Guest guest Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 93 My greetings! :-) , "Satish Arigela" <satisharigela> wrote: > Many tantras speak of themselves as essence of Veda. They say that they are based on veda. Ok, Kularnava indeed says this. But note, it is the essense, but never the same. However not less Tantras concider themselves to be veda-bAhya (out of vaidika-dharma) - Rudra-yamala is one of 'em. Abhinavagupta states in his "Tantraloka": "That which according to Vedas leads to sin, according to our doctrine of the Left leads directly to Liberation. Thus all knowledge of Vedas is imperfect and affected by Maya". It is also important to remember the > Atharvana Veda- tantra connection. This connection is more speculative than factual. Tantrics had to give some connection with official dharma for practical reasons. BTW only the few Tantras mention Atharvana-veda. Curiously, Rudra-yamala does! Also we may add that status of A.V. itself is more doubtful than other 3 samhitas. Not all brahmans recognise A.V. For this reason we may often see mentions of 3 Vedas only. Kularnava says that a yogini is > pleased by only those who follows vedas. Numerous tantras recognise > veda as an authority. Veda means "true knowledge" in these contexts. Of course, there were quiet different opinions among tantic teachers as well. In general, Vedas were either formally revered but ignored practically, or rejected completely. And never Vedas are concidered to be equal in authority with Agama. Some tantras talk about dharma too. Ex: > Mahanirvana tantra. The dharma spoken of in Mahanirvana for the most part is similar to the dharma as spoken as in Smirti-Shastra. Mahanirvana says that vaidika-dharma is useless in kali-yuga :-). See 2 chapter for example. However MNT is itself not the main authority. Some scholars concider it to be a later compilation and i probably agree with 'em. In any case, MNT was fashioned as an "outer" doctrine - for pashus. Its aim also was to proove to orthodox ppl that tantrism is acceptable. BTW even thou MNT differs enough from smarta-shastras! > Tantras do talk about samsara,yoga,bhoga, dharma,Brahman/Atman. Of course, but differently! What other system in so to say "hinduism" postulates the unity of yoga and bhoga? What other system says that "the only niyama (law) is Ur own will"? Brahman is differently percieved in tantrism. Tantric teachers always noted DIFFERENCE of their way from common dharma. Hindus worship gods-goddesses. "Kaula-vilasa" says that gods worship kaulas! In hindu-dharma ideal (at least practical) is sannyasa; in Tantra sannyasa is prohibited. Kshemaraja in commentary on Netra-tantra explains that ashtanga-yoga of Patanjali is limited; true ashtanga is given by Shiva in Netra. > As for differences, they exist in darshanas itself. Each darshana > differs from one another. So what is different or significant about > tantra having its own differences from others? It has. In some ways it is similar with sahajiya-vaishnava and natha- shaiva. That's all. > Am not convinced about this. That which is tantric doctrine is a > type of hindu doctrine. In some sense... But it is very different from most other hindu darshanas. > Ex: Abhinava says moksha is thru Jnana and Shankara says the same. > They differ in the technique of how Jnana occurs. So do > Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya differ. Abhinava states that jnana is the result of Mercy of God, Shaktipata. This is quiet common with bhakti-schools of vaishnavism. But they are limited on bhakti-method only and dvaita-vada. We can see that Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Meikandar etc etc agree in general hindu core. Varnashrama, upasana, yoga and stuff are similar. However view of Tantras is totally different. Funny thing, it is easy to be shri-vaishnava or lingayata, nobody will care. If U say U are kaula-tantric, situation will change. What is the problem? > You werent thrown out. You are still a member there and can make > postings, though moderated. I don't blame those ppl. At last, it is their grp, they have a right to. My point of question (unanswered :-)) was why they say one thing but do another... >From their mainpage: ///4) is an unmoderated forum. Care will be taken to prevent the joining of members who can potentially make rude/offensive postings. Adminstrator of the list reserves the right to put any of the member under moderated postings option, if they resort to rude and offensive postings. In this regard, knowledgeable members of the list will be consulted before such a decision is taken./// Did i speak anything rude? Also i read in their official mssg, that discussion of vamachara from