The Infamous "5 M's"

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

Thanks for the interesting post on Pancha Makaras. I agree that

Swami Sivananda can be quite 'definite' in his language and that

his views are formed partly by his path and his experience

related to that path.

 

But, as a Self-realized being, it is unlikely that Swami Sivananda

is wrong in this area.

 

He did say that the Pasu aspirant is susceptible to a tamasic

misuse of the Pancha Makaras. He also said that the Divya

aspirant will find an esoteric meaning in the Makaras, viz., "The

esoteric meaning of these five Makaras is "kill egoism, control

flesh, drink the wine of God-intoxification and have union with

Lord Siva". This is the divine practise of Divya Sadhaks who lead

the life Divine."

 

That he did not mention the practices of the Vira aspirant doesn't

invalidate what he did say. Swami Sivananda (and his disciples)

are famous for urging one and all to rigorously uproot their

tamasic tendencies, but also to go beyond their rajasic qualities

as well. Swami Sivananda often emphasizes the sattvic qualities

as he did in the portion that I posted, viz., "The Tantric student

must be endowed with purity, faith, devotion, dedication to God,

dispassion, humility, courage, cosmic love, truthfulness,

non-covetousness and contentment." He says that resting on

anything less than "these qualities is a gross abuse of

Shaktism." A point that we would all do well to keep in mind

during our practice and our participation in this forum

 

Jaya Maa

 

Omprem

 

 

 

, "devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta>

wrote:

> Namaskar OmPrem:

>

> [i am reposting this message because the original came

through

> with some characters replaced by strange symbols that made

it hard to

> read.] Thank you for sharing these thoughts of Swami

Sivananda on

> Tantra Yoga Sadhana. As always, Sivananda is a veritable well

of

> knowledge; however, there are several points in his

presentation that

> could be misleading.

>

> I am not saying that he is *wrong* (I am certainly not qualified

to

> question a religious authority of Sivananda's vast knowledge

and

> experience). However, as a Shaiva monk who has renounced

the world,

> the swami's views of Shakta non-renunciate practices may be

slightly

> colored by his own preferences and beliefs?

>

> And so there are several points upon which I'd like to offer an

> alternative viewpoint:

>

> SHAKTISM AND TANTRISM: NOT THE SAME THING

>

> Sivananda appears to equate Tantra Yoga Sadhana with

Shaktism, which

> is not strictly accurate: There are numerous Tantra Sadhanas

which are

> not Shakta -- some are Vaishnava, some Shaiva, some Jain,

some

> Buddhist. And likewise, there are forms of Shaktism which are

not

> Tantric -- the massive Devi Bhagavata Purana, one of the most

detailed

> sources of Shakta theology and lore, explicitly places Tantra

second

> to Bhakti (conventional devotional worship) as an approach to

> worshiping the Goddess.

>

> THE LITERAL 5 M's ARE *NOT* FOR PASHUS

>

> While Sivananda's discussion of the three levels of Sadhak,

i.e. Pasu,

> Vira, and Divya, are excellent, he makes the assertion that "It is

> only the Pasu Sadhaks who practise the Pancha Makaras, viz.

Matsya,

> Mamsa, Madya, Mudra and Maithuna." (For readers who don't

understand

> this statement, Sivananda is referring to the so-called "5 M's" --

> those infamous Tantric rituals involving consumption of meat,

alcohol,

> and sexual intercourse that still luridly define Tantra in the

minds

> of those who are not very greatly with the subject.)

>

> On this point, Sivananda would appear to be simply incorrect.

In fact,

> there are three distinct "sets" of "5 M" rituals -- one for each

level

> of Sadhak: Pashu, Vira, and Divya. The only "set" involving

*actual*

> meat, alcohol and sexual intercourse (which I assume is

Sivananda's

> concern here) is the Vira set.

>

> Allow me to explain: Just as so many Hindu concepts come in

threes, so

> does that of Adhikara, or levels of "competency" for worship,

which

> vary depending on the temperament of the Sadhak. "Methods

which are

> suitable for highly advanced Sadhakas will fail as regards the

> ignorant and undeveloped, for they cannot understand them,"

explains

> Woodroffe.

