree it may be more yogic from your stand poin and will accept it as yogic if you are so particular about the word tantra - stop calling is pasu in that case :)

Oviously intersection with tantra is very high except the 5M's but since you are a tantrik I will assume that 5M's is all about tantra - hence they are very different.

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 07:54 AM
just out of curosity,

after realizing that bliss of cosmic union of purusha and prakrit is maithun, what point diest the satdhaka want to prove tby practically applying this knowledge on a woman?

I'm trying to get the philosophical understanding behind the practice. Hope fully being fairly advanced practioner you won't mind explaining in simple terms.

Thanks for listning :)

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 08:17 AM
Let me clarify why i am so insistent in this case. Ascetic path, even if we suggest it is possible in Tantra (which is quiet contrary to what Tantras say), is a path for very few people. Thus, it is very unnatural to preach it to masses, spread such ideas and so on. Person who is naturally inclined to sannyasa has no objections to go it this path and find a proper guru from Dashanamis or Nathas. This isn’t a way for MOST people.
It is extremely wrong to preach the necessity of celibacy to everyone, for *scientific* reasons as well as for spiritual. Not only in regard to Tantra (which includes worship of women and meditation on women’s form) but in regard to general hinduism and yoga. To be Kaula, to be Tantrika, to be Hindu, to be Yogi, to be Natha and to realise God celibacy is not required. Whether it is acceptable or not depends on achara. While for Dashanami-sannyasins it is, for Kaulas it is not.
When some gurus try to impose “brahmacharya” as phisical abstaining from sex on every upasaka, they do actual adharma. If they say it is necessary in order to become spiritual, to raise kundalini, to develop bhakti-bhava or whatever, they say utter lie.
Even if there are or were some lineages considering themselves to be Tantric and keeping celibacy as a rule, they are meant for sannyasins and thus for selected minority. In no way they can be a path for all, forget “the only pure one”.

Ramakrishna being a living and evident example of divya-bhava, had practiced all Vamachara sadhanas. Through them he reached such a level that when he touched his wife with intention of intercourse, he went directly to samadhi! If someone claiming to be divyachari Tantrika does the same, i accept him as divya.
Otherwise it’s too easy to be divya — just follow achara of pashu and say “i am divya” :D
My Pamameshthi-guru Sri Vamakshepa and my Parapara-guru Sri Tarakshepa, known Siddhas in Bengal, both followed Kaula path and practiced phisical 5M, and through that they reached divya level. I do not know even one example of Kaula master who did not follow Vama-marga — while opposite examples are several.

Please do not confuse teachings of yoga or Dashanami lineages with Kaula and Tantra.

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 08:29 AM
Another Q then. isin't aim of Virachara to get remove attachment to the actual affiliction 5M's in samsara? Once one is free of attachement then it becomes a mere physical act like walking. One even may become urdhva reta. So Q is what is the aim of 5M's in vira chara? Is it to substitute bramhananda with kamananda or realize that bramhananda is beyond everything and 5M's are nothing special in samsara? The subtle interpretation, even if it be a pasu level sadhana as you claim seem like pretty lofty philosphy and if realzed a very lofty realization. Thus if with this idea the sadhaka enters 5M's - my natural conclusion will be that, these very scientific sadhanas are aimed at removing samsaric attachment to 5M's and connect to the underlying source. Thus nibritti in prabritti. In whatever little I have read about it in books I'm not sure. What's your openion?

This was ramakrishna's idea too, I think.

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 08:40 AM
And if you agree to the above, it is a pretty simple conclusion that the path of brahmacharya is a direct approach to what virachara aims. May be not everyone is cut for it. But it is where they are aiming to end. Virachara claims that along with this nibritti it also grants brahma gyana.
Yoga claims, after the foundation of brahmacharya inward concentration (and many many scientific kriyas there including manas puja of tantra) leads to brahma gyana. It clearly rejects brahmacharya in it self is enough. Actual knowledge follows after it. Untill one is established in it, all else is a child's play.


You must now undertsand where I'm getting.

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 08:40 AM
This is clearly wrong. Isin't manas puja regarded as higest form of woship in tantra far above any external ritual???

No, it is NOT. Who said that?
Manasa-puja is a mental practice in pashu-bhava. It is also present in vira-sadhana. And absent from divya. Siddha doesn't need any manasa-pujas, his puja is being submerged into Ananda.
Sri Abhinavagupta puts at the heart of his Trika system the ritual of chakra-puja, and not mental excersises. Keep in mind, he was a greatest philoshopher Tantrism and perhaps of India in whole, and a Siddha.

And when Mahachinachara-tantra speaks about manasa-puja and manasa-shauchya, it is in the context of literal 5M. For advanced viras and divyas do not need any outer ritual while doing literal 5M.


Pasu is supposed to do devotional external rituals. None except divyas can sustain on manas puja and yoga alone.

