Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 185

Thread: Is Vamachara marga Dharmic ?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337
    Mod Note:

    Please refrain from calling hindu puranas bugus. I am issuing you a warning I would have done the same thing if another sectarian person from another shove it down your throat religion like chrisitianity or islam came here and called our puranas bogus.

    thanks,
    satay

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by satay
    Mod Note:

    Please refrain from calling hindu puranas bugus. I am issuing you a warning I would have done the same thing if another sectarian person from another shove it down your throat religion like chrisitianity or islam came here and called our puranas bogus.

    thanks,
    Dear Satay,

    I have rephrased my statement.

  3. #13
    The greatness of the sanatana dharma is acceptence of many paths to God. There are religions in this world which offer no path to god.

    The spiritual essence of sruti and gita is realization of our inherent divine nature (whether dvaitic or advaitic, upto the practioner). Medivial smarta-ism of hair splitting argumentation to prove something is counter to vedas by pundits with little tapas and substiquently making a group Outcaste has done great harm to our dharma and culture as a whole. Instead of using sruti as the fountain head of spiritual isnpiration few people have always tried to use it in argumentation with others with the aim of making them outcastes. This was there since puranic times but became a disease in medivial times. This is called purohitism in language of shaktibad. It is an asurik development, since it's main motivation is to grab other's wealth or increase one's dignity at the cost of others. This is an injustice - the hallmark of asurik development. I despise them as much as muslim mullahs.

    It is disturbing to see such mentality still persists among some hindu's.
    I don't think there is anything against vamamarga anywhere. Brahmacharya has been hailed as the greatest tapas, that's it. If one can live by it, fine. I know many of hypocrats who cannot live by it but advocate to others's and ruin their lives.

    If one is a grihi, one must keep his wife happy. In such circimstances if someone offers a way to even use his normal duties of kama as offering to god and progress in sadhna - I personally find it quite beautiful.

    But at the sametime based on my param guru's writing I don't believe serious spiritual development or ultimate moksha can be obtained while still engaged in kama. Kaula's adovacte that one can. But that's a minor difference-I may not choose that path. End of Story.

    Tantra (in terms of the rituals) is very very ancient and vamamarga/kaula tantra is also atleast a mellinea old development within our dharma. Let's not without knowing and practicing the system defame and belittle it. I personally still do not believe it as a path to serious spiritual growth, but I see it has it's own beauty. Let us devote our energy on how anti-vedic Islam is, for it is the need of the hour.
    Last edited by Singhi Kaya; 16 April 2006 at 04:19 AM.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya
    The greatness of the sanatana dharma is acceptence of many paths to God. There are religions in this world which offer no path to god.
    But Vedas do not accept stealing, murder etc. as a way to Bhagavaan. Just because Vedas accept some ways like Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga etc. as a way, it does not mean every way is acceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya
    Medivial smarta-ism of hair splitting argumentation to prove something is counter to vedas by pundits with little tapas and substiquently making a group Outcaste has done great harm to our dharma and culture as a whole.
    In that case you must be blaming Shankaracharya and Vivekananda for not doing Tapas, for telling the truth about vamachara, that it is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya
    Instead of using sruti as the fountain head of spiritual isnpiration few people have always tried to use it in argumentation with others with the aim of making them outcastes. This was there since puranic times but became a disease in medivial times. This is called purohitism in language of shaktibad. It is an asurik development, since it's main motivation is to grab other's wealth or increase one's dignity at the cost of others. This is an injustice - the hallmark of asurik development. I despise them as much as muslim mullahs.
    In that case Shanakarcharya who criticized vamachara is also to be called an asura as per your argument.

