Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Hi all - I was recently corrected that tantra and kundilini are two different pursuits. My assumption was that they were inter-connected. Can someone comment please? The other part of the conversation was interesting in that they felt that the difference between tantra and neo-tantra was simply that neo-tantra wasn't seeking the goddess. Any comments on that would be appreciated. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 , "Eric Otto" <eottoe2001> wrote: > Hi all - > > I was recently corrected that tantra and kundilini are two >different > pursuits. My assumption was that they were inter-connected. Can > someone comment please? Tantra talks about kundalini and the ways to take kundalini to sahasrara. That is the goal of Tantra in one way. Tantra is not the only way raise kundalini, although it might be the most effective way to do so. Ex:It can be accomplished thru Hatha Yoga. In this age, it is hard to take kundalini to sahasrara using only one yoga because of reduced life span. Hence most teachers advocate a combination of yogas. > The other part of the conversation was interesting in that they felt > that the difference between tantra and neo-tantra was simply that > neo-tantra wasn't seeking the goddess. Any comments on that would be > appreciated. What is neo-tantra? Never heard of it. IMO, there is only Tantra. Everything else needs to be called with some other name. Rgds > > Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 > >[Eric wrote:] [....] they felt > > that the difference between tantra > > and neo-tantra was simply that > > neo-tantra wasn't seeking the goddess. > > Any comments on that would be > > appreciated. > > [satish wrote:] > What is neo-tantra? [....] Neo-Tantra is the term commonly used to denote the Western "sacred sexuality" practice that is otherwise incorrectly (and confusingly) termed "Tantra". A google search will turn up any number of Neo-Tantric websites. My understanding of both Neo-Tantra and Tantra is limited, but it seems to me that Neo-Tantra does not focus on a relationship with a diety or dieties. So not "seeking the goddess" would be one of the differences between the two systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 , "msbauju" <msbauju> wrote: > > [satish wrote:] > > What is neo-tantra? [....] > > Neo-Tantra is the term commonly used to denote the Western "sacred > sexuality" practice that is otherwise incorrectly (and >confusingly) > termed "Tantra". Thanks for letting me know. It should be properly called sacred sexuality then, or whatever names they can think of and not Tantra. One can append Tantra to anything because Tantra can also mean technique, system, framework, apart from what is most frequently referred to as Tantra in Tantric traditions. Compare: Pancha Tantra(stories), Prasna Tantra(Astrology?), Salya Tantra(Medicine). It is improper to use the word Neo-Tantra to these groups(if using the word Tantra to refer to spirituality). Tantra: The goal of Tantra is Shiva. It employs mantra, yantra, and techniques from patanjali yoga to achieve that goal, apart from the concept of *Guru* and *Diksha*, being central and basis for the system. If anything doesnt meet that criteria, it is no longer Tantra (as in Tantric traditions), and we cannot call it as as a Tantric method (as understood in Tantric traditions). It should be called something else. > A google search will turn up any number of Neo-Tantric websites. > > My understanding of both Neo-Tantra and Tantra is limited, but it > seems to me that Neo-Tantra does not focus on a relationship with a > diety or dieties. So not "seeking the goddess" would be one of the > differences between the two systems. As said above, if it doesnt seek the Goddess or God/Kundalini, it is no longer Tantra(as in Tantric traditions) and any comparison between that system and Tantra(as in Tantric traditions) would be absurd. Ex:like comparing Devi Rahasya Tantra and Pancha Tantra. Anyone who wants to follow or learn about Tantra(as in Tantric traditions) they should not recognise these groups(hence discourage them) as followers of Tantra(as in Tantric traditions), whatever their claims be, IMHO. There are only two groups: 1)Tantrics 2)Groups which use the word Tantra for money or sexual partners. IMO, it is better to stop using the word neo-Tantra while referring to group 2, if they dont meet the criteria mentioned above. Input welcome Rgds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Tantra. What is tantra actually? I just got home from a really really hard day cooking on Bourbon St. in New Orleans. For those of you who don't know, Bourbon St. is the 'anything goes' place of the whole entire world. During Mrdi Gras for instance men blow each other on the street right outside where I work. Women flash their breasts at me through the window while I'm cooking. It's a place of all the various most material lusts and angers. Last week I watched a bar brawl where a few were beaten mercilessly and senseless while their wives watched all for nothing but a few stupid words, or something. I myself am so tired that I took up smoking cigarettes again, even though my Lamas tell me that no gifts can flow from sadhana if one smokes. I tell you that I just don't care at times. Just living, just breathing seems to be the goal of life. To just finish out the shift without quitting or getting fired. Where does tantra fit into this life, lived in such a preposterious situation as this? Well, for me, tantra is my Transcendental Meditation, which I can do and it dissolves everything into wholeness once again. To me, it is my great strands of rudraksha which have a similar effect. To me, it's my taking refuge in Buddha, and doing chants to Bardo deities (which in Buddhism includes many familiar Hindu deities), so as to recognize them in the "in between" states. To me, tantra helps one rise a bit day by day to a better place, and not sink a bit day by day into a more degrading place. It's always ironic to me that I seem to move down in my profession. The more I know the more I make but the worse are the conditions. And yet, somehow I find tantric remedies which seem to dissolve all into wholeness. I have so many remedies now, the only real thing I need is time. Might I ask Kali? Please just a bit more time? Tantra means continuum. It has no other definition. Except that in the means of experiencing the continuum of awareness which is our basis, the name tantra takes on the meaning of machine. Tantra is the mind continuing machine. Without tantra ones awareness is snuffed out. Tantra is the the candle passed from one awareness holder to the next, thus keeping the flame of awareness alive, so that we may all be better day by day. Without tantra the converse is the reality and we get worse day by day until we snuff. In this broad definition all religions which promulgate sanity and the blessedness of life are tantra. There's really nothing more that needs to be said. Kundalini is just another part of it. However, in the higher realms of blessedness there is much more freedom and power and grace, and therefore much less sin and bondage and fear. So be it. Might any beneficial influence my words have be dedicated to those who need peace the most. - Satish Arigela @com Tuesday, June 15, 2004 8:18 PM Re: Tantra and Kundilini @com, "msbauju" <msbauju> wrote: > > [satish wrote:] > > What is neo-tantra? [....] > > Neo-Tantra is the term commonly used to denote the Western "sacred > sexuality" practice that is otherwise incorrectly (and >confusingly) > termed "Tantra". Thanks for letting me know. It should be properly called sacred sexuality then, or whatever names they can think of and not Tantra. One can append Tantra to anything because Tantra can also mean technique, system, framework, apart from what is most frequently referred to as Tantra in Tantric traditions. Compare: Pancha Tantra(stories), Prasna Tantra(Astrology?), Salya Tantra(Medicine). It is improper to use the word Neo-Tantra to these groups(if using the word Tantra to refer to spirituality). Tantra: The goal of Tantra is Shiva. It employs mantra, yantra, and techniques from patanjali yoga to achieve that goal, apart from the concept of *Guru* and *Diksha*, being central and basis for the system. If anything doesnt meet that criteria, it is no longer Tantra (as in Tantric traditions), and we cannot call it as as a Tantric method (as understood in Tantric traditions). It should be called something else. > A google search will turn up any number of Neo-Tantric websites. > > My understanding of both Neo-Tantra and Tantra is limited, but it > seems to me that Neo-Tantra does not focus on a relationship with a > diety or dieties. So not "seeking the goddess" would be one of the > differences between the two systems. As said above, if it doesnt seek the Goddess or God/Kundalini, it is no longer Tantra(as in Tantric traditions) and any comparison between that system and Tantra(as in Tantric traditions) would be absurd. Ex:like comparing Devi Rahasya Tantra and Pancha Tantra. Anyone who wants to follow or learn about Tantra(as in Tantric traditions) they should not recognise these groups(hence discourage them) as followers of Tantra(as in Tantric traditions), whatever their claims be, IMHO. There are only two groups: 1)Tantrics 2)Groups which use the word Tantra for money or sexual partners. IMO, it is better to stop using the word neo-Tantra while referring to group 2, if they dont meet the criteria mentioned above. Input welcome Rgds / b.. c.