Not at all. Pashu-sadhakas are supposed to do manasa-puja (it is one of basic practices and not smth advanced). Yoga as *practice* is not a divya level at all, but pashu and vira. However it is not a necessary part of Tantric system, though it for sure may be included.
And once again, there is NO divya-bhava for ordinary people (=pashus). Divya is an advanced vira, that's all. That vira, who transcended the need of phisical sadhana at all.
Yoga in the Kaula sense IS the very 5M and the state 5M leads to (i. e. Kamakala).


Plus if you look at the original stages, its indeed very long and the sequence of dikshas takes the sadhaka through various levels of God realization. It is stages of mental development attainable and brought to focus of the sadhak that perhaves make it divya. What is a pasu, that will give the answer. It's a bhava. And that bhava is clearly not here. Anadamatha tradition aims at full perfection and not just Mukti. I'll agree it may be more yogic from your stand poin and will accept it as yogic if you are so particular about the word tantra - stop calling is pasu in that case :)

There is no such terms "pashu" and "divya" in yoga system. If U claim they are there, plz provide the sourses.
Pashu, vira and divya are the stages of Tantric path. And according to Tantras the practice U describe is conventional one, pashu-sadhana.
If U stop call it "divya", then we take it out of this definitive system.

Finally, it is a diversion of Kaula-tantra to use names of Tantric initiations and Mahavidyas without corresponding practices.
If i take something from Patanjali system and say one has to eat meat for that practice, it gonna be bull**** right? Every system has its prescriptions. U cannot call "purnabhisheka" whatever U like to call it.

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 08:44 AM
You can get out of this if you claim that use of physical 5M's is to get god realization. I have nothing to say then, except very unbelievable! As tantra it self says in that case all pashu's and carnivores will become siddhas. Thus only physical 5M's cannot be God realization. So what is? the underlying dhyanas ? The nysas? Tha japa? the pranayama?



I see a very big loop hole if Physical 5M's are overstressed.

The path of brahmacharya is pure one. I accept that for ordinary mortals it may not be possible. But doesn't mean it's adharma-it's higest dharma, if one can live by it

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 08:47 AM
Pls read post # 42,43 and 45. I have presented a logical case for brahmacharya. Not claiming it for all though.

manas puja is highest ritual is there in several places I have read. I'll try to provide quote when I'm back home :)

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 09:08 AM
Another Q then. isin't aim of Virachara to get remove attachment to the actual affiliction 5M's in samsara? Once one is free of attachement then it becomes a mere physical act like walking. One even may become urdhva reta. So Q is what is the aim of 5M's in vira chara? Is it to substitute bramhananda with kamananda or realize that bramhananda is beyond everything and 5M's are nothing special in samsara? The subtle interpretation, even if it be a pasu level sadhana as you claim seem like pretty lofty philosphy and if realzed a very lofty realization. Thus if with this idea the sadhaka enters 5M's - my natural conclusion will be that, these very scientific sadhanas are aimed at removing samsaric attachment to 5M's and connect to the underlying source. Thus nibritti in prabritti. In whatever little I have read about it in books I'm not sure. What's your openion?

No, the aim of 5M is far from “removing” attachment. To remove attachment it’s enough to become unconscious, unaware of urself like a stone.
Attachment if understood metaphysically cannot be removed, since it is the essence of creation. Lord Shiva is Himself Kameshvara attached to His Kameshvari.
The aim of 5M is to open oneself to Devi’s grace and then to realise the world as Her body, and dwell in Lokananda (stage above Brahmananda).
Of course, maithuna IS special for it is a reflection of Divine state.

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 09:11 AM
And if you agree to the above, it is a pretty simple conclusion that the path of brahmacharya is a direct approach to what virachara aims. May be not everyone is cut for it. But it is where they are aiming to end. Virachara claims that along with this nibritti it also grants brahma gyana.
Yoga claims, after the foundation of brahmacharya inward concentration (and many many scientific kriyas there including manas puja of tantra) leads to brahma gyana. It clearly rejects brahmacharya in it self is enough. Actual knowledge follows after it. Untill one is established in it, all else is a child's play.
You must now undertsand where I'm getting.


To get Jnana one has to get the experince ;)
Sannyasa even in Vedic religion was to follow grihasthashrama. In Tantra U cannot "escape" 5M, 'coz experience is leading to Jnana and not opposed to it.

BTW i never understood, what is the need for brahmacharya as celibacy? Scientifically and logically — what for?

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 09:18 AM
post deleted.

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 09:28 AM
You can get out of this if you claim that use of physical 5M's is to get god realization. I have nothing to say then, except very unbelievable!

YES.
But not "physical only", plz note this. Kaulachara leads to realisation of Purnabrahman, which necessarily includes "physical level". In fact there is no such a thing as physical, it is also a part of Consciousness, Chiti.