    The upanishads are clear. There is a story where India and Virochana try to learn from prajapati in Changogya Upanishad(Vaishvanara Vidya I guess). While Indra comes back everytime to learn the correct meanings from Prajapati, Virochana is satisfied with his faulty knowledge without any critical examination. Virochana is the leader of asuras. It is asuras who accept anthing without critical analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya
    It is disturbing to see such mentality still persists among some hindu's.
    I don't think there is anything against vamamarga anywhere. Brahmacharya has been hailed as the greatest tapas, that's it. If one can live by it, fine. I know many of hypocrats who cannot live by it but advocate to others's and ruin their lives.
    Hypocrites or not, the fact is clear. Changogya Upanishad is very clear in stating that only by Brahmacarya, Brahma Jnana can be attained(8:5:2). It does not make any sense to then say also sexual indulgence is a way for Brahma Jnana. Vamachara is a condemnable practise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya
    If one is a grihi, one must keep his wife happy. In such circimstances if someone offers a way to even use his normal duties of kama as offering to god and progress in sadhna - I personally find it quite beautiful.
    When alll the scriptures from Sruti to authentic smritis prescribe sense control, how can one offer selfishness and lust to Bhagavaan. Scriptures are very clear, that only by brahmacarya and sense control can one gain Brahma Jnana. Nowhere in Sruti or authentic smritis, one can find "sex" as a way for gaining brahma Jnana.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya
    But at the sametime based on my param guru's writing I don't believe serious spiritual development or ultimate moksha can be obtained while still engaged in kama. Kaula's adovacte that one can. But that's a minor difference-I may not choose that path. End of Story.
    That is no small difference. There is a big difference between not stealing and stealing. Similarly there is a big difference between having sex, thinking always about sexual activities and Brahmacarya(where one does not even think of sexual activities). Both are completely opposite ways and both cannot lead to same end.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya
    Tantra (in terms of the rituals) is very very ancient and vamamarga/kaula tantra is also atleast a mellinea old development within our dharma. Let's not without knowing and practicing the system defame and belittle it. I personally still do not believe it as a path to serious spiritual growth, but I see it has it's own beauty. Let us devote our energy on how anti-vedic Islam is, for it is the need of the hour.
    The discussion is on Vama marga. Islam is ofcourse anti-Vedic because it presribes blind violence. But so is Kaula Marga that prescribes sex as a way to achieve Moksha, just as islam thinks violence is a way to achieve moksha.

    Nowhere in Sruti one can find a verse that SEX is a way for attaining Moksha. In addition vedas are clear in saying that through Brahmacarya only (Chandogya 8.5.2).

    One need not pratcise Islam to know it is wrong. We know it is wrong because it promotes violence and bigotry. Similarly sexual union is no way for attaining Bhagavaan for scriptures prescribe control of senses in all ashramas with a reason.

    It is ridiculous to ask for explicit verses condemning vamachara, for one cannot find explicit verse for Islam too. Vedas have clear instructions against murder and also clear instructions for attaining Brahma Jnana, which is sense control. Sense control automatically prescludes sensual enjoyments of any kind including sexual activities, sexual thoughts and sexual indulgence. Hence vamachara is automatically rejected just as islam is rejected as per Vedas.
    Last edited by rkannan1; 16 April 2006 at 08:05 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    Tripuropanishad is probably as unauthentic as muktikopanishad. Muktikopanishad does not find mention anywhere in literature before 19 th century. To my knowledge Tirupuropanishad also do not find mention before 18th century(Bhaskararaya).
    I have no idea of it's exact date; however even if the text was written in recent times, it doesn't prove that it's teaching never existed before. In fact, Shakta-tantrism as a matter of fact existed well before 8 century (approximate date of Shankara's life). And it was much more spread and influential that nowadays.
    Muktika canon of 108 is generally accepted to be authorative (by mainstream brahmanas i mean), and it is hardly possible that it was fabricated in 19 century.

    The name of the topic was "Is Vamachara dharmic" (and not "is Vamachara Vedic/Upanishadic). What is Ur standard of dharmic? U haven't provided any exact definition as yet.
    If U limit Dharma to Vedas + Smriti, it is Ur view and not a generally accepted standard in Hinduism (which is very much based upon Agamas). Moreover, if some practice is not directly taucht in Vedas and Smriti, it doesn't imply it is "anti-Vedic" or "anti-dharmic". Unless it is not prohibited there.

    I can agree that certain practices of Vama-marga contradict Smarta prescriptions and at times maybe some Vedic passages. But here we do not discuss each and every sadhana taken as a whole, but whether any type of Vamachara is against Veda or some types of it are in accordance with Veda. And there is no prohibition of ritual sex for those who are grihasthis. It is said in Manu-smriti that "there is no sin in intercourse". It doesn't say "in only that intercourse which is intended at making kids". Eventhough it says further that abstaining is valuable, it does not prohibit, but allows. That, which is allowed in Smriti cannot be claimed to be anti-dharmic. On what grounds?