scientific point is permissible. However, my postings were deleted. Can smbd enlighten me about the reason? Moderators were even not straight enough to speak truth, they gave futile "reasons" that explaine noth. > Ambaa-l is a devotional group. One of the many objectives for ambaa- > l is to make devotional literature on Devi and Shiva accessible to > kids(ppl aged below 15). I am sure you dont want to talk about > vamachara concepts like maithuna and bali(as someone else posted > there about offering eyeballs to Devi) with kids. That is one of the reasons posts on vamachara get deleted there. Kids under 15 won't understand vamachara. There is no problem! I didn't use "folk language" that may offend smbd feelings. I kept rather academic stile - don't tell that kids will go to see sanskrit dictionaries and stuff LOL. > Your postings there are moderated only by 5 members. Their rejection does not speak anything of hinduism in general. Yes, this is true. But i saw reaction of many ppl beside them, also i know attitude to tantra in India. I have been there myself twice and have some friends who practice kaula-marga. > Schloars both traditional and western speak of pancharatra as > Vaishnava tantra. > Agama is Shaiva tantra. Some scholars use the term "tantra" as a synonim to "agama". However out of pancharatra-agamas i know only one tantric, "Lakshmi-tantra" (BTW it has descriptions of vama-rituals). Out of shaiva-agamas 28 common are not tantric. Only Bhairava-agamas of Kashmir are purely tantric. I can give an easy example - Tantras and tantric teachers never quote siddhanta-agamas or vaikhanasa ones. They quote usually only those texts which are authorative for 'em. Thus, other Tantras, commentaries of gurus and some pauranika fragments. I know one exception - Abhinava in TA quotes several siddhanta-agamas. Reason is following - he was primerly kaula-guru, but also shaiva one (and a minister of king). He had to base his teaching on some orthodox soil as well. Also he was doing great synthesis of tantric shaivism... > Pancharatra/Vaikhanasa is Vaishnava tantra. > Hence it will be still correct to say that a major portion of > rituals are from tantra.Temple worship in Kerala is mostly tantric. Kerala and Bengal are exceptions. There U may see tantric mode of worship. Other places... Where U find animal sacrifice nowadays? But it SHOULD be done in temples according not only to Tantras, but also to shaiva- agama! > Sri Sankara Menon can clarify/correct me here. Likewise a good > number of North Indian temples seem to follow procedures as > described in tantras. Sometimes yes. Partly also in Nepal. Cults of Kumari and Guhyeshvari are tantric... > Both are true. One needs to see the vaidika karmas being performed traditionally and see for themselves how much of tantric influence is there in current vaidika karma. What is performed now is not longer vaidika. It is a peculiar mixture of smarta, vaidika, pauranika and agama ritualism... Main tantric ritual is 5M. Where we can find it is "common hinduism"? If U know this, tell plz. I was searching for several years... Love is the law, love under will. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 Respected Sir, Kindly quote the chapter in Tantraloka where Abhinavagupta says Vedas leads to sin .... In Trika we talk of totality and integration. That is why we say "Where vedas end, Tantra begins" Sin is the term avoided. Virendra --- Arjuna Taradasa <bhagatirtha wrote: 93 My greetings! :-) , "Satish Arigela" <satisharigela> wrote: > Many tantras speak of themselves as essence of Veda. They say that they are based on veda. Ok, Kularnava indeed says this. But note, it is the essense, but never the same. However not less Tantras concider themselves to be veda-bAhya (out of vaidika-dharma) - Rudra-yamala is one of 'em. Abhinavagupta states in his "Tantraloka": "That which according to Vedas leads to sin, according to our doctrine of the Left leads directly to Liberation. Thus all knowledge of Vedas is imperfect and affected by Maya". It is also important to remember the > Atharvana Veda- tantra connection. This connection is more speculative than factual. Tantrics had to give some connection with official dharma for practical reasons. BTW only the few Tantras mention Atharvana-veda. Curiously, Rudra-yamala does! Also we may add that status of A.V. itself is more doubtful than other 3 samhitas. Not all brahmans recognise A.V. For this reason we may often see mentions of 3 Vedas only. Kularnava says that a yogini is > pleased by only those who follows vedas. Numerous tantras recognise > veda as an authority. Veda means "true knowledge" in these contexts. Of course, there were quiet different