Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 185

Thread: Is Vamachara marga Dharmic ?

  1. #101
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Namaste,

    1. Regarding usage of “jivhopasthaparityAgi” by Kaulavali-nirnaya (1.43) about Jnani:
    Again, the problem is taking out of the context. It further says what is bondage and what is Liberation (1.45), in fact quoting from Kularnava-tantra: “mine”-feeling and “not mine”, mama & nirmama. It is clear that parityaga means not necessary physical abstinence from usage of tongue and genitals, but absence of attachment: Jnani doesn’t identify his “ego” with these activities, since he has no “ego” of his own. It would be clearly ridiculous to admit that Jnani cannot use his tongue — for a fact we know that thousands of Jnanis did continue to use it and only minority preferred mauna. Vedic Rishis who spoke out the Word of Veda used their tongue — they never wrote the texts. Like that, they used their genitals, which is again known from Shruti.
    Thus, this expression doesn’t mean that Jnani has to stop activities of jihva and upastha, but has to stop thinking of these as “his own”. Which is in total accordance with Gita teaching, Tantric teaching and Hinduism in general.

    2. Regarding two verses of Vijnana-bhairava Agama, which mention sexual union. Let me provide originals:
    shaktisa~Ngamasa~NkShubdha shaktyAveshAvasAnikam.
    yatsukhaM brahmatattvasya tatsukhaM svAkyamuchyate..69..
    lehanAmanthanAkoTaiH strIsukhasya bharAtsmR^iteH.
    shaktyabhAve.api deveshi bhavedAnandasamplavaH..70..
    While the second verse says that “[even] in the absence of a woman just by remembrance of enjoyment with her, numerous kisses and frictions, overflow of Bliss occurs”, first one says: “The orgasm (lit. completion of entrance into a woman), aroused by coition with a woman, is that Joy of the Brahman-Nature which is called inherent”.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    What I really object is

    1. Mumukshu practising Kaama
    2. Maithuna in Puja, and insistence of Maithuna during religious rituals.
    3. Claiming Maithuna will lead to Eternity for being part of some ritual
    4. Maithuna during rituals is mandatory for Vaishnavas

    These are the only four points I had been objecting.

    Pls quote my anti kama statements where I insisted Grihastis, who are not mumukshus, should abstain from Kaamartha
    Onto these points:

    1. There is no Vedic or Smarta prohibition. Thus, as a general Hindu view, mumukshu-grihasthi can have sex (since no prohibition is there), and have to make his wife happy, which is a part of Dharma compulsory for ANY grihasthi — thus, if wife wants sexual pleasure, he must give her that.
    I state this again, since U every time ignore the matter and deny the facts. Till now i have seen no proof from U of this claim of Urs.

    2. Maithuna as a part of Puja is mainly a Tantric practice, which is beyond doubt. Do U argue on this and more evidences needed?
    To some extent it is a Vedic practice (there were no "pujas" at that time, so i refer to the Vedic cult in general).
    I never said maithuna is a part of Puja in all Hindu traditions. But in several it verily is.

    3. Shakta- and Bhairava-agamas teach this. Since U are a Shri-vaishnava, U do not have to accept this view. But this teaching is existing in Hinduism, that's all.
    I do not want to argue on the point "is this teaching actually true", since no use in such arguement is there. It is not taught by Ur sampradaya and Ur Guru — forget that, this method is not meant for U. It is taught by my sampradaya — please allow me to follow it and speak about it.

    4. Ritual maithuna is NOT mandatory for Vaishnavas in a whole. I never stated it is, in fact. Two things i said are:
    There is at least in one Pancharatra text a reference to ritual maithuna. I do not remember what Lakshmi-tantra says about results o such ritual — may be it is not aimed at Mukti, but is just a part of special upasana.
    In SOME Vaishnava traditions maithuna was a part of sadhana — namely in Bengali and Orissan Vaishnavism. Of course, U may say this is a result of Shakta influence, which can be true. But as a matter of fact, such is the case about maithuna.
    I can add that sexual rituals were widely practiced among Vaishnava Gurus of Vallabha sampradaya at certain time. U may argue that was just their indulgence and not a sadhana — to this no objection can be made, since i have no idea about personalities of those people. Were they saints of sex-addicts remains a question.

