Guest guest Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 93 To begin with, about Ur list: > Tripura Sara Samucchaya, > Paramananda tantra, about these two do not remember, thou guess maithuna is there. Paramananda is related to vaishnavism if i remember correctly, Tripura obviously to Shri-vidya. i'm sure that the last one has vamachara in it as most of Shrividya-agamas. > Tripurarnava, Tripurarnava has a chapter about 5M. take an effert to see the text LOL. > Prapanchasara tantra, as mentioned by smbd, it also has a description of maithuna (essential tattva that incorporates other 4) > Netra Tantra, > Svacchanda tantra, these are shaiva-tantras, not kaula. about vamachara in them i just have no idea, never read 'em. > Jnanarnava tantra. It has a description of maithuna and consumption of sexual fluids. Is this not vamachara? ;-) > 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. many Tantras speak only about maithuna, as being the main tattva. Kali-tantra and Yoni-tantra also speak about maithuna without mentioning other 4 tattvas. if all 5 are not mentioned it doesn't make a text daxinacharic. yes, U 've overlooked :-)... Tantras not mentioning vamachara are very few and not much athorative. Yes, apart from Bhutashuddhi there are also Jnanasankalini and some other. IMHO not such great works. someone accidentally put the ending -tantra to them i guess LOL. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 93 To begin with, about Ur list: > Tripura Sara Samucchaya, > Paramananda tantra, about these two do not remember, thou guess maithuna is there. Paramananda is related to vaishnavism if i remember correctly, Tripura obviously to Shri-vidya. i'm sure that the last one has vamachara in it as most of Shrividya-agamas. > Tripurarnava, Tripurarnava has a chapter about 5M. take an effert to see the text LOL. > Prapanchasara tantra, as mentioned by smbd, it also has a description of maithuna (essential tattva that incorporates other 4) > Netra Tantra, > Svacchanda tantra, these are shaiva-tantras, not kaula. about vamachara in them i just have no idea, never read 'em. > Jnanarnava tantra. It has a description of maithuna and consumption of sexual fluids. Is this not vamachara? ;-) > 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. many Tantras speak only about maithuna, as being the main tattva. Kali-tantra and Yoni-tantra also speak about maithuna without mentioning other 4 tattvas. if all 5 are not mentioned it doesn't make a text daxinacharic. yes, U 've overlooked :-)... Tantras not mentioning vamachara are very few and not much athorative. Yes, apart from Bhutashuddhi there are also Jnanasankalini and some other. IMHO not such great works. someone accidentally put the ending -tantra to them i guess LOL. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > 93 > > To begin with, about Ur list: > > > Tripura Sara Samucchaya, > > Paramananda tantra, > > about these two do not remember, thou guess maithuna is there. > Paramananda is related to vaishnavism if i remember correctly, Tripura > obviously to Shri-vidya. i'm sure that the last one has vamachara in > it as most of Shrividya-agamas. You say to me that I know nothing about tantras and then make a statement saying Paramananda is related to vaishnavism? The topic of Paramananda tantra is Shri Vidya, FYI. I did not see any 5m in Tripura Sara Samucchaya. > > > Tripurarnava, > > Tripurarnava has a chapter about 5M. take an effert to see the text > LOL. You r right. Was able to find a ref. > > > Prapanchasara tantra, > > as mentioned by smbd, it also has a description of maithuna (essential > tattva that incorporates other 4) I mentioned it. It says that maithuna has to be understood as a yogic ritual kind of. It doesnt prescribe maithuna for puja. There is no Pancha-ma sadhana in this tantra. > > > Netra Tantra, > > Svacchanda tantra, > > these are shaiva-tantras, not kaula. about vamachara in them i just > have no idea, never read 'em. Kshemaraja commented on both of them. And that is exactly why I said to you not to equate tantra with vamachara tantras and that such an equation is erroneous. > > > Jnanarnava tantra. > > It has a description of maithuna and consumption of sexual fluids. Is > this not vamachara? ;-) I saw something similar. But need to study in full to find out the exact context. A greater portion of this tantra seems to focus on internal worship. > many