Kaula doctrines - to Satish again ;-) and to others interested

[Guest guest]

93

> Ok. Popular hinduism isnt vedic nor is it based on smarta. They are

> too few if any who follow the smritis or care for them.

> A normal hindu doesnt know that there is something called smriti.

 

Sure. But varnashrama stuff, social rules of conduct etc are mostly

from smriti (+ later additions and perversions).

For example obstaining from wine is smarta idea, prohibiting women to

study Vedas and get gayatri is smarta, prohibition of sexual act

during menstruation is smarta (this i don't know whether it is also in

Samhitas, but definitely not in Tantras)... Vegetarianism is taken

from yogic and buddhist texts, funny indeed.

> > However practically ALL Tantras are in contradiction with smriti.

> Any examples?

 

No doubt LOL. Just a few examples (seems that U have no personal

knowledge of original Tantras, just read A.Avalon, Bagchi and alike

"siddhas" LOL):

1. Prescriptions of maithuna with parakiya-shakti and with

menstruating women (in most of Tantras)

2. Group sex (in several Tantras)

3. Consumption of sexual fluids and menstrual blood, tilaka with

yoni-tattva and alike practices

4. Prohibition of vrata, sannyasa, tirtha-yatra (Kularmave), of

murti-puja and puja of artificial linga (in Kashmiri Kula system and

"Kaulajnananirnaya")

5. Worship of Devi thru bodies of each other

6. Prescription for a woman to leave worldly husband or to ignore him,

being with vira (Niruttara-tantre)

7. Totally opposite understanding of brahmacharya (Tantraloke 29

ahnike)

8. Prescription of consumption of meat etc (Kularnave) and prohibition

of vegetarianism (Kaulajnananirnaye)

9. Anal coitus with Kumari (Pranatoshinyam)

10. Worship with use of urine (Nigamakalpadrume, Tararahasye) and

sexual substanses

 

Enough or i should continue? :-)

> Kularanava says make wine this and that way and drink wine while

> doing rituals etc. But when is not performing a kaula ritual, what

> stand does it take on wine?

> > Kularanava preaches that looking at wine is sin and one should see

> the sun to get rid of that sin.

> It says smelling wine is a sin and one needs to do pranayama to get

> rid of that sin. It goes to the extent of saying that one should

> burn his tongue if he drinks wine. Which is exactly what smritis

say.>

> I am aware that it has statements saying looking at wine gives

> spiritual merit and that the gods are pleased by doing so. But that

> is only when performing a kaula ritual and only when that wine is

> purified by mantras etc.

 

Wine is to be purified with prescribed mantras or at least with

mula-mantra. It is common to all Tantras. However "kula-ritual" means

not only ritual in ordinary sense; it is any activity in kaula-chakra.

In tattva-chakra there're no ritual actions at all, and that is the

highest level!

> It has the same opinion about wine like smritis during other times.

> Does one need any more proof to see that Kularanava is inline with

> vedas and smritis?

 

Tantras PRESCRIBE usage of wine and meat, while smriti ALLOW that (as

in Manavadharmashastra). It makes difference.

> Right. Which means that tantras do accept that what is mentioned

> in smritis as sin is actually a sin.

 

This DOESN'T mean it. Of course, there are common points about sin,

but there are strinkingly different. Sexual relationships without

marriage are against smriti, but ok for tantric path. Sometimes they

are even preferred to marital.

> I quoted an extract from Bagchi's article where he quotes a couple

> of tantras saying that one who doesnt perform vaidika kriya is

> disqualified from tantric practices.

 

I'm not able to check up that references, ny library is away now.

However in most cases vedic knowledge is not required. As U may know,

for shudras, women and yavanas study of Vedas is prohibited by smriti.

And Meru-tantra says that "starting from shudras and ending with

yavanas - for them siddhi lies in left path" (shUdrAdi-yavanAntAnAM

siddhir vAmapathe sthitA).

> The shakta work prANatoShiNi and some other work are said to

> contain passages from Mahanirvana.

 

Pranatoshini and Meru-tantra are recent - it's a known fact. Most

compendiums and all early Tantras and works never quote MNT...

> Actually Avalon quotes a passage from prANatoShiNi which is said

> to be from MahaNirvana saying there is only pashubhava in kali yuga.

 

PLZ give the reference to MNT. I strongly doubt it is true. MNT says

exactly opposite.