    5. U have used an expression "to fall into a pit of kama", which i see as anti-Kama statement. Moreover, U deny the possibility of sexual union for grihasthi-mumukshu, and this is not taught in Shruti, Gita or Agama.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    Namaste,

    1. Regarding usage of “jivhopasthaparityAgi” by Kaulavali-nirnaya (1.43) about Jnani:
    Again, the problem is taking out of the context. It further says what is bondage and what is Liberation (1.45), in fact quoting from Kularnava-tantra: “mine”-feeling and “not mine”, mama & nirmama. It is clear that parityaga means not necessary physical abstinence from usage of tongue and genitals, but absence of attachment: Jnani doesn’t identify his “ego” with these activities, since he has no “ego” of his own. It would be clearly ridiculous to admit that Jnani cannot use his tongue — for a fact we know that thousands of Jnanis did continue to use it and only minority preferred mauna. Vedic Rishis who spoke out the Word of Veda used their tongue — they never wrote the texts. Like that, they used their genitals, which is again known from Shruti.
    The problem of taking out of context arises with you submission verily. Jnani who is supposed to discard his toungue and genital are understood too literally by you. Where ever such words are used, it meant to mean control over speech and control over intercourse. This verily talks about his intentions - Jnani is supposed to supress his intentions to speak up and should abstain from sex

    If taken out of context in the sense you mean, this could result in Jnani should in mounvrata for ever and should not respond to jala ubhaada which is not the intention

    This is one more time you are missing the point subtly for very literal meanings


    Thus, this expression doesn’t mean that Jnani has to stop activities of jihva and upastha, but has to stop thinking of these as “his own”. Which is in total accordance with Gita teaching, Tantric teaching and Hinduism in general.
    This is in accordance with teachings of Gita and general Hindu view. As we are discussing about Tantric teaching, I should verily say what I found is an exceptional case for Tantric teaching and goes against general Tantric practise

    When such two different views are bridged, such bridging is valid for only for the particular practitioner. Let me take an analogy - the position of Shri Lakshmi in Vaishnavite sect - One feels that she is on par with Shriman Narayana and other feel she is only another Atma, Nithyaatma, highly blessed to be consort of Shriman Narayana - if I try to bridge these two views, such bridge is valid only for Vaishnavas, for general view, both are valid, and which ever is more logical becomes general view, and bridge is non authoritative of non vaishnavites as whole.

    Hence, bridging is authoritative for particular practitioner, for general view, there are both practices equally valid in Tantric practises and aligning with one amongst it, is to be guided by logic

    [/quote]2. Regarding two verses of Vijnana-bhairava Agama, which mention sexual union. Let me provide originals:
    shaktisa~Ngamasa~NkShubdha shaktyAveshAvasAnikam.
    yatsukhaM brahmatattvasya tatsukhaM svAkyamuchyate..69..
    lehanAmanthanAkoTaiH strIsukhasya bharAtsmR^iteH.
    shaktyabhAve.api deveshi bhavedAnandasamplavaH..70..
    While the second verse says that “[even] in the absence of a woman just by remembrance of enjoyment with her, numerous kisses and frictions, overflow of Bliss occurs”, first one says: “The orgasm (lit. completion of entrance into a woman), aroused by coition with a woman, is that Joy of the Brahman-Nature which is called inherent”.[/quote]

    I agree there are references to sexual events which I had accepted earlier also.