opinions among tantic teachers as well. In general, Vedas were either formally revered but ignored practically, or rejected completely. And never Vedas are concidered to be equal in authority with Agama. Some tantras talk about dharma too. Ex: > Mahanirvana tantra. The dharma spoken of in Mahanirvana for the most part is similar to the dharma as spoken as in Smirti-Shastra. Mahanirvana says that vaidika-dharma is useless in kali-yuga :-). See 2 chapter for example. However MNT is itself not the main authority. Some scholars concider it to be a later compilation and i probably agree with 'em. In any case, MNT was fashioned as an "outer" doctrine - for pashus. Its aim also was to proove to orthodox ppl that tantrism is acceptable. BTW even thou MNT differs enough from smarta-shastras! > Tantras do talk about samsara,yoga,bhoga, dharma,Brahman/Atman. Of course, but differently! What other system in so to say "hinduism" postulates the unity of yoga and bhoga? What other system says that "the only niyama (law) is Ur own will"? Brahman is differently percieved in tantrism. Tantric teachers always noted DIFFERENCE of their way from common dharma. Hindus worship gods-goddesses. "Kaula-vilasa" says that gods worship kaulas! In hindu-dharma ideal (at least practical) is sannyasa; in Tantra sannyasa is prohibited. Kshemaraja in commentary on Netra-tantra explains that ashtanga-yoga of Patanjali is limited; true ashtanga is given by Shiva in Netra. > As for differences, they exist in darshanas itself. Each darshana > differs from one another. So what is different or significant about > tantra having its own differences from others? It has. In some ways it is similar with sahajiya-vaishnava and natha- shaiva. That's all. > Am not convinced about this. That which is tantric doctrine is a > type of hindu doctrine. In some sense... But it is very different from most other hindu darshanas. > Ex: Abhinava says moksha is thru Jnana and Shankara says the same. > They differ in the technique of how Jnana occurs. So do > Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya differ. Abhinava states that jnana is the result of Mercy of God, Shaktipata. This is quiet common with bhakti-schools of vaishnavism. But they are limited on bhakti-method only and dvaita-vada. We can see that Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Meikandar etc etc agree in general hindu core. Varnashrama, upasana, yoga and stuff are similar. However view of Tantras is totally different. Funny thing, it is easy to be shri-vaishnava or lingayata, nobody will care. If U say U are kaula-tantric, situation will change. What is the problem? > You werent thrown out. You are still a member there and can make > postings, though moderated. I don't blame those ppl. At last, it is their grp, they have a right to. My point of question (unanswered :-)) was why they say one thing but do another... >From their mainpage: ///4) is an unmoderated forum. Care will be taken to prevent the joining of members who can potentially make rude/offensive postings. Adminstrator of the list reserves the right to put any of the member under moderated postings option, if they resort to rude and offensive postings. In this regard, knowledgeable members of the list will be consulted before such a decision is taken./// Did i speak anything rude? Also i read in their official mssg, that discussion of vamachara from scientific point is permissible. However, my postings were deleted. Can smbd enlighten me about the reason? Moderators were even not straight enough to speak truth, they gave futile "reasons" that explaine noth. > Ambaa-l is a devotional group. One of the many objectives for ambaa- > l is to make devotional literature on Devi and Shiva accessible to > kids(ppl aged below 15). I am sure you dont want to talk about > vamachara concepts like maithuna and bali(as someone else posted > there about offering eyeballs to Devi) with kids. That is one of the reasons posts on vamachara get deleted there. Kids under 15 won't understand vamachara. There is no problem! I didn't use "folk language" that may offend smbd feelings. I kept rather academic stile - don't tell that kids will go to see sanskrit dictionaries and stuff LOL. > Your postings there are moderated only by 5 members. Their rejection does not speak anything of hinduism in general. Yes, this is true. But i saw reaction of many ppl beside them, also i know attitude to tantra in India. I have been there myself twice and have some friends who practice kaula-marga. > Schloars both traditional and western speak of pancharatra as > Vaishnava tantra. > Agama is Shaiva tantra. Some scholars use the term "tantra" as a synonim to "agama". However