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 I forgot. Tantra is also treating the woman well. In my case, my wife. Without her, I would have suffered many fates worse than death. She is my contiuing inspiration to be a better man. In tantras the woman is never disrespected. - Detective_Mongo_Phd Tuesday, June 15, 2004 11:55 PM Re: Tantra and Kundilini Tantra. What is tantra actually? I just got home from a really really hard day cooking on Bourbon St. in New Orleans. For those of you who don't know, Bourbon St. is the 'anything goes' place of the whole entire world. During Mrdi Gras for instance men blow each other on the street right outside where I work. Women flash their breasts at me through the window while I'm cooking. It's a place of all the various most material lusts and angers. Last week I watched a bar brawl where a few were beaten mercilessly and senseless while their wives watched all for nothing but a few stupid words, or something. I myself am so tired that I took up smoking cigarettes again, even though my Lamas tell me that no gifts can flow from sadhana if one smokes. I tell you that I just don't care at times. Just living, just breathing seems to be the goal of life. To just finish out the shift without quitting or getting fired. Where does tantra fit into this life, lived in such a preposterious situation as this? Well, for me, tantra is my Transcendental Meditation, which I can do and it dissolves everything into wholeness once again. To me, it is my great strands of rudraksha which have a similar effect. To me, it's my taking refuge in Buddha, and doing chants to Bardo deities (which in Buddhism includes many familiar Hindu deities), so as to recognize them in the "in between" states. To me, tantra helps one rise a bit day by day to a better place, and not sink a bit day by day into a more degrading place. It's always ironic to me that I seem to move down in my profession. The more I know the more I make but the worse are the conditions. And yet, somehow I find tantric remedies which seem to dissolve all into wholeness. I have so many remedies now, the only real thing I need is time. Might I ask Kali? Please just a bit more time? Tantra means continuum. It has no other definition. Except that in the means of experiencing the continuum of awareness which is our basis, the name tantra takes on the meaning of machine. Tantra is the mind continuing machine. Without tantra ones awareness is snuffed out. Tantra is the the candle passed from one awareness holder to the next, thus keeping the flame of awareness alive, so that we may all be better day by day. Without tantra the converse is the reality and we get worse day by day until we snuff. In this broad definition all religions which promulgate sanity and the blessedness of life are tantra. There's really nothing more that needs to be said. Kundalini is just another part of it. However, in the higher realms of blessedness there is much more freedom and power and grace, and therefore much less sin and bondage and fear. So be it. Might any beneficial influence my words have be dedicated to those who need peace the most. - Satish Arigela @com Tuesday, June 15, 2004 8:18 PM Re: Tantra and Kundilini @com, "msbauju" <msbauju> wrote: > > [satish wrote:] > > What is neo-tantra? [....] > > Neo-Tantra is the term commonly used to denote the Western "sacred > sexuality" practice that is otherwise incorrectly (and >confusingly) > termed "Tantra". Thanks for letting me know. It should be properly called sacred sexuality then, or whatever names they can think of and not Tantra. One can append Tantra to anything because Tantra can also mean technique, system, framework, apart from what is most frequently referred to as Tantra in Tantric traditions. Compare: Pancha Tantra(stories), Prasna Tantra(Astrology?), Salya Tantra(Medicine). It is improper to use the word Neo-Tantra to these groups(if using the word Tantra to refer to spirituality). Tantra: The goal of Tantra is Shiva. It employs mantra, yantra, and techniques from patanjali yoga to achieve that goal, apart from the concept of *Guru* and *Diksha*, being central and basis for the system. If anything doesnt meet that criteria, it is no longer Tantra (as in Tantric traditions), and we cannot call it as as a Tantric method (as understood in Tantric traditions). It should be called something else. > A google search will turn up any number of Neo-Tantric websites. > > My understanding of both Neo-Tantra and Tantra is limited, but it > seems to me that Neo-Tantra does not focus on a relationship with a > diety or dieties. So not "seeking the goddess" would be one of the > differences between the two systems. As said above, if it doesnt