Guest guest Posted June 10, 2002 Report Share Posted June 10, 2002 WHY THE "REAL 5 M's" ARE ONLY FOR VIRAS Put simply, the 5 M's are only for Viras because Pashus are not sufficiently advanced to understand them and Divyas are presumably beyond them. In fact, the Tantras emphatically *exclude* Pashus -- i.e., the ordinary run of less spiritually minded human beings -- from engaging in the 5 M rituals. Why? Because they have not had the physical, mental, spiritual and doctrinal training to properly understand the exoteric and esoteric meaning and purpose of these ceremonies. The whole point of these rituals is to experientially drive home the realization that those things and acts which are traditionally considered "impure" are actually (like everything else in Creation) the body of the Goddess. In a religious parallel, Roman Catholicism preaches that, given the proper ritual, mere bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Well, in the same way Tantra teaches that the 5 M's transform the mundane materials and functions of life into Devi, the Goddess. But for the Pashu -- the average person without an intense amount of Tantric training under her or her belt -- no amount of "talking the talk" of Tantra will make this transformation real. On the contrary -- no matter how they may try, sex will still be sex, meat will still be meat, and booze will still be booze. To continue with the Roman Catholic comparison, church doctrine holds that -- for those individuals not initiated into the mystery of transubstantiation (i.e. non-Catholics who've not received the preparatory sacraments) -- bread and wine, even if properly administered by a priest, *remains* nothing more than bread and wine. In other words, the ritual only works if you're spiritually ready for it. And most people aren't. Still, it's important to understand the fundamental theory that is at work behind the 5 M's, and Woodroffe explains it thus: "According to Indian Monism [Advaita], man is -- in his essence or spirit -- divine, and one with the universal Spirit. His mind and body and all their functions are divine, for they are not merely a manifestation of Shakti, but they are Shakti itself. So to say that a matter is, in itself, 'low' or 'evil' is to calumniate Shakti. Nothing in natural function is low or impure to the mind that recognizes it as Shakti and the working of Shakti. It is the ignorant and, in a true sense, vulgar mind that regards any natural function as low or coarse. .... Nothing in itself is impure. It is the mind that makes it so." A Pashu may be intellectually able to understand this, and even convincingly parrot back such ideas. But only the true Vira is competent to experientially confront them head-on: "The only ones who are competent for this Yoga," notes Woodroffe, "are those who are truly free, or on the way to freedom, from all dualism." WHAT THE 5 M's MEAN No less an authority than the Mahanirvana Tantra states that, without the 5 M's, the Tantric worship of Shakti is impossible (V. 23-24). "The reason for this," explains Woodroffe, "is that those who worship Shakti, worship Divinity as Creatrix [the Mother] and in the form of the Universe. If She appears as and in natural functions, She must be worshipped therewith -- otherwise, worship is fruitless." Esoterically, the 5 M's symbolize and celebrate -- among other things -- the traditional five elements of Devi's Creation: 1. WINE (Madya) is Fire, which gives joy and dispels the sorrows of humankind. 2. MEAT (Mamsa) is Air, which nourishes and increases the strength of mind and body. 3. FISH (Matsya) is Water, which increases generative power. 4. GRAIN (Mudra) is Earth, which produces and supports all life. 5. SEXUAL UNION (Maithuna) is Ether, the root of the world and the origin of all creation. BUT that doesn't mean that only Vira Sadhaks are qualified to worship Devi. On the contrary, there are specific 5 M's prescribed for each of the three Bhavas: 1. DIVYA. (SYMBOLIC 5 M's): (1) Wine is the intoxicating knowledge acquired by Yoga of the Parabrahman, which renders the worshiper senseless as to the external world. (2) Meat is the surrender of all the worshiper's acts to the Divine. (3) Fish is that Sattvic knowledge by which the worshiper feels the pleasure and pain of all beings. (4) Parched Grain (Mudra) is the act of relinquishing all association with the evil that results in bondage. (5) Sexual Intercourse Ritual, is Kundalini Yoga; i.e., the union of the Shakti (Kundalini) of the Muladhara Chakra with the Shiva of the Sahasrara Chakra. 2. VIRA. (LITERAL 5 M's): (1) Wine is not usually grape wine, but rather wine made from molasses, rice or the Madhuka flower. Palmyra and date wines are also acceptable. (2) Meat must be of a particular kind, and never from a female animal, since the Shakta considers all female creatures to be Shakti's representatives on Earth. (3) Fish also may be of only certain types. (4) Parched Grains (Mudra) are usually saali rice, barley or wheat fried in ghee. (5) Sexual Intercourse Ritual must be performed with a woman who has been properly purified and consecrated for the rite. She may be (depending on the Sadhak, and on the Tantra followed) one's own wife, or she may not. Since this woman is -- in any case -- is considered as Devi Herself for the ritual, any feeling of desire or lust is said to be tantamount to incest with one's own mother, and can cause a massive spiritual backslide. Due to the cosmic risks involved, Vira Bhava is not to be followed without the close guidance of a qualified guru. 3. PASHU. (SUBSTITUTE 5 M's): Instead of (1) Wine, the Pashu takes milk, ghee, honey or coconut milk, depending upon several factors. Instead of (2) Meat, the Pashu takes salt, ginger, sesame, garlic or certain kinds of beans. Instead of (3) Fish, the Pashu takes eggplant, red radish, masoor gram, or one of several other food items. As for (4) Grains, the same parched grains listed under Vira above are acceptable here as well. And instead of (5) Sexual Intercourse Ritual, there are usually offerings to the Goddess image of Yoni-shaped flowers, etc. -- also, according to some sources, non-ritual union with one's own lawful spouse can be a substitute here. WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE 'TANTRIC SEX'? So that, broadly speaking, is where sexual intercourse actually fits into Tantric religious practice. It is part of a rare, esoteric and highly complex ritual -- one designed to transcend, not fan the passions. There is nothing "sexy,sensual" or "exciting" about sexual intercourse in the highly ritualized, closely controlled, and deeply spiritual context of the 5 M's -- at least not in the conventionally understood sense of those terms. Rather, it is Sadhana. It is sacred worship. It is not an emotionally charged meeting of woman and man, but rather a highly structured transcendence of the very concept of woman and man. As with the rest of Tantra, it's a common act approached with a completely uncommon spiritual mindset. Now, I know that may come as a great disappointment to the many people who think "Tantric Sex" sounds fun and exotic and exciting: "Imagine! A religion where sexual ecstasy is considered worship!" ... Sorry. Wrong. As Woodroffe wryly notes, "For the true sensualist who wishes to get at the object of his desire, these long Tantric rituals would be merely obstructive and wearisome." So what does that tell us about the current flood of "Tantric Sex" books and video kits and retreats and so on, which are so much a part and parcel of the current "New Age" movement? Are they completely illegitimate hoaxes? Spiritual con jobs? Not necessarily. As long as you understand and accept these things for what they are, they are harmless enough, and may even be helpful for some people in certain contexts. They can make for a happy and healthy emotional life, and greatly enhance a marital relationship. But it is essential to understand this: THEY ARE NOT TANTRA. They are, for the most part, simply sex instruction; guides for enjoying and optimizing worldly, physical love. And there's nothing wrong with that: Any system that teaches a man how to better honor and respect and please the woman who is his partner -- his Shakti -- can only be good for both sides of a householder couple. And if it teaches a woman (and her partner) to love