Speaking in philosophical terms, 5M function as Vimarsha (power of actualisation/individualisation/self-awareness) towards Prakasha (Light of Consciousness of Paramashiva).


As tantra it self says in that case all pashu's and carnivores will become siddhas. Thus only physical 5M's cannot be God realization. So what is? the underlying dhyanas ? The nysas? Tha japa? the pranayama?

5M are called Kula-tattvas as they lead to Tattva-jnana, knowledge of Reality.
5M is not just eating meat and f###ing, never it is. But they are the essense of all Prakriti, and thus should be used physically, but with bhAvanA — proper intention, feeling and meditation.


I see a very big loop hole if Physical 5M's are overstressed.
The path of brahmacharya is pure one. I accept that for ordinary mortals it may not be possible. But doesn't mean it's adharma-it's higest dharma, if one can live by it

Who said this? I may agree it is also valid (not in Tantra though), but it is in no sense more pure than any other path.
Kaula-mata is above pure and impure, it's the Doctrine of transcendence. It can be applied by normal people as well as by very advanced yogins. This is it's greatness, for it is all-including. Brahmacharya path is limited to a few (not the best, simply few) — and thus should not be overstressed.

Plz don't forget that most people are married and live in the world. Tantra is a path for them, while yoga or brahmacharya (as celibacy) is not.
5M is not "overstressed" — this is the path available to grihasthas, majority of upasakas.

Finally, Tantra states that Lokananda, realisation of the whole world as bliss, is the highest achievement. It is not escaping the world and experiece of life with all its feelings. It is realising the very physical life as Divine emanation.

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 09:29 AM
just out of curosity,
after realizing that bliss of cosmic union of purusha and prakrit is maithun, what point diest the sadhaka want to prove tby practically applying this knowledge on a woman?
I'm trying to get the philosophical understanding behind the practice. Hope fully being fairly advanced practioner you won't mind explaining in simple terms.

1. If by "realising" U mean theoretical assumption (as in U case), obviously it is very far from Realisation. It's easy to say "Shivo'ham" and "Brahmasmi", but only few ARE living Brahman or Shiva. So can i say "what's the use of ALL sadhana is i can simply realise i am That?" :D
Those who had actually realised Mahamaithuna of Shiva and Shakti in its totality, do not need any paths, prescritions, rules and regulations. They are FREE. And being free they may act as they will. If they love a woman, they will practically percieve That maithuna in phisical one. If they stay in solitude, they dwell in "inner" bliss — in fact the whole world, being Prakriti, becomes their sexual partner.

2. Tantric path (as any method) is meant for those who are not fully Perfect Beings yet — this should be understandable. And Perfect Beings can decide for themselves what to do and how, we cannot decide for them :D

5M is a practical and effective approach to realisation of Brahman. 5M are to be done TOTALLY, as a whole — that means BOTH as phisical and inner. If U want to realise unity of Purusha and Prakriti, isn't it natural and logical to use both? While spiritual level is purusha, phisical is prakriti. When vira is in phisical maithuna and dwells in paramananda, that is the true union of purusha and prakriti, Shiva and Shakti.
Appllying 5M as only phisical and only inner both is diversion of the Doctrine and the method. Only when for upasaka there is PRACTICALLY no difference between outer and inner, he gets beyond the need of phisical 5M — for he is beyond the very duality. Then, whether he has sex or not, he is in Maithuna.

3. In a case one loves a woman, naturally he sees Devi in her. Then the very relationship becomes upasana, and sexual union is the summit of it. Why U put love out of question? Didn't Krishna love Radhika or Sri Rahula — his yogini?

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 09:40 AM
To get Jnana one has to get the experince ;)
Sannyasa even in Vedic religion was to follow grihasthashrama. In Tantra U cannot "escape" 5M, 'coz experience is leading to Jnana and not opposed to it.

BTW i never understood, what is the need for brahmacharya as celibacy? Scientifically and logically — what for?

Thanks for all your replies. dark clouds are now lifted.

It seems now inspite of startng with many yogic practices tantra culminates in bhakti. Back to square one for me..sigh!

It is now just a matter of individual dharma. All this universe is brahma and all that is not. This unverse has many levels of conciousness. Our mind dissolutes in each of these levels and become engrossed in samadhi. So many god's and goddess do reflect various levels of awareness. These dhyanas are littered throughout hindu dharma including tantra.

My idea of perfection is somewhat like buddhism, get situated in the highest state of awareness. Divine mother in her most grosser form is prakriti. Dissolution of mind at any levels of mental conciousness is not perfection neither liberation. Buddhists can argue this very well! Only buddha state is not the highest for me. perfection can be attained by knowledge alone. At the highest state even knowledge (mahat tattwa) gets sacrificed and one enters the darkness of abyakta kala. This is signified by the dark colour of kali - the first maha vidya, and the iccha shakti or force of desire of this creation. Crossing the abyakta kala one enters the purshottama kala.

