'Authentic Maithuna' - Samaya and Kula

[Guest guest]

93

 

, Lili Masamura

> Actually, it was elucidated in the intro to the

> Lalitasahasranama; the Samaya Path is referred to as

> "pure and noble".

 

To be true, the original meaning of "samaya" was something different

from what is now propagated by many SV upasakas. In the earliest

texts mentioning this term (like for instance in Tantraloka of

Acharya Abhinavagupta and Kubjika Tantras - which are of 10 century

CE) "samayachara" means the path of rules/restrictions. Thus,

samayachara is certainly inferior to kulachara, being a path for

pashu-sadhakas. Kularnava holds the same opinion. This meaning of

samaya was also confirmed to me by some indian tantrologists.

However, seemingly from Lakshmidhara and onwards, the meanings of

samayachara and kulachara were altered so that they were put upside

down. In this case samaya stands IMHO for siddhantachara out of the

7 acharas.

> I have never heard of any Samaya

> sexual practices, but please feel free to correct me

> on that one.

 

If we equate samayachara with dakshinachara, then for sure there are

certain sexual practices. Actually the restriction of dakshinachara

is the following - one has to practice makaras only with his wife.

Likewise, "Sarvollasa" says that 5M are to be used physically in

dakshinachara.

Then, if we take samayachara in the sense of the highest level of

upasana, then there are no rules. Thus, 5M may or may not be

practiced - that is upto ichchha of sadhaka.

>thus it is not

> surprising that "highest Kaulas" would not need the

> "actual" 5 Ms.

 

Funny enough, according to some sourses "highest kaulas" or uttara-

kaulas are exactly those who do practice 5M physically , as

opposed to purva-kaulas who use anukalpas.

 

....Besides, 5M is a later development; originally only 3 were used -

madya, mamsa and maithuna. Tantraloka states that these 3 are 3

kinds of Ananda-Brahman manifested in human body (see 29th ahnika).

 

Love is the law, love under will.

A.

[Guest guest]

, "Arjuna Taradasa"

<bhagatirtha@m...> wrote:

> To be true, the original meaning of "samaya" was something

>different

> from what is now propagated by many SV upasakas.

>cIn the earliest

> texts mentioning this term (like for instance in Tantraloka of

> Acharya Abhinavagupta antd Kubjika Tantras - which are of 10

century

> CE) "samayachara" means the path of rules/restrictions.

> Thus,

> samayachara is certainly inferior to kulachara, being a path for

> pashu-sadhakas.

 

Two things: 1)Date i.e original meaning and 2)Status of Samaya

 

1)Date - Original meaning:

 

This samayachara that you talk about is stated by Lakshmidhara and

others as propounded by Adi Shankaracharya.

 

It is agreed upon by every Indological scholar that Shankaracharya's

time is 8 th century. Surely Shankaracharya or for that matter

anyone will not popularise something which they consider inferior.

 

Not only him but even the works of Gaudapadacharya i.e

Shankaracharya's parama guru(Guru's Guru) is known to be a proponent

of Samayachara. Gaudapadacharya obviously will belong to 7 th

century. Considering that Abhinava lived in 10 th century which

meaning is to be considered original and older?

 

Status of Samayachara:

 

Bhaskara Raya(17th century), undoubtedly one of the greatest

ShriVidya upasakas ever, says this about Samaya.

"Samaya is commonly (lit. traditional custom) explained as ofeering

worship, etc., to a chakra in the ether of teh heart. That (worship)

is unanimously decided by all the yogins as the supreme, hence it is

called Samaya."

 

Now Bhaskara Raya says that is the traditional meaning. Which means

that even during the time of Bhaskara raya this meaning is quite

popular and he adds this is "unanimously decided by all yogins as

the supreme".. Need more be said?

 

Also remember that words have multiple meanings and the context is

quite important.

 

Hence the statement that samaya is inferior and for pashu sadhaka-s

is at best, partial, ill-infomed and an outcome of poor research.