and revere her own body and its sensuality as manifestations of the Goddess, all the better. This is perfectly wonderful. If it teaches the couple to remember the Divine during sexual intercourse and consider their lovemaking a manifestation of the Divine, rather than a low or "dirty" or "nasty" act -- well, that seems like a very nice idea, doesn't it? The world could certainly use more of such attitudes. And remember, some schools say non-ritual union with one's own lawful spouse is an acceptable substitute for Maithuna in less-spiritually evolved (Pashu) couples. "Non-ritual" doesn't have to mean "run of the mill" either -- you can ritualize it however you'd like to increase the spiritual feeling. BUT STILL, to call it -- Tantric Sex -- would really be inaccurate; because these techniques are designed to enhance worldly pleasure, not negate or transcend it. At best, the label "Tantra" in such a context is a marketing slogan -- like "Kama Sutra," for instance. To the average woman or man on the street, neither "Tantra" nor "Kama Sutra" is a term with any real or well-defined meaning: They simply evoke something vaguely exotic and forbidden; and, more to the point, something sex-related. And products that are seen as "exotic, forbidden, and sex-related" tend to sell well. But they have absolutely nothing to do with the famous Tantric Maithuna of the Virabhava. Once again, and as always, I invite correction if any of this is in error. I claim no particular expertise on the subject. I'd also welcome further elucidation on any of the points contained herein -- obviously, this is only a broad overview, intended to clarify some common misconceptions. There is certainly much more to be said on the subject. Aum Maatangyai Namahe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2002 Report Share Posted June 10, 2002 This is alot of great secondhand knowledge Devi_B however, we should discuss realities of 5 Ms. I must insist that they are for householders and not renunciates, because renunciates are strictly forbidden from breaking vows of celibacy and such. Therefore they follow symbolic maituna, etc, but householders are not interested in an enlightenment free of experience. So for householders there is vira path, the challenge being to remake all of experience into worship. For instance, I cannot live without music or sex, or wine, but I am a tantrik. I repeat, I cannot live without them or my life becomes dry and unfulfilling and then I commit acts against dharma by cultivating anger and hostility against the enviroment which no longer suits me. But instead I fuldfill my wordly ambitions on a spiritual level by integrating worship into them. Do you know the meaning of tarot card 15? Solve et coagula? This is the mechanics of life provided by moon and his nakshatras. Wax and waning of spiritual ebb and flow. You cannot wax forever, you cannot wane forever, either equals death but so also does balance because balance is stalemate. Life is meeting of wax and wane of strength and mercy and ebb and flow. We sometimes feel cursed by backsliding into old ways when we have made great spiritual progress but guess what? Spirituality is not something in a vacuum where meanings cease but rather something based upon our tangible experiences. One maintains brahma (charya) then one mates with another and recreates the whole universe by celbrating the macrocosm in the micro of ones lover. This is maithuna. Rituals are not the important element but the motivation for higher love duing the union. One can mack on another and merely screw but even such things as foreplay are higher level of love and then the reality of tantra is not ta technique to not ejaculate but one to touch another and be touched deeper. There is no two beings in universe but one being and one mind. In love making a duality is experiences as the be all and end all of all life with one holy being split down middle for play of union. One soul, one being for enjoyment and divine celebration. This enjoyment is no different from pashu celebrating same but for knowledge and inclusion of divine. Sannyassin cannot partake of this at all. Solve et coagula, life is motion and when not then it is death. One can ejaculate, to not do so is to keep sperm from maintaining fresh supply. A man recreates entire sperm count in just three days. Ojas is made from all seven dhatus not just shukra so losing sperm for man is not really important, moreover he will pee it out if he doesnt ejaculate this is fact. He just wont notice. When a tantrik do not question any longer whether pashu. But be happy that all that you do is incorporating divine into this manifest plane. That is highest tantra, remake world in greater glory of divinity. Make it a happy place. - devi_bhakta Monday, June 10, 2002 9:01 AM More on the "5 M's" WHY THE "REAL 5 M's" ARE ONLY FOR VIRAS Put simply, the 5 M's are only for Viras because Pashus are not sufficiently advanced to understand them and Divyas are presumably beyond them. In fact, the Tantras emphatically *exclude* Pashus -- i.e., the ordinary run of less spiritually minded human beings -- from engaging in the 5 M rituals. Why? Because they have not had the physical, mental, spiritual and doctrinal training to properly understand the exoteric and esoteric meaning and purpose of these ceremonies. The whole point of these rituals is to experientially drive home the realization that those things and acts which are traditionally considered "impure" are actually (like everything else in Creation) the body of the Goddess. In a religious parallel, Roman Catholicism preaches that, given the proper ritual, mere bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Well, in the same way Tantra teaches that the 5 M's transform the mundane materials and functions of life into Devi, the Goddess. But for the Pashu -- the average person without an intense amount of Tantric training under her or her belt -- no amount of "talking the talk" of Tantra will make this transformation real. On the contrary -- no matter how they may try, sex will still be sex, meat will still be meat, and booze will still be booze. To continue with the Roman Catholic comparison, church doctrine holds that -- for those individuals not initiated into the mystery of transubstantiation (i.e. non-Catholics who've not received the preparatory sacraments) -- bread and wine, even if properly administered by a priest, *remains* nothing more than bread and wine. In other words, the ritual only works if you're spiritually ready for it. And most people aren't. Still, it's important to understand the fundamental theory that is at work behind the 5 M's, and Woodroffe explains it thus: "According to Indian Monism [Advaita], man is -- in his essence or spirit -- divine, and one with the universal Spirit. His mind and body and all their functions are divine, for they are not merely a manifestation of Shakti, but they are Shakti itself. So to say that a matter is, in itself, 'low' or 'evil' is to calumniate Shakti. Nothing in natural function is low or impure to the mind that recognizes it as Shakti and the working of Shakti. It is the ignorant and, in a true sense, vulgar mind that regards any natural function as low or coarse. ... Nothing in itself is impure. It is the mind that makes it so." A Pashu may be intellectually able to understand this, and even convincingly parrot back such ideas. But only the true Vira is competent to experientially confront them head-on: "The only ones who are competent for this Yoga," notes Woodroffe, "are those who are truly free, or on the way to freedom, from all dualism." WHAT THE 5 M's MEAN No less an authority than the Mahanirvana Tantra states that, without the 5 M's, the Tantric worship of Shakti is impossible (V. 23-24). "The reason for this," explains Woodroffe, "is that those who worship Shakti, worship Divinity as Creatrix [the Mother] and in the form of the Universe. If She appears as and in natural functions, She must be worshipped therewith -- otherwise, worship is fruitless." Esoterically, the 5 M's symbolize and celebrate -- among other things -- the traditional five elements of Devi's Creation: 1. WINE (Madya) is Fire, which gives joy and dispels the sorrows of humankind. 2. MEAT (Mamsa) is Air, which nourishes and increases the strength of mind and body. 3. FISH (Matsya) is Water, which increases generative power. 