out of pancharatra-agamas i know only one tantric, "Lakshmi-tantra" (BTW it has descriptions of vama-rituals). Out of shaiva-agamas 28 common are not tantric. Only Bhairava-agamas of Kashmir are purely tantric. I can give an easy example - Tantras and tantric teachers never quote siddhanta-agamas or vaikhanasa ones. They quote usually only those texts which are authorative for 'em. Thus, other Tantras, commentaries of gurus and some pauranika fragments. I know one exception - Abhinava in TA quotes several siddhanta-agamas. Reason is following - he was primerly kaula-guru, but also shaiva one (and a minister of king). He had to base his teaching on some orthodox soil as well. Also he was doing great synthesis of tantric shaivism... > Pancharatra/Vaikhanasa is Vaishnava tantra. > Hence it will be still correct to say that a major portion of > rituals are from tantra.Temple worship in Kerala is mostly tantric. Kerala and Bengal are exceptions. There U may see tantric mode of worship. Other places... Where U find animal sacrifice nowadays? But it SHOULD be done in temples according not only to Tantras, but also to shaiva- agama! > Sri Sankara Menon can clarify/correct me here. Likewise a good > number of North Indian temples seem to follow procedures as > described in tantras. Sometimes yes. Partly also in Nepal. Cults of Kumari and Guhyeshvari are tantric... > Both are true. One needs to see the vaidika karmas being performed traditionally and see for themselves how much of tantric influence is there in current vaidika karma. What is performed now is not longer vaidika. It is a peculiar mixture of smarta, vaidika, pauranika and agama ritualism... Main tantric ritual is 5M. Where we can find it is "common hinduism"? If U know this, tell plz. I was searching for several years... Love is the law, love under will. A. / Terms of Service. ______________________ India Insurance Special: Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more. Go to: http://in.insurance./licspecial/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > 93 My greetings! :-) > > , "Satish Arigela" > <satisharigela> wrote: > > Many tantras speak of themselves as essence of Veda. They say > that they are based on veda. > > Ok, Kularnava indeed says this. But note, it is the essense, but > never the same. > However not less Tantras concider themselves to be veda-bAhya (out of > vaidika-dharma) - Rudra-yamala is one of 'em. Not all tantras consider themselves as veda-bahya. If it is so,there will not be the standard talk about veda-viruddha tantra (tantras opposed to vedas) and veda-aviruddha tantras(tantras not opposed to vedas). > Abhinavagupta states in his "Tantraloka": "That which according to > Vedas leads to sin, according to our doctrine of the Left leads > directly to Liberation. Thus all knowledge of Vedas is imperfect and > affected by Maya". The standard example quoted in support of this is physicians making use to poison and arsenic compounds to enhance the health of a human. Likewise that which is sin according to vedas is used for spiritually advancing in some tantras. Does Abhinava say that vedas are imperfect? If so why do tantras claim that they are the essence of veda? There can be little doubt here that when tantras talk about veda they talk about that which is generally known as veda. > It is also important to remember the > > Atharvana Veda- tantra connection. > > This connection is more speculative than factual. Tantrics had to > give some connection with official dharma for practical reasons. BTW > only the few Tantras mention Atharvana-veda. Curiously, Rudra- yamala > does! > Also we may add that status of A.V. itself is more doubtful than > other 3 samhitas. Not all brahmans recognise A.V. For this reason we > may often see mentions of 3 Vedas only. You might be right when you say the connection is speculative. Likewise your statement "tantrics has to give official reasons...", I feel is only speculative. Guess work. As for Atharvana veda: One of the four principal Shankara mutts accepts only someone well versed in Atharvana veda as the head of the pitha or as a succesor. There is great effort going on to preserve the shakas of Atharvana veda from the time of Bhaskararaya. Those brahmins who have the last name as caturvedi, are all well versed in Atharvana -veda. Ofcourse, thesedays, last names are retained even though they dont study vedas at all. > > Kularnava says that a yogini is > > pleased by only those who follows vedas. Numerous tantras recognise > > veda as an authority. > > Veda means "true knowledge" in these contexts. Of course, there were > quiet different opinions among tantic teachers as well. That is speculative. When