Jnana Yoga

[ramkish42]

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

That is ok. Now you have show how does this bliss of sexual love will lead to tranquility of mind or eternity

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

Is that available online, I do not want to spend money in buying books, online is easy and advantageous

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

Either rephrase in english, or furnish original Sanskrit text or rephrase it in Hindi

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

All Advaitins and Shaivist agree with the view that Lord Shiva got the name of Kameshvara not be being the lord of Passion but by his virtue of overcoming the sense of Kama. The story of Manmada Dahana is verily popular, only after this dahana, Lord shiva is called Kameshvara. What I present is not vaishanavite view but views of all Shaivist.

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

Historically, Lakshmi Tantra is dated after 1100AD. Further, there is no reference of sexual practise for mumukshu in lakshmi Tantra. Lakshmi Tantra talks about 4 methods for Moksha, which I had submitted already. Entire paancharaatra warns about sexual intercourse for it might divert vaishanavites from their concentration of Moksha and Lord.

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

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

If this is your actual idea, what is point in replying to What does Sankara meant thread, with Kaula views instead of replying with Sankara Views?

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

Request you to reiterate your last line so that you will not retract it later.

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

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

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

Mythology is History recorded for Hinduism. Indra is sex minded, to some extent yes, but no where it is recorded he is mumukshu aiming for eternity. Regarding Shiva and Krishna sex mindedness does not apply, after making such statements I request you to read the mythology again

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

I have reverence for knowledge where ever it is whether they are aacharyas for a sect or not.

[ramkish42]

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

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

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

As this deals not with Kaula view, unless you give adequate proof, this merely stays as your personal opinion. When Shri Radha was Married, where is the record for the intercourse is yet to be submitted by you to corroborate you statements

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

I have not started this practise of complaining, for still this point I can handle it by myself, I thank my perceptors for the gift of debating.

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

Seeing wife a Goddess Lakshmi does not authorise intercourse, verily true. However, there are some exceptions in viewing wife as Goddess Lakshmi. the most popular is rajasvala stris. They are not seen as Godess Lakshmi.

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

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

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

[ramkish42]

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

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

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

Kaulavalinirnaya

Preface given by Sir John Woodroffe (Aurthur Avalon)

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Arjuna]

Namaste,

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

[ramkish42]

Namaste,

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

I am not sure whether Kaulavali is same as Kaulavalinirnaya.

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

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

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

RIDICULOUS CLAIM, THE MOST RIDICULOUS YOU COULD EVER POST


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

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

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


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

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

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

[ramkish42]

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

Dear moderator

Thanks for your advice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Arjuna]

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

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

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

[Jalasayanan]

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

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

Kaulavalinirnaya

Preface given by Sir John Woodroffe (Aurthur Avalon)

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

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

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

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

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


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

Great Findings.

I was also looking for these texts

Thanks

[Arjuna]

Namaste,

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

Regarding usage of 5M by brahmanas, there is no consistency about first three in Agamas. Some Agamas do permit to use anukalpas for wine, meat and fish for brahmanas, but it is argued by another Agamas. This polemics is evident in Kulapujana-chandrika, where one may find many pros&contras — but the resume is that brahmanas should use wine as well (this is supported by Tantraloka and Kularnava).
But there is no legacy to substitute maithuna with anukalpa on the basis of brahmana-varna. In some cases physical maithuna is not possible, as then anukalpas are used. Since Shruti never prohibit sexual act for grihastha-brahmanas, there is no point for substitutes. Only in cases of group rituals brahmanas nowadays frequently use anukalpas, since the full practice of Shrichakrarchana demands very high level of bhAva from all participants.