seek the Goddess or God/Kundalini, it is no longer Tantra(as in Tantric traditions) and any comparison between that system and Tantra(as in Tantric traditions) would be absurd. Ex:like comparing Devi Rahasya Tantra and Pancha Tantra. Anyone who wants to follow or learn about Tantra(as in Tantric traditions) they should not recognise these groups(hence discourage them) as followers of Tantra(as in Tantric traditions), whatever their claims be, IMHO. There are only two groups: 1)Tantrics 2)Groups which use the word Tantra for money or sexual partners. IMO, it is better to stop using the word neo-Tantra while referring to group 2, if they dont meet the criteria mentioned above. Input welcome Rgds Sponsor Links / b.. c.. / b.. c.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 , "Detective_Mongo_Phd" <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote: > I forgot. Tantra is also treating the woman well. In >tantras the >woman is never disrespected. Tantra is not about treating women well or men well. It is definitely an important injuction in Tantra but that is not what Tantra is about. By that definition, all who treat women well, become Tantrics, which sounds absurd. The previous article looks like a description of your personal feelings about Tantra and what you gained from it and how you view it and apply it in your daily life, which looks so great. But that is not what Tantra is or about. What is Tantra is very clear. A set of techniques and processes which help its adherents realise Brahman/Shiva/Shakti. To extend this a little bit, it is also a tool used to attain siddhis. Regards > - > Detective_Mongo_Phd > > Tuesday, June 15, 2004 11:55 PM > Re: Tantra and Kundilini > > > Tantra. What is tantra actually? I just got home from a really really hard day cooking on Bourbon St. in New Orleans. For those of you who don't know, Bourbon St. is the 'anything goes' place of the whole entire world. During Mrdi Gras for instance men blow each other on the street right outside where I work. Women flash their breasts at me through the window while I'm cooking. It's a place of all the various most material lusts and angers. Last week I watched a bar brawl where a few were beaten mercilessly and senseless while their wives watched all for nothing but a few stupid words, or something. > > I myself am so tired that I took up smoking cigarettes again, even though my Lamas tell me that no gifts can flow from sadhana if one smokes. I tell you that I just don't care at times. Just living, just breathing seems to be the goal of life. To just finish out the shift without quitting or getting fired. > > Where does tantra fit into this life, lived in such a preposterious situation as this? Well, for me, tantra is my Transcendental Meditation, which I can do and it dissolves everything into wholeness once again. To me, it is my great strands of rudraksha which have a similar effect. To me, it's my taking refuge in Buddha, and doing chants to Bardo deities (which in Buddhism includes many familiar Hindu deities), so as to recognize them in the "in between" states. To me, tantra helps one rise a bit day by day to a better place, and not sink a bit day by day into a more degrading place. > > It's always ironic to me that I seem to move down in my profession. The more I know the more I make but the worse are the conditions. And yet, somehow I find tantric remedies which seem to dissolve all into wholeness. I have so many remedies now, the only real thing I need is time. Might I ask Kali? Please just a bit more time? > > Tantra means continuum. It has no other definition. Except that in the means of experiencing the continuum of awareness which is our basis, the name tantra takes on the meaning of machine. Tantra is the mind continuing machine. Without tantra ones awareness is snuffed out. Tantra is the the candle passed from one awareness holder to the next, thus keeping the flame of awareness alive, so that we may all be better day by day. Without tantra the converse is the reality and we get worse day by day until we snuff. In this broad definition all religions which promulgate sanity and the blessedness of life are tantra. There's really nothing more that needs to be said. Kundalini is just another part of it. > > However, in the higher realms of blessedness there is much more freedom and power and grace, and therefore much less sin and bondage and fear. So be it. Might any beneficial influence my words have be dedicated to those who need peace the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 In a message dated 6/16/2004 2:52:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, malyavan_tibet writes: > Worshipping narasimha is well within the worship of shiva. > I dont know who gave you these wrong