> It is also said that Rudrayamala says the same that divya and vira

> bhava are absent in Kaliyuga. Avalon also mentions Jnana tantra as

> saying this.

 

I do not know the text under name of "Jnana-tantra", so cannot comment

on it. In Rudra-yamala it is NOT present. Rudra-yamala prescribes

vamachara and yoga as being vira path for kali-yuga.

> So does the attitude towards worship differs from sect to sect.

> Does that make each sect as differeent or alien to hinduism?

 

To wirship "family of Shiva" is paganism and idolatry. This has

nothing to do with Kaula-doctrine.

> How about Shankara Vedanta or kevala advaita.Dont they worship "one"

> divine being Brahman?

 

I'm not sure about what system U call "kevala advaita"...

Shankara Vedanta is different from doctrine of Kula. It is concidered

as a limited teaching along with vaishnavism, dvaita-shaivism and

yoga.

Kularnava-tantra clearly says:

advaitaM kechidichchhanti dvaitamichchhanti chApare /

mama tattvaM na jAnanti dvaitAdvaitavivarjitam //

 

In which case we should be saying that it is

> closer to Advaita -Vedanta rather than Christianity , Kabballah or

> whatever.

 

Advaita-vedanta is speaking of some abstract Absolute and some Maya

with unknown status LOL. Kula-agama is MONOTHEISTIC monism. As in

Kabbalah and Sufism. Kula teaches that only God can save U, never U

can save Urself - this is very crucial matter, and in it Kula agree

with Christianity etc, not with Vedanta, purvamimansa or yoga :-).

> There is no pretention. Kaulas are hindus for reaosn mentioned

> above.

 

There're prescriptions to "pretend being vaishnavas" if a non-kaula

enters kula-chakra.

Agamas know not such a word "hindu", it was invented by muslims.

However it clearly says "as vaidika in the world" (lokAchAre tu

vaidikaH)... Lokachara is opposed to kaulachara, which is the true

essense.

> Matters like? Can we discuss atleast one important matter?

 

I mentioned now.

BTW teaching about nature of Kula is exact correspondance of doctrine

of Shekhinah/Kneset-Israel of Kabbalah and doctrine of Church of

Christianity.

Problem is that U have no knowledge of those systems...

> Islam? Drinking wine is a sin in Islam. I am sure you know about

> that. How can you say Kaula is close to islam?

 

There're sufi sects which use wine (for example turkish bektashi

order).

In it's mysticism of Love Kaula-darshana is close to sufism, vaishnava

sahajiyas and christianity, not to vedanta or yoga.

> When one says scientific, it is understood that it comes with

> proper quotes and references and with a proper format of an article

> about to be published in magazines. I did not see that.

 

Ur explanations are becoming more funny. Laeve it, don't make Urself a

joker LOL. Obvious enough, what was meant by scientific. Not only PhD

thesis LOL.

> That is only one view. Not the entire view.

 

This is the view of TANTRAS on vamachara. Other views are alien to

Tantra.

> Yes. Only vamachara tantras. Other tantras dont.

 

Which "other", could U plz name? "Bhutashuddhi-tantra",

"Prashna-tantra" and "Pancha-tantra"? LMAO

 

Love is the law, love under will.

 

A.

[Guest guest]

, "Arjuna Taradasa"

<bhagatirtha@m...> wrote:

> Sure. But varnashrama stuff, social rules of conduct etc are

mostly

> from smriti (+ later additions and perversions).

 

 

Varnashrama is also strictly followed in tantras. It is not hard to

see that. Kularnava is a good example. See, smriti and tantra are

not so different in this matter. Also see below how the varna dharma

in smritis is refelected or how it shapes parts of kaula dharma.

 

Ex:Social rule of condcut

 

Smriti says dont drink.

 

Tantra says dont drink.(except when u do kaula ritual-you dont do a

kaula ritual 24 hrs a day- do you?)

 

Likewise it maintains varna distinctions like

 

Ex: Smriti says Shudra and women should not use pranava

 

Tantra says the same thing.

 

Same can be said about other social rules of conduct.

 

> For example obstaining from wine is smarta idea, prohibiting women

>to

> study Vedas and get gayatri is smarta, prohibition of sexual act

> during menstruation is smarta (this i don't know whether it is

also in

> Samhitas, but definitely not in Tantras)... Vegetarianism is taken

> from yogic and buddhist texts, funny indeed.