>

> And so the three Bhavas [temperaments] of the Sadhaka are:

>

> 1. Pashu (lit. "Animal"). This is the mass of humanity; people

whose

> vision is largely limited to the World -- to external rather than

> internal realities. This is not to say that a Pashu is a "bad

person"

> -- in fact, s/he may be and often is a very good person.

However, the

> Tamas guna prevails, and so this person remains best suited

for gross

> (i.e. material) worship -- which, again, isn't a slur; it's the

> commonly known physical worship of the deity through its

image, with

> physical pooja (ritual offerings and prayer).

>

> 2. Vira (lit. "Hero"). This is a very advanced Sadhak, who has

largely

> (though not completely) liberated her-/himself from the World,

and has

> thereby ceased to be a Pashu. Here, Rajas guna prevails -- the

active

> principle that can accelerate movement either toward Tamas

guna or

> Sattva guna. The heroic Sadhak is ready to confront the enemy,

Tamas,

> face to face, with an offensive assault upon her/his remaining

> attachments, in situations where the less-developed soul

would falter

> or flee. S/he seeks out and confronts humankind's biggest

fears and

> temptations (i.e the things that most signify human lack of

control)

> -- death, cremation grounds, corpses, sex, mind-altering

substances

> like alcohol, etc. -- and heroically overcomes them.

>

> 3. Divya (lit. "Divine"). The most advanced Sadhak; the spiritual

> woman or man. She is calm, pure, refined, and wise; free of

> materiality and passion. Here, Sattva guna predominates.

Within each

> of these three groups are (as is so commonly the case in

Hindu

> philosophy) various further subdivisions -- so that one can be

of a

> relatively advanced Pashu, or a relatively low Divya

> temperament, and so on.

>

> (Continued ...)

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPrem:

 

Yes, I agree that Sivananda seems to be addressing Shakta as he has

seen it wrongly practiced, rather than Shakta as it its prescribed by

its scriptures.

 

*** He did say that the Pasu aspirant is susceptible to a tamasic

misuse of the Pancha Makaras. ***

 

He did, and he is definitely right on that. In fact, that is the

point I attempted to open in my last post responding to Eve. Whether

or not Eve's use of the 5 M's is a "misuse" or a spiritual step

forward is really between himself and the Divine. Each person has

their own path, and what works for one will never work for all. That

is why I was interested in having some of our initiated Tantric

participants address the question of whether abuse of the 5 M's is

inevitable when practiced without a guru.

 

Although almost all forms of Hindu sadhana are deeply informed by

Tantric practice, I do not consider myself a Tantric -- as my ID

suggests, my path is Bhakti. That much, I know I can do without the

physical presence of a human guru. And yet, it does seem that much of

what I know of Tantra is eminently practical and wise for anyone on

the spiritual path, and I find myself applying these principles

frequently in all aspects of my life. And so I find myself often

resorting to Tantric texts to learn more of the theory and practice

of Shaktism. I am not comfortable enough to declare, with Eve,

that "I am a Tantrick." For all of my supposedly "anti-Guru" posts of

the past, and for all of my doubts about the tradition's atual

relevance in most contexts of modern life, I respect Tantra's precept

that one is not a Tantrick until receiving diksha in a recognized

lineage. But I must ask, in practical terms, whether that's a

distinction without a difference. Is it simply Tantra without the

label?

 

*** That he did not mention the practices of the Vira aspirant

doesn't invalidate what he did say. ***

 

What he said was very clear: "It is ONLY the Pasu Sadhaks who

practise the Pancha Makaras, viz. Matsya, Mamsa, Madya, Mudra and

Maithuna." That is wrong, at least from the standpoint of Shakta

theology, which says Pashus, Viras and Divyas *all* practice the 5

M's; however, for each group those M's have different meanings.

Sivananda then defines Maithuna as "coitus" -- and that is a 5 M

ritual only in the Virabhava.

 

You suggest, correctly I would assume, that Sivananda is speaking

from his own firsthand encounters with Tantra rather than any

particular familiarity with Shakta scripture. From that point of

view, as I noted, sexual intercourse -- practiced in the proper state

of mind -- is sometimes said to be permitted to the Pashu for

fulfilling the Maithuna tattva. And there, he is correct to say that

Pashus who choose this approach are -- to use your words --

"susceptible to a tamasic misuse" of it. Strictly speaking, Eve's

description sounds like a Pashu tattva, simply because he is not a

renunciate, and the Vira (in my understanding) probably would be

quite advanced into a renunciate path by the time s/he becomes a Vira.

Would Sivananda consider Eve's approach "a tamasic misuse" of the

Maithuna concept? Judging by his words, I think he would consider

*any* sexual activity, Pashu, Vira, or otherwise, to be so. Which

only means he is not a Tantric. The question remains -- are his

judgments valid as applied to people who *are* Tantrics?

 

*** Swami Sivananda (and his disciples) are famous for urging one and

all to rigorously uproot their tamasic tendencies, but also to go

beyond their rajasic qualities as well. ***

 

Would it be fair to say that he urges a "safe" route to spiritual

realization? Since the 5 M's represent a "razor's edge" approach to

spirituality, and knowing -- as I mentioned in my reply to Eve --

that "a good guru is hard to find," perhaps Sivananda is simply

saying, "Don't mess with that stuff; it's too dangerous; there's too

much room for error. Stick to the beaten path." It is also possible

that Sivananda knows more than he's saying. From time immemorial, the

Tantric guru has publicly denied, or even disparaged Tantra.

Initiated Tantras have publicly condemned it as well, dismissing it

as "black magic," etc. The idea is, those who are in already know

better, and those who are not in shouldn't dabble in such practices

until such time as they *are* in. Ramakrishna was a Tantric adept,

but -- if I'm not mistaken -- he doesn't advocate or discuss the 5

M's etc. Tantra is a closed society, and the "membership list" isn't

published. Those who say books won't teach you Tantra are, in

essence, saying, "You're not going to learn anything by standing

outside on tiptoes, trying to peek in through the sealed windows."

 

Instead, Sivananda seems to say, be satisfied with what you *can*

know (and I quote once again, for his words are highly

worthwhile): "The Tantric student must be endowed with purity, faith,

devotion, dedication to God, dispassion, humility, courage, cosmic

love, truthfulness, non-covetousness and contentment." He says that

resting on anything less than "these qualities is a gross abuse of

Shaktism."

 

As you rightly note, this is a point we should all agree upon.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

You said, "What he said was very clear: "It is ONLY the Pasu

Sadhaks who practise the Pancha Makaras." This, of course, is

not true as I pointed out. Swami Sivananda also said that Divya

Sadhaks practice the Pancha Makaras but are aware of and

focus on an esoteric meaning. Again, that he did not mention

Vira Sadhaks is neither her not there.

 

You asked if Swami Sivananda promoted a 'safe' route to

God-realization. The answer is no. He constanly challenged

disciples to do more sadhana, and emphasized the

'knife-edged' nature of the spiritual path. In addition, he

emphasized selfless service as the true sadhana.

 

Nor do I think that it is likely as you suggest that Swami

Sivananda was speaking without "particular familiarity with

Shakta scripture".

 

In most of your posts you have presented a balanced viewpoint.

It is only on the subject of Gurus that you demonstrate bias and

allow that bias to distort what the Gurus actually said and meant.

Your logic and bhakti nature break down when it comes to

Gurus.

 

Jaya Guru/Jaya Maa

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPrem:

 

We are truly engaging in "tag team" posting today (which, I must

admit, is a pleasure).

 

*** You [devi bhakta] said, "What he [sivananda] said was very

clear: "It is ONLY the Pasu Sadhaks who practise the Pancha Makaras."

This, of course, is not true as I pointed out. ***

 

With all due respect, it is a direct quote, if you will refer back

your original post. However, I agree that he stressed the Divya (most

Sattvic) symbolic interpretation as opposed to the the literal

interpretation usually prescribed to the Vira, but here attributed to

the Pashu.

 

*** In most of your posts you have presented a balanced viewpoint. It

is only on the subject of Gurus that you demonstrate bias and allow

that bias to distort what the Gurus actually said and meant. Your

logic and bhakti nature break down when it comes to Gurus. ***

 

Guilty as charged, it appears. So what should I do? How do I correct

this shortcoming?

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe