To Om Prem [Was Mating with animals]

November 16, 2004

Namaskar OmPrem:

I know that your post below was addressed to Kochu, and it is hardly

my place to speak for him.

But in this case, I feel it would be appropriate and I hope that both

of you will forgive my interjection here. I disagree with several of

your premises, and would like to present a Shakta point of view upon

the same, for the record:

1. In posting, it's worth first asking whether there is an actual

substantive point to be made in the post. When we send purposely

offensive mails, intended mainly to insult and provoke, we become

performers in (and perpetuators of) the very "circus" that we profess

to disdain.

2. In Shakta upasana, we *never* say that one practice or another is

"right" or "wrong." If you look at the Shakta literature, where one

sage disagrees with another, s/he either sidesteps the issue or

remains silent. For example, though Bhaskararaya knew the Samayachara

argument of Lakshmidhara, he never said "Lakshmidhara is wrong."

Instead, he subtly subtly stated, "My achara is Kaula," and left it at

that. On the other hand, where he was in agreement with Lakshmidhara,

he quoted him. ;-)

3. Your post below suggests that one can "shop" for a Guru. This is

not so. According to the system itself, one does not choose Srividya;

Srividya chooses the sadhak. So the disciple has no real choice of Guru.

4. As to the idea of Samaya being the "pure" or "higher" form of

Srividya, and Kaula being somehow lower or impure, please note that

Samaya is simply meditative Srividya. All the elements – including the

panchamakara or 5M's – are there; but they are meditated upon (in

fact, much more graphically than in actual practice and much more

often than in Kaula; in Kaula, the use of sex as part of sadhana is

actually quite restricted).

As for what people read and hear about these practices, please know

that while much of the doctrine has indeed appeared in various

scriptures, most of the graphic details remain strictly oral

tradition, and are *never* written down. So none but those who are

fully qualified will ever know them, and nothing that would not be

understood by a non-initiate ever reaches a non-initiate.

As noted in my earlier post, only a miniscule percentage of sadhaks

will ever qualify to use these techniques. The guru will know who they

are; and I even know of cases in which an experienced sadhak has

actively chosen not to use them, though fully qualified to do so. Some

of your earlier posts have suggested that you believe these techniques

are used by very low, spiritually unevolved people who are basically

engaging in whatever base practices they want to and calling it Tantra.

I am aware that the term Tantra has been horribly abused and misused

(including on this board) – but please know that the *real* Tantric

sexual practices reach the sadhak only when "fun and recreation" are

no longer relevant concepts. Most never venture into those realms at

all, but those who do are most assuredly neither low nor unevolved.

Aum MAtangyai NamaH

, "omprem" <omprem> wrote:

>

> **** Normally in srividya upasana the practices sanctioned by a

> Guru personalised for a specific deciple are what matters.***

>

> So, for all of you who like having sex with animals or corpses

> (human or otherwise), or who like eating shit, smoking pot,

> taking drugs, or any other, shall we say, unusual, practice, there

> is someone out there who will tell you to go ahead and do it. If

> you are dumb enough to follow that advice be aware of the

> criminal penalties that apply to your practice, which could include

> conspiracy charges and other gang-related felonies.

>

> If you are still determined but are unable to find one of these

> 'gurus' , or can't quite bring yourself to elevate those who engage

> these practices to 'guru' status, you can always proclaim yourself

> as a 'guru', then you would have the divine right to do what you

> want, much like a few of the people on this board who offer

> highly vocal support of these practices.

>

> Omprem

November 16, 2004

dear all:

It is just not that I do not know how to reply. But I prefer not to. I am not

here to insult individuals, whatever the reason. I prefer the aphorism

"kshamaasheelamashaktaanaan shaktaanaam bhooshanam kshamaa"

Patience is a virtue for the weak and for the strong it is as adornmrnt. whether

I am weak or strong I accept patience.

Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote: