Guest guest Posted April 23, 2005 Report Share Posted April 23, 2005 93, greetings , "childofdevi" <childofdevi > wrote: > > Brother Arjuna, > > I did not consider this reply as severe LOL. Nowhere did I say that > Jnaneshwar was right and Abhinavagupta was wrong. Why could not both > be right- why does Abhinavagupta have to be right and everybody else > wrong. The position of Kula is rather strict as U may see from it's texts. Doctrines of different schools are not equal and not all leading to mukti. Only monistic schools have the pure knowledge, out of which Kula is the highest. Contradicting veiws cannot be equally true. Here the matter is essential - it is the basic question of soteriology. Abhinava stated that salvation comes ONLY as the result of Grace of Lord. If this is right, there is no place for any mechanical techniques as means of liberation. Methods have some relative usefulness but they can never make oneself liberated. And for the spiritual path it is of critical importance to have proper understanding and intention. As Rudra-yamala says, in pashu-bhava jnana should be developed. Any kind of technique without proper intention (that is intention to God) and knowledge is not just futile but even dangerous. Scripture is full of references to variegated paths - so there > is no question of one path alone to the exclusivity of others. Shiva said in Yoni-tantra: "I created other scriptures to destroy minds of pashus" . Different paths are set forth for people of different acharas, levels of understanding. The highest path is necessarily one . While lower doctrines are multiple... > As I > consider you very knowledgeable in Kula and tantra, I am somewhat > shocked at this exhibition of "my way or the highway". It is not my way in the sense "made by me" LOL. This is the teaching of Kula-Agama. Please note, that this issue is not a small matter of ritual or ethics. Whether to worship Kalika or Vishnu, whether to drink wine or not is not essential. But this case is different! It is very important to understand that only God can give us the true knowledge of Him, only through His anugraha-shakti we can be liberated. When one has full faith (vishvasa) and sharanagati (atma-nivedana), then he is able to receive Shiva's grace. But if one's heart is closed with ahankara, that "i can liberate myself by my own efforts, practices or ascetics", there is no "place" for shaktipata... > interest you that though Jnaneshwar (who would be on par with > Abhinavagupta) stated Hatha alone can lead to the goal, he exhorted > all to resort to Bhakthi. The path of Hatha is very hard and is for > the rare aspirant (note I am not referring to excercises as depicted > in the Yoga Journal showing scantily clad women in various poses). True hatha-yoga is the union of sun and moon, male and female. Gymnastics is a later development of gorakh-panthis who misunderstood the earlier kaula doctrine of Matsyendranatha. > You are right, the practices of Hatha are monkey excercises when > monkeys practice them (as seem to be case most of the time) :-). This example is not invented by me LOL, it is taken from Kularnava. > Now if I take your reasoning one step further(which is that monkeys > practice them so they are monkey excercises), then it can be readily > inferred that most tantriks are donkeys (consdering how much rubbish > is advocated in the name of tantra most of the time) and all tantra > sadhana is nothing but donkey excercises. So I hope you realise the > fallacy of judging with a myopic eye. If tantra is mere "drinking, eating and fucking" or "a set of techniques for getting siddhis", then followers of such "tantra" are exactly donkeys ... True yoga is not gymnastics, that's what i meant. If somebody thinks it is, he is a monkey ). > Quoting tantraloka in refuting yoga is baseless just as quoting from > the Bible in refuting Hinduism. Not at all. Tantraloka is written by hindu author, moreover by one of the greatest philosophers and mystics of Bharata. I am not quoting Kabbalistic sourses or Gospels for this very reason - narrow minded people cannot see the same truth when it is articulated in another language, alas... From the Devi Gita , the divine > mother herself says "There is no siddhi in mantra without yoga" (the > context is control of breath for mantra japa), so I rest my case. Devi-gita is a part of lately fabricated Devibhagavata-purana which in turn is a part of smriti. Not a big deal of authorativeness . To conclude, pranayama and even certain excersises may help some people (though in no sense they are essential). But the key to Siddhi is Bhakti ... Best regards, A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2005 Report Share Posted April 23, 2005 Arjuna, I kindly request that you not malign the teachings of Abhinavagupta. We have another adept(a real one) in Kashmir Shaivism (Virendra Qazi) and NONE of what you state jives with what I have read from him. In fact I am reminded of a fanatical jihadi bent on believing that HE alone is right and everything else is wrong. It is better to be silent than to speak out rubbish. I am now inclined to believe that you have absolutely no understanding of Kula let alone the lofty path of Yoga. Tantraloka is neither smrithi nor sruthi; also you are not the deciding authority on what is acceptable and what is not. When a counterview is pointed out, it is "fabrication". So why dont you stick to your jihadi version of Kashmir Shaivism and I will go do my "monkey excercises"-to each his own path. LOL Your statement of Shiva from Yoni tantra is repeated almost in every purana and tantra - so you are really taking it out of context