4. GRAIN (Mudra) is Earth, which produces and supports all life. 5. SEXUAL UNION (Maithuna) is Ether, the root of the world and the origin of all creation. BUT that doesn't mean that only Vira Sadhaks are qualified to worship Devi. On the contrary, there are specific 5 M's prescribed for each of the three Bhavas: 1. DIVYA. (SYMBOLIC 5 M's): (1) Wine is the intoxicating knowledge acquired by Yoga of the Parabrahman, which renders the worshiper senseless as to the external world. (2) Meat is the surrender of all the worshiper's acts to the Divine. (3) Fish is that Sattvic knowledge by which the worshiper feels the pleasure and pain of all beings. (4) Parched Grain (Mudra) is the act of relinquishing all association with the evil that results in bondage. (5) Sexual Intercourse Ritual, is Kundalini Yoga; i.e., the union of the Shakti (Kundalini) of the Muladhara Chakra with the Shiva of the Sahasrara Chakra. 2. VIRA. (LITERAL 5 M's): (1) Wine is not usually grape wine, but rather wine made from molasses, rice or the Madhuka flower. Palmyra and date wines are also acceptable. (2) Meat must be of a particular kind, and never from a female animal, since the Shakta considers all female creatures to be Shakti's representatives on Earth. (3) Fish also may be of only certain types. (4) Parched Grains (Mudra) are usually saali rice, barley or wheat fried in ghee. (5) Sexual Intercourse Ritual must be performed with a woman who has been properly purified and consecrated for the rite. She may be (depending on the Sadhak, and on the Tantra followed) one's own wife, or she may not. Since this woman is -- in any case -- is considered as Devi Herself for the ritual, any feeling of desire or lust is said to be tantamount to incest with one's own mother, and can cause a massive spiritual backslide. Due to the cosmic risks involved, Vira Bhava is not to be followed without the close guidance of a qualified guru. 3. PASHU. (SUBSTITUTE 5 M's): Instead of (1) Wine, the Pashu takes milk, ghee, honey or coconut milk, depending upon several factors. Instead of (2) Meat, the Pashu takes salt, ginger, sesame, garlic or certain kinds of beans. Instead of (3) Fish, the Pashu takes eggplant, red radish, masoor gram, or one of several other food items. As for (4) Grains, the same parched grains listed under Vira above are acceptable here as well. And instead of (5) Sexual Intercourse Ritual, there are usually offerings to the Goddess image of Yoni-shaped flowers, etc. -- also, according to some sources, non-ritual union with one's own lawful spouse can be a substitute here. WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE 'TANTRIC SEX'? So that, broadly speaking, is where sexual intercourse actually fits into Tantric religious practice. It is part of a rare, esoteric and highly complex ritual -- one designed to transcend, not fan the passions. There is nothing "sexy,sensual" or "exciting" about sexual intercourse in the highly ritualized, closely controlled, and deeply spiritual context of the 5 M's -- at least not in the conventionally understood sense of those terms. Rather, it is Sadhana. It is sacred worship. It is not an emotionally charged meeting of woman and man, but rather a highly structured transcendence of the very concept of woman and man. As with the rest of Tantra, it's a common act approached with a completely uncommon spiritual mindset. Now, I know that may come as a great disappointment to the many people who think "Tantric Sex" sounds fun and exotic and exciting: "Imagine! A religion where sexual ecstasy is considered worship!" ... Sorry. Wrong. As Woodroffe wryly notes, "For the true sensualist who wishes to get at the object of his desire, these long Tantric rituals would be merely obstructive and wearisome." So what does that tell us about the current flood of "Tantric Sex" books and video kits and retreats and so on, which are so much a part and parcel of the current "New Age" movement? Are they completely illegitimate hoaxes? Spiritual con jobs? Not necessarily. As long as you understand and accept these things for what they are, they are harmless enough, and may even be helpful for some people in certain contexts. They can make for a happy and healthy emotional life, and greatly enhance a marital relationship. But it is essential to understand this: THEY ARE NOT TANTRA. They are, for the most part, simply sex instruction; guides for enjoying and optimizing worldly, physical love. And there's nothing wrong with that: Any system that teaches a man how to better honor and respect and please the woman who is his partner -- his Shakti -- can only be good for both sides of a householder couple. And if it teaches a woman (and her partner) to love and revere her own body and its sensuality as manifestations of the Goddess, all the better. This is perfectly wonderful. If it teaches the couple to remember the Divine during sexual intercourse and consider their lovemaking a manifestation of the Divine, rather than a low or "dirty" or "nasty" act -- well, that seems like a very nice idea, doesn't it? The world could certainly use more of such attitudes. And remember, some schools say non-ritual union with one's own lawful spouse is an acceptable substitute for Maithuna in less-spiritually evolved (Pashu) couples. "Non-ritual" doesn't have to mean "run of the mill" either -- you can ritualize it however you'd like to increase the spiritual feeling. BUT STILL, to call it -- Tantric Sex -- would really be inaccurate; because these techniques are designed to enhance worldly pleasure, not negate or transcend it. At best, the label "Tantra" in such a context is a marketing slogan -- like "Kama Sutra," for instance. To the average woman or man on the street, neither "Tantra" nor "Kama Sutra" is a term with any real or well-defined meaning: They simply evoke something vaguely exotic and forbidden; and, more to the point, something sex-related. And products that are seen as "exotic, forbidden, and sex-related" tend to sell well. But they have absolutely nothing to do with the famous Tantric Maithuna of the Virabhava. Once again, and as always, I invite correction if any of this is in error. I claim no particular expertise on the subject. I'd also welcome further elucidation on any of the points contained herein -- obviously, this is only a broad overview, intended to clarify some common misconceptions. There is certainly much more to be said on the subject. Aum Maatangyai Namahe Sponsor shakti_sadhnaa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2002 Report Share Posted June 10, 2002 Hey Eve: Excellent analysis. It gets toward the most interesting overall question about Tantra, which is: What is its relevance for the modern spiritual seeker? There are lots of books about it, some keeping a cautious intellectual distance; some purporting to reveal great secrets. There is the broad assertion that Tantra is the most effective spiritual path for our Kali Age. But there are also the traditional "roadblocks" that require initiation by a qualified guru into an actual lineage, that say mantras and rituals learned from books aren't worth the paper they're printed on. And yet, even in India, a qualified guru is hard to find. More seekers get harmed by fake Tantric gurus than get helped by real ones. Granted, the Tantras are filled with "secret" and symbolic language and references -- gaps that are supposed to be filled by the guru. But most translations today helpfully explain these misleading passages with detailed footnotes. The assertions that books alone are useless come from an earlier time, when literacy was uncommon, and bookstores didn't have shelves full of volumes on Tantra. Days when Tantra was a taboo area, and access jealously guarded by insiders. Just as Roman Catholicism -- another mystery- and ritual-laden sadhana -- taught that access to God could only be gained by a Catholic priest, Tantra taught that access to God/dess could only by had through a Tantric guru. And certainly, there is no substitute for this relationship -- one candle passing its flame to another. But in reality, everything has changed in the last 100 years; even in the last 50 years. Now many Hindus call "guru" a person they never met or saw in person. They read the guru's works and follow the guru's precepts -- but it