 

 

1) Does tantra prescribe that you should eat meat when you are not

performing rituals? No. It doesnt. In Tantra meat is prescribed only

while doing rituals just like it is prescribed for vedic yagas.

Arent they similar in this sense?

 

2)Does tantra prescribe drinking wine when one is not performing

rituals? No. It doesnt. It actually says that drinking wine is sin.

Smriti and tantra have some similarity here.

 

3)Does tantra say that women can study vedas and can chant gayatri?

As far as I know, no. I never came across any tantric sentence like

that. They are similar in this case too.

 

4)Does tantra say that one should always approach women in their

cycle? It does prescribe but only for ritualistic purpose.

And it prescibes it only for a few select ppl. It does not say

everyone should perform the above.

When smriti says approach women in such and such condition, it

doesnt mean that in a ritualistic way. It prescribes that it shud be

the normal behaviour.

 

> > Any examples?

>

> No doubt LOL. Just a few examples (seems that U have no personal

> knowledge of original Tantras, just read A.Avalon, Bagchi and

alike

> "siddhas" LOL):

> 1. Prescriptions of maithuna with parakiya-shakti and with

> menstruating women (in most of Tantras)

 

As explained b4 they are for ritualistic purposes. Tantras dont

preach that its adherents should do it all the time. Also it is not

for every tantric. It is only for vamachari tantrics. There are

other tantrics apart from vamacharis.

> 2. Group sex (in several Tantras)

 

Can you quote references for this? Or do u mean chakras?

If u mean chakras, remember kularnava says that after everybody is

out of that chakra the caste distinctions and other relations etc

are maintained as usual. Where are these distinctions mentioned in

kularnava mentioned? They are mentioned in smritis. So it is asking

those tantrics for which the chakra is prescribed to follow smritis

when they are not in that chakra.

 

> 3. Consumption of sexual fluids and menstrual blood, tilaka with

> yoni-tattva and alike practices

> 4. Prohibition of vrata, sannyasa, tirtha-yatra (Kularmave), of

> murti-puja and puja of artificial linga (in Kashmiri Kula system

>and

> "Kaulajnananirnaya")

 

Pranatoshini has a topic which discusses Sphatika Lingarchana.

 

Shiva Linga worship made with different materials is spoken of in

various tantras.

 

Yogini tantra prescribes tirtha-yatra. It describes various places

where one needs to travel etc. Hence your statement about tirtha

yatra is wrong.

 

Murti puja is the topic of discussion in numerus tantras. Are you

kidding about murti-puja? Every other tantra talks about it. What is

worshipped by Srividya upasakas?

 

Yogini tantra talks about how a yati(sanyasi) should practice

maithuna and how an avadhuta should practice the same.

If sanyasis are excluded or if sanyasa is prohibited how come yogini

tantra say this?

 

As for the other practice, I re-iterate that it is something which

is done once in a while. It doesnt say you should do those on daily

basis. When one is not doing those rituals, the tantras by default

ask its practitioner to follow the smritis.(see above explanation on

chakra for this)

 

> 5. Worship of Devi thru bodies of each other

> 6. Prescription for a woman to leave worldly husband or to ignore

him,

> being with vira (Niruttara-tantre)

> 7. Totally opposite understanding of brahmacharya (Tantraloke 29

> ahnike)

> 8. Prescription of consumption of meat etc (Kularnave) and

prohibition

> of vegetarianism (Kaulajnananirnaye)

> 9. Anal coitus with Kumari (Pranatoshinyam)

 

Can I have the exact reference on 6 and 9?

> 10. Worship with use of urine (Nigamakalpadrume, Tararahasye) and

> sexual substanses

 

 

As I said, tantra(some) does prescribe these only in a ritualistic

sense and not in the sense of daily conduct like smritis do. And

when it prescribes it does so only for a select few sadhakas who

reached certain levels. These are for those who are beyong all

temptations. Not to everyone.

 

Finally, the above differences you mentioned are part of hinduism.

They are meant to be followed by very select number of hindus for

whom vamachara is a valid path.

 

>

> > Kularanava says make wine this and that way and drink wine

while

> > doing rituals etc. But when is not performing a kaula ritual,

what

> > stand does it take on wine?

> > > Kularanava preaches that looking at wine is sin and one should

see

> > the sun to get rid of that sin.

> > It says smelling wine is a sin and one needs to do pranayama to

get

> > rid of that sin. It goes to the extent of saying that one should

> > burn his tongue if he drinks wine. Which is exactly what smritis

> say.>

> > I am aware that it has statements saying looking at wine gives

> > spiritual merit and that the gods are pleased by doing so. But

that

> > is only when performing a kaula ritual and only when that wine

is

> > purified by mantras etc.

>

> Wine is to be purified with prescribed mantras or at least with

> mula-mantra. It is common to all Tantras. However "kula-ritual"

means

> not only ritual in ordinary sense; it is any activity in kaula-

chakra.

> In tattva-chakra there're no ritual actions at all, and that is

the

> highest level!

 

 

Do kaulas spend all 24 hrs of the day in kaula-chakra?

When they are not in kaula-chakra, they are supposed to follow the

smritis like anybody else, like abstaining from drinking wine not

approaching other women etc. The kularnava and other tantras clearly

say this.

 

> > It has the same opinion about wine like smritis during other

times.

> > Does one need any more proof to see that Kularanava is inline

with

> > vedas and smritis?

>

> Tantras PRESCRIBE usage of wine and meat, while smriti ALLOW that

(as

> in Manavadharmashastra). It makes difference.

 

When smriti says you can eat such and such meat, it is referring

to everydaylife. There is no ritual involved in that.(except the

common one which is followed while consuming any food item).

When tantra talks about meat it is referring to its usage during a

ritual, and not as something which is to be followed all the time.

Tantra doesnt care if you are a vegetarian or not when you are not

performing vamachara rituals.

 

The grihya-sutras do *prescribe* that meat is to be used for

certain vedic yagas.

 

> > Right. Which means that tantras do accept that what is

mentioned

> > in smritis as sin is actually a sin.

>

> This DOESN'T mean it.

 

 

It does mean it. If tantra did not recognise that, that which is

said in smritis is sin, it would have never said that, one can be

liberated by those activites which produce sin and then prescribe

(ofcourse only for a few advanced beings) activities which are

considered sin

 

> Of course, there are common points about sin,

> but there are strinkingly different. Sexual relationships without

> marriage are against smriti, but ok for tantric path. Sometimes

>they

> are even preferred to marital.

 

 

No. They are not ok. They are, only in the context of ritual.

And are justified only in certain cases. Remember tantras do say

that excessive drinking even in ritual context and drinking when not

performing ritual is sin. Likewise they do say that approaching

other women in non-ritual context is sin. Again, those prescriptions

are only for those who reach certain spiritual stages.

 

When it comes to sexual relationships, it is intersting to observe

that the Yogini tantra says that a shudra avadhuta should avoid

maithuna with a woman belonging to Brahmana, Kshatriya and vaishya

castes even in ritual context, which has strong resemblance to the

way in which smritis prescribe marriage for a shudra. Some

prescriptions for the other 3 castes here are also similar to the

way smriti prescribes marriage.

 

> > I quoted an extract from Bagchi's article where he quotes a

couple

> > of tantras saying that one who doesnt perform vaidika kriya is

> > disqualified from tantric practices.

>

> I'm not able to check up that references, ny library is away now.

> However in most cases vedic knowledge is not required. As U may

know,

> for shudras, women and yavanas study of Vedas is prohibited by

smriti.

> And Meru-tantra says that "starting from shudras and ending with

> yavanas - for them siddhi lies in left path" (shUdrAdi-

yavanAntAnAM

> siddhir vAmapathe sthitA).

 

 

Shudras and women(like everyone else) should follow smriti when

they are not doing any rituals or when they are not in chakra. That

is the command of tantra.

 

>

> > Actually Avalon quotes a passage from prANatoShiNi which is

said

> > to be from MahaNirvana saying there is only pashubhava in kali

yuga.

>

> PLZ give the reference to MNT. I strongly doubt it is true. MNT

says

> exactly opposite.

 

I have a english translation and am unable to locate it.

Avalon does mention that MNT says this quoting Pranatoshini.

Will check if I am able to find a sanskrit version.

 

>

> > It is also said that Rudrayamala says the same that divya and

vira

> > bhava are absent in Kaliyuga. Avalon also mentions Jnana tantra

as

> > saying this.