they say veda, they are definitely referring to what is generally known as vedas. This can be verified by examining the whole context. >In general, > Vedas were either formally revered but ignored practically, or > rejected completely. > And never Vedas are concidered to be equal in authority with Agama. Some consider shruti is of two types. Veda and tantra. > > Some tantras talk about dharma too. Ex: > > Mahanirvana tantra. The dharma spoken of in Mahanirvana for the > most part is similar to the dharma as spoken as in Smirti-Shastra. > > Mahanirvana says that vaidika-dharma is useless in kali-yuga :-). See > 2 chapter for example. However MNT is itself not the main authority. > Some scholars concider it to be a later compilation and i probably > agree with 'em. Arthur Avalon suggests otherwise. He says that it is as old as other standard tantras. > In any case, MNT was fashioned as an "outer" doctrine - for pashus. > Its aim also was to proove to orthodox ppl that tantrism is > acceptable. A couple of tantras say that there is only pashu bhava in kali - yuga. They add that Vira and Divya bhava are absent in kali-yuga. > BTW even thou MNT differs enough from smarta-shastras! > > > Tantras do talk about samsara,yoga,bhoga, dharma,Brahman/Atman. > > Of course, but differently! What other system in so to say "hinduism" > postulates the unity of yoga and bhoga? What other system says > that "the only niyama (law) is Ur own will"? > Brahman is differently percieved in tantrism. Tantric teachers always > noted DIFFERENCE of their way from common dharma. > Hindus worship gods-goddesses. "Kaula-vilasa" says that gods worship > kaulas! Kaulas do worship Shiva and Devi. Dont they? In hindu-dharma ideal (at least practical) is sannyasa; in > Tantra sannyasa is prohibited. Grihasta ashrama(life of house-holder) is the ideal in hindu dharma. One can see lots of praise for this ashrama in smarta- shastra. Sanyasa being an ideal is a recent idea. > > Ex: Abhinava says moksha is thru Jnana and Shankara says the same. > > They differ in the technique of how Jnana occurs. So do > > Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya differ. > > Abhinava states that jnana is the result of Mercy of God, >Shaktipata. > This is quiet common with bhakti-schools of vaishnavism. But they are > limited on bhakti-method only and dvaita-vada. > We can see that Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Meikandar etc etc agree > in general hindu core. Varnashrama, upasana, yoga and stuff are > similar. However view of Tantras is totally different. There are differences. But does that made it different from hindu? No. Those differences we speak about are also hindu. > Funny thing, > it is easy to be shri-vaishnava or lingayata, nobody will care. If U > say U are kaula-tantric, situation will change. What is the problem? Problem is that tantra is understood as black-magic. > My point of question (unanswered :-)) was why they say one thing but > do another... > From their mainpage: ///4) is an unmoderated forum. Care will > be taken to prevent the joining of members who can potentially make > rude/offensive postings. Adminstrator of the list reserves the right > to put any of the member under moderated postings option, if they > resort to rude and offensive postings. In this regard, knowledgeable > members of the list will be consulted before such a decision is > taken./// That policy # 4 is typed in 1999 when the group was started. A 1000 things changed from then. We should have updated that. > > Did i speak anything rude? > Also i read in their official mssg, that discussion of vamachara from > scientific point is permissible. However, my postings were deleted. > Can smbd enlighten me about the reason? Probably coz it wasnt scientific enough. >Moderators were even not > straight enough to speak truth, they gave futile "reasons" that > explaine noth. Coz Dakshinachara is the focus of that group. > > > Ambaa-l is a devotional group. One of the many objectives for ambaa- > > l is to make devotional literature on Devi and Shiva accessible to > > kids(ppl aged below 15). I am sure you dont want to talk about > > vamachara concepts like maithuna and bali(as someone else posted > > there about offering eyeballs to Devi) with kids. That is one of > the reasons posts on vamachara get deleted there. > > Kids under 15 won't understand vamachara. There is no problem! I > didn't use "folk language" that may offend smbd feelings. I kept > rather academic stile - don't tell that kids will go to see sanskrit > dictionaries and stuff LOL. If not kids their parents will be forced to do it. Children from a couple of families do refer dictionaries. > > > Your