    The whole speculation around "sense control" is irrelative to the issue. First of all, "sense control" doesn't mean "no sex", "sex only for procreation" or "sex cannot be upasana". Sense control in fact is needed for ritual usage of sex! And that is underlined in Tantras.
    Similar situation is in yoga systems, which incorporated sexual practices of Tantras (as vajroli-kriya). Even tamil Tirumantiram being against extreme Vama sadhanas, mentiones sexual practice of yogic kind. And Tirumantiram is very authorative among all followers of Shaiva-siddhanta (practically this means on half or even the majority of Tamil brahmanas).
    No Kaula-tantra teaches that sense-control is not needed. Thus, the teaching of Veda and Smriti about sense-control doesn't contradict Tantras, as they teach essentially the same (though means are different).

    There is great difference between animal-like enjoyment and realisation of Purnabrahman in sexual intercourse. In fact, animals never enjoy but copulate for procreation only (as is their instinct). Thus, strictly speaking, sex only for procreation is the only truely animal sex. In such sex there in no place for love. It is despicable.

    If one doesn't love a woman, it is better to abstain from any sex and become a sannyasi. Indeed such person has no reason to marry. To love a woman and make her happy is a part of husband's dharma. And as Gita teaches, it is better to do one's own dharma imperfectly than another's one perfectly. Grihasthi who "tries to behave like sannyasi" is acting against Dharma and against Vedas and Smriti. If one has an inclination toward renouncing the world, he can take sannyasa (again, if he just leaves wife alone, it is not very dharmic).

    I cannot see any greatness in a situation when one gets married without any feeling for his wife, and like an animal uses her body for making an offspring. Is this Hindu-dharma? Never.

    In each ashrama rules are different. Can U give any proof from Vedas that it is adharma to love one's wife and satisfy her and oneself sexually? If U see Atharvana-veda, there are many prayers regading sexuality. The attitude of Vedas is clearly positive, no denial of sex is there. In fact, nowadays narrow [mis]understanding of brahmacharya (not as an ashrama but as a prescription) is a byproduct of outer influences on Hinduism. Started from buddhism, then islam, and finally victorian morality brought by englishmen and ideology of gandhism. This is the root of the problem. Such attitude to sex is in fact anti-Hindu.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    Lalita Sahsranama is not authentic as it contradicts Sruti, while Kalika Purana is also not authentic as it is not counted among 18 Mahapuranas.(I have rephrased my statement as the moderator has warned me).
    Lalita-sahasranama is a part of Brahmanda-purana, which as i remember is one of the 18 Mahapuranas. Kalika-purana is Upapurana, but it doesn't make it unauthentic.

    In Devi-mahatmya (part of Markandeya-purana) it is said that "all women are forms of the Goddess", which is in total accordance with Tantric teaching. If woman is seen in such a way, then naturally sexual union with her is a religious sacrament. There is no contradition with Shruti in this. (Is there any? Please, references.)

    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    Please provide if you find any with source.
    I do not own a copy of it, but i will try. At least i can get it in India — but for that U will have to wait. But, on every reference i provide U, U say it is not valid, not authentic and alike — i guess U again will simply say that Lakshmi-tantra is also of no value 'coz it contradicts Ur idea of Shruti.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    The portion of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad containing sexual union of man and woman is called "Putramantha-Brahmana". Hence it is only logical to conclude that sexual union is used only as a tool for obtaining a PUTRA. Nowhere in the upanishad it is mentioned that "sex" as a process for Brahma Gnana, only as a tool for obtaining good sons.
    Let me deal with this issue when i get the original text.
    In any case, if fire is mentioned in homa-prakriya, it doesn't "logically" mean that fire is used only in homa ritual.
    I didn't say that Vedas or Upanishads (apart from Shakta ones) teach sex a a means to Brahma-jnana. This is specific to Tantras — but it doesn't go against Vedic teaching.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    Ofcourse scriptures do prescribe sense control even for grihastas and no Vedas or authentic smritis prescribe sex as a way for Brahma Gnana. Infact it is considered inauspicious to perform sexual acts during performance of good acts like Vedic yagnas etc.
    While U do any ritual it is inaspicious to mix it with another ritual! If one does purashcharana he is not supposed to break it with ganga-snana or homa unless it is specially told in Scriptures. However in some Vedic yajnas sexual act was performed as a part of ritual. I cannot give exact references to Vedic texts as i am not in India currently (i won't try to dig them out myself — i have another work to do). I will try to ask through my friends-brahmanas; in the case i succeed i will post references here.
    Hope U won't tell again that this "statement is of no value" . In any case U may inquire from Vedic scholars, who should know the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    Just because somebody follows vamachara, it does not become right.
    Same can be said about any practice. The basis for Vamachara are Agamas, which are a part of Shruti.
    If it was anti-Vedic, no Guru could teach it openly and remain authortive. But we know that Bhaskararaya for example remained highly authorative even for those Shrividya brahmanas who were against Vama-marga.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    Vedas clearly prescribe SENSE CONTROL. Indulgence in sexual activities is definitely not sense control. Hence vamachara is automatically anti-vedic.
    It is definitely Ur opinion
    It is neither proved by pramana, nor by anumana, not by agama.
    There is no contradiction between having sex (we do not talk about any kind of sex, but about sex in limits of what is natural and acknowledge by Shastras) and developing sense-control. Moreover, one can learn to control senses only while experiencing sex (otherwise it is suppression and not control).