ideas. > I'm confused, if Narasimha is an avatar of Vishnu, then what's he have to do with Shiva??? Not saying that you can't mix Gods however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Tantra is not about treating women well or men well. It is definitely an important injuction in Tantra but that is not what Tantra is about. ------I don't know how many here are tantric initiates, but I actually am. I have been initiated into the highest Buddhist tantric lineages including the Nyingthig Yabshi, Guhyagarbha, Kalachakra, and others. I can claim actual lineage. ------One samaya is to never disparage women. By that definition, all who treat women well, become Tantrics, which sounds absurd. ----------By this definition, if Swiss Cheese has holes in it, then all cheese is made of holes. Nonsense. However, try to find a tantric who treats women poorly, who is not merely a prejudiced prayoga practitioner. But that is not what Tantra is or about. -----------What "that" are you talking about exactly? I said many things. What is Tantra is very clear. A set of techniques and processes which help its adherents realise Brahman/Shiva/Shakti. To extend this a little bit, it is also a tool used to attain siddhis. ------------What isn't clear here? I am a Buddhist tantric. For me, tantra is about union of bliss and emptiness. I do not worship Shiva/Shakti/Brahman/sidhis. Obviously Hindu Narasimha tantras are not about Shiva. You have a very limiting view of tantra. Whatever "you" you allow us to see. -------------Tantra divorced from life and its nitty gritty circumstances is pie in the sky, horned rabbits, children of barren women, and knots of air. Nothing can be divorced from life. There is no section of life that's corditioned off and labeled sacred. That IS what tantra is about. > - > Detective_Mongo_Phd > > Tuesday, June 15, 2004 11:55 PM > Re: Tantra and Kundilini > > > Tantra. What is tantra actually? I just got home from a really really hard day cooking on Bourbon St. in New Orleans. For those of you who don't know, Bourbon St. is the 'anything goes' place of the whole entire world. During Mrdi Gras for instance men blow each other on the street right outside where I work. Women flash their breasts at me through the window while I'm cooking. It's a place of all the various most material lusts and angers. Last week I watched a bar brawl where a few were beaten mercilessly and senseless while their wives watched all for nothing but a few stupid words, or something. > > I myself am so tired that I took up smoking cigarettes again, even though my Lamas tell me that no gifts can flow from sadhana if one smokes. I tell you that I just don't care at times. Just living, just breathing seems to be the goal of life. To just finish out the shift without quitting or getting fired. > > Where does tantra fit into this life, lived in such a preposterious situation as this? Well, for me, tantra is my Transcendental Meditation, which I can do and it dissolves everything into wholeness once again. To me, it is my great strands of rudraksha which have a similar effect. To me, it's my taking refuge in Buddha, and doing chants to Bardo deities (which in Buddhism includes many familiar Hindu deities), so as to recognize them in the "in between" states. To me, tantra helps one rise a bit day by day to a better place, and not sink a bit day by day into a more degrading place. > > It's always ironic to me that I seem to move down in my profession. The more I know the more I make but the worse are the conditions. And yet, somehow I find tantric remedies which seem to dissolve all into wholeness. I have so many remedies now, the only real thing I need is time. Might I ask Kali? Please just a bit more time? > > Tantra means continuum. It has no other definition. Except that in the means of experiencing the continuum of awareness which is our basis, the name tantra takes on the meaning of machine. Tantra is the mind continuing machine. Without tantra ones awareness is snuffed out. Tantra is the the candle passed from one awareness holder to the next, thus keeping the flame of awareness alive, so that we may all be better day by day. Without tantra the converse is the reality and we get worse day by day until we snuff. In this broad definition all religions which promulgate sanity and the blessedness of life are tantra. There's really nothing more that needs to be said. Kundalini is just another part of it. > > However, in the higher realms of blessedness there is much more freedom and power and grace, and therefore much less sin and bondage and fear. So be it. Might any beneficial influence my words have be dedicated to those who need peace the most. Sponsor -- / b.. c.