is a very different thing than the traditional, all-encompassing Guru-chela relationship (for Mother Meera's thoughts on this point, see Post #1531). But the books now available are written by gurus, swamis, scholars of the highest caliber. The person studying Tantra is no longer confronted with the bare precepts of a perplexing, unexplained scripture -- but rather a full, practical "How-To" discussion. You've mentioned in past posts, Eve, that you'd love to find a guru. But in the meantime, you freely assert in your post that, "I am a tantrik." You have developed your own approach to the 5M's, suitable to your nature and spiritual experience, and -- as you say -- "I fulfill my worldly ambitions on a spiritual level by integrating worship into them." I know from your past posts that you are very familiar with Tantric doctrine, and have obviously thought (and acted upon) your knowledge with deep devotion and earnest effort. And yet, an initiated Tantric might still say you're spinning your wheels -- because you haven't fulfilled the formal initiatory requirements of Tantra. But my tendency is to think you're doing just fine. The entire history of religion seems to from the instinctive to the secret and forbidden, and then back again. A form of worship is undertaken by a devotee or group of devotees; in time it grows into a formal religious system; various officials rise to regulate interpretation and access, to control and regulate the flow of knowledge to the common worshipers. Then the religion is gradually "taken back" by the devotees who are its lifeblood. Tantra seems to me an approach to religion that makes sense in the modern world -- there is a vast amount of knowledge and instruction in the public domain now. Is it truly an exercise in futility to put that knowledge to use -- to try and experience it for yourself? Frankly, to say so seems to contradict the fundamental worldview of Tantra. Doubtless a guru is the ideal way to go; but if a guru is not available, is the preferred alternative to do nothing but wait around for one? Again, it hardly seems logical -- it hardly seems Tantric! Isn't that what you're getting at when you say, "Spirituality is not something in a vacuum where meanings cease but rather something based upon our tangible experiences"? You add, speaking of Maithuna, that "This enjoyment is no different from pashu celebrating same but for knowledge and inclusion of divine. Sannyassin cannot partake of this at all." You will notice is my posts that this is a big part of my post -- questioning Shivananda's analysis on the grounds that: (1) that we have here a Shaivite monk undertaking to explain a non-renunciate form of Shaktism (if a celibate Roman Catholic priest [shut up!] explains the tenets of the non-celibate Protestant Baptist faith -- albeit two aspects of the same underlying belief system, can you really trust him to know what he's talking about?); and (2) he's using the term Pashu in a derogatory sense (like, "If you'd do such a thing, then you're obviously a Pashu!"); and (3) he's saying that a famously Vira practice is actually a Pashu practice. So I stepped in. Sure, a lot of the technical knowledge I discussed was "secondhand knowledge," but only in the sense that I didn't think it up -- it's all readily available to the interested public in the no-longer-quite-so-secret literature of Tantra. Two pooints were especially important to me -- (1) that the Pashu (the mass of humanity), by adjusting their mindsets and deepening their understanding, can use sexual intercourse in precisely the way you describe. I cannot say it any better than you did: "When a tantrik, do not question any longer whether [you are a] pashu. But be happy that all that you do is incorporating divine into this manifest plane. That is highest tantra, remake world in greater glory of divinity. Make it a happy place." But wasn't that the very message of the final section of my post? My only real point, although I went far afield in reacing it, was that this approach is not the strictly Vira Maithuna ritual. Sivananda seemed to be suggesting that it was. The Vira might be a renunciate, but Maithuna is still part of her/his Sadhana -- so does this, as Sivananda suggests, make him a Pashu? On the contrary. Yours seems to me a profound and elevating understanding of the 5 M's, and suggests that your practice most certainly Tantric, and unquestionably upward-directed. It is not for me to say whether it's Pashu or Vira -- what the hell do I know? I can only say that it appears to be in accordance with Tantra as I understand it. I do know that there are a couple of initiated Tantrics among us in this Group, however, and I would very much appreciate their input on this whole issue. Might we hope for a few responses? Aum Maatangyai Namahe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2002 Report Share Posted June 10, 2002 OM Devi Bhakta Here we go again. Another round in the endless discussion on the validity of Gurus. You seem to be under the impression that the main value of a Guru is to interpret the "secret and symbolic language and references" of scriptures. And then you seem to claim that because we are living in an information age where these secrets and symbols are increasingly revealed in print that a Guru is not necessary. Finally, you seem to claim that looking for a Guru is a waste of time because (1)"the a qualified guru is hard to find" and (2) "More seekers get harmed by fake Tantric gurus than get helped by real ones." This last effort is much below your usual standards so I will ignore with just the often told reminder that "when the student is ready, the Guru appears." With regard to your main claim that a Guru is mostly about explaining secret and symbolic language, that is certainly not the case. As you point out there are pandits galore who are only too pleased to do that job. To me, what a Guru is all about is summed up in the act of Saktipat where the Guru transmits/recreates his/her Self-realized consciousness to the aspirant (to the extent that the aspirant is capable) for a brief moment and then tells the aspirant that the rest is up to him/her, that he/she must dedicate their life to achieving that state of Self-realization on their own and perfecting it. The Guru is the living embodiment of taking kundalini to the sahasrara. He/She is God Realized and God Incarnate. The Guru serves as a shining example in the heart and mind of the aspirant. The Guru because he/she knows the past lives of the aspirant and what will befall the aspirant in this life can guide the aspirant toward God in all situations. The Guru protects the aspirant and elevates the mind, intellect and consciousness of the aspirant. Books do not and cannot do any of this. And neither can pandits. Another point that you made concerned the ability of a Saivite monk (Swami Sivananda) to understand and explain Shaktism. You used the analogy of a celibate Roman Catholic priest speaking to a non-celibate Baptist and ask, "can you really trust him to know what he is talking about." Of course, using your own analogy, the priest's parishoners could ask if they should listen to that priest on marital matters. The God-qualified priest and the God-realized Guru are capable of speaking on all subjects that afflict the world because they have risen above the affliction and can show the way for others to do the same. NO, Swami Sivananda is not using Pasu in a derogatory way. He is pointing out that the nature of Pasu is tamasic, that tamas is not suitable for God-realization. and that through Sadhana one can change that tamasic nature so that there is the possiblility of God-realization. NO he is not saying the Vira practice is a Pasu practice. He is saying nothing about Vira (other than it exists) and emphasizing the undesirability of Pasu and the absolute desireability of Divya. He choose to emphasize the two ends of the spectrum with little attention paid to the middle of the spectrum. If Pasu aspirants use Sadhana successfully to change themselves "by adjusting their mindsets and deepening their understanding" so that they "can use sexual intercourse in precisely the way you [Eve] describe", then, of course, they are no longer Pasu. Just as Swami Sivananda suggested. So, you see, you and Swami Sivananda actually agree. Remember, I did warn people