    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    Which Sruti says that sexual activity is a process of Brahma Gnana?
    Agamas.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    Except Pancaratra and other authentic smritis that agree with Srutis, all other tantric works and smritis are obviously wrong and/or interpolated.
    It is not "obvious", but Ur personal view only.
    As a matter of fact, many Gurus and acharyas held different views from Urs. In Ur claim i can see only indirect insult of many saints and direct insult of Scriptures (which U didn't study btw).

    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    The whole of Vedas contains mantras. The varnashrama system is for Veda parayana for dvijas. Hence one cannot say Brahmacharya etc. is not mentioned in Vedas, for Brahmacharya is mentioned explicitly in Chandogya upanishad etc.
    Also it is clearly mentioned in this upanishad that Brahman world is attainalble only through Brahmacharya(8:5:2). It is because of these explcit statements in upanishads like this that vAmAchArA needs to be rejected as anti-Vedic.
    If brahmacharya was understood in the way U pose it, no grihastha could have attained Brahman. Which is obviously nonsense view.
    Brahmacharya means "conduct of Brahman" or "going to Brahman". In its direct meaning it has nothing to do with physical celibacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    Regarding Murti Puja, there is no such explicit statements in Vedas that rejects making of images etc.
    No, there are statements. And in any case, murti-puja and the whole of temple worship is absent from Vedas. Yoga is not Vedic as well.
    If U stick to Vedas in a strict sense of 4 samhitas, U have to reject almost all Hindu traditions as non-Vedic (but not anti-Vedic though).

  6. #16
    namste kannan,

    I agree with you to some extent. But personally I'm not convinced vamachara is against vedas. But I can be wrong. You can prove the point here.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    It is ridiculous to ask for explicit verses condemning vamachara, for one cannot find explicit verse for Islam too. Vedas have clear instructions against murder and also clear instructions for attaining Brahma Jnana, which is sense control. Sense control automatically prescludes sensual enjoyments of any kind including sexual activities, sexual thoughts and sexual indulgence. Hence vamachara is automatically rejected just as islam is rejected as per Vedas.
    No, it is not ridiculous. Let me try to explain once again:

    1. Stealing, murder and alike things are clearly prohibited independently of any ashrama, varna or sampradaya (there are direct prescriptions against these things). Secondly, these things are unnatural for a human and the motivation behind them is himsa (violence, anger) and pride, and the root is ignorance.
    There is nothing common among these things and sexual desire. Sexual desire is totally natural for a human, who unlike animals is able to enjoy it independently of procreation instinct. Sex according to Smriti is to be practiced only in marriage. And in marriage it is never restricted to procreation only. Quite the opposite, husband’s dharma is to satisfy his wife and make her happy — which includes sexual satisfaction. U again and again ignore this matter. It is adharma for a grihasthi to abstain from sex just because he has got such queer idea, it is pure selfishness. Of course in no way it can be regarded as brahmacharya, since it is not required from grihasthi. To spread sannyasa-dharma upon grihasthi is practical ADHARMA, which is against Shruti and Smriti.
    Thus, first of all, sex is not restricted to procreation or prohibited for grihasthis — this is the teaching of Shruti and Smriti. U cannot prove otherwise and for this reason say “it is ridiculous to ask”.

