Bury 'Authentic Maithuna'

[Guest guest]

Hahahahaha. My sentiments to be precise. Let us bury this subject if everyone is

cool on that. I shall spend the rest of my day laughing BTW. See folks, there is

small Zen story from a lovely book called Zen Flesh Zen Bones by Paul Reps that

resembles our discussion.

 

The great Sri Ramana Maharishi was asked by visitor "Master there are so many

ways to enlightenment and I feel I suit every one of them. Which one I should

take?". Sri Ramana simply answered "Go back where you came from".

 

With due respect to Sarabhanga and Arjuna whom I consider as my brothers, this

subject was dragged a bit too much. Take this in the right spirit please. No

offence strictly.

 

Anyone gone thru 'Laya Yoga' by Shyamsundar Goswami? A brilliant and probably

the most scholastic work on Kundalini.

 

Namo Durge

Satyen

 

Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote:

 

 

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"

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'