Guest guest Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 93 Strange behavior... U judge about tradition U know not and into which U are not initiated. Further, U condemn those who know (theoretically in minimum) and who are initiated (practically). On the basis of what? ... U do not concider either scriptural references or living tradition - but what do U put against them? Ur opinion? Is it not certainly easier and cheaper to have such type of "knowledge"? BTW Kundalini is tantric concept . If U dislike tantrism so much and do not respect both Scriptures and oral transmission of it then it`s a wonder what U do here and why indulge Urself in these discussions... Situation is again the same. Maybe we agree on exact rules of discussion? To discuss anything two things are necessary at least - logic and some common base (in the case of kaula-tantrism it is it`s scriptures and evidences of masters and followers). U do not always follow the first one and merely ignore the second. What is the use of such an approach? A. , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > > No offence taken. How could I could take seriously the > comments of one who gets his inspiration, his spiritual fuel > from alcohol. > > Oh, well, alcohol is certainly easier and cheaper to obtain than > Kundalini. > > > Omprem > > , sankara menon > <kochu1tz> wrote: > > > > Dear Omprem: > > > > Let me make it very clear we are talking of the theoretical basis > and possiblities. But what fuels me is alcohol or just theekshana > trishna is a matter very personal and not open to discussion. I > am not advocating that others do all i do nor do I take any > comment here as an advise to do as others does. > > > > Do not be under the impression that when u speak of one > theory it does not mean one does all that to the extreme. > > > > No offence intended. > > > > omprem <omprem> wrote: > > > > "Can you show me one depiction of Devi without a vessal for > > alcohol in her hand. Look even at the hands of Mahalakshmi > as > > Mahishasura mardini." > > > > > > Perhaps these are warnings not endorsements. > > > > The message could be that just as alcohol impairs the > abilities > > of the drinker, so too does imbibing Maya without reflection > > impair one's ability to know the Divine directly. To see an > > appearance of the Goddess is not to know her essence. > > > > But, hey, if you insist on using alcohol to fuel your spiritual > > search that is fine with me. Just don't expect me to believe > what > > alcohol tells you. > > > > Omprem > > > > > > > > , sankara menon > > <kochu1tz> wrote: > > > Can you show me one depiction of Devi without a vessal for > > alcohol in her hand. Look even at the hands of Mahalakshmi > as > > Mahishasura mardini. > > > And what does she tell mahisha? > > > "Garja garja kshanam Moodha, Madhu yaavat > > pibaamyaham".... > > > > > > > > > omprem <omprem> wrote: > > > > > > "But alchohol is used in kaula practices - this is > undenyable." > > > > > > If so, it doesn't say much about that approach. Perhaps there > is > > no much to be said. > > > > > > But even tamasic people need a spiritual path that is suited > to > > them. So be it. > > > > > > Omprem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "Arjuna > Taradasa" > > > <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > > > > > > 93 > > > > > > > > The case was about Sri-vidya tradition in particular. Of > > course > > > > there are some traditions in hinduism that hold view > > > expressed by U. > > > > But believe me, not all. > > > > Point of view of Tantas is clearly expressed in them. There > is > > > no need > > > > to speculate around - just open the book and read. Then go > > > and ask > > > > representatives of tantric lineages and U find that thier > views > > > are > > > > corresponding. > > > > > > > > Ur depiction of alchohol`s effect perhaps is based on Ur > > > experience. > > > > That is valid for U but not necessarily for everyone. > > > > > > > > Of course Tantras condemn pashu-pana, excessive > drinking. > > > Also > > > > drinking for pleasure is not sadhana. But alchohol is used > in > > > kaula > > > > practices - this is undenyable. If U accept kaula-mata at > least > > > as one > > > > of possible ways towards Truth, U have to agree. > > > > > > > > A. > > > > > > > > , "omprem" > > > <omprem> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Taking alcohol is tamasic. It slows and clouds the > thought, > > > not to > > > > > mention destroying brain cells. Perspective is lost. > > > > > Discrimination and dispassion are lost. > > > > > > > > > > Drinking in any quantity is in the same category as > > > recreational > > > > > drugs. 'Information' gleaned while under the influence is > > > > > misinformation and a hindrance to spiritual development. > > Of > > > > > course, at the time such 'information' will appear as a > > > revelation > > > > > but it is flawed and as such to be avoided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sponsor > > > Will you help a needy child? > > > ·It only costs .60¢ a day · It's easier than you think.·Click here > to > > meet a waiting child you can sponsor now. > > > > > > > > > Links > > > > > > > > > / > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Terms > of > > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sponsor > > > > > > > > Links > > > > > > / > > > > > > > > > > Terms of > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection > around > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 93 U are proceding in Ur ignorance... As it is said, "vinAshakAle viparItabuddhiH". Started from condemning upasakas which is still ok to some level - now continuing with condemning siddhas... Great . FYI Vamakshepa is not concidered to be sait because of siddhis. Siddhis are never criteria for being liberated and what not. A. , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > > Not only did this guy drink alcohol from human skulls, smoke > pot, seem to meditate while covered with feces, he misuses his > siddhis, one of the biggest no nos in spiritual development. He > is most assuredly not a saint. He is an out-of-control, tamasic > egoist who parades his siddis. > > Those who proclaim a saint on the basis of a few siddhis are > mistaken. > > > Omprem > > , swastik108@a... > wrote: > > In a message dated 10/26/2004 2:47:42 PM Eastern Daylight > Time, > > omprem writes: > > The operative word is 'right'. Can those who are prone to > > substance abuse and pollute themselves with eating human > > flesh and excrement be trusted to use right reason, to choose > or > > to have written right scripture and to choose or be a right > > master? > > I mostly agree with you, but I also so not believe in absolutes > being the > > lowly human I am, I cannot declare any absolute right or wrong. > > > > I say this because in Birbhum district, West Bengal in the area > known as > > Tarapith a local saint is revered by the name of Bamakhepa. > > > > Guru Bamakhepa was a left handed Tantrik in the truest sense > but also a > > highly gifted Kali Sadhak. He drank alcohol from human skulls > and smoked ganja > > also, yet he was able to heal people with his powers as well > as being gifted with > > the Darshan of Ma Tara. > > > > He fed wild animals including Tigers by hand, he appeared to > people in > > visions and dreams, he healed a man after kicking him and > spitting in his face, > > another was healed after being strangled. Some people told > me that he would > > meditate whilst covered in human feces, but I don't know if this > is true. Many > > people were attracted by his powers and mastery of Tantrik > Sadhana. He left such a > > strong impression in fact, that many consider him an avatar. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 omprem wrote: Not only did this guy drink alcohol from human skulls, smoke pot, seem to meditate while covered with feces, he misuses his siddhis, one of the biggest no nos in spiritual development. He is most assuredly not a saint. He is an out-of-control, tamasic egoist who parades his siddis. Those who proclaim a saint on the basis of a few siddhis are mistaken. ----------------- It shows your ignorance about certain field. I believe satwik way is the best way to go. But just because you don't agree in other paths doesn't give you right to condemn others. You are in your own world where only those things are right that u think are right. Try to broaden your perspective. There are many things that we don't like but still others may find that the best. Agreeing to the facts is not following them. You are just denying flat out, not logical. You post some good posts but this one is just reflecting your ego. 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.