Tantras speak only about maithuna, as being the main tattva. > Kali-tantra and Yoni-tantra also speak about maithuna without > mentioning other 4 tattvas. if all 5 are not mentioned it doesn't make > a text daxinacharic. Above mentioned ones do not talk about maithuna or 5m. > > Tantras not mentioning vamachara are very few and not much >athorative. This is not correct. Example: Prapanchasara and Sarada Tilaka are quoted as authorities in many compendiums. Svacchanda tantra seems to be quite an authoritative text in the view of Kshemaraja. > Yes, apart from Bhutashuddhi there are also Jnanasankalini and some > other. IMHO not such great works. someone accidentally put the ending > -tantra to them i guess LOL. That is ur opinion and not of any value and not entirely true. Shaktanandatarangini has a quote from BhutaShuddhi tantra. Shaktanandatarangini is referred to, in Pranatoshini. SA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 Namaste , How can I get a copy of Kali Tantra ? Jai Maa!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 93 > > about these two do not remember, thou guess maithuna is there. > > Paramananda is related to vaishnavism if i remember correctly, > Tripura > > obviously to Shri-vidya. i'm sure that the last one has vamachara > in > > it as most of Shrividya-agamas. >> > You say to me that I know nothing about tantras and then make a > statement saying Paramananda is related to vaishnavism?> > The topic of Paramananda tantra is Shri Vidya, FYI.> > I did not see any 5m in Tripura Sara Samucchaya. If U read my words a bit more attentively, U will not be so reactive. I told "if i remember correctly", that implies that i may not. Text is far away from me now. I have seen some pancharatra text with similar name, now i don't remember what is what. Thus U may be right about Paramananda-tantra. Tripurasara-samuchchaya i just went thru when i got a xerox of it. I think i've seen some vamachara element there, but i cannot be sure about that. > > > Netra Tantra, > > > Svacchanda tantra, > > > > these are shaiva-tantras, not kaula. about vamachara in them i > just have no idea, never read 'em. > > Kshemaraja commented on both of them. > > And that is exactly why I said to you not to equate tantra with > vamachara tantras and that such an equation is erroneous. That is not erroneous. Kshemaraja himself was a kaula, he was a direct disciple of Abhinavagupta. All Bhairava-agamas (Svachchhanda is one of 'em) are scriptures of kashmiri shaiva tradition, which has enough of vamachara. Just read 29th Ahnika of Tantraloka :-). Abhinavagupta even calles in one verse of his TA all kashmiri tradition as "vama". Netra-tantra as i remember is not Bhairava-agama, but dvaita-agama. If i'm right, it cannot be concidered as kaula scripture. > > > Jnanarnava tantra. > > > > It has a description of maithuna and consumption of sexual fluids. > Is this not vamachara? ;-) > > I saw something similar. But need to study in full to find out > the exact context. A greater portion of this tantra seems to focus > on internal worship. The mentioned description is in 22 patala i guess. Some of those verses are quoted frequently in other tantric works, for example, in Kulapujana-chandrika and Purashcharyarnava. > > Tantras not mentioning vamachara are very few and not much > >athorative. > This is not correct. > Example: Prapanchasara and Sarada Tilaka are quoted as authorities > in many compendiums. Out of Shri-kula Tantras Jnanarnava, Tripurarnava, Shrividyarnava, Vamakeshvarimata, Gandharva (about last two i'm not 100% sure, but most probably) are containing vamachara. Even pauranika Lalita-sahasranama does. As i remember, Shritattva-chintamani has vama-ritual in it as well. Out of Kali-kula Tantras as far as i remember ALL contain vamachara. To name a few: Kali-tantra, Kularnava, Yoni, Kamakhya, Guptasadhana, Bhairava, Kulachudamani, Niruttara, Devi-yamala, Rudra-yamala, Mahachinacharakrama, Tara, Mahanirvana, Nirvana (aka Mahamoksha), Meru, Mahamaya, Mahakala-samhita, Shadamnaya, Tarabhaktirahasyadipika, Kalikulasarvasva, Kalivilasa; also such athorative works as Tara-rahasya (of same author as Shaktananda-tarangini), Kaulalavali-nirnaya, Kaulajnana-nirnaya, Shyama-rahasya, Kaula-vilasa, Kulapujana-chandrika, Pranatoshini, Purashcharyarnava, Tarabhakti-sudharnava, Mantra-maharnava, Shakta-pramoda. Kalika-purana has some prescriptions of