Difference between this and samadhi is these are entirely aware state of conciousness. Samadhi exists when the sadhak has a mind of own. Ananda in mind exists when there is a mind of own. Here one is God. Here one only works. No yoga can take us their. Liberation happens at much earler stage with dissolution of the ego. It is the path of knowledge and work.

Without brahmacharya Tyapas the path of knowledge cannot be travelled, nor can work be done in true spirit. There bhakti here - but its dissolved in exceeding seriousness of jnana.






----- there goes my fantasy, hope it wasn;t too meaning less:)

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 09:46 AM
Given the above fantasy (or reality for it explains things clearly than abstract states of samdhi and ananda and one judges a person by his work) , I can accept physical 5M's as a stage in yoga to test one's ability to surpass physical attachement. This is how I knew it. Incidentally this how buddhists view it (if I'm not wrong). But Hindu tantra seems to hav found a end in it's means. This philosphy is in compatible - not the method.:cool:

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 12:19 PM
Thanks for all your replies. dark clouds are now lifted.
It seems now inspite of startng with many yogic practices tantra culminates in bhakti. Back to square one for me..sigh!

YES, it is right. Although bhakti of Tantra is the same as that of conventional vaishnavism (being wider and deeper), bhakti is no doubt the very summit of Tantric path — and i would add, every true path as well.

Kularnava-tantra (12. 43) says:
"Neither yoga, nor asceticism or worship of gods lead to Liberation. Here in this Path of Kula, free from illusion only Love (bhakti) excels."


It is now just a matter of individual dharma. All this universe is brahma and all that is not. This unverse has many levels of conciousness. Our mind dissolutes in each of these levels and become engrossed in samadhi. So many god's and goddess do reflect various levels of awareness. These dhyanas are littered throughout hindu dharma including tantra.

Kaula-tantrism has no aim of samadhi as such (at least in the sense of Patanjala-ashtanga system). Samadhi is defined as pure awareness free from involvement into mental activities (however that doesn't imply stopping them like in Yoga-sutra 1. 2) — see for example Kularnava 9. 9.
Tantra is taking one beyond these distinctions of level to Purnabrahman, the totality of the Absolute Godhead. Liberated Kaula becomes a Rudra and dwells in union with yogini in Guru-mandala (just take it as this, it cannot be anyway explained in words). This state is called Mahamoksha or Samarasya, it trancends lower 5 types of mukti (samipya, sarupya ityadi).


My idea of perfection is somewhat like buddhism, get situated in the highest state of awareness.

If there is still a distinction of highest and lower, it is not IN FACT "highest" one ;)
Ok, this formula is too vague. I can say Tantra is about the same, but actually this says nothing. Parabhakti of Tantra is same as highest awareness, 'coz the very power of Awareness (Vimarsha) is Love.

It is said in Titumantiram (not mainly Tantric, but more yogic text BTW), "Love alone is Shiva" ;)


Without brahmacharya Tyapas the path of knowledge cannot be travelled, nor can work be done in true spirit. There bhakti here - but its dissolved in exceeding seriousness of jnana.

I do not get the point of brahmacharya. U simply state this, but can U explain why? Claiming this system is scientific, U should be able to answer this...

"Seriousness" is an emotional category :p
True jnana is one with bhakti — there cannot exist separateness at that level. Kula-tantras use the term "Samarasya", which perfectly points at the unity of love and knowledge.

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 12:20 PM
Given the above fantasy (or reality for it explains things clearly than abstract states of samdhi and ananda and one judges a person by his work) , I can accept physical 5M's as a stage in yoga to test one's ability to surpass physical attachement. This is how I knew it. Incidentally this how buddhists view it (if I'm not wrong). But Hindu tantra seems to hav found a end in it's means. This philosphy is in compatible - not the method.:cool:

U do not catch the point of Tantric philosophy simply :D
Of course in Tantra U get beyond physical attachment. But the aim is YOGA (union) and not viyoga (separation). What U suggest is a doctrine of separation, duality (there is physical which is to be separated from spiritual, there are facts of live to be suppressed, there is some "jnana" excluding love etc). According to Tantras it is a "lower doctrine" similar to dvaita or vishishtadvaita Shaivism. In no way it is Monistic.

[I am not a best expert in pure metaphysics. If interested to judge the unsurpassed immensity and greatness of Kaula philosophy, please read the works of Sri Abhinavagupta. In Delhi U can get Paramartha-sara, Tantra-sara and Tantraloka in hindi ;)]

BTW buddhist (!) Chandamaharoshana-tantra states: "There is no greater sin than virAga (lack of passion)", na virAgAt paraM pApam.

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 12:21 PM
You should check out a thread in canteen I have prepared for you now.

