Riktanandanath's really long post

[Guest guest]

An old post (2007) of Devi Bhakta's that relates to

a segment of R.'s post, for those who might be interested:

 

/message/26809

 

And from the wikipedia article on Shaktism (with

significant contributions from DB):

 

'The Samaya or Samayacharya finds its roots in the work of the 16th-century

commentator Lakshmidhara, and is " fiercely puritanical [in its] attempts to

reform Tantric practice in ways that bring it in line with high-caste

brahmanical norms. " Many Samaya practitioners explicitly deny being either

Shakta or Tantric, though scholars argues that their cult remains technically

both. The Samaya-Kaula division marks " an old dispute within Hindu Tantrism, "

and one that is vigorously debated to this day. " '

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaktism

The quotes in the above bit are from Brooks.

 

, " riktanandanath " wrote

 

> The " samya " path that you talk of, is not a [...]

> historically authentic path at all in tantramarga,

> but a brahminical take on tantra [....]

> There is nothing called " samayachara "

> [....] [it] is actually " vedachara " or smarta

> brahminism [....] " samaya " was and is something

> that is pecualiar to only south-indian brahminical society.

>

[Guest guest]

<<<I still think you sound like one of those > Western Nath sorts. What

is your background/lineage, > that informs this (your) particular

viewpoint and attitude?>>>

 

 

My name, Jit Majumder -- which I use for signing off my posts and which

can be seen in my mail-id, should not be leaving any doubt as to whether

I am Indian or a " western nath sort " . Anyways, my background/lineage is

not important or relevant -- at least at the moment and in this thread.

As for my " attitude " , I would ask you to wait, read a sufficient number

of my posts or share and exchange thoughts with me for a reasonable

period of time, before you see fit to reach a conclusion about it,

instead of trying to understand the " viewpoint and attitude " of someone

whom you have never heard of before, just on the basis of one post or

one reply of his. I believe that can be done by anyone -- irrespective

of one's " background/ lineage " .

 

My I also request you to kindly consider any post (from me or anyone

else) in its whole, and not selectively pick out phrases or expressions

without taking into account the context in which those became a part of

my post. It does not take any skill really to do that. But its of no use

if you fail to place it in context.

 

Thanks -- Jit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " msbauju " <msbauju wrote:

>

> I still think you sound like one of those

> Western Nath sorts. What is your background/lineage,

> that informs this (your) particular viewpoint and attitude?

>

> , " riktanandanath "

jitmajumder212@ wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

<<<'The Samaya or Samayacharya finds its roots in the work of the

16th-century commentator Lakshmidhara, and is " fiercely puritanical [in

its] attempts to reform Tantric practice in ways that bring it in line

with high-caste brahmanical norms. " Many Samaya practitioners explicitly

deny being either Shakta or Tantric, though scholars argues that their

cult remains technically both. The Samaya-Kaula division marks " an old

dispute within Hindu Tantrism, " and one that is vigorously debated to

this day. " '>>>

 

 

 

Right on. " Samayachara " (whatever that means to its so-called

practitioners) is nowhere in the scheme of things, as far as hierarchy

of approaches in the authentic tantrik way of sadhana is concerned.

basically speaking, it is an attempt by brahminists at an intellectual

burglary, or an attempt to " usurp " tantra if you will -- and is peculiar

to only south India. The reason for that attempt has got several

historical factors as reasons, but the basic psychology or mindset

behind inventing this system of pseudo-tantra is like -- i will claim

tantra for myself, I will show myself as " doing tantra " , I will reach

for your tradition and grab for it, I will usurp it for myself, but I

wont do tantra the way it is, i wont accept tantra the way it is done, i

wont accept its worldview, its philosophy, its values and ideals, I will

instead try to lay claim on it, then to " adjust " it and " modify " it to

my liking, and will " do tantra " not its way, but will do it MY way. I

fancy myself as 'doing tantra " , but am not prepared or inclined to make

myself menatally intellectually and spiritually fit for that path.