>

> I do not know the text under name of "Jnana-tantra", so cannot

comment

> on it. In Rudra-yamala it is NOT present. Rudra-yamala prescribes

> vamachara and yoga as being vira path for kali-yuga.

 

Same. Avalon says that Pranatoshini quotes Rudrayamala in support

of what I wrote above.

 

>

> > So does the attitude towards worship differs from sect to

sect.

> > Does that make each sect as differeent or alien to hinduism?

>

> To wirship "family of Shiva" is paganism and idolatry. This has

> nothing to do with Kaula-doctrine.

 

 

?????? I find your statement quite absurd.

 

Then why is there frequent talk about Bhairavas, Bharavis, various

kinds of Ganeshas various kinds of Devis, in various tantras.

 

Why does the DeviRahasya and other numerous tantras talk about

worship of Surya, Vishnu, Krishna, Radha, Shiva, Ganesha, Skanda,

Vatuka, Kshetrapala,Yoginis, Virabhadra, Nandi etc..?

A few have descriptions of devata lokas with their parivaras etc.

So I find ur statement baseless.

 

>

> > How about Shankara Vedanta or kevala advaita.Dont they

worship "one"

> > divine being Brahman?

>

> I'm not sure about what system U call "kevala advaita"...

> Shankara Vedanta is different from doctrine of Kula. It is

concidered

> as a limited teaching along with vaishnavism, dvaita-shaivism and

> yoga.

> Kularnava-tantra clearly says:

> advaitaM kechidichchhanti dvaitamichchhanti chApare /

> mama tattvaM na jAnanti dvaitAdvaitavivarjitam //

 

 

Some vaishnava sects of hinduism say shakta tantra etc is inferior

and that Pancharatra is better. Your above quoting of Kularnava

doesnt prove anything. Kevala advaita is same as Shankara vedanta.

 

Ramanuja also thinks Shankara's teaching is limited. So does Madhva.

 

In view of that how does Kula doctrine being differeent from

Shankara make it alien to hindu.

 

>

> In which case we should be saying that it is

> > closer to Advaita -Vedanta rather than Christianity , Kabballah

or

> > whatever.

>

> Advaita-vedanta is speaking of some abstract Absolute and some

Maya

> with unknown status LOL. Kula-agama is MONOTHEISTIC monism. As in

> Kabbalah and Sufism. Kula teaches that only God can save U, never

U

> can save Urself - this is very crucial matter, and in it Kula

agree

> with Christianity etc, not with Vedanta, purvamimansa or yoga :-)

 

 

Advaita and Vishishtadvaita also hold that only God can save you.

 

Then how is that you find it close to christianty and not to hindu

inspite of numerous similarities between tantra and veda?

 

You mentioned some ethical differences when it comes to some ritual

practices in tantra(not tantras in general) and smriti. But does

christianity accept those differences you have listed above?

For ex: Does christianity or islam accept that relations outside

marriage are ok?

 

If no, then how do u think u can say Kula is close to christianity?

 

> > There is no pretention. Kaulas are hindus for reaosn mentioned

> > above.

>

> There're prescriptions to "pretend being vaishnavas" if a non-

kaula

> enters kula-chakra.

> Agamas know not such a word "hindu", it was invented by muslims.

> However it clearly says "as vaidika in the world" (lokAchAre tu

> vaidikaH)... Lokachara is opposed to kaulachara, which is the true

> essense.

 

Being opposed when? Only during rituals. As I have shown above

tantra prescribes that when they are not doing rituals they need to

follow smritis etc.

 

>

> > Matters like? Can we discuss atleast one important matter?

>

> I mentioned now.

> BTW teaching about nature of Kula is exact correspondance of

doctrine

> of Shekhinah/Kneset-Israel of Kabbalah and doctrine of Church of

> Christianity.

> Problem is that U have no knowledge of those systems...

 

 

The main techniques in tantra are mantra,

nyasa,diksha,shaktipata,homa,tarpana,marjana,apart from recognising

veda as the ultimate scripture.

 

Do the paths u mention above have these techniques? Do they

recognise veda as authority? Do they do homas? Do they use vedic

mantras? Do they have asanas?Do they do pranayama?

If no, how is tantra more close to those religions than hinduism?

 

>

> > Islam? Drinking wine is a sin in Islam. I am sure you know about

> > that. How can you say Kaula is close to islam?