    2. There is a huge difference between sense control and abstaining from sex. While the first is needed for sadhana, the second is clearly not (for grihsthis). No true Shastra says it is needed. Vedas never put sex into opposition to Moksha. Sexual enjoyment is included into Kama, one of 4 valid Purusharthas. Shruti and Smriti never say “either Kama or Moksha” — do not impose this para-christian idea upon Hinduism.

    3. While the doctrine of sexual upasana is clearly Tantric and has its origin in Kaula and Bhairava Agamas, no Vedic teaching prohibit this possibility. Nowhere it is said that sex is incompatible with sadhana or Moksha.

    4. Finally, what about love? U really do not understand what it is, do not have such category?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    This does not seem to be very convincing. Based on this logic every adharmic activity can be made to look dhramic relative to somebody or some circumstance.

    Dharma is well defined in Vedas. Vedas say clearly(in one of the Upanishads) that none can obtain Moskha and gain Brahma Jnana without knowing Vedas. All Shastras talk about control of senses, avoiding meat and alcohol, and control of sexual urges. Hence VAmAchArA marga cannot be right at the same time when Vedas reccommend just the opposite teachings.

    What is right and wrong cannot be relative.
    Dear Shri Kannan

    Indeed Yes.

    This analogy looks as if what you had mentioned. However, you fail to understand the rights and duties assigned to every one.

    Sanaatana is diversified group of philosophies where every one is accomodated, hence what is adharmic to one may be dharmic to another. Let me point out

    For (Veer Shaiva my earlier posting is wrong, actually it is Kapaali) Kapaali, Yagnopavitam is made of long hair, esp of female, for they are supposed to live in Burial Ground. Hair in food is OK for Sowriraja Perumal as promised by the lord himself. But for you and me, Hair found in food or elsewhere in house spoils the sanctity.

    Let us please understand Dharma changes for each and every one

    You had been specifically taught to take Charanagati, and you go for it. This does not mean it is the only Dharma. There are other 32 similar dharma to reach god's abode.

    For Vamachara, results as deemed by Saaktha is not Vaikunta as you understand. Eternity offered by Saaktha is different by what is offered in Vaishnav or Shaiva.

    To add, Yoni puja, (of course not in literal terms and practise as said and done by Saaktha) is incorporated also in Saama Veda and it is mandatory during marriage ceremonies. Now a days, our practise to this much disguised. REquest you to consult a local preist on this (I trust you yourself might know this well)

    As I understand there is good and bad. There is only Good and Pleasant.

    Sreyas or Preyas

    This is what you have to choose from.

    Sreyascha preyascha manushyamethatsou samparitya vivinakthi deerah
    Sreyosi deeropi preyaso vrunite preyomandhe yogakshemaan vrunite

    Just my humber Opinion

    tanmaamaavet; tadvaktaaramaavet; aavetmaam; aavetvaktaaram
    Last edited by ramkish42; 22 April 2006 at 07:18 AM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    The basis for Vamachara are Agamas, which are a part of Shruti


    This is wrong. Basis of Vamachara is not Agamic but of practise. Agama regulate the practise of vamachara with some specific guidelines, but this does not make basis of vamachara to be extracted from Veda.

    But, for sure, it is not condemned by srutis, but great Aacharya are against this practise. As aacharyas go against we, we follow aacharya.

    (I would like to bring to your notice that many of our current practises does not carry vedic approval but only customary approval. As Sage Aapasthamba rightly observed, we must continue with our customs and what women want to follow, if it is Ok according to our books and customs. For many of hindus, Vamachara is no customary, hence they should not practise)

    Quote Originally Posted by "[COLOR=black
    rkannan"
    Quote Originally Posted by "[COLOR=black
    Regarding Murti Puja, there is no such explicit statements in Vedas that rejects making of images etc

    No, there are statements. And in any case, murti-puja and the whole of temple worship is absent from Vedas. Yoga is not Vedic as well.
    If U stick to Vedas in a strict sense of 4 samhitas, U have to reject almost all Hindu traditions as non-Vedic (but not anti-Vedic though)

    This is wrong again. There are no such statements.