    My point of differences

    1. Reference to Bliss of Love without referring to bliss of eternity, and there is no referece as to how bliss of sexual love leads to bliss of eternity

    2. to be specific with verse 69, yat sukham brahmatatvasya, with qualifying words, Yat and Asya, does not make the joy is of Brahman nature but refers only to "Like that of Brahman Nature". This makes there is lot of possiblity referring to procreation leading to progeny. Yat - Tat usages refers to upamaana and not otherwise

    3. Verse 70, has references supporting my view that Maithuna could be substituted, thus falling into general view of all hindus

    Further there is no comments from you where my references are made to other points of Vijnana Bhairava

  4. #104
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    Onto these points:

    1. There is no Vedic or Smarta prohibition. Thus, as a general Hindu view, mumukshu-grihasthi can have sex (since no prohibition is there), and have to make his wife happy, which is a part of Dharma compulsory for ANY grihasthi — thus, if wife wants sexual pleasure, he must give her that.
    I state this again, since U every time ignore the matter and deny the facts. Till now i have seen no proof from U of this claim of Urs.

    2. Maithuna as a part of Puja is mainly a Tantric practice, which is beyond doubt. Do U argue on this and more evidences needed?
    To some extent it is a Vedic practice (there were no "pujas" at that time, so i refer to the Vedic cult in general).
    I never said maithuna is a part of Puja in all Hindu traditions. But in several it verily is.

    3. Shakta- and Bhairava-agamas teach this. Since U are a Shri-vaishnava, U do not have to accept this view. But this teaching is existing in Hinduism, that's all.
    I do not want to argue on the point "is this teaching actually true", since no use in such arguement is there. It is not taught by Ur sampradaya and Ur Guru — forget that, this method is not meant for U. It is taught by my sampradaya — please allow me to follow it and speak about it.
    1 & 2. Let me first refer texts known to you pertaining to substitution of Maithuna, thus making Maithuna not mandatory. Further, the problem is attaching Maithuna with several puja

    3. I am saying the teachings are false. If there are teachings they are true, and binds the practitioners of the revelation. My problem is attaching with others in generally

    As Maithuna is not part of non tantric pujas, now I am looking for texts that excludes Maithuna in tantric pujas - I am trying to make tantrism more applicable to people at large, even to orthodox people

    Till this point I am not sure, why you are objecting, still as the discussion goes on, I trust this will benefit all at large

    4. Ritual maithuna is NOT mandatory for Vaishnavas in a whole. I never stated it is, in fact. Two things i said are:
    There is at least in one Pancharatra text a reference to ritual maithuna. I do not remember what Lakshmi-tantra says about results o such ritual — may be it is not aimed at Mukti, but is just a part of special upasana.
    In SOME Vaishnava traditions maithuna was a part of sadhana — namely in Bengali and Orissan Vaishnavism. Of course, U may say this is a result of Shakta influence, which can be true. But as a matter of fact, such is the case about maithuna.
    With Lakshmi Tantra you had suspended the issues for original texts, we will wait for that before making any comment on that.

    Regarding Vaishnav traditions of Bengal and Orissa, I am not sure what you are talking about. If you have any references, like you to submit it.

    I can add that sexual rituals were widely practiced among Vaishnava Gurus of Vallabha sampradaya at certain time. U may argue that was just their indulgence and not a sadhana — to this no objection can be made, since i have no idea about personalities of those people. Were they saints of sex-addicts remains a question.
    I am not very sure whether followers of Vallabhacharya will concur with view treating them as Vaishnav in general. Their philosophy is called Suddha Advaita, typically Monistic teaching. Many feel that Smaarta tradition is a vaishnav tradition, but in practise this is not seen - the point here is Vaishnavs in general are dualist, they agree with bhedhaabheda, unity in diversity - emanating from one, but different - with references to Body soul theory and the like

    By and large, if you see sexual rituals with Suddha Advaita request you to submit the evidences you have.