>

> There're sufi sects which use wine (for example turkish bektashi

> order).

> In it's mysticism of Love Kaula-darshana is close to sufism,

vaishnava

> sahajiyas and christianity, not to vedanta or yoga.

 

 

You said it is close to islam and christianity. Explain how is

that. Kaula darshana employs yogic techniques and has lots of

vedantic concepts.

 

>

> > That is only one view. Not the entire view.

>

> This is the view of TANTRAS on vamachara. Other views are alien to

> Tantra.

 

There are tantras where vamachara doesnt find a place. It is

erroneous to equate tantras with vamachara.

>

> > Yes. Only vamachara tantras. Other tantras dont.

>

> Which "other", could U plz name? "Bhutashuddhi-tantra",

> "Prashna-tantra" and "Pancha-tantra"? LMAO

 

 

Tripura Sara Samucchaya,

Paramananda tantra,

Tripurarnava,

Prapanchasara tantra,

Netra Tantra,

Svacchanda tantra,

Jnanarnava tantra.

 

I had a cursory look at a few of them and I did not find any thing

which specifically involved 5m sadhana. It is possible that I might

have overlooked a description here and there.

 

SA.

[Guest guest]

, "Arjuna Taradasa"

<bhagatirtha@m...> wrote:

> > When one says scientific, it is understood that it comes with

> > proper quotes and references and with a proper format of an

article

> > about to be published in magazines. I did not see that.

>

> Ur explanations are becoming more funny. Laeve it, don't make

Urself a

> joker LOL. Obvious enough, what was meant by scientific. Not only

PhD

> thesis LOL.

> Which "other", could U plz name? "Bhutashuddhi-tantra",

> "Prashna-tantra" and "Pancha-tantra"? LMAO

 

 

If I remember right, your scientific(as u claim) articles that

were rejected by Ambaa-l group contained abbreviations like LOL ,

LMAO etc. Not to mention that they are irrelevant to Ambaa-l's

audience, in the first place.

 

Is that how one writes schlolarly articles?

 

One doesnt call such incoherent writing filled up with such silly

junk as scientific or schlolarly. They looked as though you were

whining like a cry-baby about something rather than present

something.

 

SA.

[Guest guest]

93

> Varnashrama is also strictly followed in tantras. It is not hard to

> see that.

 

MNT says that there're no brahmacharya, no vanaprastha and no sannyasa

ashramas, but only grihastha and avadhuta.

Some Tantras say in brief that distinction of varnas are valid outside

the chakra. However it is unbased to say that Tantras "strictly follow

varnashrama".

>Kularnava is a good example.

 

Kularnava says that a brahman not knowing Kula is worse than a

chandala. This type of varna-bheda is IMHO absent from

smarta-shastras...

> Ex:Social rule of condcut

>

> Smriti says dont drink.

>

> Tantra says dont drink.(except when u do kaula ritual-you dont do a

> kaula ritual 24 hrs a day- do you?)

 

Nobody drinks 24 hours a day! About ritual context i tell U once

again, ritual doesn't mean puja only. Ritual is chakra - when kaula is

with together with yogini, they may drink without any specific

procedure. Tantras add that "drinking is useless without a woman".

> Likewise it maintains varna distinctions like

>

> Ex: Smriti says Shudra and women should not use pranava

> Tantra says the same thing.

 

Yes, some texts do. Reason is not far to search - there're very cruel

punishments for shudras for hearing Vedas or using any vaidika mantras

(not sure about women). Who wanted to die for this? That is Ur

wonderful "god-revelated" smriti... :-(

However there are some tantric mantras with pranava. They are given to

women as well.

> Same can be said about other social rules of conduct.

 

Cool! U give two minor examples and then say that "same can be said

about other"... Very convincing.

> 1) Does tantra prescribe that you should eat meat when you are not

> performing rituals? No. It doesnt. In Tantra meat is prescribed only

> while doing rituals just like it is prescribed for vedic yagas.

> Arent they similar in this sense?

 

Show me those who do vaidika yagas with meat nowadays...

Tantras do not prescribe a diet, of course. They prescribe a ritual

usage of meat and fish, no doubt. And smriti never does.

> 2)Does tantra prescribe drinking wine when one is not performing

> rituals? No. It doesnt. It actually says that drinking wine is sin.