    All statements goes against Idols and not murti puja as such. I would like to point out the differences. Idol worship is make an Idol and worship it. Murti Puja is make an Idol according with few pre made rules, install the idol (this may be applicable to few idols), invoke godly power on the idols, worship it. As far as I see, the practise of inviting god to accept the puja offered to the Idol is clearly absent in other Idol worshippers.

    Once invoked, veda does not ban puja offered to Murtis.

    My humble Request to you to kindly come up with specific verses that bans murti puja so that I can offer you explanation on such, if it is possible for my limited knowledge. Request you not to be offended if I do not clarify, for that means, my knowledge is limited on that aspect.

    Jai shree krishna
    [/COLOR]

  10. #20
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    This is wrong. Basis of Vamachara is not Agamic but of practise. Agama regulate the practise of vamachara with some specific guidelines, but this does not make basis of vamachara to be extracted from Veda.
    Agamas are a part of Shruti dealing with vishesha-jnana (while Vedas deal with samanya-jnana). Agamas are Shaiva, Shakta and Vaishnava. And Vamachara is essentially based upon Shakta and Shaiva (Bhairava) Agamas.
    Vamachara is not extracted from Veda, i never said that. But it doesn't contradict Veda as well (at least essential part of it, not all sadhanas).

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    But, for sure, it is not condemned by srutis, but great Aacharya are against this practise. As aacharyas go against we, we follow aacharya.
    Each one has to follow his sampradaya, this is right.
    It is also a fact that many great Acharyas were adherents of Vamachara and promoted it. One has to reply on those Acharyas who are authorative for his sampradaya and parampara.
    As for myself, i rely upon Sri Shambhunatha, Abhinavagupta, Matsyendranatha, Maheshvarananda, Vatulanatha, Bhaskararaya, Purnananda and others. Being a kaula i follow my tradition, and this is my dharma. But of course i do not say everyone has to follow Kaula path. Moreover, it is unnecessary and even impossible.
    All paths which are really to God, are valid and proper for certain groups of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    (I would like to bring to your notice that many of our current practises does not carry vedic approval but only customary approval. As Sage Aapasthamba rightly observed, we must continue with our customs and what women want to follow, if it is Ok according to our books and customs. For many of hindus, Vamachara is no customary, hence they should not practise)
    Yes, U are right.
    I do not advocate Vamachara as specific type of upasana for every hindu, never. For this sadhana one has to get specific diksha, otherwise it is generally impossible.
    But, i do state that every husband should see Devi in his wife, and percieve sexual act as a devotional act to Her. This is not specific to Tantra only, but it is simply natural in the context of bhakti and jnana.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    This is wrong again. There are no such statements.
    All statements goes against Idols and not murti puja as such. I would like to point out the differences. Idol worship is make an Idol and worship it. Murti Puja is make an Idol according with few pre made rules, install the idol (this may be applicable to few idols), invoke godly power on the idols, worship it. As far as I see, the practise of inviting god to accept the puja offered to the Idol is clearly absent in other Idol worshippers.
    Well, i am aware of the procedure of murti-puja, trust me No need in explanations about avahanadi procedures.
    I didn't state it is wrong — it exists to some extent even in Kaula-tantra (at least in the external upasana). Moreover, there is very sacred and specific understanding of such type of worship in Kaula doctrine, which deals with worship of deities inside bdoy.

    But there is no murti-puja in Vedas. There existed the worship of sexual images of Godhead, namely linga and yoni. And while Yajur and Atharnava Vedas are much pro-shaivistic, Rigveda has a passage against "phallus worshippers". And as i know nowhere Vedas do promote any type of murti-puja.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    My humble Request to you to kindly come up with specific verses that bans murti puja so that I can offer you explanation on such, if it is possible for my limited knowledge. Request you not to be offended if I do not clarify, for that means, my knowledge is limited on that aspect.
    What i remember is that verse against linga-worshippers, and linga is an image (though not murti strictly speaking). My expression wasn't precise perhaps.
    Generally Vedas do not ban murti-puja, since it wasn't prominent at those times. What i wanted to say is that murti-puja is not Vedic in origin, as well as Tantric sadhanas or yoga. But it is not anti-Vedic, which is most sure.

    BTW, thank U for the reasonable arguments. Like this discussion becomes possible and sensible

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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