    5. U have used an expression "to fall into a pit of kama", which i see as anti-Kama statement. Moreover, U deny the possibility of sexual union for grihasthi-mumukshu, and this is not taught in Shruti, Gita or Agama.
    Pit of Kaama is not treated as anti-kaama statement. If so there are so many similar statements cautioning about vibharidha nature of Maithuna and similar objectionable practises in Tantric texts, I cannot come to conclusion based on that Tantric texts has anti-kaama statements. You came with a name, I explained the name for you

    On the contrary, the word Kama is also used to refer to iccha, I did not made the meaning as person who grants the boon for the word Kaameswara

    Linguistically, I can split the word into Ka+Mesha+Eswara, thus making the word refer to Who is the lord of Mesha (Goat) or referring to Lord of the first zodiac sign etc.

    However, I know these are wierd meaning which are not in common parlence.

    I am submitting all these stuff just to refer, I am not the kind of person which you expect. I am adhering to general rules and common parlence, and to make me a person with Anti-kaama ideologies, you should come up with better proof

  5. #105
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    The problem of taking out of context arises with you submission verily. Jnani who is supposed to discard his toungue and genital are understood too literally by you. Where ever such words are used, it meant to mean control over speech and control over intercourse. This verily talks about his intentions - Jnani is supposed to supress his intentions to speak up and should abstain from sex
    No, this is merely Ur interpretation based on non-Tantric philosophy. Please, do not apply Vaishnava or Shankara's Vedanta ideas to Kaula-shastras, this is confusing the matter.
    Mentioned verse talks about non-attachment, but verily not about suppression.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    This is one more time you are missing the point subtly for very literal meanings
    It is U who try to divert the meaning of the verse. Once again, we talk about Kaula text and it has to be understood in the context of Kaula teaching (and the TEXT ITSELF), and not Ur personal views.

    Tantras never teach any kind of suppression of whatsoever, sepecially for Jnanis. They teach that in advanced Kaula sadhana "the niyama is following one's own will" (svechchhA niyama). Metioned passage simply states that Jnani doesn't see speech and sexual activity as his "own actions", for he is one with Bhairava and doesn't possess any personal ego (mamatva).

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    I agree there are references to sexual events which I had accepted earlier also.
    My point of differences:
    1. Reference to Bliss of Love without referring to bliss of eternity, and there is no referece as to how bliss of sexual love leads to bliss of eternity
    It clearly says that bliss experienced in an intercourse is Bliss of Brahma-tattva (yat sukhaM brahmatattvasya), which is Bliss of the Absolute.

    And previously discussed verse about pleasure of mind speaks about Parananda, highest Bliss:
    yatra yatra manastuShTir manastatraiva dhArayet.
    tatra tatra parAnandasvarUpaM sampravartate..74..

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    2. to be specific with verse 69, yat sukham brahmatatvasya, with qualifying words, Yat and Asya, does not make the joy is of Brahman nature but refers only to "Like that of Brahman Nature". This makes there is lot of possiblity referring to procreation leading to progeny. Yat - Tat usages refers to upamaana and not otherwise
    U completely misunderstand the meaning. There is no word "asya" ("its"), but "brahma-tattvasya", where "sya" is the ending of genetivus. Thus it means "sukha of Brahma-tattva".
    Verily there is not even a slight reference to procreation and progeny.
    Yat-tat here stands for Sukha of maithuna, which is Brahma-sukha, and Svakya-sukha, one's own inherent bliss, Atmananda. It simply states that bliss of Brahman experienced in maithuna is not external bliss, but inherent.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    3. Verse 70, has references supporting my view that Maithuna could be substituted, thus falling into general view of all hindus
    It can be substituted when a woman is absent. And this verily implies that there must be an experience of maithuna, otherwise how a remembrance can be there.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    Further there is no comments from you where my references are made to other points of Vijnana Bhairava
    I haven't searched for a photocopy of the whole book. I had these three verses written out separately as referring to Vama-sadhana. I did that in course of research work.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    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).
    This verily goes against guide rules made by Manu which has general appliation and more authoritative for it is Law of Hindus in general. Similar ban for Wine is also seen in Naaradeeya Dharmasaastra and Yaajnavaalkya smriti