vamachara. If to take kashmiri tantrism, just see Tantraloka by Abhinavagupta and Maharthamanjari-parimala by Maheshvarananda. If to take Kubjika, there is vamachara in Shatsahasra-samhita and Kubjikamata-tantra. Pancharatra Lakshmi-tantra has a description of ritual maithuna. Is this enough? What can U oppose from Ur side? Prapanchasara (i cannot unfortunately check it up), Bhutashuddhi (small work dealing with specific theme), Jnanasankalini, Kamadhenu (again, dealing with matrika only) and Gayatri (about it i don't remember, perhaps no vamachara may be there)? A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > If U read my words a bit more attentively, U will not be so reactive. > I told "if i remember correctly", that implies that i may not. Text is > far away from me now. I have seen some pancharatra text with similar > name, now i don't remember what is what. That can happen. With so many tantras with similar names some mix-up is common. > > > > Netra Tantra, > > > > Svacchanda tantra, > > > > > > these are shaiva-tantras, not kaula. about vamachara in them i > > just have no idea, never read 'em. > > > > Kshemaraja commented on both of them. > > > > And that is exactly why I said to you not to equate tantra with > > vamachara tantras and that such an equation is erroneous. > > That is not erroneous. Kshemaraja himself was a kaula, he was a direct > disciple of Abhinavagupta. All Bhairava-agamas (Svachchhanda is one of > 'em) are scriptures of kashmiri shaiva tradition, which has enough of > vamachara. Just read 29th Ahnika of Tantraloka :-). Abhinavagupta even > calles in one verse of his TA all kashmiri tradition as "vama". > Netra-tantra as i remember is not Bhairava-agama, but dvaita-agama. If > i'm right, it cannot be concidered as kaula scripture. Which is the reason I said not all tantras are Vamachara in nature. I am not trying to say the above are Bhairaviya tantras. > Out of Kali-kula Tantras as far as i remember ALL contain vamachara. However Kali-Kula tantras and Shri Kula tantras are not all the tantras. > > Pancharatra Lakshmi-tantra has a description of ritual maithuna. What about the other pancharatra texts available among the 108 main pancharatra texts? What about the Jayakhya samhita a principle pancharatra text? > > Is this enough? What can U oppose from Ur side? I already talked about Netra and Svcchanda. More later. >Prapanchasara (i > cannot unfortunately check it up), Bhutashuddhi (small work dealing > with specific theme), Jnanasankalini, Kamadhenu (again, dealing with > matrika only) and Gayatri (about it i don't remember, perhaps no > vamachara may be there)? > > A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > Tantras not mentioning vamachara are very few and not much > > >athorative. > > > This is not correct. > > Example: Prapanchasara and Sarada Tilaka are quoted as authorities > > in many compendiums. > > Out of Shri-kula Tantras Jnanarnava, Tripurarnava, Shrividyarnava, > Vamakeshvarimata, Gandharva (about last two i'm not 100% sure, but > most probably) are containing vamachara. Even pauranika > Lalita-sahasranama does. As i remember, Shritattva-chintamani has > vama-ritual in it as well. Tantras related to Shri-Vidya are of two types. One in which vamachara can be found and th other which are devoid of Vamachara. i.e Samayachara. Texts like Subhagama Panchaka, i.e Vashishta Samhita, Sanatkumara samhita.. etc. > > Is this enough? What can U oppose from Ur side? Prapanchasara (i > cannot unfortunately check it up), Bhutashuddhi (small work dealing > with specific theme), Jnanasankalini, Kamadhenu (again, dealing with > matrika only) and Gayatri (about it i don't remember, perhaps no > vamachara may be there)? Bhaskararaya in his commentary on the 287 th name Lalita Sahasranama which is Nijajnarupanigama has the following to say "There are twenty eight Shaiva tantras begining with Kamika which follow the vedas. There are some more scriptures begining with Kapala, Bhairava which are oppsed to the vedas. Of these two, which follow the vedas are here meant by nigama; as they sprung from the mouth of Parameshvara, they are said to be the form of my command; those (kapalika, etc) which sprang from below the navel(of Siva) are opposed to the vedas." Thus there are tantras which are opposed to and which are not opposed to vedas. All tantras which sprang from above the navel of the form of SadaShiva are not in opposition to vedas i.e devoid of vamachara. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 now guys; as we have seen there are many many authorities for everything. For, against and neutral. It is my take that each is meant for the person who finds it acceptable. Hinduism is the only religion that also accepts "nastika" also as a Hindu. Why did Hinduism survive? because of its flexiblity to accept anything under the sun. what we, as inquirers (thats the bloody maximum we can call ourselves)can do is to dispassionatly analyse on what each achara is; understand it and then do just what each person's Guru has prescribed. If one has no Guru, follow texts like srividyaarnava. The author says that Devi blessed the book and said it can be followed as a Guru if one cannot find him. Thats the reason why i am trying to slowly copy and translate it so that it will be available to the non sanskrit knowing people. Kochu Satish Arigela <satisharigela wrote: , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > Tantras not mentioning vamachara are very few and not much > > >athorative. > > > This is not correct. > > Example: Prapanchasara and Sarada Tilaka are quoted as authorities > > in many compendiums. > > Out of Shri-kula Tantras Jnanarnava, Tripurarnava, Shrividyarnava, > Vamakeshvarimata, Gandharva (about last two i'm not 100% sure, but > most probably) are containing vamachara. Even pauranika > Lalita-sahasranama does. As i remember, Shritattva-chintamani has > vama-ritual in it as well. Tantras related to Shri-Vidya are of two types. One in which vamachara can be found and th other which are devoid of Vamachara. i.e Samayachara. Texts like Subhagama Panchaka, i.e Vashishta Samhita, Sanatkumara samhita.. etc. > > Is this enough? What can U oppose from Ur side? Prapanchasara (i > cannot unfortunately check it up), Bhutashuddhi (small work dealing > with specific theme), Jnanasankalini, Kamadhenu (again, dealing with > matrika only) and Gayatri (about it i don't remember, perhaps no > vamachara may be there)? Bhaskararaya in his commentary on the 287 th name Lalita Sahasranama which is Nijajnarupanigama has the following to say "There are twenty eight Shaiva tantras begining with Kamika which follow the vedas. There are some more scriptures begining with Kapala, Bhairava which are oppsed to the vedas. Of these two, which follow the vedas are here meant by nigama; as they sprung from the mouth of Parameshvara, they are said to be the form of my command; those (kapalika, etc) which sprang from below the navel(of Siva) are opposed to the vedas." Thus there are tantras which are opposed to and which are not opposed to vedas. All tantras which sprang from above the navel of the form of SadaShiva are not in opposition to vedas i.e devoid of vamachara. / Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Sir, I agree with your view. Guru is supreme. Shastra is creation of Guru. Guru exceeds shastra. Shastra can not bind Guru. It is right to go ahead with what Guru tells and not to be lost in the jungle of Shastras. sriram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 , sankara menon <kochu1tz> wrote: > what is to be believed the introduction or a statement therein which contradicts with the inro. which is an interpolation? This is a personal preference but, since there are so many other texts which endorse and agree to the statement saying it should come from a teacher, I would prefer that. I preferred so coz I thought it is logical to take what the entire literature of mantra shastra collectively says on this issue rather than focus on one or two places where something contrary is said. Apart from that statement saying Guru is required , Srividyarnava has long passages which describe in detail how a student and teacher should test each other etc. As I said, I dont gain anything by my choice not do I lose something. How could I gain or lose from that. In what way? The only reason for that choice being, the weight being heavier on the other side. That is all. Rgds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 , "childofdevi" <childofdevi> wrote: > > > > Tantras related to Shri-Vidya are of two types. One in which > > vamachara can be found and th other which are devoid of Vamachara. > > i.e Samayachara. Texts like Subhagama Panchaka, i.e Vashishta > > Samhita, Sanatkumara samhita.. etc. > > > > > > Are these 5 texts available today(if so can you provide me with an > edition/publisher). I have heard that the Samayachara discussed > herein is different from the Samayachara usually ascribed to > Sankara's tradition. I was told that fragments or a part of these texts are available in a library in Baroda.