Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44

Thread: Jnana Yoga

  1. #11
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    41
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya
    There you go ramkish42 ... but why are you always waiting for someone else to reiterate his points?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Jai shree Krishna

    edited by satay
    ps: please refrain from making things personal with other members. thanks.
    Last edited by satay; 21 April 2006 at 03:29 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    38
    Posts
    743
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    The importance of this is difference between bodily pleasure and pain vis-a-vis pleasure of soul.
    Sex is verily a bodily pleasure.
    Of course it is not only bodily pleasure, but it is a sparkle of the Bliss of Brahman.
    Any "bodily" pleasure for Yogi is Ananda, and sex especially since it is a Shakti-samayoga.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    As sex is verily a bodily pleasure, no mumukshu goes behind bodily pleasure, hence abstains from it for it gives nothing.
    This has no logic. Mumukshu is that one who strives to Moksha, which doesn't imply he becomes uncapable of enjoying the world. The world is not "evil" or opposite to spirituality. Quite the opposite, it is a blissful manifestation of God.
    Yogi who sees world as composed of consciousness, enjoys every particle of it. Similarly as he enjoys Ananda while looking at Deity or partaking of naivedya, he enjoys Ananda while looking at his wife (or any woman), seeing Devi-vigraha, and enjoying sexual union with her.

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    Sex for pure love is absurd thinking. Pure love does not call for sex but for accomodation and respect.
    Sex is a natural part of pure Love between male and female. This was depicted by Sri Krishna BTW, who did not stop on respect to gopis but enjoyed sex with them!

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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    41
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    Of course it is not only bodily pleasure, but it is a sparkle of the Bliss of Brahman.
    Any "bodily" pleasure for Yogi is Ananda, and sex especially since it is a Shakti-samayoga.
    Before proceeding, I thank Satayji for his advice, as I just seen this, I had posted something similar texts few moments before. My apologies for it. But request Moderators to send me a PM with entire deleted contents so that I will know what exactly I did and there might by some reference I could take from it.

    Dear Arjuna,

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

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

    I think I had mentioned the following in the forum earlier

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

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

    If U say sex is a body function only (which is verily not), even then there is no problem. Mumukshu continue eating, drinking, walking and doing his own duties, right? Then why should he specially abstain from copulating with his wife? If U take it as body function, there is no problem for consciousness.
    So does animals falling into the trap of basic instincts. Mumukshu continue eating and drinking but does not go after food. Further mumukshu does not eat, drink or walk and do this duty for pleasure. He does it as it is ordained for him to do so. He walks even if his foot aches and has to refuse lift in a vehicle even when offered. (Here is point of divulgence normally Tantris take, they argue about Modern Sankaracharyas going in Cars etc thereby disturbing the whole thred, hope this will not be a case from Arjuna, if Arjuna wants to discuss about this, I am ready but in a separate thread only on this) Should eat only once a day. Mumukshu doing his duties does it alone. Eating, drinking, walking does not require a female partner if mumukshu is male and does not require a male partner if the mumukshu is female. In some cases, where Mumukshu happens to be Grihasthi, he has to abstain from Kama and Artha in all sects other than Sri Vaishanava, where relaxation is given for Artha for the pleasure of God and to serve his temples, lords devotees etc. Under any case Kama is void for mumukshu. Hence, in common parlence, people are grihastis and have kama relationship cannot be Mumukshus

    Attitude U depict is para-christian one and in fact anti-Vedic. Vedas never prohibit sex with one's wife and never say it is a sin or an obstacle.
    This is the third time you are making a statement on my behalf and condemning it there itself inspite of the fact I never ascribed myself to the original statement.

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

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

    Sex is a natural part of pure Love between male and female. This was depicted by Sri Krishna BTW, who did not stop on respect to gopis but enjoyed sex with them!
    Pure love is always compassion, accomodation irrespective of minor faults, Objections raised and estoped when erred, being supportive; furthermore pure love never ever determined by sex or valour in sex. If your point is correct people who cannot indulge in sex (becaue of some ailments) fails to love others purely, which I think you will not subscribe your acceptance. If your view is otherwise, then we will discuss this first.

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

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

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

    Thanks for your patience

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

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

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

    Jai shree krishna
    Last edited by ramkish42; 22 April 2006 at 09:23 AM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    38
    Posts
    743
    Rep Power
    58
    Namaste,

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    Dear Arjuna,
    Sex as sparkle of Bliss of Brahman is yet to proved by you, there is no point in repeating it again in different threads. As you prefer, request you substantiate with some proof either here or in vamachara thread.
    I am happy that discussion is becoming reasonable.