    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
    I am not suggesting the exclusions are particular to Brahmana Varna - but in general

    Exclusion of 5M's including wine are in general. I also found few passages in some books of tantra referring Blanket ban of Manu does not apply to Kaula for intoxicating does not affect a Kaula, which I understand is true only when a Kaula does not feel dizzy after taking wine for verily he is not taking it

    Once Maharishi Veda Vyasa after taking buttermilk from a vendor, asked the vendor to cross the river afer making the vow that Let the vendor float if Veda Vyasa is really fasting for the day, story corroborates, vendor verily floated. Upon enquiry, he replied, buttermilk was taken by Paramaatma inside Veda Vyasa and not by Veda Vyasa. Similar should be the result even with wine and other similar things.

    More over, we should deal with this wine first for such references will make many confuse revealtion of agamas to hallucinations of intoxication.

    Moreover, your point verily proves Maithuna can be substituted

  7. #107
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    No, this is merely Ur interpretation based on non-Tantric philosophy. Please, do not apply Vaishnava or Shankara's Vedanta ideas to Kaula-shastras, this is confusing the matter.
    Mentioned verse talks about non-attachment, but verily not about suppression.
    I am not applying non Kaula interpretations but general ideas of Sanskrit interpretation.

    When the text says about discarding genital, how could take the meaning otherwise with question pertaining to discarding in whole? If you mean this is discard is discard in whole, it should mean Jnani should not respond to jala ubhaadha, on the other hand, discarding is not in general, the only other use of genital is intercourse. As jala ubhaadha cannot be controlled only controllable and discardable use is intercourse. How it became Vedanta view, I do not understand.

    What I is use is called Logical Deduction and not Vedanta interpretation.


    It is U who try to divert the meaning of the verse. Once again, we talk about Kaula text and it has to be understood in the context of Kaula teaching (and the TEXT ITSELF), and not Ur personal views.
    Where is my view here, I am just pointing out what is in Kaula text. If you are bridging, then bridge is valid only for the particular sect, in general, people who belong to non-kaula sees both as authoritative.

    Let me give you another analogy.

    Wine - You and I had submitted both views of Kaula - allowed & substitution - Now that another Kaula texts talks about controlling of Tongue, one should not go behind the taste of Wine could also be the meaning, is further corroborrated by view of Manu and ideas of substituting wine, I can verily conclude Kaula Wine is not must, this is the general logic of deduction

    similarly with Maithuna. It is not must. Some other Kaula texts is against substitution, as you said (I have to check with those texts) - Does this render the authority the previous text invalid is the question you have answer. If both the text are valid, person chooses what he feels is correct. If you trying to bridge, then the bridge verily is valid for Kaula, but this bridge adds one more choice for person who chooses

    Tantras never teach any kind of suppression of whatsoever, sepecially for Jnanis. They teach that in advanced Kaula sadhana "the niyama is following one's own will" (svechchhA niyama). Metioned passage simply states that Jnani doesn't see speech and sexual activity as his "own actions", for he is one with Bhairava and doesn't possess any personal ego (mamatva).
    If this is the case, then discarding should not be the word used

    Otherwise, if Svechcha is to be followed, this leaves doors open for Jnani either to opt for maithuna or not, as rituals making things mandatory does not curtail his Svechcha. Thus it is for Jnani to choose between Maithuna, its substitution or abandon in whole. Is this what you mean?