 

Furthermore, the Paramananda tantra, which is not some stray tantra

but is commented upon by a great Shri Vidya upasaka by name

Maheshvarananda natha with the title Saubhagya Sandoha Vyakhya says

that Dakshina, Kaulikam, Para matam, Samaya all are considered

sattvic.

 

> This meaning of

> samaya was also confirmed to me by some indian tantrologists.

 

Can you name these people? Or provide references to their works or

papers?

> However, seemingly from Lakshmidhara and onwards, the meanings of

> samayachara and kulachara were altered so that they were put

>upside

> down.

 

Was answered above. Shankara and Gaudapada were known to hold Samaya

as the highest. Meaning even from 7 th century. That is as far as it

is traceable. We dont know how much even earlier Samayachara is

considered greater.

Shankara is said to have inheited those views from his lineage

starting from Atri and other Rishi-s.

> In this case samaya stands IMHO for siddhantachara out of the

> 7 acharas.

 

There are tantric scholars who think not. So let us know your

reasons.

 

> If we equate samayachara with dakshinachara, then for sure there

>are

> certain sexual practices. Actually the restriction of

dakshinachara

> is the following - one has to practice makaras only with his wife.

 

Firstly, one cannot equate Dakshinachara with Samyachara. There is

no Makara sadhana in Dakshinachara although some agree that there

are practices like shava sadhana(shava pIThika) and syama pithika

etc.

> Likewise, "Sarvollasa" says that 5M are to be used physically in

> dakshinachara.

> Then, if we take samayachara in the sense of the highest level of

> upasana, then there are no rules.

 

What is Samayachara is explained above. It is only for the advanced

sadhaka-s. Samayachara in always performed only with bhAvana

(visualisation).

> Funny enough, according to some sourses "highest kaulas" or uttara-

> kaulas are exactly those who do practice 5M physically , as

> opposed to purva-kaulas who use anukalpas.

 

Looks like you are confusing the words uttama and uttara.

[Guest guest]

93,

 

, "Satish Raja Arigela" >

> 1)Date - Original meaning:

> This samayachara that you talk about is stated by Lakshmidhara and

> others as propounded by Adi Shankaracharya.

 

What do U mean by this? I'm not sure abt Shankara but Lakshmidhara

thought samaya to be rather opposite to what i say.

> It is agreed upon by every Indological scholar that

Shankaracharya's time is 8 th century. Surely Shankaracharya or for

that matter anyone will not popularise something which they consider

inferior.

 

Firstly, it is samaya (being the previous level before kaula) that

is to be "popularised" - exactly for the reason of it's

relative "inferiority". Kaulachara was never popularised for the

reason that it was not meant for pashu-sadhakas. While every Bill

and Dick may chant stotras, meditate and whatsoever, he cannot

perform advanced kaula practices. Naturally, kula-mata was always

help in secret.

Regarding Shankara's position: for the reason he must had known, in

his Saundarya-lahari he deliveres certain kaulika veiws . As was

already mentioned by Sankara Menon, 11 shloka deals with kula-

sadhana. Same was told to me by Amritanandanatha.

> Not only him but even the works of Gaudapadacharya i.e

> Shankaracharya's parama guru(Guru's Guru) is known to be a

proponent

> of Samayachara.

 

I'm not aware of any works of him, sadly, apart from SV Ratna-

sutras, that as i remember do not deal either with samaya or kula.

However the work of Vidyaranya Yati - the guy was from Shankara's

parampara - is a kaula work ...

 

Gaudapadacharya obviously will belong to 7 th

> century. Considering that Abhinava lived in 10 th century which

> meaning is to be considered original and older?

 

Kashmiri tradition is older than 10 century - Abhinava was not the

first one. As he stated himself in TA, what he wrote is the complete

manual of the Kashmiri tantrism. No doubt, his school goes back to

at least 6 or 7 century.

> Status of Samayachara:

>

> Bhaskara Raya(17th century), undoubtedly one of the greatest

> ShriVidya upasakas ever, says this about Samaya.

