Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 , "childofdevi" <childofdevi > As with most common myths there are many versions of this story- > these "fringe myths" may deal with Kali and Siva in coitus and so on; however we cannot take these "fringe myths" and put it before well > accepted mainstream stories. Who told U that Devi-bhagavata is the mainstream? Just one of many sectarian Puranas. Though it claimes to be one of 18 Mahapuranas, scientific analisis of the text proves it is not. > Kali is the Divine Mother and Siva is the Divine Father, and we are all children of the divine parents. Now tell me which child would like to see their parents copulating with each other???!!! You are in fact expressing pashu-views by such mythological explanations )))). Not only shaktas, even vaishnavas know the mystical value of rasa-krida of Radha and Krishna. Yes, their maithuna is sung in scriptures (take for instanse Gita-govinda), meditated upon and depicted in many miniatures. You either have no understanding or try to hide the truth from pashu`s eyes LOL. But THIS is not to be hidden! > Looking at Kali and Siva without any sexual connotation is NOT pashu-speak; it is the higher divya attitude as exemplified by Ramakrishna. Not at all. Or U think Urself to be divya already? ))) BTW even Ramakrishna did practice vamachara also... > And merely talking about maithuna does not automatically elevate to > Veera status; people who do this belong to a lower category of > pashus, for Veeras never talk publicly of veera-sadhana. Yes, talking doesn`t elevate; and nobody told that also. What U told about viras never talk publicly - that is wrong. Just one reference: in Mahanirvana Shiva states that in kali-yuga Kula-sadhana has to be practiced openly . A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > , "childofdevi" <childofdevi > > As with most common myths there are many versions of this story- > > these "fringe myths" may deal with Kali and Siva in coitus and so > on; however we cannot take these "fringe myths" and put it before well > > accepted mainstream stories. > > Who told U that Devi-bhagavata is the mainstream? Just one of many > sectarian Puranas. Though it claimes to be one of 18 Mahapuranas, > scientific analisis of the text proves it is not. > Arjuna, First of all, yogaman did not say it is from the Devi Bhagvata. He is unsure too (he says "... from the devi bhagvata?"). Again, we are assuming here that if in mahapuranas, then only it is mainstream, and that is not necessarily true.... Again, what scientific analysis proves it is not mainstream? I know there aew 18 mahapuranas (Vishnu, Siva, SKanda, Brahmaanda ....) and Devi B. is not one of them (much of Devi stories come in the Markandeya purana or the Brahmanda purana and both are considered "Brahma puranas"), but I am more interested in finding out what the "scientific analysis" is for determining the inclusion or exclusion of an epic into the mahapurana list? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 > > Who told U that Devi-bhagavata is the mainstream? Just one of many > sectarian Puranas. Though it claimes to be one of 18 Mahapuranas, > scientific analisis of the text proves it is not. > Devi Bhagavata is not a Mahapurana but an upa-purana but for Devi sadhakas this is the primary reference. > > You are in fact expressing pashu-views by such mythological > explanations )))). Not only shaktas, even vaishnavas know the > mystical value of rasa-krida of Radha and Krishna. Yes, their maithuna > is sung in scriptures (take for instanse Gita-govinda), meditated upon > and depicted in many miniatures. You either have no understanding or > try to hide the truth from pashu`s eyes LOL. But THIS is not to be > hidden! I think you do not understand at all the rasa-lila of Krishna; if you think this is about having sex, then I have to tell you that you just plain wrong. To give a hint, Krishna advocates to Arjuna in the Geeta about brahmacharya, now I would say that this is hypocritical of the Lord esp. since he has 16,008 wives and so he would be in no position to advocate celibacy; however many great saints over the century have explained about the Lord's lila in shades of erotic language(eg Meerabai) which is entirely allegorical. The corrupt vaishnava sahajiyas alone indulged in sexual practices and every great vaishnava saint has outlawed their practices. > > Not at all. Or U think Urself to be divya already? ))) BTW even > Ramakrishna did practice vamachara also... What vamachara did he practice? did he practice maithuna, i do not think so. > Yes, talking doesn`t elevate; and nobody told that also. What U told > about viras never talk publicly - that is wrong. Just one reference: > in Mahanirvana Shiva states that in kali-yuga Kula-sadhana has to be > practiced openly . The Mahanirvana available today is considered to be a fabrication; if you look at it more, it also advocates hereditary caste system and other abhorences, which do not have any standing in tantra. Therefore this reference from MNT means squat. Here is a counterference- from the Yoni tantra which states that Veera sadhana must be kept a complete secret from pashus. -yogaman ps. this is probably my last post on this subject both due to very limited availability of time and questionable utility in continuing to argue about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Yoga without external support has always been considered a "higher" form of practice than yoga attempted with external supports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 93 , "childofdevi" <childofdevi > wrote: > Devi Bhagavata is not a Mahapurana but an upa-purana but for Devi > sadhakas this is the primary reference. It depends for what kind of Devi-sadhakas. Surely not for all! Kaulas usually do not rely on DBhagavata at all. If some Puranas have value for Kula-mata then those are Kalika, Brahmanda (parts of it) and Markandeya (that is Mahatmya of Devi from it). > I think you do not understand at all the rasa-lila of Krishna; if you think this is about having sex, then I have to tell you that you just plain wrong. U are free to think whatever U want. But undoubtedly Rala-lila IS of sexual nature . The only point of vaishnavas to argue was whether it should be practiced by human upasakas or not. To give a hint, Krishna advocates to Arjuna in the Geeta > about brahmacharya, now I would say that this is hypocritical of the > Lord esp. since he has 16,008 wives and so he would be in no position to advocate celibacy; however many great saints over the century have explained about the Lord's lila in shades of erotic language(eg Meerabai) which is entirely allegorical. I don`t know such a place in Gita? What is the verse? Anyway, from the practice of vaishnavas we can see that even many gurus were married or had parakiya-shakti. Thus it seems there cannot exist a prescription for brahmacharya as U put it . > The corrupt vaishnava sahajiyas alone indulged in sexual practices > and every great vaishnava saint has outlawed their practices. It is Ur view that they are "corrupt". In truth they are the only true vaishnavas . I mean not some imitators and transvestites but real sahajiyas who practiced vama-sadhanas. Besides, tradition says that Sri Chaitanya was sahajiya and also Sri-vidya upasaka ). U may not know but sexual practices were done among vallabhacharis (including their gurus), in Jagannatha temple of Puri and some southern temples. > What vamachara did he practice? did he practice maithuna, i do not > think so. He did . > The Mahanirvana available today is considered to be a fabrication; if you look at it more, it also advocates hereditary caste system and > other abhorences, which do not have any standing in tantra. Therefore this reference from MNT means squat. It is not a "fabrication" but it was written down rather recently. However some teachings of Mahanirvana are quiet old and go back to oral tradition. Besides we may see that Mahanirvana is quoted by several respected tantric Masters. I also don`t accept that crap about castes - that must be brahmanical insertion. But the teaching about "revealing Kula-dharma" is also there in oral tradition. The point is that there are things to be said and there are other not to be. Severals things are to be kept in secrecy - mostly not doctrines (!) but practical applications of them. > Here is a counterference- from the Yoni tantra which states that > Veera sadhana must be kept a complete secret from pashus. See the above. MNT speaks about Kaula-dharma; while YT speaks about certain rituals . > ps. this is probably my last post on this subject both due to very > limited availability of time and questionable utility in continuing > to argue about this. This is up to U. Nothing personal but i had to answer U this time. Hope U do not mistake me . Best regards, A. 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.