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 , "Detective_Mongo_Phd" <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote: > > > Tantra is not about treating women well or men well. It is > definitely an important injuction in Tantra but that is not what > Tantra is about. > > ------I don't know how many here are tantric initiates, but I actually am. I have been initiated into the highest Buddhist tantric lineages including the Nyingthig Yabshi, Guhyagarbha, Kalachakra, and others. I can claim actual lineage. > > ------One samaya is to never disparage women. I am talking about Hindu Tantra. And ofcourse about Shaiva and Shakta Tantras. Although there are Vaishnava Tantras, they are usually referred to as Pancharatra or Vaikhanasa Agama. I said the same thing. That treating women well is an important injunction. It doesnt end there. It is one of the many injunctions. Ex: Respecting one's Guru, doing Japa daily..etc etc.. > By that definition, all who treat women well, become Tantrics, which > sounds absurd. > > > ----------By this definition, if Swiss Cheese has holes in it, >then all cheese is made of holes. Nonsense. However, try to find a >tantric who treats women poorly, who is not merely a prejudiced >prayoga practitioner. See above. > > But that > is not what Tantra is or about. > > -----------What "that" are you talking about exactly? I said many >things. This sentence of yours: "In this broad definition all religions which promulgate sanity and the blessedness of life are tantra." > > What is Tantra is very clear. > A set of techniques and processes which help its adherents realise > Brahman/Shiva/Shakti. To extend this a little bit, it is also a tool > used to attain siddhis. > > > ------------What isn't clear here? I am a Buddhist tantric. For >me, tantra is about union of bliss and emptiness. I do not worship >Shiva/Shakti/Brahman/sidhis. Obviously Hindu Narasimha tantras are >not about Shiva. You have a very limiting view of tantra. >Whatever "you" you allow us to see. I talk about Hindu Tantras. This isnt a Buddhist list. I am not saying one shouldnt discuss Buddhist concepts here. In a Hindu list if one mentions Tantras they obviously mean Hindu Tantras. I explained above regarding Vaishnava Agama. > -------------Tantra divorced from life and its nitty gritty >circumstances is pie in the sky, horned rabbits, children of barren >women, and knots of air. Nothing can be divorced from life. There >is no section of life that's corditioned off and labeled sacred. >That IS what tantra is about. Please take any standard Tantra and have a look at it(atleast the contents). Or any of Avalon's writings. Here is breif overview of some Tantras. http://www.shivashakti.com/dakshin.htm http://www.shivashakti.com/bhairava.htm What do they talk about? please see for yourself. This will be my last post in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Worshipping narasimha is well within the worship of shiva. I dont know who gave you these wrong ideas. , "Satish Arigela" <satisharigela> wrote: > , "Detective_Mongo_Phd" > <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote: > > > > > > Tantra is not about treating women well or men well. It is > > definitely an important injuction in Tantra but that is not what > > Tantra is about. > > > > ------I don't know how many here are tantric initiates, but I > actually am. I have been initiated into the highest Buddhist tantric > lineages including the Nyingthig Yabshi, Guhyagarbha, Kalachakra, > and others. I can claim actual lineage. > > > > ------One samaya is to never disparage women. > > > I am talking about Hindu Tantra. And ofcourse about Shaiva and > Shakta Tantras. Although there are Vaishnava Tantras, they are > usually referred to as Pancharatra or Vaikhanasa Agama. > > I said the same thing. That treating women well is an important > injunction. It doesnt end there. It is one of the many injunctions. > Ex: Respecting one's Guru, doing Japa daily..etc etc.. > > > By that definition, all who treat women well, become Tantrics, > which > > sounds absurd. > > > > > > ----------By this definition, if Swiss Cheese has holes in it, > >then all cheese is made of holes. Nonsense. However, try to find a > >tantric who treats women poorly, who is not merely a prejudiced > >prayoga practitioner. > > See above. > > > > > But that > > is not what Tantra is or about. > > > > -----------What "that" are you talking about exactly? I said many > >things. > > This sentence of yours: "In this > broad definition all religions which promulgate sanity and the > blessedness of life are tantra." > > > > > What is Tantra is very clear. > > A set of techniques and processes which help its adherents realise > > Brahman/Shiva/Shakti. To extend this a little bit, it is also a > tool > > used to attain siddhis. > > > > > > ------------What isn't clear here? I am a Buddhist tantric. For > >me, tantra is about union of bliss and emptiness. I do not worship > >Shiva/Shakti/Brahman/sidhis. Obviously Hindu Narasimha tantras are > >not about Shiva. You have a very limiting view of tantra. > >Whatever "you" you allow us to see. > > I talk about Hindu Tantras. This isnt a Buddhist list. I am not > saying one shouldnt discuss Buddhist concepts here. In a Hindu list > if one mentions Tantras they obviously mean Hindu Tantras. > I explained above regarding Vaishnava Agama. > > > > -------------Tantra divorced from life and its nitty gritty > >circumstances is pie in the sky, horned rabbits, children of barren > >women, and knots of air. Nothing can be divorced from life. There > >is no section of life that's corditioned off and labeled sacred. > >That IS what tantra is about. > > Please take any standard Tantra and have a look at it(atleast the > contents). Or any of Avalon's writings. > Here is breif overview of some Tantras. > http://www.shivashakti.com/dakshin.htm > http://www.shivashakti.com/bhairava.htm > > What do they talk about? please see for yourself. > > This will be my last post in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 This sentence of yours: "In this broad definition all religions which promulgate sanity and the blessedness of life are tantra." --------Arthur Avalon, a non-realized tantra transliterationist, in his lectures spoke what could be called conventional tantric definition as from his objective standpoint, but tantra is exactly not objective, and not conventional. The reason the tantras are subject to secrecy is so that people don't make the mistake of intellectualizing them. Because they are not of, or for the intellect. Anyone who reads tantras and thinks that they know something is patently a tantra book student but not a tantrika. Just as the whole world can wear clothes and yet a few Avaduti can call being naked really being clothed by reality, whereas being clothed is merely being naked swathed in ignorance. How so is not all spirituality not tantric? Until tantra has a Webster definition that satisfies the largest lay of practitioners then we can debate this definition endlessly. I maintain that all life supporting practices which identify the divine within are tantra, regardless of where they're found. > > What is Tantra is very clear. > A set of techniques and processes which help its adherents realise > Brahman/Shiva/Shakti. To extend this a little bit, it is also a tool > used to attain siddhis. > > > ------------What isn't clear here? I am a Buddhist tantric. For >me, tantra is about union of bliss and emptiness. I do not worship >Shiva/Shakti/Brahman/sidhis. Obviously Hindu Narasimha tantras are >not about Shiva. You have a very limiting view of tantra. >Whatever "you" you allow us to see. I talk about Hindu Tantras. This isnt a Buddhist list. I am not saying one shouldnt discuss Buddhist concepts here. In a Hindu list if one mentions Tantras they obviously mean Hindu Tantras. I explained above regarding Vaishnava Agama. --------------------------I don't remember you creating this list. In fact, from the beginning of this list there used to be a Buddhist tantrika who was pretty interesting, and he was one of the reasons that I looked into Buddhist tantra. I'm sure some people remember the guy who sat in the fire and didn't get burned from about 4 years ago. When this was a Club. Hard to believe that this group has existed now for about five years. > -------------Tantra divorced from life and its nitty gritty >circumstances is pie in the sky, horned rabbits, children of barren >women, and knots of air. Nothing can be divorced from life. There >is no section of life that's corditioned off and labeled sacred. >That IS what tantra is about. Please take any standard Tantra and have a look at it(atleast the contents). Or any of Avalon's writings. Here is breif overview of some Tantras. http://www.shivashakti.com/dakshin.htm http://www.shivashakti.com/bhairava.htm What do they talk about? please see for yourself. ---------------Understanding any one tantra one becomes master of them all. There are no two tantras. There is the tantra of awakened mind only. One cannot say that there are two awakened minds, nor that tantras are about unawakened mind. Tantra is about awakening. It doesn't matter if one awakens by placing the left foot or the right foot out of bed, merely that one gets out. Describing the waking habits of past masters is silly, bookish, and misplaced. This will be my last post in this thread. -----------I like this thread.Not continuing with it is as pointless as continuing with it. Sponsor -- / b.. c.