> "Samaya is commonly (lit. traditional custom) explained as

ofeering worship, etc., to a chakra in the ether of teh heart. That

(worship) is unanimously decided by all the yogins as the supreme,

hence it is called Samaya."

 

I know that. And the same Bhaskararaya was propagating vamachara

and for that was opposed by other brahmans...

> Now Bhaskara Raya says that is the traditional meaning. Which

means that even during the time of Bhaskara raya this meaning is

quite popular and he adds this is "unanimously decided by all yogins

as the supreme".. Need more be said?

 

One guru of Bhaskararaya's parampara whom i know is following

kaulachara. That must be the teaching of parampara, right?

Amritananda is also the adept of kaula-mata. This is leading to the

certain conclusion )...

> Also remember that words have multiple meanings and the context is

> quite important.

 

Exactly right. What Bhaskara meant by samaya and what other mean may

differ.

> Hence the statement that samaya is inferior and for pashu sadhaka-

s is at best, partial, ill-infomed and an outcome of poor research.

 

Well, it is AT LEAST the doctrine of SEVERAL (if not all) ancient

tantric traditions.

> Furthermore, the Paramananda tantra, which is not some stray

tantra but is commented upon by a great Shri Vidya upasaka by name

> Maheshvarananda natha with the title Saubhagya Sandoha Vyakhya

says that Dakshina, Kaulikam, Para matam, Samaya all are considered

> sattvic.

 

I was not aware of this commentary. Is this Maheshvarananda same

Krama (not SV) master as the author of Mahartha-manjari of 13

century?

> > This meaning of

> > samaya was also confirmed to me by some indian tantrologists.

>

> Can you name these people? Or provide references to their works or

> papers?

 

Navjivan Rastogi, Lucknow University

Hemen Chakravarti, Varanasi

Must be know to U if U deal with the study of tantrism, eh?

> > In this case samaya stands IMHO for siddhantachara out of the

> > 7 acharas.

>

> There are tantric scholars who think not. So let us know your

> reasons.

 

I wrote "In My Humble Opinion" - i won't go into detail thus. This

statement is merely my view. When i asked my guru he told that this

may be correct; that is the only reference i can provide.

> Firstly, one cannot equate Dakshinachara with Samyachara.

 

IF samaya is taken in the literal meaning of "following the

regulations", they are synonims. Then, in vamachara and further

niyama becomes "sveccha"...

 

There is

> no Makara sadhana in Dakshinachara although some agree that there

> are practices like shava sadhana(shava pIThika) and syama pithika

> etc.

 

No doubt there is SOME sexual practices in dakshinachara - for the

MARRIED person. However as i mentioned SOME sources say that even 5M

is there (i didn't say that is the utmost truth of all traditions

LOL).

> What is Samayachara is explained above. It is only for the

advanced sadhaka-s. Samayachara in always performed only with bhAvana

> (visualisation).

 

Bhavana (and sankalpa) is everywhere essential. But, IF we take

samaya as the highest level, then every sadhana can be done there.

This is logical conclusion. For satkaula (siddha-kaula or whatsoever

we call) there are no rules.

> > Funny enough, according to some sourses "highest kaulas" or

uttara-kaulas are exactly those who do practice 5M physically , as

> > opposed to purva-kaulas who use anukalpas.

>

> Looks like you are confusing the words uttama and uttara.

 

Yet i am not. "Uttara" has that meaning as well, not

only "northern" ))))); U should have seen the dictionary before

commenting...

 

The Cologne Dictionary gives:

 

"Entry uttara

 

Meaning 1 mfn. (compar. fr. 1. %{ud} ; opposed to %

{adhara} ; declined Gram. 238. %{a}) , upper , higher , superior

(e.g. %{uttare@dantAs} , the upper teeth) RV. AV. TS. ChUp. Ragh.

&c. ; northern (because the northern part of India is high) AV. Mn.

Sus3r. Pan5cat. &c. ; left (opposed to %{dakSiNa} or right , because

in praying the face being turned to the east the north would be on

the left hand) AV. Ka1tyS3r. MBh. &c. ; later , following ,

subsequent , latter , concluding , posterior , future RV. AV.