    If he chooses out of his own will to go with Maithuna, how to support your cause it is not jnani's own action

    If he has free will not to choose maithuna then my point is correct, - in Kaula Sex is not mandatory, even in sex rituals, for Jnani can abandon sex even in sex ritual out of his own will


    U completely misunderstand the meaning. There is no word "asya" ("its"), but "brahma-tattvasya", where "sya" is the ending of genetivus. Thus it means "sukha of Brahma-tattva".
    Verily there is not even a slight reference to procreation and progeny.
    Yat-tat here stands for Sukha of maithuna, which is Brahma-sukha, and Svakya-sukha, one's own inherent bliss, Atmananda. It simply states that bliss of Brahman experienced in maithuna is not external bliss, but inherent.
    All scriptures were the word tattvasya occurs, it split as Tattva+Asya. Even otherwise, Yat-Tat phraseology does not refer Maithuna Sukha, as it refers directly to analogy.

    I concur with your last line, Maithuna sukha is not external bliss as many Kaula texts talks about experiencing it even in its absence physically. Having said that, Yat-Tat reference to analogy become more stronger, As sukha felt in Brahma Tattva, so the sukha is felt in Maithuna. As and So words cannot substantiate your statement - Sukha of maithuna, which is Brahma-sukha, where in you yourself has stated is many places it is not so

    It clearly says that bliss experienced in an intercourse is Bliss of Brahma-tattva (yat sukhaM brahmatattvasya), which is Bliss of the Absolute.
    To this verily the same books speaks, bliss experienced is bliss of love as in verse 68

    It can be substituted when a woman is absent. And this verily implies that there must be an experience of maithuna, otherwise how a remembrance can be there.
    Out of own will, can be susbtituted even when women are present.

    Verily remembarance needs experience of Maithuna, which does not point out experience must be that of Jnani. Person before being a Jnani could have such experience, which he could remember after being a Jnani.

    I haven't searched for a photocopy of the whole book. I had these three verses written out separately as referring to Vama-sadhana. I did that in course of research work.
    No problems

  8. #108
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    1 & 2. Let me first refer texts known to you pertaining to substitution of Maithuna, thus making Maithuna not mandatory.
    It is compulsory on a certain stage of sadhana in this or that form (with one's own wife, parakiya-shakti or in chakrarchana). There is no substitution for maithuna as such.
    Substitution is prescribed for certain issues, and even that is rejected by some Agamas and Gurus. Thus, in Tantraloka-viveka it is said that if woman for intercourse is not available, chakra-puja should not be done. Other texts hold more mild position and allow inner maithuna (my tradition does allow this). In any case, substitutions (like combination of two flowers or special mudras) are used in some cases, but never as a legacy to avoid maithuna as such.
    Yoni-tantra 8. 2 says, maithunena vinA muktirnaiva shAstrasya nirNayaH, "there is no Liberation without maithuna". And other Agamas confirm this view, stating that no Shakta-upasana can be done without Vamachara.
    This doesn't mean that every puja has to include maithuna, of course. But for a Kaula Vama-sadhana is a must. The question is only its particular form, which depends on sampradaya, Guru and his own will.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    Further, the problem is attaching Maithuna with several puja

    3. I am saying the teachings are false. If there are teachings they are true, and binds the practitioners of the revelation. My problem is attaching with others in generally

    As Maithuna is not part of non tantric pujas, now I am looking for texts that excludes Maithuna in tantric pujas - I am trying to make tantrism more applicable to people at large, even to orthodox people
    Perhaps U wanted to say "I am not saying the teachings are false". Anyway, of course there are plenty rituals in Tantras which do not include sexual element of any kind. It isn't a big deal to find such!
    The fact is that maithuna is a necessary part of Kaulachara. If one stops at the level of pashu-bhava (dakshina- or samayachara), no ritual sex may take place (and if it has place, then it is restricted to one's own wife only). But if one wills to go further on Kaula path, and achieve Rudra-hood/Yogini-hood in this very life, it becomes a necessary part.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    Regarding Vaishnav traditions of Bengal and Orissa, I am not sure what you are talking about. If you have any references, like you to submit it.
    I specifically talk about Sahajiya branch of Gaudiya-vaishnavism and Jagannatha cult of Orissa. References are many, U may easily find them in studies of these two cults.
    What i have read myself are "Obscure Religious Cults" by Dasgupta (still available in India) and "The Place of the Hidden Moon — Erotic Mysticism in the Vaishnava-sahajiya Cult of Bengal" by E. C. Dimock. Some material is present in "Criminal Gods and Demon Devotees", an academical digest by several scholars and some other works.