This time I'll get you

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 12:33 PM
It is funny even to give links to such ****!
This organisation (so called Siddhashram) is money-making and all it's teaching is blatantly fake.
I see no point in discussing the writings of those who betray Dharma and spoil the good face of Hinduism. Narayana Datta Shrimali and his sons who currently run the business are not an authority in any way (apart from cheating people).

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 12:34 PM
U do not catch the point of Tantric philosophy simply :D
Of course in Tantra U get beyond physical attachment. But the aim is YOGA (union) and not viyoga (separation). What U suggest is a doctrine of separation, duality (there is physical which is to be separated from spiritual, there are facts of live to be suppressed, there is some "jnana" excluding love etc). According to Tantras it is a "lower doctrine" similar to dvaita or vishishtadvaita Shaivism. In no way it is Monistic.

[I am not a best expert in pure metaphysics. If interested to judge the unsurpassed immensity and greatness of Kaula philosophy, please read the works of Sri Abhinavagupta. In Delhi U can get Paramartha-sara, Tantra-sara and Tantraloka in hindi ;)]

BTW buddhist (!) Chandamaharoshana-tantra states: "There is no greater sin than virAga (lack of passion)", na virAgAt paraM pApam.

Thanks I'll read the book. No what I said is not dualism. It is like adviata, and consistent with Gita. The universe and man is a inverted tree - unity is found at the root ;).

I have Tantra-Sara with me - but's isin't it collection of many rituals and vidyas from many tantras?

I'll search for Tantraloka as it is one of the oldest you have mentioned.

Abt buddhism, their tantra things is very much like ours but some how they manage to put the nirvana on top it. Nirvana meditation as from thervada view point is more like Janana Yoga mediation - from outside.

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 12:36 PM
It is funny even to give links to such ****!
This organisation (so called Siddhashram) is money-making and all it's teaching is blatantly fake.
I see no point in discussing the writings of those who betray Dharma and spoil the good face of Hinduism. Narayana Datta Shrimali and his sons who currently run the business are not an authority in any way (apart from cheating people). It's in the reef section...that he is a fake is apparant after reading few lines and eben looking at a static picture of the so called guru

Yes thinking seriously, these types of Guru's are enemy to our dharma.

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 12:42 PM
There are TWO books called Tantrasara. I mean not the one by Krishnananda Agamavagisha but much more early Abhinavagupta's ;)
It is translated by Pt. H. Chakravarti, a very good scholar.

BTW i would suggest U to read Gitartha-sangraha of Abhinavagupta, the best IMO commentary on Gita. It is published by Indica Books recently, and translation was done by B. Marjanovic.

sarabhanga
10 April 2006, 07:57 PM
Namaste Arjuna,

Amritanandanatha “Sarasvati” is a retired nuclear physicist who is married and remains closely associated with his wife “Annapurna Devi”. And he is a Shakta.

Sarasvati Babas of the Dashanami Order are true Sannyasins who renounce all connexions with wife and family. The Sarasvatis (and other Ekadandi Svamis) are generally the most orthodox of Sannyasins and they certainly would not eat meat or drink alcohol (and most abstain from ALL intoxicants) or engage in any sexual contact; and they could be expelled from the order (or at least given a good beating) for any known violation of these rules.

There are no true Dashanami Sarasvatis with the name “Natha”.

Who is the supposed Dashanami Guru of Amritanandanatha?

And by “Tirthanatha” I assume that you mean Rudrashambhu (i.e. Amardaka Tirthanatha) who founded the Amardaka order in Andhra Pradesh (c. 775 AD). These Tirthanathas are followers of Shaiva Siddhanta, and they have no connexion with the Dashanami Tirthas, who are all associated with Sharada Pitha on the opposite side of the country. And again, the Tirthas are orthodox Ekadandi Svamis just like the Sarasvatis.

Arjuna
10 April 2006, 08:07 PM
Namaste,

I did not state that Sri Amritananda is a dashanami, but just asked U to clarify. Actually i could have asked him myself, but that didn't come to my mind. Yes, he is Shakta and Kaula master.

Tirthanatha is a Kaula order in WB, to which my Guru in Taravidya belongs. I have no idea of its connections with dashanami if any are there.

Singhi Kaya
11 April 2006, 02:07 PM
I mailed david frawley with my misconceptions. His reply doesn;t seem to counter what Arjuna has said - only the viewpoint is different.




Namaste Saikat,

Thanks for the kind email. I am aware of the Shaktibad movement in Kolkata. They had offered me an award for my writings in 2004.

Ganapati Muni has left many important works in Sanskrit which we are getting publishes, though without translation. He does not have much to say about the vira bhava but in a remark or two does seem to at least give it a place. The same is for Abhivanavagupta.

But clearly the real part of Tantra is the mantra, yantra, devata internal Yoga practices.