not to get to focused on the tone of Swami Sivananda's writings but to listen to his message. Jaya Guru/Jaya Maa Omprem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2002 Report Share Posted June 10, 2002 Thank you again Devi as always for very poignant topics and for both writing and reading responses. I certainly am no expert and yes haven't had tantrik iniation. I have had about ten iniations in Transcendental Meditation of Maharishi however and am 7 advanced technique sidha. So I do practice meditation and have since fifteen (20 yearsnow). If Maharishi is good for much besides a laugh now then he at least has made a formal mantra technique available to the world. I don't brag about being a sidha or yogi etc because Maharishi has made such difficult for me by charging 2,500 dollars for TM and advertising Flying Olympics, world's tallest buildings, groups of 40,000 pundits chanting Rudram, millionaires enlightenment courses. I am certainly at a loss except that he is universally laughable and ludicrous which is a statement I guess quite similar to Rajneesh (who I did like!). So not devoid of practice I am yet a member of human race and Western society, and in fact western society at a step up from its worst because while not a criminal I work with them as a cook. I am listening right now to Marilyn Manson, I just ate Buffalo wings and had a six pack cause it's my day off. My wife isn't home yet hehe (just kidding,) but I am almost racking up whole panchmakaras in a single day. I am wearing my fourteen faced strand of rudrakshas and surrounded by siva lingas, shaligrams and tulsi plants which I take care of daily. Am I pashu? I don't think so. This is merely my life and I am not Hindu or Buddhist. I am from Los Angeles, California originally. I am from Kali. I am a chef so let me use some analogies for my previous email. I have trained in famous kitchens but lets stick for now to pastry. Pastry is very difficult because some steps must always happen regardless of the recipe. Notably some things like creaming butter and sugar or eggs and sugar, if one creamed butter and sugar then one adds eggs and creams them then. Understand? Many pastry books exist and yet I can make every cake mix using the same procedure regardless of the words on the pages or whether the home cook believes my technique. It will always work because I learned from the baking masters. In fact I can make any cake mix from knowledge and without recipes because of experience alone. So many pundits say baking especially has very specific procedures and recipes and one will mess them up by deviations but I do know better. It's all experience. But I could not tell you or anyone else how to bake as I do and I don't like being watched because pedants will criticize but my product will still work and faster because I basically know what I'm doing. Tantriks in India had already followed yamas, niyamas, and higher techniques of yoga and sadhanas by the time of iniation and the agamas and nigamas were recipes. For instance I could master chocolate devils food cake but not know sour cream pound cake. But tantras give me recipes for higher experience. I know from my life that people will buy "Cake Bible" and still mess up cakes because they didn't learn how really to bake first. But practice does make perfect whereever you start but a professional diksha or iniation certainly helps. Eventually. Yes I am bereft of a true tantrik teacher and probably always will be because well just think why the hell would they want me of all people? I am loud obnoxious and headstrong and I don't like gurus anyway as I hate being told what to do. I will respect spiritual teachers but as opposed to Bramin catse people I don't respect the rich or unsullied because to me they don't know shit about this earth and I couldn't care less about them. Their day is over and all the gurus who live on alms are on the way out. You wont find one left in fifty years. It's a fact. In only 400 more years the dharma will be totally dead and long forgotten. But let's forget this for now. 5 Ms. I am the five Ms. I cannot cook without salt and pepper. Or butter and sugar. We're not discussing suagrbusters and other fad diets but life. In life we are the 5 ms and nothing else and we must raise them up or we will be nuked by sattva. Pure sattva is light like atomics and next time one sees a nuke just know that sattva annihilated whatever was there. 5 ms are our life and comforts in the west especially and not just as pashus. I watch a segment on tv about some macrobiotic nerd yesterday. Boy was he stressed out. That's not living. It just isnt. . We can descend to ignorance on panchmakara misuse as pashus or rise to Brahmin consciousness through their divination. Many can only make tasteless food for sustenance but some can truely cook gourmet and the key is not always ingredients but how to use the salt and pepper. Or sugar and butter. Life isn't about sitting in a cave and it's not about being perfect because look around noone is in the whole freaking world. It's about combining the sattva with the tamas as a cook would do or a musician. It's about raising the bread of existance from flat to fluffy. And sharing. I wanted a really good analogy for my thoughts but all I can come up with is this. 5 Ms are salt and pepper to the food of life and without them even spiritual bliss loses flavor. Thanks again for the great response to last letter. --- Original Message ----- devi_bhakta Monday, June 10, 2002 12:08 PM Re: More on the "5 M's" Hey Eve: Excellent analysis. It gets toward the most interesting overall question about Tantra, which is: What is its relevance for the modern spiritual seeker? There are lots of books about it, some keeping a cautious intellectual distance; some purporting to reveal great secrets. There is the broad assertion that Tantra is the most effective spiritual path for our Kali Age. But there are also the traditional "roadblocks" that require initiation by a qualified guru into an actual lineage, that say mantras and rituals learned from books aren't worth the paper they're printed on. And yet, even in India, a qualified guru is hard to find. More seekers get harmed by fake Tantric gurus than get helped by real ones. Granted, the Tantras are filled with "secret" and symbolic language and references -- gaps that are supposed to be filled by the guru. But most translations today helpfully explain these misleading passages with detailed footnotes. The assertions that books alone are useless come from an earlier time, when literacy was uncommon, and bookstores didn't have shelves full of volumes on Tantra. Days when Tantra was a taboo area, and access jealously guarded by insiders. Just as Roman Catholicism -- another mystery- and ritual-laden sadhana -- taught that access to God could only be gained by a Catholic priest, Tantra taught that access to God/dess could only by had through a Tantric guru. And certainly, there is no substitute for this relationship -- one candle passing its flame to another. But in reality, everything has changed in the last 100 years; even in the last 50 years. Now many Hindus call "guru" a person they never met or saw in person. They read the guru's works and follow the guru's precepts -- but it is a very different thing than the traditional, all-encompassing Guru-chela relationship (for Mother Meera's thoughts on this point, see Post #1531). But the books now available are written by gurus, swamis, scholars of the highest caliber. The person studying Tantra is no longer confronted with the bare precepts of a perplexing, unexplained scripture -- but rather a full, practical "How-To" discussion. You've mentioned in past posts, Eve, that you'd love to find a guru. But in the meantime, you freely assert in your post that, "I am a tantrik." You have developed your own approach to the 5M's, suitable to your nature and spiritual experience, and -- as you say -- "I fulfill my worldly ambitions on a spiritual level by integrating worship into them." I know from your past posts that you are very familiar with Tantric doctrine, and have obviously thought (and acted upon) your knowledge with deep devotion and earnest effort. And yet, an initiated Tantric might still say you're spinning your wheels -- because you haven't fulfilled the formal initiatory requirements