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Worshipping narasimha is well within the worship of shiva. I dont know who gave you these wrong ideas. -------I was trying to think up a smart comeback, but I fall short. However the prejudice against Buddhist tantrics goes back a long time, and includes a literal Hindu "witch burning" and round up of Buddhist who used to be tortured and even boiled in pots of oil. This looks like the type of attitude you have young man. It would be best for you to change your ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Wow. I can't tell who is writing what, but it appears that the emphasis is on the process (knuckledragging neanderthal style) than about the content. What's all the shaming, hostility, and defensiveness about? It reminds me of an A.A. meeting I went to once where the topic was about "God and Unconditional Love". A fist fight broke out and several were injured, all in the name of God. As the microcosom, so the macrocosom. There's a quote (forgot the author) about people being more comfortable talking and fighting about spiriuality than being spiritual. Maybe those with an appetite for chest beating and growling could start a different group . Linda Detective_Mongo_Phd <detective_mongo_phd wrote: This sentence of yours: "In this broad definition all religions which promulgate sanity and the blessedness of life are tantra." --------Arthur Avalon, a non-realized tantra transliterationist, in his lectures spoke what could be called conventional tantric definition as from his objective standpoint, but tantra is exactly not objective, and not conventional. The reason the tantras are subject to secrecy is so that people don't make the mistake of intellectualizing them. Because they are not of, or for the intellect. Anyone who reads tantras and thinks that they know something is patently a tantra book student but not a tantrika. Just as the whole world can wear clothes and yet a few Avaduti can call being naked really being clothed by reality, whereas being clothed is merely being naked swathed in ignorance. How so is not all spirituality not tantric? Until tantra has a Webster definition that satisfies the largest lay of practitioners then we can debate this definition endlessly. I maintain that all life supporting practices which identify the divine within are tantra, regardless of where they're found. > > What is Tantra is very clear. > A set of techniques and processes which help its adherents realise > Brahman/Shiva/Shakti. To extend this a little bit, it is also a tool > used to attain siddhis. > > > ------------What isn't clear here? I am a Buddhist tantric. For >me, tantra is about union of bliss and emptiness. I do not worship >Shiva/Shakti/Brahman/sidhis. Obviously Hindu Narasimha tantras are >not about Shiva. You have a very limiting view of tantra. >Whatever "you" you allow us to see. I talk about Hindu Tantras. This isnt a Buddhist list. I am not saying one shouldnt discuss Buddhist concepts here. In a Hindu list if one mentions Tantras they obviously mean Hindu Tantras. I explained above regarding Vaishnava Agama. --------------------------I don't remember you creating this list. In fact, from the beginning of this list there used to be a Buddhist tantrika who was pretty interesting, and he was one of the reasons that I looked into Buddhist tantra. I'm sure some people remember the guy who sat in the fire and didn't get burned from about 4 years ago. When this was a Club. Hard to believe that this group has existed now for about five years. > -------------Tantra divorced from life and its nitty gritty >circumstances is pie in the sky, horned rabbits, children of barren >women, and knots of air. Nothing can be divorced from life. There >is no section of life that's corditioned off and labeled sacred. >That IS what tantra is about. Please take any standard Tantra and have a look at it(atleast the contents). Or any of Avalon's writings. Here is breif overview of some Tantras. http://www.shivashakti.com/dakshin.htm http://www.shivashakti.com/bhairava.htm What do they talk about? please see for yourself. ---------------Understanding any one tantra one becomes master of them all. There are no two tantras. There is the tantra of awakened mind only. One cannot say that there are two awakened minds, nor that tantras are about unawakened mind. Tantra is about awakening. It doesn't matter if one awakens by placing the left foot or the right foot out of bed, merely that one gets out. Describing the waking habits of past masters is silly, bookish, and misplaced. This will be my last post in this thread. -----------I like this thread.Not continuing with it is as pointless as continuing with it. -- / b.. c.. Read only the mail you want - Mail SpamGuard. 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.