Most of modern Tantra is not even the kaula sadhana but just fantasy and self-indulgence.

<<So in this context I have the question whether the more ancient and ascetic form of tantra or rather MahaVidya worship is still alive and practiced in India? Is a solely divya chari tantrika lineages still active? Or the road through vama marga is unavoidable if one desires to persue spritual goals through tantrika.
---I have not been to all parts of India or much to Bengal or Orissa so I cannot say. Tantric practices done for wealth, power, control etc. are common in Delhi and other places. Such Tantrics are many and promise people magical cures for all that ails them, though some are genuine and also work through Ayurveda, Jyotish etc. to help people.

<<You did not specifically write whether Ganaputi Muni's parampara didn't include external 5M's (subtle 5M's are different) - I assumed it, for I think it would have been similar to satyananda Ji's own.
---Ganapati mainly speaks of the dakshina marga, but he was married and wrote a short kama sutra work among his many others, so it might have been possible he experimented a bit on that line.

<<Existence of such pure yet deep and scientific traditions was a great boon to serious seekers of knowledge and those who want to devote their life to upliftment of Dharma. If no such active lineage exits now/or not known – it is very sad and pointer to our despair.
---Such groups may exist and yet be hard to find. The Bihar school of Yoga has some good texts on inner yogic practices for example. Some inner Tantric practices are there even in the Shankaracharya maths with their Devi worship and Sri Chakra.

Best Wishes,
Vamadeva

satay
11 April 2006, 02:57 PM
I mailed david frawley with my misconceptions. His reply doesn;t seem to counter what Arjuna has said - only the viewpoint is different.

and why not invite dr. frawley to this forum? That should be very interesting!

satay

Arjuna
11 April 2006, 03:04 PM
Good idea ;)

Singhi Kaya
11 April 2006, 03:31 PM
Now Arjuna can do it. For I have given him the e-mail;)

Arjuna
12 April 2006, 03:36 PM
Namaste,

Let me provide some clarifications on 5M theme:

In Kaula-tantra there is no aim to “get rid” of something. Detachment is never the aim of Tantra-sadhana (though in a certain sense it is a result of it). The method of Tantra is “yoga”, unification. Kaula includes every item into his consciousness, he embraces everything step by step. No denial. No conceptions of punya vs papa. There are no moral principles in Kaula-darshana.
It is a common misconception that 5M or sexual rituals are meant for developing detachment (something like “fed up” feeling towards them). This is not the case. Yes, Kaula is in a sense far more detached than pashu-sadhaka who is bound by moral and socio-religious prescriptions. For Kaula there is no problem in enjoyment and while enjoying he is free. Kaula sees the world as a manifestation of Brahman, His body — the world is divine in its essence. 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. Thus sadhaka should by all efforts be the enjoyer.” And this is spread not only to pleasant and blissful things but to unpleasant and ugly as well.
5M are the means to realise the world as Brahman in practice, not mere theory or meditational experience. In this context Acharya Abhinavagupta says that enjoyment of three kinds of bliss (maithuna, madya and mamsa) is the only true brahmacharya. As Kularnava-tantra states, “by the same things through which ordinary person falls, Kaula achieves Liberation.” Abhinavagupta goes as far as to say: “That which according to Vedas leads to sin, according to our Doctrine of the Left leads directly to Liberation.”
Thus, 5M should be understood as the very essence of Kaula method. As it is said in one Srividya text, “shrIsundarI-sevana-tatparANAm bhuktiM cha muktiM cha karastha eva.”
One more very important point about 5M is the following: it is a means to physically unite with the Goddess. 5M is the Communion of Kula, very similar in its understanding to the eucharist of Christianity (in some gnostic sects it was practiced even in much similar way to Tantric one!). Then, Kamakhya-tantra says: “pa~nchatattvena devyAstu prasAdo jAyate kShaNAt.”

Hope this adds to the proper understanding of the matter.

Singhi Kaya
12 April 2006, 04:00 PM
By "get rid" or "detachment" I meant only not being bound.
An ordinary man cannot remain in celebacy for life in general without developing some sort of psychotic disorder. I have seen this quite a few times;).

If as a result of advanced sadhna I cannot live without sex, then what I have achieved. Whether I want to or not is a different Q. In cosmic conciousness, reason to be bound by sex is hardly there escept for prarabdha.

That's what I meant by detachment. I think vira sadhna should bestow that much power to the follower? whether it is necessary or not is a different Q. But if can't provide that, then I will be surprised. I think it odes (just guess though) and hence some sects view it as test to celebacy.

Another good point I read was "Tantra is for all types of sadhaks". Some are already detached and don't find samsara attractive attractive for various reasons-this is called vairagya. If Tantra denies such souls entry, can we call it "Sanatana" anymore then. Clearly if physical act is must, then it denies some very "special" people entry to the path. I doubt Tnatra in its original form will be narrow like that.