    Regarding sexual practice in Bengal Vaishnavism (adopted by mystical sect of Bauls also) there are many original treateses in bengali. Unfortunately almost none are published and translated in whole, but many quotations can be found in two books i mentioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    By and large, if you see sexual rituals with Suddha Advaita request you to submit the evidences you have.
    I have no idea whether they have sexual rituals as a part of Vaishnava practice. What i said, these were practiced by several Gurus of Vallabha sect — successors of Vallabhacharya. This is a historical fact, and some were even brought to court in times of British colonisation!
    There is a possibility that those Gurus simply used their position to enjoy many women. We cannot be sure in this matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    Linguistically, I can split the word into Ka+Mesha+Eswara, thus making the word refer to Who is the lord of Mesha (Goat) or referring to Lord of the first zodiac sign etc.
    Linguistically U definitely cannot! Goat is meSha (and not mesha), and U would have had "kameSheshvara" instead.
    Be so kind not to kill sanskrit, please.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    It is compulsory on a certain stage of sadhana in this or that form (with one's own wife, parakiya-shakti or in chakrarchana). There is no substitution for maithuna as such.
    Substitution is prescribed for certain issues, and even that is rejected by some Agamas and Gurus. Thus, in Tantraloka-viveka it is said that if woman for intercourse is not available, chakra-puja should not be done. Other texts hold more mild position and allow inner maithuna (my tradition does allow this). In any case, substitutions (like combination of two flowers or special mudras) are used in some cases, but never as a legacy to avoid maithuna as such.
    Yoni-tantra 8. 2 says, maithunena vinA muktirnaiva shAstrasya nirNayaH, "there is no Liberation without maithuna". And other Agamas confirm this view, stating that no Shakta-upasana can be done without Vamachara.
    This doesn't mean that every puja has to include maithuna, of course. But for a Kaula Vama-sadhana is a must. The question is only its particular form, which depends on sampradaya, Guru and his own will.


    Perhaps U wanted to say "I am not saying the teachings are false". Anyway, of course there are plenty rituals in Tantras which do not include sexual element of any kind. It isn't a big deal to find such!
    The fact is that maithuna is a necessary part of Kaulachara. If one stops at the level of pashu-bhava (dakshina- or samayachara), no ritual sex may take place (and if it has place, then it is restricted to one's own wife only). But if one wills to go further on Kaula path, and achieve Rudra-hood/Yogini-hood in this very life, it becomes a necessary part.
    If you feel Maithuna is necessary, how do you corroborate

    1. maithuna Substitution
    2. Discarding Genitals
    3. Avoidance of Maithuna by the will of Yogi out of Svechcha

    without rendering the parts of the teaching invalid, is what I want to hear from you

    I specifically talk about Sahajiya branch of Gaudiya-vaishnavism and Jagannatha cult of Orissa. References are many, U may easily find them in studies of these two cults.
    What i have read myself are "Obscure Religious Cults" by Dasgupta (still available in India) and "The Place of the Hidden Moon — Erotic Mysticism in the Vaishnava-sahajiya Cult of Bengal" by E. C. Dimock. Some material is present in "Criminal Gods and Demon Devotees", an academical digest by several scholars and some other works.
    Regarding Sahajiya I cannot comment now for I am not sure how good I am in their philosophies and teaching. Probably after some time.

    The comment I can make now is Gaudia Vaishnavs belong to Maadhava Sampradaya (Dvaitins, Tattvavada) in toto with complimented views taken from Ramanuja Sampradaya of Bhedaabheda tattva. Sahajiyas reject this Idea, does not fall in Vaishnav in real sense which is verily accpeted by many Gaudia Vaishnav. All people who pray to Krishna and Narayana cannot be Vaishnav in real, unless they fall in two broad groups
    Group A - Ramanuja Sampradaya
    Group B - Madhva Sampradaya

    These two only are Dualistic philosophies which are verily Vaishanv cultures.