Ka1tyS3r. MBh. Ragh. Hit. &c. (opposed to %{pUrva} , &c..."

 

http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/indologie/tamil/mwd_search.html

 

Regards,

A.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Sri Sankaracarya understood SAMAVAYA (Inseparable Inherence) as an

illogical proposition of the Vaiseshika School.

 

And he knew SAMACARA as an Atharvan text-book on Vedic Observances.

 

And he knew SAMAYACARA simply as Established Practice.

 

And he knew SAMAYA as NIYAMA.

 

Sri Gaudapadacarya would have understood exactly the same.

[Guest guest]

93

 

, "Sarabhanga Giri"

> And he knew SAMAYACARA simply as Established Practice.

> And he knew SAMAYA as NIYAMA.

> Sri Gaudapadacarya would have understood exactly the same.

 

Thank U, Sharabhanga. These facts correlate with that what i wrote

previously.

 

H. Chakravarti told me that at the time of Shankara practice for

grihasthis was different from that of monks; it included certain

sexual side as well. However, later those were pushed aside by

"orthodox" party - so now we have what we have.

 

Best regards,

A.

[Guest guest]

You do not seem to understand, however, that:

Samaya MUST come before Kula; and

Kula arises ONLY in the context of Samaya; and

Kula can NEVER exceed Samaya.

[Guest guest]

93,

 

, "Sarabhanga Giri"

> You do not seem to understand, however, that:

> Samaya MUST come before Kula; and

> Kula arises ONLY in the context of Samaya;

 

This i do .

> Kula can NEVER exceed Samaya.

 

While this depends on exact definitions we use... In my understanding

it does exceed.

However, let us leave the matter as this. We understood each other.

 

Regards,

A.

[Guest guest]

Perhaps I have missed something.

Since we seem to have agreed on the definition of Samaya, are you

defining either Kula or Excess in some fashion that I do not

understand?

[Guest guest]

93,

 

, "Sarabhanga Giri"

> Perhaps I have missed something.

> Since we seem to have agreed on the definition of Samaya, are you

> defining either Kula or Excess in some fashion that I do not

> understand?

 

You have written:

"...And he knew SAMAYACARA simply as Established Practice.

And he knew SAMAYA as NIYAMA".

And yes, in this we seem to agree. "Samaya" is "rule" or "custom",

"achara" is "following" or "path". "Samayin" is that person who is

under samayas, rules.

 

Consequently, the path of samaya (in shaktism it is dakshinachara;

vaishnavas call it vidhi-marga as opposed to raganuga) is preceding

that of kula.

Again, as U have written:

"Samaya MUST come before Kula; and Kula arises ONLY in the context of

Samaya..."

This is ok. I would rather say "on the basis" in spite of "in the

context", but this is rather similar.

 

Then, i do not understand why U proceed with:

"Kula can NEVER exceed Samaya".

Kulachara is not identical with samayachara for the following reasons:

1. Shastras and tradition differentiate between them.

2. In samayachara one is supposed to follow certain rules set up by

Guru and Agamas, while in kaula he is up to his own will, svechchha.

3. Samaya is that worship which is customary, while kaula one is not.

4. In samaya outer things are there (rituals, rules, regulations), it

is on duality level. Kaula-marga leads to realisation of unity,

samarasya. There God is to be first of all worshipped in the body -

one's own and shakti's (see for reference Shadamnaya-tantra and

commentary of Amritananda upon Yogini-hridaya, as well as Kashmiri

sourses).

 

If they are not identical but one is following another, the second

must exceed previous one. "Exceed" is "go beyond, further", right?

 

Thus, kaula is above samaya and it exceeds samaya.

 

According to what my kula-guru said, Kula is above all.

However Abhinavagupta puts Trika after Kula - at the top. But then he

states that "Trika" in this case is not a system but "SAUH". Then,

Yoni-tantra puts Yoni above Kula (although usually these are synonims)

, which, again, is not an achara but same Trika, Samarasya.

 

Best regards,

A.