These are just logical points. I cannot be a judge of tantra at any rate.

Arjuna
12 April 2006, 04:49 PM
Another good point I read was "Tantra is for all types of sadhaks". Some are already detached and don't find samsara attractive attractive for various reasons-this is called vairagya. If Tantra denies such souls entry, can we call it "Sanatana" anymore then. Clearly if physical act is must, then it denies some very "special" people entry to the path. I doubt Tnatra in its original form will be narrow like that.
These are just logical points. I cannot be a judge of tantra at any rate.

Tantra is NOT for everyone of course. Tantras put certian strict conditions (not outer but inner, related to bhAva) to follow. Every Bill & Dick cannot enter the path of Kula. However i believe everyone has a chance to. Is this point clear?

Speaking logically, what is the problem for really detached person to have a sexual act or eat meat?

Finally, Tantric Doctrine teaches that the world is an actual manifestation of Brahman, it is essentially pure consciousness.

If an ascetic enters Tantric path, he will see this. Then naturally he will enjoy the world in this or that way (since rejection of the world is a subtle and more dangerous attachment).

And for the Siddha-purusha who is merged in Lokananda, each and every act is a communion with the Goddess.
Such person need not to follow any path whatsoever. He is alive Rudra, totally free and eternally united with the Yogini.

Singhi Kaya
13 April 2006, 05:06 PM
Tantra is NOT for everyone of course. Tantras put certian strict conditions (not outer but inner, related to bhAva) to follow. Every Bill & Dick cannot enter the path of Kula. However i believe everyone has a chance to. Is this point clear?
Only I have read contrary somewhere. But more importantly, vairagya is not tom dick and harry. I believe tantra is for every one, otherwise pasu's won;t be allowed. Your theory seems starnge don't you think. Ordinary men are allowed and shown the path to liberation and people with vairgya, who are so fond of God are denied? But the point you mention below clarifies it. So I don't really disgree with you - except for the fact you seem to put down good qualities as pasu;)


Speaking logically, what is the problem for really detached person to have a sexual act or eat meat? No problem. But is the necessity was what I was curious about - except for as a test. But you have made clear that Tantrika rituals give realizations - from that angle, I can't argue logiclly.


Finally, Tantric Doctrine teaches that the world is an actual manifestation of Brahman, it is essentially pure consciousness.

If an ascetic enters Tantric path, he will see this. Then naturally he will enjoy the world in this or that way (since rejection of the world is a subtle and more dangerous attachment).

And for the Siddha-purusha who is merged in Lokananda, each and every act is a communion with the Goddess.
Such person need not to follow any path whatsoever. He is alive Rudra, totally free and eternally united with the Yogini. That world is a manifestation of brahman comes from vedas it self. But vedas say also that world is not brahma. manisfestation is not the fullness.
Yes for a jivan mukta it might not matter ....

satay
13 April 2006, 06:11 PM
Now Arjuna can do it. For I have given him the e-mail;)

why don't you pm me dr. frawley's e-mail and I will invite him over.

sarabhanga
30 April 2006, 11:07 PM
Namaste Arjuna,

The Natha Sampradaya is derived from a complex amalgam of ancient and medieval Yoga traditions.

From the union of Shiva (Adi) and Shakti (Parvati) came the Rudra-gana Jalandhara (Udaya or Ude), who initiated Matsyendra (Mina) and Jalandhari (Jalandharipa or Hadipa).

Jalandhari initiated Bhartrihari (who became a disciple of Gorakhnatha), Kanipa, and Mainavati (the mother of Gopicanda); and he is the preceptor of the Tibetan and Bengali “Pa” Panthas (as opposed to the “Natha” Panthas). The Jalandharipa or Paonatha Pantha (from Jaipur) is one of the original twelve, but its own origins are more ancient. The group today includes an assortment of Panathas (a.k.a. Papanathas).

While Jalandharipa was trapped at the bottom of a well at Ujjain, his disciple Kanipa temporarily became the head of his order; and when Jalandharipa was finally rescued (through the intervention of Gorakhnatha and Minanatha) he established his own Kanipa (Kalupa or Kalipa) Pantha.

Another division was established by Gopicanda (Canda or Siddha Sangari) who was a disciple of both Jalandharipa and Kanipa ~ and all three lineages are generally included under the Paonatha Pantha.

The “left-hand path” of Yoga is attributed to Jalandharipa, and particularly the teaching of Kanipa; and Gopicanda is the preceptor of most snake-charmers.

Bhartrihari established (or reformed) the Vairaga Pantha, and among his disciples were Premnatha and Ratannatha (from Peshawar).

Mina initiated Gorakh (Goraksha), Pagal (Arjun Naga or Nagarjuna), and his own sons Nemi and Paras (Parshva or Parishva).