    Sri Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada, Sri Vallabhacharya, Sri Nimbaarka all propounded Vaishnava sampradaya (One can claim all are vaishnav teachers but there are no takers for such views for many of the practitioners are not) but verily objected dualistic teachings, hence in strict sense they are not vaishnav

    Regarding sexual practice in Bengal Vaishnavism (adopted by mystical sect of Bauls also) there are many original treateses in bengali. Unfortunately almost none are published and translated in whole, but many quotations can be found in two books i mentioned.
    I do not know whether I will be interested in those sects for I am niether a Maadhvi nor a Gaudia. Still let me give a try

    I have no idea whether they have sexual rituals as a part of Vaishnava practice. What i said, these were practiced by several Gurus of Vallabha sect — successors of Vallabhacharya. This is a historical fact, and some were even brought to court in times of British colonisation!
    There is a possibility that those Gurus simply used their position to enjoy many women. We cannot be sure in this matter.
    Things where both of us cannot provide any proof should be out of discussion. Let us leave this Suddha Advaita


    Linguistically U definitely cannot! Goat is meSha (and not mesha), and U would have had "kameSheshvara" instead. Be so kind not to kill sanskrit, please.
    There is no point in telling me "you cannot" for what I said "I wont". When I said I am not doing this and I am not going to do this, I do not Arjun to tell me Ramkish cannot do this. This requires some common sense.

    I am more kind to sanskrit than you, please

  10. #110
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    This verily goes against guide rules made by Manu which has general appliation and more authoritative for it is Law of Hindus in general. Similar ban for Wine is also seen in Naaradeeya Dharmasaastra and Yaajnavaalkya smriti
    na mAMsabhakShaNe doSho na madye na cha maithune — Manavadharma-shastra
    "There is no sin in eating meat, in wine and in coitus".

    Though generally Shastras may prohibit wine usage for brahmanas, it refers to common use and not ritual one. Since Agamas prescribe ritual usage of wine for all Kaulas, and since in Kaula-chakra no varna-bheda exists, brahmanas partake of wine as well as kshatriyas or others.

    In Shrividya tradition wine is a necessary part of vishesharghya offering in puja. And priests do add it, though usually unnoticed by people.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    I am not suggesting the exclusions are particular to Brahmana Varna - but in general
    Exclusion of 5M's including wine are in general. I also found few passages in some books of tantra referring Blanket ban of Manu does not apply to Kaula for intoxicating does not affect a Kaula, which I understand is true only when a Kaula does not feel dizzy after taking wine for verily he is not taking it
    U understood in it a wrong way. Agamas say that Kaula should drink wine in a way that he doesn't have mano-bhrama and drishti-bhrama, so he is fully self-aware and controls himself. Verily he takes wine, but is perfectly conscious. Unlike common people who are unconscious even without wine, Yogi is self-aware always. He drink wine in order to manifest Ananda, and never to become unconscious.
    Anando brahmaNo rUpaM tachcha dehe vyavasthitam.
    tadabhivya~njakaM madyaM yogibhistena pIyate..
    (Kularnava-tantra 5. 80)

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    Moreover, your point verily proves Maithuna can be substituted
    It can be if it is not possible. But it should be done when possibility is there.
    Great yajnas also can be substituted; this doesn't mean they are useless. People rarely do Vedic yajnas not because they are inferior to pauranika sustitutes, but because they are complicated and demand high qualification of priests.
    Maithuna has to be substituted in several cases — but not in upasana in total. Of course Tantric priests cannot perform physical maithuna before public in temples, thus they do once bhavana and mudras. But privately they practice 5M. That was and i believe is the case in many great temples.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

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
  •