[Guest guest]

What you are saying seems to prove that Kaula is by definition

Adharma!

 

The Kula may be the jewel in the crown of Niyama (which is far more

than just "custom"), but the glory of the crown does not exceed the

King.

 

The Kula truly is the very heart of Niyama, but it can NEVER exceed

Niyama, for if it does exceed Niyama (which is the completion of Yoga

in itself) then it enters the dark realm of Adharma.

 

And of course, the Yogin in the ultimate stage of his/her practice

must go even beyond any distinction of Dharma or Adharma; but this

Siddha is so perfectly established within the bounds of Niyama (which

also assumes Yama) that no harm can possibly result.

 

It is truly dangerous to seriously suggest, in any open forum, that

Kaula Vidya can possibly go beyond Niyama.

 

The whole of the Yoga Sutras are truly found, self-contained, within

the perfect dicotyledonous seed of Yama.

[Guest guest]

Listen, I am no match for the erudition of Arjuna or Sarabhanga and

the others who have posted on this topic. But let me just add

another voice to the chorus, in case anyone finds it useful.

 

In my understanding, every mantra and every stotram, all the nyasas

and dhyanas – all of these tools of Tantra – are meditative in

nature.

 

When you are a Samayachari, they are mechanical exercises that you

do pretty much by rote, because God (in whatever perception, He or

She or It) is perceived as separate from the upasaka, and is

therefore something to be respected and venerated.

 

But when the upasaka understands what is what, s/he realizes (by

experience, not theoretical speculation or intellectual acceptance)

that s/he *IS* this He/She/It. And at that point, how do you

venerate yourself? How do you insult yourself? That is when you

become a sarvatantra svatantra, a sechaachari, a svechaachari. Then

you can joke with Her, call Her names, do whatever – all without

fear of any "Divine retribution."

 

That's something that *cannot* be done by a Samayin, because s/he is

still in duality. S/he should fear and respect the Divine, and

should follow Samaya or Rules. When you become independent of Tantra

and are no longer bound by rules, you become a true Kaula.

 

I know that this statement may annoy some, because in general it has

seemed to me (whether stated explicitly, or in tone only) that the

Samayachari feels very much superior to the Kaula. Fine, let them

feel superior. But let me ask a simple question: If Lakshmidhara's

concept of Sriyantra is the best, then why does it have so few

followers? Why is it that even the so-called Samayins have either

prateeka or meditative versions of the 5Ms?

 

Simply because it is integral.

 

Aum MAtangyai NamaH

 

, "Arjuna Taradasa"

<bhagatirtha@m...> wrote:

>

> 93,

>

> , "Sarabhanga Giri"

> > Perhaps I have missed something.

> > Since we seem to have agreed on the definition of Samaya, are

you

> > defining either Kula or Excess in some fashion that I do not

> > understand?

>

> You have written:

> "...And he knew SAMAYACARA simply as Established Practice.

> And he knew SAMAYA as NIYAMA".

> And yes, in this we seem to agree. "Samaya" is "rule" or "custom",

> "achara" is "following" or "path". "Samayin" is that person who is

> under samayas, rules.

>

> Consequently, the path of samaya (in shaktism it is dakshinachara;

> vaishnavas call it vidhi-marga as opposed to raganuga) is

preceding

> that of kula.

> Again, as U have written:

> "Samaya MUST come before Kula; and Kula arises ONLY in the context

of

> Samaya..."

> This is ok. I would rather say "on the basis" in spite of "in the

> context", but this is rather similar.

>

> Then, i do not understand why U proceed with:

> "Kula can NEVER exceed Samaya".

> Kulachara is not identical with samayachara for the following

reasons:

> 1. Shastras and tradition differentiate between them.

> 2. In samayachara one is supposed to follow certain rules set up

by

> Guru and Agamas, while in kaula he is up to his own will,

svechchha.

> 3. Samaya is that worship which is customary, while kaula one is

not.