and projecting it as the sole truth, a very serious case of spiritual dyspeptism. Statements as what you make lead me to believe that most of spiritual truths of India have never left her shores and even in India it is in severely short supply. BTW you are not affiliated with the Tantra- Sangha are you? I will consider this discussion closed since either one of us is not enlightened - and so we are just wasting time arguing back and forth. Kind Regards, -yogaman , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > 93, greetings > > , "childofdevi" <childofdevi > > wrote: > > > > Brother Arjuna, > > > > I did not consider this reply as severe LOL. Nowhere did I say that > > Jnaneshwar was right and Abhinavagupta was wrong. Why could not both > > be right- why does Abhinavagupta have to be right and everybody else > > wrong. > > The position of Kula is rather strict as U may see from it's texts. > Doctrines of different schools are not equal and not all leading to > mukti. Only monistic schools have the pure knowledge, out of which > Kula is the highest. > Contradicting veiws cannot be equally true. Here the matter is > essential - it is the basic question of soteriology. Abhinava stated > that salvation comes ONLY as the result of Grace of Lord. If this is > right, there is no place for any mechanical techniques as means of > liberation. Methods have some relative usefulness but they can never > make oneself liberated. And for the spiritual path it is of critical > importance to have proper understanding and intention. As Rudra- yamala > says, in pashu-bhava jnana should be developed. Any kind of technique > without proper intention (that is intention to God) and knowledge is > not just futile but even dangerous. > > Scripture is full of references to variegated paths - so there > > is no question of one path alone to the exclusivity of others. > > Shiva said in Yoni-tantra: "I created other scriptures to destroy > minds of pashus" . > > Different paths are set forth for people of different acharas, levels > of understanding. The highest path is necessarily one . While lower > doctrines are multiple... > > > As I > > consider you very knowledgeable in Kula and tantra, I am somewhat > > shocked at this exhibition of "my way or the highway". > > It is not my way in the sense "made by me" LOL. > This is the teaching of Kula-Agama. > > Please note, that this issue is not a small matter of ritual or > ethics. Whether to worship Kalika or Vishnu, whether to drink wine or > not is not essential. But this case is different! > It is very important to understand that only God can give us the true > knowledge of Him, only through His anugraha-shakti we can be > liberated. When one has full faith (vishvasa) and sharanagati > (atma-nivedana), then he is able to receive Shiva's grace. But if > one's heart is closed with ahankara, that "i can liberate myself by my > own efforts, practices or ascetics", there is no "place" for > shaktipata... > > > interest you that though Jnaneshwar (who would be on par with > > Abhinavagupta) stated Hatha alone can lead to the goal, he exhorted > > all to resort to Bhakthi. The path of Hatha is very hard and is for > > the rare aspirant (note I am not referring to excercises as depicted > > in the Yoga Journal showing scantily clad women in various poses). > > True hatha-yoga is the union of sun and moon, male and female. > Gymnastics is a later development of gorakh-panthis who misunderstood > the earlier kaula doctrine of Matsyendranatha. > > > You are right, the practices of Hatha are monkey excercises when > > monkeys practice them (as seem to be case most of the time) :-). > > This example is not invented by me LOL, it is taken from Kularnava. > > > Now if I take your reasoning one step further(which is that monkeys > > practice them so they are monkey excercises), then it can be readily > > inferred that most tantriks are donkeys (consdering how much rubbish > > is advocated in the name of tantra most of the time) and all tantra > > sadhana is nothing but donkey excercises. So I hope you realise the > > fallacy of judging with a myopic eye. > > If tantra is mere "drinking, eating and fucking" or "a set of > techniques for getting siddhis", then followers of such "tantra" are > exactly donkeys ... > > True yoga is not gymnastics, that's what i meant. If somebody thinks > it is, he is a monkey ). > > > Quoting tantraloka in refuting yoga is baseless just as quoting from > > the Bible in refuting Hinduism. > > Not at all. Tantraloka is written by hindu author, moreover by one of > the greatest philosophers and mystics of Bharata. > I am not quoting Kabbalistic sourses or Gospels for this very reason - > narrow minded people cannot see the same truth when it is articulated > in another language, alas... > > From the Devi Gita , the divine > > mother herself says "There is no siddhi in mantra without yoga" (the > > context is control of breath for mantra japa), so I rest my case. > > Devi-gita is a part of lately fabricated Devibhagavata-purana which in > turn is a part of smriti. Not a big deal of authorativeness . > > To conclude, pranayama and even certain excersises may help some > people (though in no sense they are essential). But the key to Siddhi > is Bhakti ... > > Best regards, > A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 Statements as what you make lead me to believe that most of spiritual truths of India have never left her shores and even in India it is in severely short supply. BTW you are not affiliated with the Tantra- Sangha are you? I will consider this discussion closed since either one of us is not enlightened - and so we are just wasting time arguing back and forth. Kind Regards, -yogaman ---So cannot two enlightened people argue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 > > ---So cannot two enlightened people argue? > Dont know the answer to this. Ah! Maa Laxmi has blessed you, hasnt SHE? Best wishes, -yogaman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 Ah! Maa Laxmi has blessed you, hasnt SHE? Best wishes, -yogaman ---Me? yes She has. Thank you Ma. Thanks for pointing that out. May She also bless You All. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 AUM Srim Hrim Srim Kamale Kamalalaye Praseeda Praseeda Srim Hrim Srim Aum Shri MAHALAKSHMIDEVYAI Namaha!! One who receives Her grace spreads it around, just like the fragrance from burning incense. Best wishes, -yogaman , "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...> wrote: > > Ah! Maa Laxmi has blessed you, hasnt SHE? > > Best wishes, > -yogaman > > > ---Me? yes She has. Thank you Ma. Thanks for pointing that out. May She also bless You All. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 It was interesting to read the conversation between Arjuna and Yogaman on Kundalini. This debate reminds me of Mathematicians who find it very hard for convincing their theorems to others. To resolve issues of communication of complex ideas, they have the terms like (1) necessary conditions (2) sufficient conditions, and (3) necessary and sufficient conditions. Mathematical theorems are understood without doubt when they state clearly with proof whether they are valid for (1), (2) or (3). Remember, a 'necessary' condition need not be 'sufficient'. Perhaps this discussion is asymptotically --> (tending towards) the following conclusions - For kundalini awakening "Bhakti is a 'necessary' condition." "Yoga is a 'sufficient' condition." "Grace of Lalita is a 'necessary and sufficient' condition as it bestows Bhakti and Yoga too in the aspirant!" My 2 cents. I apologize if I have further confused readers. mahesh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2005 Report Share Posted April 25, 2005 Hi Mahesh, Recalling all the math that I did, one thing that I was never convinced about was Mathematical induction (a theorem holds for x = 1,2,.. n and n+1, therefore it must hold for all n). While this theorem was invoked to provide a convenient "proof" for many other theorems, whose proof would have been tortuous without induction, no one ever gave me the proof that Mathematical induction works. But nonetheless I will use it a little later. You used a very eloquent term "asymptotically" and you could not have put any better. We all veer asymptotically towards Devi but before we reach that endpoint(??), the curve is dotted with criss-crosses, discontinuities and other singularities - the ups and downs of life. Now I will invoke Mathematical induction to prove that there is only one necessary and sufficient condition regarding which everyone is in agreement. for x =1, 2...n, n+1, the x's representing all the saints and jeevanmuktas that we are aware of today, who unquestioningly state that the ONLY NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT condition is HER GRACE. The rest bhakti, yoga ... are all incidental. Best wishes from one of HER most ignorant children LOL, -yogaman > This debate reminds me of Mathematicians who find it very hard for > convincing their theorems to others. To resolve issues of > communication of complex ideas, they have the terms like (1) necessary > conditions (2) sufficient conditions, and (3) necessary and sufficient > conditions. Mathematical theorems are understood without doubt when > they state clearly with proof whether they are valid for (1), (2) or > (3). Remember, a 'necessary' condition need not be 'sufficient'. > > Perhaps this discussion is asymptotically --> (tending towards) the > following conclusions - > > For kundalini awakening > "Bhakti is a 'necessary' condition." > "Yoga is a 'sufficient' condition." > "Grace of Lalita is a 'necessary and sufficient' condition as it > bestows Bhakti and Yoga too in the aspirant!" > > My 2 cents. I apologize if I have further confused readers. > > mahesh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2005 Report Share Posted April 25, 2005 Manilla: "This debate reminds me of Mathematicians who find it very hard for convincing their theorems to others. " Ever heard of Kurt Godel? Regards Lars Regards Lars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2005 Report Share Posted April 27, 2005 Perhaps you are referring to the "miracles" that occur every now and then in the sadhak's life - and which are unexplainable?! :-) , Lars Hedström <lars@2...> wrote: > > Manilla: > > "This debate reminds me of Mathematicians who find it very hard for convincing their theorems to others. " > > Ever heard of Kurt Godel? > > Regards > > Lars > > > > Regards > > Lars > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2005 Report Share Posted April 28, 2005 bhaga, , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > Shiva said in Yoni-tantra: "I created other scriptures to destroy > minds of pashus" . Elsewhere the same is said by Shiva about scriptures like Yoni Tantra. > Not at all. Tantraloka is written by hindu author, moreover by one >of > the greatest philosophers and mystics of Bharata. Abhinavagupta is not the greatest philosopher. He is definitely great. > Devi-gita is a part of lately fabricated Devibhagavata-purana >which in > turn is a part of smriti. Not a big deal of authorativeness . You are wrong. It is not fabricated. It is of great authority. 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.