> Smriti and tantra have some similarity here.

 

All kaula-activities were conducted secretly in chakras. It was and up

till now is dangerous to expose Urself as being tantric in India. That

is why wine drinking etc was done inside chakra. However wine drinking

is not prohibited, prohibited are pashu-pana (excessive drinking,

leading to loss of awareness) and avidhi-pana (not consacrated with

mantra drinking).

> 3)Does tantra say that women can study vedas and can chant gayatri?

> As far as I know, no. I never came across any tantric sentence like

> that. They are similar in this case too.

 

Tantras have nothing to do with matters like Vedas or gayatri. Usually

they do not care. Some prescriptions U may find, just recall who wrote

those texts :-). Some brahmins who wanted to keep themselves more

orthodox went for a compromiss.

Thus "Kulapujana-chandrika" in it's beginning discusses whether it is

ok for a brahman to drink wine, quoting various sourses.

> 4)Does tantra say that one should always approach women in their

> cycle? It does prescribe but only for ritualistic purpose.

> And it prescibes it only for a few select ppl. It does not say

> everyone should perform the above.

 

Tantric way is not for everyone, it is for viras. Tantras were not

read by ppl not connected to it. Thus such a note about select ppl is

unnecessary.

However Tantras not only allow, but suggest to have maithuna when

yogini is rajasvala! Can U quote any smriti passage at least allowing

this type of ritual?

> When smriti says approach women in such and such condition, it

> doesnt mean that in a ritualistic way. It prescribes that it shud be

> the normal behaviour.

 

If Ur point of view was right, tantrics had had no reasons to keep

their practices in secret.

> As explained b4 they are for ritualistic purposes. Tantras dont

> preach that its adherents should do it all the time. Also it is not

> for every tantric. It is only for vamachari tantrics. There are

> other tantrics apart from vamacharis.

 

Satish, btw i want to ask, what is the principle difference of my

"LOL" and Ur "b4"? Why condemn me for that what U do Urself?

 

Which tantrics are "apart from vamacharis"?

> Can you quote references for this? Or do u mean chakras?

> If u mean chakras, remember kularnava says that after everybody is

> out of that chakra the caste distinctions and other relations etc

> are maintained as usual.

 

I have an idea of this :-). However it doesn't change the main

question: does smriti allow such practices? In ANY context...

 

Where are these distinctions mentioned in

> kularnava mentioned? They are mentioned in smritis. So it is asking

> those tantrics for which the chakra is prescribed to follow smritis

> when they are not in that chakra.

 

Not because smritis are of any spiritual value, but 'coz to behave

openly against 'em is not safe.

 

Tantrics are to follow only one law:

svechchhA niyama ukto.atra mahAmantrasya sAdhane (Kali-tantre,

Kaulavali-nirnaye, Shrividyarnave etc).

> Pranatoshini has a topic which discusses Sphatika Lingarchana.

> Shiva Linga worship made with different materials is spoken of in

> various tantras.

 

I know, i've read them LOL. However that are pashu-sadhanas. In some

systems like Yogini-kaula and Kula of Kashmir they are prohibited.

> Yogini tantra prescribes tirtha-yatra. It describes various places

> where one needs to travel etc. Hence your statement about tirtha

> yatra is wrong.

 

My reference is very simple - take a look at Kularnava. Yes, Tantras

originating from Kamakhya are exception, they speak about staying in

Kamarupa etc. However add, that "there're 2 Kama-pithas, secret one is

in body of a woman, and it is 1000 times superior to outer Kamarupa".

Thus in any case tirtha-yatra is a pashu-sadhana.

> Murti puja is the topic of discussion in numerus tantras. Are you

> kidding about murti-puja? Every other tantra talks about it. What is

> worshipped by Srividya upasakas?

 

There are texts prohibiting murti-puja. I'm totally serious.

In Kaula the true murtis are bodies of viras and yoginis. Why they

will worship stones and wood?

Shrividya is connected with Shrichakra worship. Best Shrichakra is a

body...

In Kaulagamas Shrichakra is equal to Kaula-chakra.

> Yogini tantra talks about how a yati (sanyasi) should practice

> maithuna and how an avadhuta should practice the same.

> If sanyasis are excluded or if sanyasa is prohibited how come yogini

> tantra say this?