> 4. In samaya outer things are there (rituals, rules, regulations),

it

> is on duality level. Kaula-marga leads to realisation of unity,

> samarasya. There God is to be first of all worshipped in the body -

> one's own and shakti's (see for reference Shadamnaya-tantra and

> commentary of Amritananda upon Yogini-hridaya, as well as Kashmiri

> sourses).

>

> If they are not identical but one is following another, the second

> must exceed previous one. "Exceed" is "go beyond, further", right?

>

> Thus, kaula is above samaya and it exceeds samaya.

>

> According to what my kula-guru said, Kula is above all.

> However Abhinavagupta puts Trika after Kula - at the top. But then

he

> states that "Trika" in this case is not a system but "SAUH". Then,

> Yoni-tantra puts Yoni above Kula (although usually these are

synonims)

> , which, again, is not an achara but same Trika, Samarasya.

>

> Best regards,

> A.

[Guest guest]

, "Arjuna Taradasa"

<bhagatirtha@m...> wrote:

> , "Satish Raja Arigela" >

> > 1)Date - Original meaning:

> > This samayachara that you talk about is stated by Lakshmidhara

and

> > others as propounded by Adi Shankaracharya.

>

> What do U mean by this? I'm not sure abt Shankara but Lakshmidhara

> thought samaya to be rather opposite to what i say.

 

What I mean is that, Lakshmidhara did not interpret something new

regarding Samaya and Kaula. He merely told what he got from his

tradition. That tradition goes back to Adi Shankara, Govinda

Bhagavatpada and Gaudapada(7 th century).

 

> Firstly, it is samaya (being the previous level before kaula) that

> is to be "popularised" - exactly for the reason of it's

> relative "inferiority".

 

I might have used the wrong word by using popularise.

In any case I dont see any relation about something being inferior

and it getting popularised because of that. Above statment I feel is

incoherant and filled with lots of assumptions.

> Kaulachara was never popularised for the

> reason that it was not meant for pashu-sadhakas.

 

Neither is Samaya for a Pashu sadhaka.

> While every Bill

> and Dick may chant stotras, meditate and whatsoever, he cannot

> perform advanced kaula practices. Naturally, kula-mata was always

> help in secret.

 

Same with Samaya. Not all and sundry get initiated into Samaya path.

> Regarding Shankara's position: for the reason he must had known,

>in

> his Saundarya-lahari he deliveres certain kaulika veiws . As was

> already mentioned by Sankara Menon, 11 shloka deals with kula-

> sadhana. Same was told to me by Amritanandanatha.

 

To understand Shankara it requires that one reads all of his works,

Not just one or two. If one examines Shankara's works like

Prapanchasara and Lalita Trishati Bhasya, especially in the trishati

Bhasya not even one tantric reference can be found, save the

Bhuvaneshvari kalpa, of which the identity is uncertain.

 

Ofcourse neither his main works i.e the Prastana traya nor any of

the prakarana grantha-s talk or even refer to tantra, except for a

passing mention of Pashupata and Pancharatra.

> I'm not aware of any works of him, sadly, apart from SV Ratna-

> sutras, that as i remember do not deal either with samaya or kula.

 

The Subhagodaya stuti of Gaudapadacharya deals with the concept of

Samaya and Kaula. He clearly mentions the Shubha Agama Panchaka and

does not talk about Kaula in flattering terms.

This work was known to be commented upon by Amritananda natha(not

devipuram teacher).

>4. In samaya outer things are there (rituals, rules, regulations),

>it is on duality level.

 

This is what Gaudapadacharya says about Samaya in Subhagodaya stuti,

which is also found in the Shubagama panchaka of which the later is

supposed to be of hoary antiquity.

 

1)He makes it clear that there is no outer worship in for samayins

2)says that shubhagama pachaka is what they follow

3)places Samaya above Kula

4)For samayins their body itself is the Shrichakra.

 

A quote from one of the Shubhagama panchaka-s, the Sanatkumara

samhita while talking about samayin-s says,

"external worship should not be resorted to by samayin-s and that

external worship is for kaula-s, kapalika-s and kshapanaka-s".

