Well, i never said that "sex leads to eternal bliss", these are Ur words.Originally Posted by ramkish42
I said it is a means to realise Divine Bliss, which is different. Also, it includes certain essential prescriptions, without which sex turns to mere body function.
It is clear and exact in the context.Originally Posted by ramkish42
Of course, i am aware of given meaning of "samyoga", but in this case it refers primarily to sexual union. You may compare this with Shrividya's Jnanarnava-tantra, it is available online in sanskrit.
I cannot type the whole Tantras here just for the sake of arguement. As a representative of the Tradition, i can speak on its behalf.
I can provide sanskrit text if U'd like. But i cannot go on translating each and every passage here, sorry.Originally Posted by ramkish42
BTW 29th Ahnika of Tantraloka is published in english by J. Dupuche as "Abhinavagupta. The Kula Ritual" or something like that - check with google.com if interested.
Since sex in love and inside marriage is in total accordance with all Hindu scriptures, there is no reason not to apply given method of VBh. Do not confuse the issue with acts of violence or ignorance, please, which clearly go against Dharma.Originally Posted by ramkish42
Then, there is another passage in VBh which speaks specifically about sexual act. I can find it if i dig the book out, i have it in photocopy somewhere.
I doubt that VBh uses expression "bliss of love". This is needed to be checked.Originally Posted by ramkish42
Brahmananda is not eternal in a conventional sense, since it is out of time. One moment of direct anubhava of That is an experince of Eternity, it is not placed in time.
Scriptures say Shiva is Love. Thus, bliss of love verily is Eternal Bliss, Brahmananda.
I have clearly written that Kaula-naya is to be followed by Kaulas only. And each one has to follow his sampradaya.Originally Posted by ramkish42
But, some points U say are againts general Vedic or Hindu view - these only i argue with. Like that, grihasthi intending for Moksha do not have to abstain from sex for two reasons: it is simply not required by Shastras and moreover goes against his ashrama-dharma.
If some gurus taught this view (i haven't seen till now ANY proof of this from Ur side or from Kannan), it is mere personal opinion which in fact contradicts Vedic teaching.
Yes, i know it is Ur view.Originally Posted by ramkish42
But verily this is not Hindu Dharma or Vedic teaching.