Printable View
Namaste,
Nitin Sridhar Follows Advaita Vedanta. He has put his thoughts in two blogs. Author conveys his message in simple way.
Understanding Hinduism
An attempt to understand various aspects of Hindu philosophy and Hindu society.
Erudition
न हि ज्ञानेन सदृशं !
OM
Namaste Amrut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amrut
This is from his blog:
"These verses clearly indicate how the sexual act can be utilized for achieving enlightment."
:) It's very surprising. In uddhava, Krishna says to uddhava not to even think of woman. He says nothing can be greatest bondage as women are. Woman is the greatest enemy in the path of moksha.
He doesn't know kama of purusharatha is only for having children, not by enjoyment. Never!
It's clear that author follows advaita mixed with western ideas and traditional advaitians are worth to be followed.
This is what I should tell the nice old lady in the airport lobby who sees my Om symbol and then asks me to help her understand Hinduism? The over sexualization of the section "Sex and Hinduism" about worship is sex and the Kamasutra (I am so tired of this, from Bhakti to sex in under 10 minutes of reading) ???? So should my Guru be viagra? No, this is so tired.
Namaste,
I cannot speak for author. You can directly contact the author if you have any problem.
As I have pointed out, it is not just advaita or just vedanta from advaita POV. The blog is about 'Understanding Hinduism' which includes Bhairava Tantra, a vamchari text too. Tantras are different than Puranas.
Agreeing or disagreeing is subjective. I have personally skipped that article, as I do not wish to think in this direction. Some of the articles are good, so I posted them to HDF
btw, Have you heard of Vajroli Mudra. It is found in Shiva Samhita.
Hari OM
I agree completely (it frustrates me too at times). However, I do not feel that detachment from sensuality is necessarily the "be all-end all" factor in gaining liberation (which seems to be the connotation from H(heart)K's post).Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaFan
For some, sex is part of their sadhana. According to mukunda, in his saubhagyatarangini, when one sees oneself as in a pair with beloved bhavani, it is equal to being freed from all vows and dwelling within the world of gauri devi herself:
http://oi58.tinypic.com/2vcbbr4.jpg
While this doesn't imply sex by any means, this does raise the question of relationships. How does one define love? Would you classify it in a more saamsaarik attachment to the physical being (i.e. sensual views of copulation) or is the relationship svanubhavik or personal, wherein the expression of love is more unconditional and certainly not "pleasure seeking" in a material sense? Even if they do consider copulation as vital in attaining moksha, why are we to prevent them? I'm not trying to play devil's advocate or detract from the discussion, just wanted to know what you think.
Namaste,
Sex is not vital in attaining moksha.
The author IMO had tried to convey that even kamasutra says that it's not all about Sex
Anyways, Keeping aside this one post, What do you think about other articles?Quote:
Kama in general means material desires and pleasures: physical, emotional, sexual and psychological. According to the Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana: “Kama is the enjoyment of appropriate objects by the five senses of hearing, feeling, seeing, tasting and smelling, assisted by the mind together with the soul. The ingredient in this is a peculiar contact between the organ of sense and its object, and the consciousness of pleasure which arises from that contact is called Kama.” Part 1, Chapter 2: On the acquisitions of Dharma, Artha and Kama. The Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana, Translated by Sir Richard Burton
I feel that some posts might be as a reaction of Wendy et al - those who criticize our dharma.
OM
Pranam,Quote:
Originally Posted by Amrut
I like most of his posts, although the nimbushakti post made me laugh. :p
Yes, indeed, that was also my impression, particularly when I read the first lingam post. It seems as if that was directed at clearing up the conceptions of those individuals who have a more "Freudian" mindset (for lack of a better term). :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Amrut
Namaste,Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaskaran Singh
That is a perverted practice, nothing more nothing less. Yes we do have the responsibility to call out the perversion.
If one's Mother is the most beautiful woman in the world, what does one do?
What about the female Devi-devotees? What perversion we can think of in their case?
Hinduism, as I've once said earlier, is not in the public domain still. Even the word "Shakta" (power monger) is a wrong address to the Bhakta-s of Devi.
I'll repeat, yes we do have the responsibility to call out the perversion. Irrespective of the fact that we are reasonably familiar about "Shakta" or not.
Namaste,
Thank you Jaskaran and KT for comments.
I agree with KT. Bhairava tantra-s which are other than 28 Saiva-Agama-s are generally rejected by all including Saiva-s. But as our dharma was the only dharma in the world, and there are all kinds of people, there is bound to be perverted interpretation.
It is said that Sri Adi Sankara converted the fierce aspect of devatA-s into benign (like kAlI mA). So he too and I feel all AcArya-s rejected vAmcArI marg as there are convoluted interpretations in vaiShNava Agama-s too (Not sure about it but I heard it).
Obviously we have to oppose such practice.
OM
Really? What would you gain from peeking into their sexual life? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Amrut
P.S. This is a joke, don't take it seriously