 

The Cinacara tantra does mention rules about Samayachara but adds

that just by knowing about Samayachara one attains siddhi and

jivanmukti.

 

In the Kaulavali, in the shanti stava in 8th ullasa at one point it

says

"May the nectar like blessings of the Yoginis fall on the followers

of Samaya and their curses on the enemies thereof."

 

That stotra talks about Kaula being the highest and also makes the

above statement about Samaya followers. This stotra doesnt talk

about any other Achara other tan these two.

 

The Sharada catusshati by Jnanananda natha is known to summarize the

main doctrine advanced in the Subhagama Panchaka.

 

> Gaudapadacharya obviously will belong to 7 th

> > century. Considering that Abhinava lived in 10 th century which

> > meaning is to be considered original and older?

>

> Kashmiri tradition is older than 10 century - Abhinava was not the

> first one. As he stated himself in TA, what he wrote is the

>complete

> manual of the Kashmiri tantrism. No doubt, his school goes back to

> at least 6 or 7 century.

 

Same with Gaudapadacarya. His 7 th century work talks about the

Shubhagama Panchaka and the superiority of Samaya and he clearly

notes that it is from sampradaya, meaning that, what he says was

established a couple of centuries before 7 th century.

 

> I know that. And the same Bhaskararaya was propagating

>vamachara

> and for that was opposed by other brahmans...

 

There are some orthodox ones who opposed and some orthodox ones who

did not. But note that even being a Kaula, Bhaskara raya thinks very

highly of Samaya(whatever he had in mind). And he is not the only

one to do so. There were people who thought like him long before the

seventh century.

 

> > Furthermore, the Paramananda tantra, which is not some stray

> tantra but is commented upon by a great Shri Vidya upasaka by name

> > Maheshvarananda natha with the title Saubhagya Sandoha Vyakhya

> says that Dakshina, Kaulikam, Para matam, Samaya all are

considered

> > sattvic.

>

> I was not aware of this commentary. Is this Maheshvarananda same

> Krama (not SV) master as the author of Mahartha-manjari of 13

> century?

 

In the introduction part nothing is mentioned about

Mahartha_Manjari. Either the editor forgot or maybe they are just

two different people.

> Navjivan Rastogi, Lucknow University

> Hemen Chakravarti, Varanasi

> Must be know to U if U deal with the study of tantrism, eh?

 

I heard only about the first one. I thought you are going to name

Mark Dyckjowski too.

> I wrote "In My Humble Opinion" - i won't go into detail thus. This

> statement is merely my view. When i asked my guru he told that

this

> may be correct; that is the only reference i can provide.

 

ok.

> No doubt there is SOME sexual practices in dakshinachara - for the

> MARRIED person. However as i mentioned SOME sources say that even

5M

> is there (i didn't say that is the utmost truth of all traditions

> LOL).

 

Fine. Opinion is a little different in South where it is not

associated with 5M but some seem to have practices in shmasana

(burial ground) etc. Probably some Northern Dakshinachara folk

include 5M.

> > Looks like you are confusing the words uttama and uttara.

>

> Yet i am not. "Uttara" has that meaning as well, not

> only "northern" ))))); U should have seen the dictionary before

> commenting...

 

Yes ofcourse as can be gathered from names like Anuttara amnaya and

Anuttara Parambika etc. I made a wrong guess that the usage might be

an

outcome of ignorance.

>Thus, kaula is above samaya and it exceeds samaya.

 

Exactly the opposite can be said by looking at Shubagama Pachaka and

Subhagodaya stuti.

 

DB:

>I know that this statement may annoy some, because in general it has

>seemed to me (whether stated explicitly, or in tone only) that the

>Samayachari feels very much superior to the Kaula. Fine, let them

>feel superior.

 

There is overflowing evidence to say the opposite too i.e that

Kaulas feel superior to Samayin-s

All you need to do, to recognise that is to read the messages in

this very list.

In reality the door swinged both ways.