of Tantra. But my tendency is to think you're doing just fine. The entire history of religion seems to from the instinctive to the secret and forbidden, and then back again. A form of worship is undertaken by a devotee or group of devotees; in time it grows into a formal religious system; various officials rise to regulate interpretation and access, to control and regulate the flow of knowledge to the common worshipers. Then the religion is gradually "taken back" by the devotees who are its lifeblood. Tantra seems to me an approach to religion that makes sense in the modern world -- there is a vast amount of knowledge and instruction in the public domain now. Is it truly an exercise in futility to put that knowledge to use -- to try and experience it for yourself? Frankly, to say so seems to contradict the fundamental worldview of Tantra. Doubtless a guru is the ideal way to go; but if a guru is not available, is the preferred alternative to do nothing but wait around for one? Again, it hardly seems logical -- it hardly seems Tantric! Isn't that what you're getting at when you say, "Spirituality is not something in a vacuum where meanings cease but rather something based upon our tangible experiences"? You add, speaking of Maithuna, that "This enjoyment is no different from pashu celebrating same but for knowledge and inclusion of divine. Sannyassin cannot partake of this at all." You will notice is my posts that this is a big part of my post -- questioning Shivananda's analysis on the grounds that: (1) that we have here a Shaivite monk undertaking to explain a non-renunciate form of Shaktism (if a celibate Roman Catholic priest [shut up!] explains the tenets of the non-celibate Protestant Baptist faith -- albeit two aspects of the same underlying belief system, can you really trust him to know what he's talking about?); and (2) he's using the term Pashu in a derogatory sense (like, "If you'd do such a thing, then you're obviously a Pashu!"); and (3) he's saying that a famously Vira practice is actually a Pashu practice. So I stepped in. Sure, a lot of the technical knowledge I discussed was "secondhand knowledge," but only in the sense that I didn't think it up -- it's all readily available to the interested public in the no-longer-quite-so-secret literature of Tantra. Two pooints were especially important to me -- (1) that the Pashu (the mass of humanity), by adjusting their mindsets and deepening their understanding, can use sexual intercourse in precisely the way you describe. I cannot say it any better than you did: "When a tantrik, do not question any longer whether [you are a] pashu. But be happy that all that you do is incorporating divine into this manifest plane. That is highest tantra, remake world in greater glory of divinity. Make it a happy place." But wasn't that the very message of the final section of my post? My only real point, although I went far afield in reacing it, was that this approach is not the strictly Vira Maithuna ritual. Sivananda seemed to be suggesting that it was. The Vira might be a renunciate, but Maithuna is still part of her/his Sadhana -- so does this, as Sivananda suggests, make him a Pashu? On the contrary. Yours seems to me a profound and elevating understanding of the 5 M's, and suggests that your practice most certainly Tantric, and unquestionably upward-directed. It is not for me to say whether it's Pashu or Vira -- what the hell do I know? I can only say that it appears to be in accordance with Tantra as I understand it. I do know that there are a couple of initiated Tantrics among us in this Group, however, and I would very much appreciate their input on this whole issue. Might we hope for a few responses? Aum Maatangyai Namahe shakti_sadhnaa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2002 Report Share Posted June 10, 2002 Namaskar OmPrem: I appear to have upset you with my reply to Eve, and I apologize for that. I subsequently replied to your post (we crossed in the mail!), and I hope that clarifies your concerns as to my interpretation of Swami Sivananda. As always, a great shortcoming in electronic communication is the inability to convey tone, modulation of voice, etc., so that -- owing to the loss of such subtlety and inflection -- offence can frequently occur where absolutely none was intended. *** You seem to be under the impression that the main value of a Guru is to interpret the "secret and symbolic language and references" of scriptures. *** No, I did not say and I do not believe that this is the "main" value of a Guru; it is simply one role that s/he plays. The main value of the guru-chela relationship, I expressed thus: "There is no substitute for this relationship -- one candle passing its flame to another." Which is, I think, a simple way of expressing the idea upon which you rather beautifully elaborated in your discussion of shaktipat. *** And then you seem to claim that because we are living in an information age where these secrets and symbols are increasingly revealed in print that a Guru is not necessary. *** Yes, I do agree that much of what was "secret" about Tantra is no longer so. But for the same reason set out above, I do not conclude that "a Guru is not necessary." Rather, the tone of my post was intended to be a question, not an answer: "In light of all this publicity of previously secret knowledge, what is a Guru's role?" *** This last effort is much below your usual standards **** Thank you for the implied compliment -- and sorry for falling short this time! Rather than an exposition, or a careful theological discussion, my post to Eve was a more speculative kind of animal. As you suggested, the Guru question is always one that gets the gears rolling in my brain. My intention is never to declare, "A guru isn't necessary!" I know full well that virtually every form of Hinduism -- Vedic, Tantric or otherwise -- declares that a guru *is* necessary. And I am also familiar with that old piece of wisdom, "When the student is ready, the Guru appears." I totally believe that. My interest, then, is not an absolute: Is a Guru necessary or not?" Rather, it is a practical exploration of the question, "If the Guru appears only when the student is ready, what can the student do to become ready?" That is, what Sadhana can be done in the absence of a Guru, while waiting for that Guru to appear? That is why I often quote Mother Meera is this regard. Her focus is not on what the spiritual aspirant might achieve when they are *ready*, but on what they can do here and now, beginning this minute. ***Books do not and cannot do any of this. And neither can pandits. *** This begs the same question: Then what should the student do to ready her-/himself? *** Remember, I did warn people not to get to focused on the tone of Swami Sivananda's writings but to listen to his message. *** As I mentioned above, I think the portions of your post that question my interpretation of Sivananda are answered in my last post, particularly responding to yours. Thank you once again for offering me the opportunity to explain and clarify my prior posts, and once again I apologize for not having made my point clearer in the first place. Aum Maatangyai Namahe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2002 Report Share Posted June 10, 2002 Greeting eve, First let me congratulate you on your honesty - 'telling it like it is' it is a very endearing quality in a man . more so in a 'tantrik' chef! your post was an eye opener in more ways than one! for one thing, one cannot 'fake' a spiritual high - this is a fact - i do not agree with everything you say in your post but for the most part you did make a lot of sense...specially the part where you say you practice 'sex as a meditative art' ! (my interpretation of your words). you mentioned Mahesh yogi (TM guru) and OSHO (bhagwan rajneesh) - both jet age gurus... well, unfortunately OSHO got a bad press and was called a 'sex' guru---- but much of what Osho said did make a lot of sense specially on 'TANTRA' here is what OSHO said on Tantra.. OSHO'S COMPARIson OF YOGA AND TANTRA... "In yoga one has to fight; it is the path of the warrior. On the path of tantra one does not have to fight at all. Rather, on the contrary, one has to indulge -- but with awareness. Yoga is suppression with awareness; tantra is indulgence with awareness. Tantra