(Most likely the in Baroda Oriental institute library maybe) However some commentators and authors mention that the subject matter of these texts is devoid of Vamachara, which is the reason for my mention. I saw small quotes from these texts here and there. I dont think what is available of them is ever printed. I will appreciate if anyone has any share info on any existing publication of these texts. Am not aware of the distinction you mention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 , sankara menon <kochu1tz> wrote: > now guys; as we have seen there are many many authorities for everything. For, against and neutral. > It is my take that each is meant for the person who finds it acceptable. WHat happened here is Arjuna mentioned Tantra = Vamachara. I said no. And named a few tantras and other places where tantras devoid of vamachara are mentioned. There is nothing accpetable of unacceptable to me about Vamachara. I am not rallying for Samayachara here nor am I rallying for vamachara. All I did is mention that there are tantras in which Vamachara has no place. There is no question of something being unacceptable or acceptable to me. I dont lose or gain anything if tantras preach vamachara or samayachara. > If one has no Guru, > follow texts like srividyaarnava. > The author says that Devi blessed the book and said it can be followed as a Guru if one cannot find him. Thats the reason why i am trying to slowly copy and translate it so that it will be available to the non sanskrit knowing people. If one follows or recites mantras without Guru upadesha do I lose something? No. Do I gain something? No. Btw, there is a passage in Srividyarnava itself which prihibits chanting mantras from books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 what is to be believed the introduction or a statement therein which contradicts with the inro. which is an interpolation? Satish Arigela <satisharigela wrote:--- In , sankara menon <kochu1tz> wrote: > now guys; as we have seen there are many many authorities for everything. For, against and neutral. > It is my take that each is meant for the person who finds it acceptable. WHat happened here is Arjuna mentioned Tantra = Vamachara. I said no. And named a few tantras and other places where tantras devoid of vamachara are mentioned. There is nothing accpetable of unacceptable to me about Vamachara. I am not rallying for Samayachara here nor am I rallying for vamachara. All I did is mention that there are tantras in which Vamachara has no place. There is no question of something being unacceptable or acceptable to me. I dont lose or gain anything if tantras preach vamachara or samayachara. > If one has no Guru, > follow texts like srividyaarnava. > The author says that Devi blessed the book and said it can be followed as a Guru if one cannot find him. Thats the reason why i am trying to slowly copy and translate it so that it will be available to the non sanskrit knowing people. If one follows or recites mantras without Guru upadesha do I lose something? No. Do I gain something? No. Btw, there is a passage in Srividyarnava itself which prihibits chanting mantras from books. / Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 , SRIRAMA DONGRE <sriramadongre> wrote: > Sir, I agree with your view. > Guru is supreme. Shastra is creation of Guru. Guru exceeds shastra. > Shastra can not bind Guru. It is right to go ahead with what Guru tells and not to be lost in the jungle of Shastras. Arent the above sentences from that very shastra which you mention above? > > sriram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 > > Tantras related to Shri-Vidya are of two types. One in which > vamachara can be found and th other which are devoid of Vamachara. > i.e Samayachara. Texts like Subhagama Panchaka, i.e Vashishta > Samhita, Sanatkumara samhita.. etc. > > Are these 5 texts available today(if so can you provide me with an edition/publisher). I have heard that the Samayachara discussed herein is different from the Samayachara usually ascribed to Sankara's tradition. -yogaman 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.