 

There were sannyasis as a matter of fact. If those ppl came to

Kaula-marga, for them instructions were also given. Tantras do not

give procedures to become sannyasi nor they promote this way. Actually

they prohibit it (see plz Kularnava again)!

Avadhuta is different from sannyasa.

> > 5. Worship of Devi thru bodies of each other

> > 6. Prescription for a woman to leave worldly husband or to ignore

> him,

> > being with vira (Niruttara-tantre)

> > 7. Totally opposite understanding of brahmacharya (Tantraloke 29

> > ahnike)

> > 8. Prescription of consumption of meat etc (Kularnave) and

> prohibition

> > of vegetarianism (Kaulajnananirnaye)

> > 9. Anal coitus with Kumari (Pranatoshinyam)

>

> Can I have the exact reference on 6 and 9?

 

Easiest reference is Pranatoshini. Point #6 is a quotation from

Niruttara-tantra. I saw it in published edition of NT, it is there.

Point #9 is from the same Pranatoshini (i forgot where the quotation

was from).

Exact verses i cannot provide now, text is not with me. It is very

huge, but U may still find those places if U see the contents. Of

course, U have to know sanskrit a bit at least.

> Finally, the above differences you mentioned are part of hinduism.

> They are meant to be followed by very select number of hindus for

> whom vamachara is a valid path.

>From the point of view of most Tantras kaulachara is for everyone in

kali-yuga.

> It does mean it. If tantra did not recognise that, that which is

> said in smritis is sin, it would have never said that, one can be

> liberated by those activites which produce sin and then prescribe

> (ofcourse only for a few advanced beings) activities which are

> considered sin

 

Ppl who read Tantras were versed in smritis usually. For them

expression about "liberation thru sin" had a realation to smarta views

on the matter. Tantras themselves list different things as being sins.

See Kularnava.

> No. They are not ok. They are, only in the context of ritual.

 

One small example: Niruttara says that a woman who leaves a worldly

husband and stays with vira becomes as dvija.

> I have a english translation and am unable to locate it.

> Avalon does mention that MNT says this quoting Pranatoshini.

> Will check if I am able to find a sanskrit version.

 

Plz do. Orelse just find it in MNT, text is available even online. BTW

MNT is not a rare book to search for long...

> Same. Avalon says that Pranatoshini quotes Rudrayamala in support

> of what I wrote above.

 

"Somebody says that one text is quoting another"... What is the exact

reference? U are not sure Urself whether it is there or not, 'coz

haven't read them...

> > To wirship "family of Shiva" is paganism and idolatry. This has

> > nothing to do with Kaula-doctrine.

> ?????? I find your statement quite absurd.

 

There is only One Supreme God (Kali aka Kalasankarshini OR Shiva).

If U worship 2, 3 or 33 millions it is called paganism.

Kaula is monotheistic. Trika of KSh is not a "family of Shiva, Devi

and their son".

> Then why is there frequent talk about Bhairavas, Bharavis, various

> kinds of Ganeshas various kinds of Devis, in various tantras.

 

They are percieved not as some separate enteties or gods that too who

are to be worshipped but as aspects of Devi (Chiti).

"Kaula-vilasa" says that gods worship kaulas LOL.

> The main techniques in tantra are mantra,

> nyasa,diksha,shaktipata,homa,tarpana,marjana,apart from recognising

> veda as the ultimate scripture.

 

The fact that U name shaktipata a "technique" and put in a line with

tarpana and marjana (!) shows that U understand nothing about Tantra :

-(.

If Devi bestowes shaktipata, no technique is necessary...

> You said it is close to islam and christianity. Explain how is

> that.

 

To understand my explanation or to argue with me U have to KNOW these

traditions. If U do not know ABC, i cannot explain U the hights :-). I

can, but it'll take to much space. BTW Ur desire is to argue, so my

effort will be futile and thus stupid.

 

Kaula darshana employs yogic techniques and has lots of

> vedantic concepts.

 

Vedantic? For instanse? Yogic stuff is there, but is is not the main

thing.

Kularnava and Tantraloka says that yoga (Kula-yoga is different) is

useless.

> There are tantras where vamachara doesnt find a place. It is

> erroneous to equate tantras with vamachara.

 

Tantras lead to vamachara. If U are pashu, U start from Ur level. But

if U get stuck in it, it is not tantra-marga anymore.

 

 

There is no law beyond do what thou wilt.

 

A.