Guest guest Posted April 1, 2004 Report Share Posted April 1, 2004 , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > 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". Same MNT says that Sanyasa Ashrama is the best Ashrama. Tantras follow varna dharma very strictly infact. They are so strict with varna dharma that they go about and attach varna dharma even to avadhutas as can be seen in the yogini tantra. I read that the Bhuvaneshvari tantra mentions only a Brahmin can be teacher for all the 3 castes and clearly says that a sudra cant be a teacher. Shaktanandatarangini definitely says this. Vasudeva Rahasya, Jnananandatarangini, and Kamadhenu tantra are quoted to prove the same point about varna dharma. > > >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... They do. They say that a Brahmana who is devoid of vaidikachara etc is equal to a shudra. > > > 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". No body sits in a kaula-chakra for 24 hrs a day either. Do they? > > > 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... :-( Tantric hinduism holds the same view. It is stricter than smriti when it comes to this varna issue. > However there are some tantric mantras with pranava. They are given to > women as well. Tantras prohibit giving such mantras to women. > > > 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. See above examples where I said about the yogini going to the length of extending varna dharma even to avadhutas. Convincing. Isnt it? > > > 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. I said I know them personally. I know what yagas were done and at which places they are done and also know a couple of names involved in the yagas. > > > 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. Not true. There are so many in India who are tantrics and whom the public know as tantrics. 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). Exactly like smriti, it says drinking is a sin. Ofcourse with exeption for ritual. > > > 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. Regarding wine for Brahmanas see other thread titled " Anima Khadgamala devis". Gupta Sadhana tantra has Gayatri upasana. I havent seen it myself but heard about a work called Gayatri tantra. Why are vedic mantras used in tantras then? Mrityunajaya mantra etc. Why does Tripurarnava tantra has a topic on Sri-Sukta? Why do prapanchasara and other tantras have a host of vedic mantras? The statement about some brahmins wrote etc is your personal opinion. It is of zero value. you have no proff regarding that. One can make any number of statements like that. > > > 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? No. Smriti does not allow such. Tantra prescribes maithuna with a rajasvala yogini only because it recognises that act as normally sinful. Which goes to prove that, 1) tantras consider what is described in smritis as sin, is actually a sin. 2) tantras accept the authority of smriti in ethical matters like conduct etc. > > > 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. Siddhi is destroyed by relevation not necessarily only for 5m sadhakas but for everyone. Even those who dont do 5m sadhana dont reveal that they have such and such mantra and that they do such and such sadhana. There is no view-point here. That is what smritis and tantras teach. > > > 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? What we are doing here is an exchange. I am not writing an article here. We are having an group exchange of some view-points here. Writing an article is something different. Do I need to explain simple things like these? > > 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... Smriti does not allow that. Which is the reason one can deduce that tantra considers smriti as authority when it comes to conduct. > 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. We have in sanskrit literature mention of tantrics everywhere. What is unsafe about kaula being a kaula when not performing ritual? There are kaulas everywhere in india and those who are known as kaulas are venerated. > Tantrics are to follow only one law: > svechchhA niyama ukto.atra mahAmantrasya sAdhane (Kali-tantre, > Kaulavali-nirnaye, Shrividyarnave etc). One can see rules and regulations at every other occasion in tantras. It is so obvious that I dont feel a need to quote something here. So much much svecchA. > > > 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. So you do agree that tantras talk about murti worship. > > > 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. So you do agree that tirtha-yatra is there is tantras. If you some teachings of advaita they say same things for advanced sadhakas. So how is that you find kaula hinduism as opposed to hinduism? > > > 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. In advaita too, in the highest teaching they say that advanced sadhakas dont need murti puja but all others need to do. Isnt it similar to advaita in this sense. So I still fail to see in what ways Kaula hinduism is opposed to vedantic hinduism. > > > 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. Will check. It is too huge though. > > 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. It does list different things as sins along with acknowlegding that what is said in smriti as sin, is sin. > > > 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. There are other tantras which outline the duties of a woman and the above quote goes is in contradiction with them. Hence what you quote