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    Once this is done then only the question of Bodily pleasure being Ananda comes in. Also request you to post what you mean exactly by Ananda. It could mean totally different thing to me from Vaishnavite point of view
    Ananda is "Bliss" or "Joy". It is not dependant on objects, but is an inherent nature of the Subject. And through contact with objects (when they are seen as an aspects of One Consciousness) this subjective Ananda becomes manifest. This is directly related to Spanda (vibration) doctrine of Kashmir Shaivism.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    This has logic - only it is that you look it from different angle. I did not said, Mumukshu is uncapable of enjoying the word, but I said and insist Mumukshu does not and should not divulge in enjoying this world
    But logically, WHY?
    I know that Shankara's Vedanta teaches so, as well as some other schools. But i see no logic in that indeed.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    If a man goes behind pleasures, he will asking for all wordly pleasures perpetually. A person who opts for good things is called Dheera (corrollary, Dheera opts only for good things and not pleasures)
    There is a huge difference between "going after pleasures" and free enjoyment. Pashu is attached and self-unaware, while Kaula-yogi is not attached to objects and enjoys Vimarsha through objects, which are non-separated from Samvit.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    Under any case Kama is void for mumukshu. Hence, in common parlence, people are grihastis and have kama relationship cannot be Mumukshus
    I do not understand clearly what U mean by "kAma" here.
    This word is used in rather different meanings in Shastras.
    If U mean to say a grihasthi cannot love his wife and enjoy sex with her, at the same time being mumukshu, this is generally wrong. Till now i haven't seen any Agama or Veda prescribing this.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    38
    Posts
    743
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    Pure love is always compassion, accomodation irrespective of minor faults, Objections raised and estoped when erred, being supportive; furthermore pure love never ever determined by sex or valour in sex. If your point is correct people who cannot indulge in sex (becaue of some ailments) fails to love others purely, which I think you will not subscribe your acceptance. If your view is otherwise, then we will discuss this first.
    Pure love between man and woman is always subtly sexual (and may or may not include physical aspect, since there are situations when it is impossible). It is called Shringara-rasa in Bengali Vaishnavism.
    Of course, pure Love is self-surrender and in implies sacrifice of oneself for beloved. On this level sexual union becomes something very different from genital-frictions, indeed not a worldly event, but a manifestation of That Love of Shiva/Kalika or Krishna/Radha. In such union there is descent of Parakundalini (Shaktinipata) and it results in samavesha.

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

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

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

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

  6. #16
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    38
    Posts
    743
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    Now with Shri Krishna Bhagawan, there are texts that shows he had dance, flirting etc but I fail to understand where does any texts says about he having sex with gopis.
    I am surprised U do not know.

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

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

  7. #17
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    41
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    On this point i can say the following: my statement is based on:
    1. Agamas. For example, just what i remember by heart: saMyoge jAyate saukhyaM paramAnandalakShaNam (Shyama-rahasya 9.97 and other Tantras). There is a clear doctrine of this in Tantraloka, 29 Ahnika.
    2. Teaching of alive Kaula-gurus i know the tradition from "first hands", being initiated into three different lineages. For instance, U may see text of revelation of Kamakhya in Shri Amritananda's site, i think it is available openly. Shri Amritananda is not my guru, but i know him personally and respect very much.
    3. Sattarka: logic based on Kaula-doctrine and direct experience.
    4. Pramana: direct experince itself. As an upasaka and Kaulavadhuta i can speak from my own practice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

  8. #18
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    41
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    Pure love between man and woman is always subtly sexual (and may or may not include physical aspect, since there are situations when it is impossible). It is called Shringara-rasa in Bengali Vaishnavism.
    Of course, pure Love is self-surrender and in implies sacrifice of oneself for beloved. On this level sexual union becomes something very different from genital-frictions, indeed not a worldly event, but a manifestation of That Love of Shiva/Kalika or Krishna/Radha. In such union there is descent of Parakundalini (Shaktinipata) and it results in samavesha.
    1. Pure love is not ALWAYS sex as you presume.
    2. Not only Bengalis all call this Shringaara
    3. Bengali school (Dayabhaga) Hindu tattvas are always different from practise of in other place in toto. In fact Vaishnavites and Shaktha practises of Bengal is not clearly etched out as it happened in all other places
    4. Time and again, I request not to impose on what you consider as dharma on Vaishnavites
    5. Union as suggested by you in Radha Krishna bhakthi bhava is absolutely wrong as that pertains children of 7 years old. There is no reference of Radha being crossed the level of puberty. Your accusations leads to calling Hindu Gods for pedophilia. Better know the consequences of your statement and abstain from making such statements
    6. Shiva and Parvati relationship is more complex and opinions of Southern Shaivites, Maratha views and Bengali views. We will discuss this separately

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

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

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

    To the last points:
    1. Yes, sex is an expression of pure Love in shringara-rasa (which is the highest rasa out of all five).
    2. No, it is not the only expression of Love, of course.
    1. Out of five - is not it nine?
    2. I concur with you for the second point

  9. #19
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    41
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    I am surprised U do not know.

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

    I am sure there are depictions in Bhagavata-purana, but i have no complete text of it and have no time to search it through.
    First understand the difference between religious treatises and books that talk about religion. Gita Govinda is book of poetry by Shri Jayadeva which is book of poetry first and subject is religion. This is on par with Harivamsa and Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa. People who quote these texts quote this for support and never these texts are taken as authoritative texts

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

  10. #20
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    38
    Posts
    743
    Rep Power
    58
    Namaste,

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

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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Lists of Yogas
    By skhandelwal in forum Yoga
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 22 September 2016, 07:20 PM
  2. Hatha Yoga came from Lord Shiva and On to Human Rishis
    By ShivaFan in forum Hatha & Kriya
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03 May 2012, 04:39 PM
  3. The Hindu Culture
    By cmorel02 in forum I am a Hindu
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09 January 2012, 10:49 PM
  4. Yogas Formed At Birth...
    By yajvan in forum Jyotish
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 27 January 2008, 04:26 PM
  5. The significance of Itihasas and Puranas
    By TruthSeeker in forum Scriptures
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12 January 2007, 12:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •