true Tantrics and sin

[Guest guest]

Hello- I stand corrected. I think Kochu is right to wonder if there are true and

not-true Tantrics. Dangerous language. I used it without thinking. Everyone is

on the path.

Re: sin. Papa and punya are kind of like 2 opposites in a duality, yes? Are they

not better translated as "demerit" and "merit", or something like that? Actions

produce either punya or papa, a positive or negative effect. There is no notion

of some kind of collective negative condition somehow ingrained into the human

condition, original sin. Christianity has no notion of reincarnation or samsara

and has got to account for why humans are not aware of the presence of God and

often act in negative and destructive ways in God's good creation. In my

opinion, papa is definately not sin. Unfortunately it does seem to be a

convenient word for translators-short, to the point, but correct? In the same

vein, is "dharma" righteousness? That's another word that has a particular

meaning in Christianity. It's misleading to define Hinduism with Christian

concepts. It's also just as misleading to define Christianity in Hindu terms.

i.e. Jesus, another avatar of Vishnu. Jesus' sacrifice of his life on the cross

redeemed the sin of humanity for all time. Not the same thing as when dharma

declines etc. the avatar comes for the upliftment of humanity. Similar, but not

the same. I wonder what is the solution?

Jai Ma, Gitaprana

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

dear sadhaks/sadhikaas,

 

 

 

dear all ,

 

i feel that even though aquiring siddhis is not the

core of sadhana but is not opposite to bramh gyana.whole world is in

middle of fear siddhis are as relevant now as they were in ancient

times.though this part of art was filled with all the human

emotions good and bad.i personally feel that challenging in the

field of tantra is not always a dance of unripe-ego and the siddhis

which are classified as "great" or "advanced" are always connected to

pusti karya and not kshudra karya . a tantric is soft as a flower and

sometimes hard as a thunderbolt bcos he is dosent want to be

a "victim of non-voilence".and the gandhian philosophy is a great

enemy of a human being and the society.most of the knowledge of our

nation was destroyed bcos people tolerated cunningness and "back

biting".and there is no old or young in this field and i absolutely

dont beleive that an aged person is very wise. my param poojya

gurudev has said that old age comes from inside not outside.a person

will never be young if he dosent have pranashchetana or a divine

madness and joy even if he in his youth.the only "advanced" tantriks

are those who achieved bramh gyana. i would no way call anyone with

great siddhis as advanced.

 

a real tantrik cannot be judged by people who are on the surface and

dont dare to go deep .a famous tantrik called vamakshepa used to

utter ugly curses at everyone but he was a divine child of mother

tara.when he was beaten for throwing urine at tara idol ,mother tara

was seen crying and howling that night in the village.even

ramakrishna paramahamsa used to hurl abuses at mother kali for not

manifestimg in front of him.

 

here is a story from chatrapati shivajis life. i got it from the

file section of aanother group

 

 

 

It is impossible to understand a Siddha [perfected Master] by your

gross

sense of perception. You can understand him only if he reveals

himself,

and that is exactly what happened to Shivaji Maharaj the first time

he went

for Ranganath's darshan.

The story goes that Ranganath Swami had just had his lunch and was

chewing a little betelnut. He was lying on a beautifully decorated

bed, and

two very beautiful girls were massaging his feet with complete

devotion. As

he lay there relaxing, eating pan, Shivaji Maharaj entered…. When

Shivaji

saw Ranganath, a little doubt about his saintliness, about his

renunciation,

about his greatness, entered his mind. Siddhas, of course, are

wonderful

mind readers. Reading minds is child's play for them. So Ranganath

Swami

asked those two ladies to leave, and called for a silver bucket. Then

he

closed the door, and in the presence of the king he ejaculated his

seminal

fluid into the bucket, filling it to the brim. Then he took a drop of

the

fluid with a small stick and put it onto Shivaji's palm. A blister

immediately

appeared on his hand. Shivaji cried, "Ah, it's burning!"

Ranganath replied, "Yes, Raja don't you know? This is brahmavirya, the

power of Brahman…. It cannot be borne by anybody…. Now do you

understand? From the outside we look like everybody else, but inside

we

are totally different. Only because you had a doubt in your mind did I

show you this miracle. I wouldn't show it to everyone…."

Then, by the power of his yoga, he reabsorbed all of the semen within

himself and went back to sleep. The girls came back in and again

began to

massage his feet.

This reminds us of what Baba says again and again. Unless you are

thoroughly anchored in your own inner bliss, you are lost. It is

impossible

to understand a Siddha. It is better to bow to him from a distance

instead

of going near him.

 

 

 

 

, "gitaprana" <gitaprana@v...>

wrote:

> Hello- I stand corrected. I think Kochu is right to wonder if there

are true and not-true Tantrics. Dangerous language. I used it without

thinking. Everyone is on the path.

> Re: sin. Papa and punya are kind of like 2 opposites in a duality,

yes? Are they not better translated as "demerit" and "merit", or

something like that? Actions produce either punya or papa, a

positive or negative effect. There is no notion of some kind of

collective negative condition somehow ingrained into the human

condition, original sin. Christianity has no notion of reincarnation

or samsara and has got to account for why humans are not aware of the

presence of God and often act in negative and destructive ways in

God's good creation. In my opinion, papa is definately not sin.

Unfortunately it does seem to be a convenient word for translators-

short, to the point, but correct? In the same vein, is "dharma"

righteousness? That's another word that has a particular meaning in

Christianity. It's misleading to define Hinduism with Christian

concepts. It's also just as misleading to define Christianity in

Hindu terms. i.e. Jesus, another avatar of Vishnu. Jesus' sacrifice

of his life on the cross redeemed the sin of humanity for all time.

Not the same thing as when dharma declines etc. the avatar comes for

the upliftment of humanity. Similar, but not the same. I wonder what

is the solution?

> Jai Ma, Gitaprana

>

>

>