postings there are moderated only by 5 members. Their > rejection does not speak anything of hinduism in general. > > Yes, this is true. But i saw reaction of many ppl beside them, also i > know attitude to tantra in India. I have been there myself twice and > have some friends who practice kaula-marga. The attitude is coz of recognition of tantra as black-magic. > Kerala and Bengal are exceptions. There U may see tantric mode of > worship. > Other places... Where U find animal sacrifice nowadays? But it SHOULD > be done in temples according not only to Tantras, but also to shaiva- > agama! Animal sacrifice isnt widespread but can be seen in other states too. Kamakhya(state of Assam) is another place. > > Both are true. One needs to see the vaidika karmas being > performed traditionally and see for themselves how much of tantric > influence is there in current vaidika karma. > > What is performed now is not longer vaidika. It is a peculiar mixture > of smarta, vaidika, pauranika and agama ritualism... That is true but with some tantric/agamin influence. > Main tantric ritual is 5M. Main tantric ritual is 5m only for a vamachari. The tantric rituals of Dakshinachara dont include 5m. I dont think one is justified when he says main tantric ritual is 5m. Tantric need not be a vamachari. A couple of tantras say that there is only pashu-bhava in kali-yuga. >Where we can find it is "common hinduism"? > If U know this, tell plz. I was searching for several years... Meat andFish are used in vaidik kriyas. A good number of vedic yagas are incomplete without animal sacrifice. These yagas involving animal sacrifices are performed even today. I personally know ppl who does vedic yagas with animal sacrifice. But they are not too common. Not common because it will cost so much to perform them that most purohits cant afford it. Shankaracharya's Prapanchasara tantra talks about intercourse as a kind of ritual. I also read that the Satapatha brahmana speaks about intercourse in a similar manner. SA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2004 Report Share Posted March 30, 2004 , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > 93 My greetings! :-) > > , "Satish Arigela" > <satisharigela> wrote: > > Many tantras speak of themselves as essence of Veda. They say > that they are based on veda. > > Ok, Kularnava indeed says this. But note, it is the essense, but > never the same. > However not less Tantras concider themselves to be veda-bAhya (out of > vaidika-dharma) - Rudra-yamala is one of 'em. > Abhinavagupta states in his "Tantraloka": "That which according to > Vedas leads to sin, according to our doctrine of the Left leads > directly to Liberation. Thus all knowledge of Vedas is imperfect and > affected by Maya". > > It is also important to remember the > > Atharvana Veda- tantra connection. > > This connection is more speculative than factual. Tantrics had to > give some connection with official dharma for practical reasons. BTW > only the few Tantras mention Atharvana-veda. Curiously, Rudra- yamala > does! > Also we may add that status of A.V. itself is more doubtful than > other 3 samhitas. Not all brahmans recognise A.V. For this reason we > may often see mentions of 3 Vedas only. > > Kularnava says that a yogini is > > pleased by only those who follows vedas. Numerous tantras recognise > > veda as an authority. > > Veda means "true knowledge" in these contexts. Of course, there were > quiet different opinions among tantic teachers as well. In general, > Vedas were either formally revered but ignored practically, or > rejected completely. > And never Vedas are concidered to be equal in authority with Agama. If vedas in this context mean true knowledge, then where is the need of following tantras and its rituals if one already has that true knowledge? The following extract from P.M. Bagchi's article(in files section of group home page) might be of interest here. Quote: ------------------------------ The Tantra is regarded as a Sruti or Agama, ` revelation', as opposed to a Smrti or Nigama, `tradition'. It is thus classed with the Vedas. It is usually defined as `Srutisakhavisesah', a particular branch of the Vedas. This claim is strongly maintained not only by the later Tantras, but also by the earlier ones. One of the oldest Tantra is the culmination of the esoteric science of Vedanta and the Samkhya. In fact, it combines with the ultimate reality of Brahman or Siva the validity of the world as an expression of His Sakti. The consort of Siva therefore is first taught the Vedanta, then the twenty -five Samkhyas, and after that the Siva Tantra. Pingalamata, which is an equally old Tantric text, says, `The Tantra, first communicated by Siva, came down through tradition. It is Agama with the characteristics of chandas (Vedas)." The later Tantras reiterate the same claim. The Kularnava Tantra says (II. 140 - 41 ) that kuladharma is based on, and inspired by, the truth of the Vedas. In the same place, Siva ciites passages from the Sruti in suppost of His doctrine. Prapancasara and other Tantras cite vaidika-mahavakyas and mantras; and as mantras are a part of the Vedas, the Meru Tantra says that the Tantra is a part of Vedas. The Niruttara Tantra calls the Tantra the fifth Veda, and kulacare the fifth asrama, which follows all others. The Matsyasukta- mahatantra says that the discipline must be pure of soul and a knower of the Vedas ( XIII ). He who is devoid of vaidikakriya is disqualified. The Gandharva Tantra says that the Tantric Sadhaka must be a believer in the Vedas, ever attached to Brahman, living in Brahman, and taking shelter with Brahman. The Kularnava Tantra says that there is no knowledge higher than that of the Vedas and no doctrine equal to the kuala ( III.113). ----------------------------- unquote: SA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 93 Greetings! I'll write an answer a bit later, it takes too much time :-). May be tonight. Briefly speaking, there were several schools of tantra itself, one pro-vedic and one not. Generally vama-tantras are veda-bahya, while daxina aren't. However in the view of Tantras vama is higher than daxina (the highest is kaula). About grihastha being best ashrama U are right. I meant modern view about sannyasa being better, which is not vedic nor tantric in proper sense but "sanatani" we may say. Smarta-shastras sometimes also say contradictory things. Even in Manu-smriti U may see some passages with good attitude to women, thou in general that scripture is female-oppressing. I write back soon :-). God bless! Love is the law, love under will. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 > > Shankaracharya's Prapanchasara tantra talks about intercourse as a > kind of ritual. I also read that the Satapatha brahmana speaks about > intercourse in a similar manner. CAn you tell where in the Prapanchasara does it talk about intercourse-ritual(can you give the edition as well). My recall is that like in the MantraMahodadhi, PT requires strict celibacy. -yogaman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 , "childofdevi" <childofdevi> wrote: > > > > > Shankaracharya's Prapanchasara tantra talks about intercourse as a > > kind of ritual. I also read that the Satapatha brahmana speaks > about > > intercourse in a similar manner. > > > CAn you tell where in the Prapanchasara does it talk about > intercourse-ritual(can you give the edition as well). My recall is > that like in the MantraMahodadhi, PT requires strict celibacy. The description can be seen in Chapter 18. You are right about celibacy. But how is celibacy followed? Many sources say that unmarried should refrain from things thinking about women, looking at women etc.. and all the 8 forms. That is how brahmacharis follow celibacy. A grihasta follows celibacy in this way: He should approach his wife after a certain number of days after her monthly cycle. He should refrain from appraoaching her on the Pancha-parvas(five sacred days) and other days like ekadashi and other days etc. This is brahmacharya for a Grihasta. The description in the Prapanchasara is only for grihastas. Prapanchasara Tantra with Vivarana Commentary Of Padmapadacharya (Acharya Shankara's immediate disciple) and Prayogakramadipika. Motilal Banarsidas 1989 reprint.. Edited by Shri Atalananda Saraswati. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 i am not learned enough to discuss all the texts yogaman and satish and others are referring to. So I will not comment on them. I am NOT against sex as a Tanric tool. Its there. But it is not the ONLY tool in Tantra. I know of a professor who had mental sexual union for a long time as a spiritual experience. But my two bit is you will find EVERYTHING in human existene exalted in Tantra. Each takes whats just right for him/her. The reason why sex was put on the backburner because of its misuse. childofdevi <childofdevi wrote: > > Shankaracharya's Prapanchasara tantra talks about intercourse as a > kind of ritual. I also read that the Satapatha brahmana speaks about > intercourse in a similar manner. CAn you tell where in the Prapanchasara does it talk about intercourse-ritual(can you give the edition as well). My recall is that like in the MantraMahodadhi, PT requires strict celibacy. -yogaman / Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today 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.