says that whatsoever you are, the ultimate is not opposite to it. It is a growth; you can grow to be the ultimate. There is no opposition between you and the reality. You are part of it, so no struggle, no conflict, no opposition to nature is needed. You have to use nature; you have to use whatsoever you are to go beyond. In yoga you have to fight with yourself to go beyond. In yoga, the world and moksha, liberation -- you as you are and you as you can be - - are two opposite things. Suppress, fight, dissolve that which you are so that you can attain that which you can be. Going beyond is a death in yoga. You must die for your real being to be born. In the eyes of tantra, yoga is a deep suicide. You must kill your natural self -- your body, your instincts, your desires, everything. Tantra says accept yourself as you are. It is a deep acceptance. Do not create a gap between you and the real, between the world and nirvana. Do not create any gap. There is no gap for Tantra; no death is needed -- rather a transcendence. For this transcendence, use yourself... The ordinary mind is being destroyed by its own desires, so yoga says stop desiring, be desireless... Tantra says be aware of the desire; do not create any fight. Move into desire with full consciousness, and when you [do], you transcend it." ********************************************************************** EVE, DEAR, I PARTICULARLY LOVED IT WHEN YOU OPENLY ADMITTED " For instance, I cannot live without music or sex, or wine, but I am a tantrik. I repeat, I cannot live without them or my life becomes dry and unfulfilling and then I commit acts against dharma by cultivating anger and hostility against the enviroment which no longer suits me. But instead I fuldfill my wordly ambitions on a spiritual level by integrating worship into them. " THIS IS GREAT - denial is not tantra. neither is supression. but, to me all i care is when i read your post I sense an 'awareness' and Tantra creates this awareness - the joy of living in the moment- and eve, you have this inner fountsain of joy and that is what 'expanded consciousness' is all about! " Spirituality is not something in a vacuum where meanings cease but rather something based upon our tangible experiences. " exactly, dear one- it is all about experience! Your experience not somebody else's ! " That is highest tantra, remake world in greater glory of divinity. Make it a happy place. " bravo, my friend! make the world a happy place - better than you found it... ON ANOTHER NOTE- i loved your 'salt and pepper' theory - this is the way i cook - i never follow a recipe neither do i use a measuring spoon - i use a 'dash' of 'pepper and a 'pinch of 'salt' and pour a LOT OF LOVE AND SEASON IT WITH MORE LOVE -the result a perfect meal everytime! That is what Tantra is all about- Love is the secret ingredient ! Tantra means 'technique and not being 'technical' ! ' THANX ONCE AGAIN, Love Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2002 Report Share Posted June 10, 2002 Hello Devi bhakta. >Tantra taught that >access to God/dess could only by had through a Tantric guru. And >certainly, there is no substitute for this relationship -- one candle >passing its flame to another. >Doubtless a guru is >the ideal way to go; but if a guru is not available, is the preferred >alternative to do nothing but wait around for one? Again, it hardly >seems logical -- it hardly seems Tantric! Here is quote that would seem to support what you've just said. It is from a summary of the _Tantraloka_ of Abhinavagupta in S.C. Banerji's _Brief History of Tantra Literature_. "Of the three sources of knowledge, viz. Guru, Shastra and one's ownself, each succeeding is superior to the preceding one. One, in whom good reasoning spontaneously arises, acquires the right to yogic knowledge etc...Such a person gets Abhisheka [initiation] by reflection, dhyana, japa, svapna [dream] and homa...In such observance, Devi Herself initiates the devotee... The Guru who, though Akalpita [not originally initiated], gets refinement from somebody else, is Shiva himself. The knowledge, spontaneously acquired, becomes perfect by the study of Shastras and instruction of the Guru." >And yet, even in India, a qualified guru is hard to find. More >seekers get harmed by fake Tantric gurus than get helped by real >ones. Francis King makes a similar point in the last part of his book _Tantra for Westerners_. He concludes: "It is safer to avoid all supposed gurus and to rely on the ancient Buddhist tantric tradition that the sincere aspirant will eventually obtain any initiations that are necessary from a disembodied initiator." One point Francis King fails to consider is whether a seeker's "disembodied initiator" is necessarily any "safer" than an embodied one! Blessings, Colin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2002 Report Share Posted June 11, 2002 Dear All: Here is my 2 paise on pancha makaras. IMHO Panchamakaras are Panchamakaras. I agree with DB that it is not for Pasus as the chances of Pashus getting stuck on the sensual allure and not progressing is great. For Viras they have prgressed and the chances of transcending panch makaras is bright. A few may fall. But they will rise again later. For Divyas {to my knowledhe they also (some that i know) use the prathyaksha makaras}they have transcended and sometimes need the reminder and they do use them. I have used the first four and not the fifth - maybe because of cowardice. I dunno. I agree that "Tantri Sex" advertised is not tantra but sex pure and simple. As for Swami Sivananda - neither Krishnanandaji nor Chidanandaji have decried Tantra. It must also be remembered that Tantra is "Swechaachaara" or self chosen path unique to the Sadhaka. Maybe Eve is following a path that is unique to him. I will not deride any person or path because it does not agree with me. As for guru, if you are going to Panchamakara path you DO need a Guru. The books cannot be a substitute. Kochu Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2002 Report Share Posted June 11, 2002 - <colinr <> Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:04 AM Re: More on the "5 M's" > Hello Devi bhakta. > > >Tantra taught that > >access to God/dess could only by had through a Tantric guru. And > >certainly, there is no substitute for this relationship -- one candle > >passing its flame to another. > > >Doubtless a guru is > >the ideal way to go; but if a guru is not available, is the preferred > >alternative to do nothing but wait around for one? Again, it hardly > >seems logical -- it hardly seems Tantric! > > Here is quote that would seem to support what you've just said. It is from > a summary of the _Tantraloka_ of Abhinavagupta in S.C. Banerji's _Brief > History of Tantra Literature_. > > "Of the three sources of knowledge, viz. Guru, Shastra and one's ownself, > each succeeding is superior to the preceding one. One, in whom good > reasoning spontaneously arises, acquires the right to yogic knowledge > etc...Such a person gets Abhisheka [initiation] by reflection, dhyana, > japa, svapna [dream] and homa...In such observance, Devi Herself initiates > the devotee... The Guru who, though Akalpita [not originally initiated], > gets refinement from somebody else, is Shiva himself. The knowledge, > spontaneously acquired, becomes perfect by the study of Shastras and > instruction of the Guru." > > >And yet, even in India, a qualified guru is hard to find. More > >seekers get harmed by fake Tantric gurus than get helped by real > >ones. > > Francis King makes a similar point in the last part of his book _Tantra for > Westerners_. He concludes: "It is safer to avoid all supposed gurus and to > rely on the ancient Buddhist tantric tradition that the sincere aspirant > will eventually obtain any initiations that are necessary from a > disembodied initiator." > > One point Francis King fails to consider is whether a seeker's "disembodied > initiator" is necessarily any "safer" than an embodied one! > quite right, could be any kind of spirit, malevolent or not, so it's a rather tricky gamble to rely on "disembodied initiator".. Any one with enough of positive karma would find a real Guru "in the flesh", there are literally thousands of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas on this planet (with the etiquette Buddhist or not) so one does not have to take this crazy gamble... i know that Descartes took the positive gamble regarding the possibility of the existence of a God but on my own i would certainly not take the risk of relying on a spirit for my spiritual progression.... seems extremely dangerous to say the least.... All true Lamas are warning their listeners of the dangers of relying on unqualified Gurus and there is even a proverb by which a potential disciple has to check the potential Guru for a least twelve years before entrusting his spiritual life to Him/Her (in the same manner that the Guru would check the disciple for a least twelve years before accepting him/her as a disciple)... So probably the most difficult decision a sentient being will have to make is the one concerning the choice of an Upa-Guru... (IMHO)... Take care ! tashi delegs, Thubten Wangchuk aka Roger Garin-Michaud from Saint-Priest near Lyon, France http://www.cyberdistributeur.com > Blessings, > > Colin. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2002 Report Share Posted June 11, 2002 Namaskar Colin! Thank you for those passages! I was once told, by a spiritually wise Hindu gentleman, that -- in the absence of a guru -- one should ask initiation into a Mantra directly from the Goddess. Briefly, you write the Mantra is Sanskrit on a sheet of paper, and place it at the Goddess's feet on Her altar, along with offerings of fruit, flowers, yogurt, milk, honey, etc. Then you ask Ganesh for the Goddess's favor, and then directly ask the Goddess (the image of your Ishtadevi) to serve as your Guru until such time as She may see fit to provide you with a human Guru, if that is your dharma. Then you ask her to give you Her mantra as written by you. Then you try to sense the feeling of Her giving it to you (ideally, you shouldn't have to try hard -- it should really "feel" right). And the you recite for Her the Mantra for the first time, 108 repititions. And that is basically the ceremony. The rest is up to Her. Aum Maatangyai Namahe > Here is quote that would seem to support what you've just said. It is from > a summary of the _Tantraloka_ of Abhinavagupta in S.C. Banerji's _Brief > History of Tantra Literature_. > > "Of the three sources of knowledge, viz. Guru, Shastra and one's ownself, > each succeeding is superior to the preceding one. One, in whom good > reasoning spontaneously arises, acquires the right to yogic knowledge > etc...Such a person gets Abhisheka [initiation] by reflection, dhyana, > japa, svapna [dream] and homa...In such observance, Devi Herself initiates > the devotee... The Guru who, though Akalpita [not originally initiated], > gets refinement from somebody else, is Shiva himself. The knowledge, > spontaneously acquired, becomes perfect by the study of Shastras and > instruction of the Guru." > > >And yet, even in India, a qualified guru is hard to find. More > >seekers get harmed by fake Tantric gurus than get helped by real > >ones. > > Francis King makes a similar point in the last part of his book _Tantra for > Westerners_. He concludes: "It is safer to avoid all supposed gurus and to > rely on the ancient Buddhist tantric tradition that the sincere aspirant > will eventually obtain any initiations that are necessary from a > disembodied initiator." > > One point Francis King fails to consider is whether a seeker's "disembodied > initiator" is necessarily any "safer" than an embodied one! > > Blessings, > > Colin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2002 Report Share Posted June 12, 2002 OM Colin Swami Sivananda has this to say about choosing a Guru: "Do not use your reason too much in the selection of your Guru. You will fail if you do so. If you fail to get a first-class Guru, try to follow the instructions of the Sadhu who is treading the path for some years, who has purity and other virtuous qualities, and who has some knowledge of the scriptures. Just as as student of the Intermediate Class will be able to teach a student of Third Form when a professor with M.A. qualification is not available, just as a sub-asistant surgeon will be able to attend on a patient when the civil surgeon is not available, this second-class type of Guru will be able to help you. "If you are not able to find out even this second-class type of Guru, you can follow the teachings contained in the books written by realised saints like Sri Sankara, Dattatreya and others. You can keep a photo of a realised Guru, if available, and worship the same with faith and devotion. Gradually you will get inspiration, and the Guru may appear in a dream and initiate and inspire you at the proper time. For a sincere Sadhaka, help comes in a mysterious way." OM Namaha Sivaya Omprem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2002 Report Share Posted June 13, 2002 True ! In such a case, one is advised (according to srividya kula) to accept a mantra in front of the picture of Sri Dakshinamurthy, accepting him as one's Guru. However Siddhaadi Shodhana, Akatha chakra etc should be properly understood before this. However, Rudrayamala and Jayadratha yamala warn that this practice cannot be undertaken in the case of any of the ten Mahavidyas, which have to be necessarily received directly from a Sadguru. Sri Mahatripurasundari Sameta Sri Chandramouleshwara ParabrahmaNe Namah! , "devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote: > Namaskar Colin! > > Thank you for those passages! I was once told, by a spiritually wise > Hindu gentleman, that -- in the absence of a guru -- one should ask > initiation into a Mantra directly from the Goddess. Briefly, you > write the Mantra is Sanskrit on a sheet of paper, and place it at the > Goddess's feet on Her altar, along with offerings of fruit, flowers, > yogurt, milk, honey, etc. Then you ask Ganesh for the Goddess's > favor, and then directly ask the Goddess (the image of your > Ishtadevi) to serve as your Guru until such time as She may see fit > to provide you with a human Guru, if that is your dharma. Then you > ask her to give you Her mantra as written by you. Then you try to > sense the feeling of Her giving it to you (ideally, you shouldn't > have to try hard -- it should really "feel" right). And the you > recite for Her the Mantra for the first time, 108 repititions. And > that is basically the ceremony. The rest is up to Her. > > Aum Maatangyai Namahe > > > > Here is quote that would seem to support what you've just said. It > is from > > a summary of the _Tantraloka_ of Abhinavagupta in S.C. Banerji's > _Brief > > History of Tantra Literature_. > > > > "Of the three sources of knowledge, viz. Guru, Shastra and one's > ownself, > > each succeeding is superior to the preceding one. One, in whom good > > reasoning spontaneously arises, acquires the right to yogic > knowledge > > etc...Such a person gets Abhisheka [initiation] by reflection, > dhyana, > > japa, svapna [dream] and homa...In such observance, Devi Herself > initiates > > the devotee... The Guru who, though Akalpita [not originally > initiated], > > gets refinement from somebody else, is Shiva himself. The knowledge, > > spontaneously acquired, becomes perfect by the study of Shastras and > > instruction of the Guru." > > > > >And yet, even in India, a qualified guru is hard to find. More > > >seekers get harmed by fake Tantric gurus than get helped by real > > >ones. > > > > Francis King makes a similar point in the last part of his book > _Tantra for > > Westerners_. He concludes: "It is safer to avoid all supposed gurus > and to > > rely on the ancient Buddhist tantric tradition that the sincere > aspirant > > will eventually obtain any initiations that are necessary from a > > disembodied initiator." > > > > One point Francis King fails to consider is whether a > seeker's "disembodied > > initiator" is necessarily any "safer" than an embodied one! > > > > Blessings, > > > > Colin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2002 Report Share Posted June 14, 2002 yes, harsha! the rsi of the Samayamata is SHRI dakshinamurthy and the devatss are called kameshwera and kameshweri! the rsi of the kaulas is BHAIRAVA ,and their devatas are called Anandabhairavi and Anandabhairavi! OM MAHATRIPURASUNDARAYAII NAMAHA! OM SREE LALITHAMBIKAYAII NAMAHA! OM SREE BHUVENESHWERAYAII NAMAHA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.