Conversation with a Tantrik (from HindustanTimes.com)

[Guest guest]

Let us take examples of different types of food and the respective

cooks. Non-vegetarian and vegetarian (Indian).

 

A delicious dish of chicken fried rice and a heavenly meal of naan

and sabji. Are they different? Yes, they are. But do they serve the

same purpose? Yes, both help satisfy the hunger of the people

consuming them, and offer satisfaction to the tastebuds and a

feeling of good after eating. Will everybody eat both? May be not.

Depending on the food habits, digestive abilities, etc, might not be

palatable for all the hungry people of India. Same way, tantra and

bhakthi yoga are different and are not applicable to all. But, both

serve the same goal of satisfying the spiritual hunger.

 

Can there be tantra w/o bhakthi? Sure, everybody can cook, but will

what they cook be eatable even by themselves? It requires certain

attention to details and definitely a particular emotion (either the

love for the eater or the desire to be appreciated for their skills)

to make a cook excel in preparing the food as to the eater's

preferences. That dedication is bhakthi.

 

Can tantra w/o bhakthi be harmful? If we take Meat dishes (pun

intended, alluding to the 5M's) to be an analogy to tantra, think of

a bad cook, cooking meat w/o knowing how to handle it. Forgets to

put the meat in the freezer for a few days.....cooks, serves it.

Rest is history. Is it possible to do a same thing with other paths

of worship? Yes, similar badly cooked/spoiled meals are possible in

veggie style as well. But, GENERALLY spoiled veggie food is easier

to notice and avoid than a spicy concoction of bad chicken where the

taste of bad meat is hidden by the spices. And, it can kill.

 

Both types of cooking (or their analogical references) require a

supervisor in the initial stages. Owing to the immenant dangers

involved with non-veggie cooking, it is better learnt how to handle

the ingredients under a closer supervision.

 

Hope this helps in confusing what DB had stated simple, and clear!

 

, "sumantkb" <sumantkb

wrote:

>

> Hi

>

> I am really confused about the relationship between bhakti and

tantra.

> How is tantra different from bhakti yoga? If tantra means

technique,

> is it at different levels like mental, physical ? I guess the

answer

> to that is yes. But then shravan, kirtan(thought to be part of

bhakti

> yoga) are also techniques...or for that matter manan and

nididhyasana

> are also techniques for gyana. Then should they also be classified

as

> included in tantra. Also as I understand tantra is not only used

for

> devi worship, I have heard about vishnu tantra. So shakti tantra

seems

> to a particular type of tantra.

>

> I read in the book aghori -ii that vimalananda gave some ganesh

mantra

> to a guy. The guy made a mistake and died as a result of that.

> Vimalanada explained it saying that without bhakti you have to be

very

> cautious as you are forcing the deity to come to you. From this

> incident it looks like one can have tantra without bhakti. But this

> incident also explains why one better follow the guru

> strictly(following the guru here is not bhakti it seems).

>

> So is it true that we include bhakti in tantra to protect ourself.

If

> that is true then would a shava sadhana with bhakti never go wrong?

>

> When I talked about my interest in shakti (who ever is our kula

devi)

> worship many people, from whom I was trying to learn, cautioned me

> against doing it without a guru. One of them (I dont think he has

any

> hidden agenda), who has been worshipping for some 50-60 years told

me

> that even done in a nishkama way, it can be harmful if there is a

> mistake.

>

> The tantric mentioned below averted the question of "negatives" in

> tantra. He rather focussed on love and bhakti which is much more

> appealing to common man and it did impress the journalist (who has

his

> own conceptions about positives and negatives). So is this the

reason

> bhakti is also recommended by tantrik. As far as I know (it may be

> wrong) kali's idol standing on shiva was conceived and popularised

in

> bengal by a sadhaka called krishnananda agamvagisha. It was done so

> that people can more easily relate to her and worship becomes

easier

> for common people. So is bhakti included for making it popular?

>

> I have been thinking about this for some time. I think responses

from

> the members will be helpful.

>

> Regards

> Sumanta

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the responses. It was indeed helpful.

 

Sumanta

 

, "ganpra" <ganpra wrote:

>

> Let us take examples of different types of food and the respective

> cooks. Non-vegetarian and vegetarian (Indian).

>

> A delicious dish of chicken fried rice and a heavenly meal of naan

> and sabji. Are they different? Yes, they are. But do they serve the same purpose? Yes, both help satisfy the hunger of the people

> consuming them, and offer satisfaction to the tastebuds and a

> feeling of good after eating. Will everybody eat both? May be not.

> Depending on the food habits, digestive abilities, etc, might not be palatable for all the hungry people of India. Same way, tantra and bhakthi yoga are different and are not applicable to all. But, both serve the same goal of satisfying the spiritual hunger.

>>>>>