[Guest guest]

Dear Satish:

 

Thank you (and Arjuna and Sarabhanga) for your thoughts on this. I

think, after all the sound and fury, an awful lot is said in this

final exchange:

 

ARJUNA: Thus, kaula is above samaya and it exceeds samaya.

SATISH: Exactly the opposite can be said.

 

The whole circular conversation matches proof for proof -- fnally

coming back to the idea that all the paths lead to the same Truth.

And that we waste a tremendous amount of valuable time and energy

trying to prove that one is "superior" to the other, rather than

using that time and energy to practice the path for which we so

strongly profess to prefer.

 

Vivekananda taught, "As soon as a man stands up and says he is right

or his church is right, and all others are wrong, he is himself all

wrong. He does not know that upon the proof of all the others

depends the proof of his own. ... It is like trying to fit one coat

to all sizes and growths. I do not deprecate the existence of sects

in the world. Would to God there were 20 millions more, for the more

there are, there will be a greater field for selection. What I do

object to is trying to fit one religion to every case. ... We must

each have our own individual religion, individual so far as the

externals of it go."

 

By the way, I am not pretending that I am somehow above the fray.

There's another interesting exchange:

 

DB: It has seemed to me ... that the Samayachari feels very much

superior to the Kaula.

SATISH: There is overflowing evidence to say the opposite too i.e

that Kaulas feel superior to Samayin-s.

 

Again, the conversation becomes a circle. In re-reading the thread

from beginning to end, in fact, I finally understood why it gave me

such a headache: It's like watching a pingpong game from too close a

vantage point. One risks a nasty case of whiplash!

 

*** All you need to do, to recognise that [i.e. Kaulas professing to

have the superior system] is to read the messages in this very list.

***

 

Yes, I am aware that the overall orientation of this list is Kaula

rather than Samayin. That's as it should be I suppose; there are

already lists that lean Samayin. Let each path celebrate its unique

beauty and perspective.

 

Aum MAtangyai NamaH

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

>-- fnally

> coming back to the idea that all the paths lead to the same Truth.

 

No disagreement.

> It's like watching a pingpong game from too close a

> vantage point.

 

Hehehe. Nice comparison.

 

> Yes, I am aware that the overall orientation of this list is Kaula

> rather than Samayin. That's as it should be I suppose;

 

Ofcourse.

 

DB:

> Let each path celebrate its >unique

> beauty and perspective.

 

Kochu:

>Let each stream exist and prosper. and like Rivers all shall

>reach the goal.

 

Our interests seem to concur at least at some level then.

 

Note: I appreciate the moderators for being open enough to allow the

other viewpoint because it is easy to censor(and no one would know

if they do other than the poster) opposing views being a moderator.

Normally this attitude goes unrecognised as all members doesnt have

the privileges of a moderator. Thank you for that.

 

Regards

Satish.

[Guest guest]

Yes Satish knows how a moderator can stifle posts better than any one else. Even

when the post is innocuous quotation basically stating the opposite view point.

 

*smile*

 

Satish Raja Arigela <satisharigela wrote:

 

 

Namaste,

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

>-- fnally

> coming back to the idea that all the paths lead to the same Truth.

 

No disagreement.

> It's like watching a pingpong game from too close a

> vantage point.

 

Hehehe. Nice comparison.

 

> Yes, I am aware that the overall orientation of this list is Kaula

> rather than Samayin. That's as it should be I suppose;

 

Ofcourse.

 

DB:

> Let each path celebrate its >unique

> beauty and perspective.

 

Kochu:

>Let each stream exist and prosper. and like Rivers all shall

>reach the goal.

 

Our interests seem to concur at least at some level then.

 

Note: I appreciate the moderators for being open enough to allow the

other viewpoint because it is easy to censor(and no one would know

if they do other than the poster) opposing views being a moderator.

Normally this attitude goes unrecognised as all members doesnt have

the privileges of a moderator. Thank you for that.

 

Regards

Satish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

Children InternationalWould you give Hope to a Child in need? ·Click Here to

meet a Girl

And Give Her Hope·Click Here to meet a Boy

And Change His Life Learn More

 

/