above is not the final word of tantra on this issue. > > 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... Same with you. > > > > 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". When Smartas worship Shiva they worship Shiva and Devi with the same attitude as you mentioned above. Such as other devatas are thought of as parts of Shiva or Devi. Smartas do consider Shiva and Devi as equal. So where is the difference on this iisue? > > > 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. So are kartikeya and ganesha thought of as diffrent aspects of Devi aka Shiva. Hence there is no difference in this matter between kaula hinduism and vedantic hinduism. > > > 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... I mentioned Shaktipata only coz u referred to it at the very beginning of this thread. However u did not tell me if they have those techniques in those alien religions u mentioned. > > > 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. I asked very simple questions. Stop making silly statements like mydesire is such and such and stick to the topic. Dont play tricks like above. The main theme of our discussion is your statement "Kaula hindusim is close to Christianity or Islam or whatever alien religion you mentioned". I tried to show that in many ways, and in almost every matter kaula hinduism is close to other forms of hinduism and shares many things in common. It seems you got it the otherway round. If there are similarities in those whatver cults you mention, you should be actually saying those "whatevercults", are close to kaula hinduism. > > 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. In kaula hinduism, yogic techniques like asana etc are present. Kaula Hinduism has also concepts like Jiva is no -different from Shiva etc much like vedantic hinduism. > > > 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. Tantra does not necessarily lead to vamachara. What you mention is only one version of tantric hindusim. SA. 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 wrote : However there are some tantric mantras with pranava. They are given to women as well. Satish Wrote : Tantras prohibit giving such mantras to women. You like to tell us which Tantras prohibit giving such mantras to women. It is rather strange indeed. I was told that having a female Guru is eight times more fortunate than having a male Guru, and yet we have this so called restrictions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 , "N. Madasamy" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote: > Arjuna Taradasa wrote : However there are some tantric mantras with > pranava. They are given to women as well. > > Satish Wrote : Tantras prohibit giving such mantras to women. > > You like to tell us which Tantras prohibit giving such mantras to > women. It is rather strange indeed. I was told that having a female > Guru is eight times more fortunate than having a male Guru, and yet > we have this so called restrictions? It is true that having a female Guru is more beneficial. Tantras say that. But the following is also true. 1)Srividyarnava tantra. In the second chapter a quote from Rudrayamala: sucivratatamAH shUdrA dhArmikA dvijasevakAH striyaH pativratashcAnye pratlomAnulomajAH lokAshcaNDAla paryantAH sarve apyAdhikArinaH svajAti dharma niratAH bhaktAH sarveshvarasya ca upadeshameShANAM tattajjAtyanusArataH na vaidikaM japecchUdraH striyashcaiva kadAcana... Not a word to word translation..But it says shudras who have shuci i.e who are clean, who follow dharma(dhArmikAH), who serve dvijas and women who are devoted to their husbands(pativrata), all ppl born of various mixes of castes(pratilomAnulomajAH), in the world everyone including chandalas, meaning all human beings have the right to have SriVidya upadesha. Shudras and Women should never do japa of vaidika mantras. In the same chapter Kularnava tantra is quoted saying that women and shudras should recite mantras ending with namaH.(Here Kularnava is talking about the standard distinction as it is described in otehr tantras) A couple of Pancharatra texts are also quoted to show the same. 2) The shaktanandatarangini a shakta work, when talking about "ashouca bhanga",i.e getting rid of impurities says that to get rid of impurities women and shudras should say tantrika pranava instead of vaidika pranava. A shloka from Bhuta Shuddhi tantra regarding this. This work Shaktanandatarangini is refered to in the voluminous shakta work Pranatoshini. Brahmanas are not gaining something extra by saying vadika pranava, and likewise shudras and women dont lose anything by substituting tantrik pranava. There is nothing great or low about these two bijas. Both are equal and equally powerful. One is for some the other is for someone lese. Period. SA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 > > Brahmanas are not gaining something extra by saying vadika pranava, > and likewise shudras and women dont lose anything by substituting > tantrik pranava. There is nothing great or low about these two > bijas. Both are equal and equally powerful. One is for some the > other is for someone lese. Period. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Should read *some else*. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 Satish Arigela wrote:"... and Women should never do japa of vaidika mantras." Do you have any opinion of your own of why do you think Women should never do the japa of vaidika mantras? It's rather easy to quote from various sources, but I think at time we need to put out thinking cap and try to rationalize certain practices instead of following them blindly. Full stop ! My favourite quote : Thinking is a creative process. Any creative process is a divine act. Most often we forgot to think and we let others do the thinking for us. This is one of the root causes of blind faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 , "N. Madasamy" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote: > Satish Arigela wrote:"... and Women should never do japa of vaidika > mantras." > > Do you have any opinion of your own of why do you think Women should > never do the japa of vaidika mantras? It's rather easy to quote > from > various sources, but I think at time we need to put out thinking cap > and try to rationalize certain practices instead of following them > blindly. Full stop ! I dont have an opinion on that. Am personally not interested in the why of it. 1)Tantras mention the presence of chakras in the human body. What rational method do you prescribe to verify this statement of tantras? can it be verfied by any rational means. Likewise there are some rules and regulations for reasons unknown. What I would do is follow the rules and regulations therein and see if they produce any results. If I am convinced for example by the word of shastra saying doing so and so mantra gives such and such benefit, by obtaining results then I will ofcourse develop faith in other things it says. > > My favourite quote : Thinking is a creative process. Any creative > process is a divine act. Most often we forgot to think and we let > others do the thinking for us. This is one of the root causes > of blind faith. No amount of sitting and thinking, for example, will help us verify the existence of chakras in the human body. Rgds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 "No amount of sitting and thinking, for example, will help us Verify the existence of chakras in the human body." Yes! but the presence of chakras in our body does makes us to think and rationalise as to why they are there? Dont you? Or you think we shouldn't think about it at all. They are there, fullstop! why question about their presence at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2004 Report Share Posted April 2, 2004 , "N. Madasamy" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote: > "No amount of sitting and thinking, for example, will help us > Verify the existence of chakras in the human body." > > Yes! but the presence of chakras in our body does makes us to think > and rationalise as to why they are there? Dont you? Or you think we > shouldn't think about it at all. They are there, fullstop! why > question about their presence at all? How did you know about chakras? From your own experienece? In general we think about chakras becoz we read it soemwhere or somebody told us about them. If you have some god appearing b4 you and made a revelation about them, then you belong to a different class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Satish ArigelaIf you have some god appearing b4 you and made a revelation about them, then you belong to a different class." You want to clarify with me what do you mean by different class? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 , "N. Madasamy" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote: > Satish ArigelaIf you have some god appearing b4 you and made a > revelation about them, then you belong to a different class." > > You want to clarify with me what do you mean by different class? That means all those ppl who are born with divine samskaras i.e ppl like Ramana maharshi etc.. They dont need to follow the rules of shastra etc. They dont incur sin by not following. All these rules are for normal ppl like us. There are exceptions like Ramana Maharshi and shastras dont apply to them. Rgds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 You : "No amount of sitting and thinking, for example, will help us Verify the existence of chakras in the human body." ME : yes! but the presence of chakras in our body does makes us to think and rationalise as to why they are there? Dont you? Or you think we shouldn't think about it at all. They are there, fullstop! Why question about their presence at all? Satish Wrote : How did you know about chakras? From your own experienece? In general we think about chakras becoz we read it soemwhere or somebody told us about them. If you have some god appearing b4 you and made a revelation about them, then you belong to a different class. If you read again Satish did I made any remarks about revelation or anything of that sort. Obviously we read about the cakras from the books and from our gurus, but what I am trying to say is that we just don't accept literally. We read and we think about it and try to rationalize about it. You did mention : no amount of thinking and sitting will do any good, which also means, you just accept what is given to you. You do not ask questions, this is what you imply. To me I ask questions and I rationalize and get any understanding. To me it is rather odd that you say "I dont have an opinion on that. Am personally not interested in the why of it." Are you telling me that you post all those without ever giving any thoughts of it. Is those your own or you are posting on another person's behalf? Somehow as I continue to read your messages the pattern are rather identical. Earlier you post a mantra supposedly from another person without even clarifying the source and you said you would do the same if another person send you. Isn't this doing things blindly? "Likewise there are some rules and regulations for reasons unknown." To me Rules and regulations are there for a reason and I make it my business to find out why they are there. It amazed me when somebody tells me that they are not bothered about it. Well yes! if the rules and regulation is in your favour why should you bother about the others, is that right Satish! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 , "N. Madasamy" <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote: > If you read again Satish did I made any remarks about revelation or > anything of that sort. Obviously we read about the cakras from the > books and from our gurus, but what I am trying to say is that we just > don't accept literally. We read and we think about it and try to > rationalize about it. The reason I mentioned about relevation is because there are some (although quite rare) who will know these things without ever hearing or reading about them. > > You did mention : no amount of thinking and sitting will do any good, > which also means, you just accept what is given to you. You do not > ask questions, this is what you imply. To me I ask questions and I > rationalize and get any understanding. Good for you. Plz feel free to do so. When Parashurama kalpa sutra says dont eat sugarcane, and the commentator mentions sugarcane shud not be eaten, but jaggery can be consumed, what rational reason can one think of? Personally, I will not bother about the reasons but rather channel my thoughts towards understanding Lalita tattva. > > To me it is rather odd that you say "I dont have an opinion on that. > Am personally not interested in the why of it." > > Are you telling me that you post all those without ever giving any > thoughts of it. Is those your own or you are posting on another > person's behalf? Somehow as I continue to read your messages the > pattern are rather identical. I am not interested coz, personally I dont see any purpose being served rationalising about that(that meaning- this particular rule i mentioned). The rule I referred to in this thread is restriction on women and shudras. In this particular case, personally, I would like to spend my time doing whatever sadhana I do rather than break my head over why this restriction is there. That is just me. I mentioned the rule coz it is relevant to the discussion. It is not an independant statement. It is part of a larger discussion(see those threads and judge for yourself why I made that statement and in what context) and I elaborated what tantras say regarding a particular issue when you asked me to elaborate. What pattern do you see? Can you elaborate? It is **you** who asked me to tell you "which Tantras prohibit giving such mantras to women" in post /message/9393 And when I take time to answer and type the appropriate material, only becoz you asked, this is how you behave? Ask me if I am posting on somebody's behalf? This is how you pay me back, for taking the time to provide the references that **you** requested? > > Earlier you post a mantra supposedly from another person without even > clarifying the source and you said you would do the same if another > person send you. Isn't this doing things blindly? When I posted on that somebody's behalf, I acknowledged that it is somebody's post and not mine. If it is somebody's post I would ackowledge him/her whoever like I did b4 on occasions. I wrote a detailed explanation on this and sent a personal email long back. If you are still asking me this question, there is something going on here. > > "Likewise there are some rules and regulations for reasons unknown." > > To me Rules and regulations are there for a reason and I make it my > business to find out why they are there. Ok. It maybe sound foolish to you but my preference is to follow the rules and spend my energies on things like puja etc. >It amazed me when somebody > tells me that they are not bothered about it. Well yes! if the rules > and regulation is in your favour why should you bother about the > others, is that right Satish! Nope. It isnt. How do you know that the rule regarding vedic mantras only for dvijas that I mentioned is in my favour? You have to know my caste to assume so. Do you know? SA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Whatever you say Satish. No point in continuing this further. LOLLLLLLL. I think Arjuna, both of us can get along real find. We like to LOL a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 Beloveds, Such rules and prohibitions exist specifically for people like Satish. They are not at a level of awareness to transcend them, and thus it gives them a framework to operate in. The fact he follows them blindly IS the justification for their existence. Anyone who is at a level of awareness to question and understand experientially rather than obey through blind belief will be ready to transcend the nonessential rules. Without such rules for people at Satish's level, they would either fail to be drawn to a path, or would become a danger to themselves and others. Love Nisarg --- Satish Arigela <satisharigela wrote: > , "N. Madasamy" > > <ashwini_puralasamy> wrote: > > If you read again Satish did I made any remarks > about revelation > or > > anything of that sort. Obviously we read about the > cakras from the > > books and from our gurus, but what I am trying to > say is that we > just > > don't accept literally. We read and we think about > it and try to > > rationalize about it. > > > The reason I mentioned about relevation is because > there are some > (although quite rare) who will know these things > without ever > hearing or reading about them. > > > > > > You did mention : no amount of thinking and > sitting will do any > good, > > which also means, you just accept what is given to > you. You do not > > ask questions, this is what you imply. To me I ask > questions and I > > rationalize and get any understanding. > > Good for you. Plz feel free to do so. > When Parashurama kalpa sutra says dont eat > sugarcane, and the > commentator mentions sugarcane shud not be eaten, > but jaggery can be > consumed, what rational reason can one think of? > Personally, I will not bother about the reasons but > rather channel > my thoughts towards understanding Lalita tattva. > > > > > > To me it is rather odd that you say "I dont have > an opinion on > that. > > Am personally not interested in the why of it." > > > > Are you telling me that you post all those without > ever giving any > > thoughts of it. Is those your own or you are > posting on another > > person's behalf? Somehow as I continue to read > your messages the > > pattern are rather identical. > > I am not interested coz, personally I dont see any > purpose being > served rationalising about that(that meaning- this > particular rule i > mentioned). The rule I referred to in this thread is > restriction on > women and shudras. In this particular case, > personally, I would like > to spend my time doing whatever sadhana I do rather > than break my > head over why this restriction is there. That is > just me. > > I mentioned the rule coz it is relevant to the > discussion. It is not > an independant statement. It is part of a larger > discussion(see > those threads and judge for yourself why I made that > statement and > in what context) and I elaborated what tantras say > regarding a > particular issue when you asked me to elaborate. > > What pattern do you see? Can you elaborate? > > It is **you** who asked me to tell you "which > Tantras prohibit > giving such mantras to > women" in post > /message/9393 > > And when I take time to answer and type the > appropriate material, > only becoz you asked, this is how you behave? Ask > me if I am > posting on somebody's behalf? This is how you pay me > back, for > taking the time to provide the references that > **you** requested? > > > > > > Earlier you post a mantra supposedly from another > person without > even > > clarifying the source and you said you would do > the same if > another > > person send you. Isn't this doing things blindly? > > > When I posted on that somebody's behalf, I > acknowledged that it is > somebody's post and not mine. If it is somebody's > post I would > ackowledge him/her whoever like I did b4 on > occasions. I wrote a > detailed explanation on this and sent a personal > email long back. If > you are still asking me this question, there is > something going on > here. > > > > > "Likewise there are some rules and regulations for > reasons > unknown." > > > > To me Rules and regulations are there for a reason > and I make it > my > > business to find out why they are there. > > Ok. It maybe sound foolish to you but my > preference is to follow > the rules and spend my energies on things like puja > etc. > > > >It amazed me when somebody > > tells me that they are not bothered about it. Well > yes! if the > rules > > and regulation is in your favour why should you > bother about the > > others, is that right Satish! > > Nope. It isnt. How do you know that the rule > regarding vedic > mantras only for dvijas that I mentioned is in my > favour? You have > to know my caste to assume so. Do you know? > > SA. > > Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions./design_giveaway/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 , Swami Anand Nisarg <swamiji_nisarg> wrote: > > Beloveds, > > Such rules and prohibitions exist specifically for > people like Satish. They are not at a level of > awareness to transcend them, and thus it gives them a > framework to operate in. The fact he follows them > blindly IS the justification for their existence. > Anyone who is at a level of awareness to question and > understand experientially rather than obey through > blind belief will be ready to transcend the > nonessential rules. > Without such rules for people at Satish's level, they > would either fail to be drawn to a path, or would > become a danger to themselves and others. Dear Beloved Nisarg, We dont need preachings from a Swamiji who preaches that Shivaratri is to be spent enjoying. One doesnt transcend rules by simply ignoring them. They transcend when the mind reaches that state where such rules are of no-use. That state is reached by following the do s and donts of Shastras. It is better to keep quiet rather than say meaningless things when you dont know what you are talking about. You will do a great favor to everyone and yourself if you dont jump into threads involving any discussion on hinduism, IMHO. Orelse you will become a danger to you and others. With Love Satish. > Love > Nisarg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 "We dont need preachings from a Swamiji who preaches that Shivaratri is to be spent enjoying." If you choose not to listen to him then dont Satish! Do not read. Who do you think you are, the all righteous and knowledgeable one!! Do mind your manners ! 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.