Neminatha (Nimnatha) and Parasnatha (Parishvanatha, the Guru of Mahavira) are the 22nd and 23rd Jaina Tirthankaras.

The Naganatha group includes the Madia and the Gala (Rawala Galla or Pagala Pantha), who are Muslim Yogis or Faqirs (originally from Afghanistan); and also the Manmanthi (Mannatha), who trace their lineage from Raja Rasalu.

Gorakhnatha initiated Kapalipa, Karkai, Bhushtai, Shakkarnatha, Satyanatha, Shantokanatha and Lakshmannatha ~ and the remaining Gorakhnatha Panthas are derived through their lineages.

sarabhanga
01 May 2006, 07:29 PM
Namaste Arjuna,

Brahmacarya Ashrama certainly is the foundation of all Brahmana Dharma!

Some period of Brahmacarya (not study of the Vedas, but education nonetheless) is also normal for both Kshatriyas and Vaishyas.

Only Shudras have absolutely no rule of Brahmacarya.

Brahmacarya is intended for unmarried students, and Hindu Dharma has ALWAYS assumed celibacy for such individuals (who would usually be less than 20 years old)!

Nowhere is it required that anyone should remain as a celibate student for their whole life, and most Rishis would have passed through all of the Ashramas required by their Dharma. Thus, most Rishis were married and raised a family during their Grihastha Ashrama.

Originally, there were only three Ashramas ~ Brahmacarya, Grihastha, and Vanaprastha (Hermitage) ~ and in the final stage of life, the wise Brahmana would retire from society and from normal family life. But there is no requirement for a Vanaprastha to renounce all contact with his wife and family, who would usually have remained with him (by that time a grandfather) and considered him as their Guru. Indeed, most of the ancient Paramparas are actual genetic family-trees.

sarabhanga
01 May 2006, 08:48 PM
Namaste Singhi,


That everyone must become a celibate came from Shankara, which may be a tactic to weaken the Buddhist society.
Shri Shankaracarya NEVER declared that everyone must be celibate ~ the idea is absurd!

Ever since the Sannyasa Ashrama was instituted ~ originally intended for Brahmanas over 60 years old and approaching death ~ there has been absolutely no expectation that Sannyasins would engage in ANY kind of sexual activity.

Given the most rapid progress of a Brahmana (from Brahmacarin directly to Sannyasin, with no intervening period of Grihastha and Vanaprastha) it would be traditionally possible for a prodigy to attain the state of Paramahamsa or Naga by the age of 33 years. In this situation there remains a possibility of sexual activity, and a general rule of celibacy was promoted and generally enforced in all Sannyasin monastic communities (which tradition only became common after about 1,000 BC).

sarabhanga
02 May 2006, 12:18 AM
Namaste Arjuna,


We can see that Vidyaranya Yati, who was in Shankara’s lineage (Gaudapada—Govindapada—Shankara—Acharya Vishnu Sharma—Pragalbhacharya—Vidyaranya Yati), advocated Kaula tradition
Shankaracarya had four disciples, and Vishnu Sharma was NOT one of them!

I know nothing of Vishnu Sharma, but it is clear that he was NOT a Dasanami Sannyasin!

There are Yatis in the Dasanami Akhadas, but the term Yati is a very ancient appellation with more general implications. As an Aranya of the Dasanami order, the Svami known as “Shri Vidya” would be associated with Govardhana Matha (in Orissa); and Aranyas are generally learned Hamsas and Paramahamsas (with strict Brahmana traditions).

When Vidyaranya Yati advocated Kaula, he was NOT advocating any teaching that descended from Shri Shankaracarya!

How is Vishnu Sharma connected with Shankaracarya?

Arjuna
02 May 2006, 05:39 AM
Namaste Arjuna,
Shankaracarya had four disciples, and Vishnu Sharma was NOT one of them!
I know nothing of Vishnu Sharma, but it is clear that he was NOT a Dasanami Sannyasin!
There are Yatis in the Dasanami Akhadas, but the term Yati is a very ancient appellation with more general implications. As an Aranya of the Dasanami order, the Svami known as “Shri Vidya” would be associated with Govardhana Matha (in Orissa); and Aranyas are generally learned Hamsas and Paramahamsas (with strict Brahmana traditions).
When Vidyaranya Yati advocated Kaula, he was NOT advocating any teaching that descended from Shri Shankaracarya!
How is Vishnu Sharma connected with Shankaracarya?

Namaste, Sarabhanga,

I have no idea about historical authenticity of given lineage. The author of Shrividyarnava provides this parampara, and responsibility for this statement is his.
As far as i know, we cannot be sure of Shakara's authorship of Saundarya-lahari even. And i in no way insist that Shankara was a Kaula or whatsoever. I simply conveyed the opinion of my sampradaya, which isn't necessarily historically accurate.