 

samayachara is thus nothing but the same old brahminnical chauvinism,

and supremacist attitude, a forced imposition of superficial,

pussillanimous pseudo-morality on to the unique amoral worldview and

ideal of tantra. since tantra is all about going beyond artificial

constructs, about removing the very ideas of " evil " or " impurity " or

" sin " from our consciousness, about achieving a truly advaitic worldview

where one sees verything i9ncluding one's own plce in the scheme of

things in their *essence*, the very meaning of the word " tantra " loses

its meaning and ontological value, when these people try to claim that

their " samayachara " is a kind of " tantra " .

 

That has always been the mindset that results in the explicit denial of

being Shakta or Tantrik that you mention. it is also significant that

the " dispute " you mention has always come form their side -- since only

they have a collective vested interest in usurping Tantra in this

manner. While we Kaulas never bother with them or their harangues by

ourselves, it happens that due to their compulsive obssession, we have

to shut them up with facts and figures now and then, whenever they out

of habit come onto us. Other wise, as a kaula I can say -- we do not

really bother or oncern ourselves with them or their iverse obsession

with tantra and kaulas. that not our job. We neither start, nor invite

any debate, we just reply when they come to engage us. The dispute that

you speak of is essentially one-sided, and that dispute was their own

creation and remains their own burden to carry. From our side,

" 'disputing " with them is not at all a priority or even a routine job --

they and their centuries old collective obssessive-compulsive disorder

matter least in our scheme of things. Because historical facts as well

as the facts of the tradition itslef are in our side anyway.

 

 

thanks -- Jit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " msbauju " <msbauju wrote:

>

> An old post (2007) of Devi Bhakta's that relates to

> a segment of R.'s post, for those who might be interested:

>

[Guest guest]

Jit, it would be easier, I think, for many members of this forum to take you

seriously and try to take your comments in context if your posts were

somewhat less voluminous and inflammatory. While I appreciate the

perspective you bring here, length and insult don't tend to breed

understanding, because in email people tend to skim rather than read

in-depth.

And I beg to differ with you that your lineage and background are not

important. You are giving a lot of information from one perspective, giving

it authoritatively, and it's important to know the perspective from which

you speak. Where do these ideas come from? What informs your perspective?

Your sampradaya would certainly play a big role in that. Without speaking to

at least your current standpoint you appear to be speaking universally,

which is problematic when we're talking about the inherent heterodoxy of our

great tradition we call Tantra.

 

respectfully,

kulasundari

 

 

Sri Kamakhya Mahavidya Mandir

www.kamakhyamandir.org

 

 

On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:07 AM, riktanandanath <jitmajumder212

> wrote:

 

>

>

> <<<I still think you sound like one of those > Western Nath sorts. What

> is your background/lineage, > that informs this (your) particular

> viewpoint and attitude?>>>

>

> My name, Jit Majumder -- which I use for signing off my posts and which

> can be seen in my mail-id, should not be leaving any doubt as to whether

> I am Indian or a " western nath sort " . Anyways, my background/lineage is

> not important or relevant -- at least at the moment and in this thread.

> As for my " attitude " , I would ask you to wait, read a sufficient number

> of my posts or share and exchange thoughts with me for a reasonable

> period of time, before you see fit to reach a conclusion about it,

> instead of trying to understand the " viewpoint and attitude " of someone

> whom you have never heard of before, just on the basis of one post or

> one reply of his. I believe that can be done by anyone -- irrespective

> of one's " background/ lineage " .

>

> My I also request you to kindly consider any post (from me or anyone

> else) in its whole, and not selectively pick out phrases or expressions

> without taking into account the context in which those became a part of

> my post. It does not take any skill really to do that. But its of no use

> if you fail to place it in context.

>

> Thanks -- Jit.

>

> <%40>,

> " msbauju " <msbauju wrote:

> >

> > I still think you sound like one of those

> > Western Nath sorts. What is your background/lineage,

> > that informs this (your) particular viewpoint and attitude?

> >

> > <%40>,

> " riktanandanath "

> jitmajumder212@ wrote:

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Kulasundari,

 

The volume that you point to, was because of my choosing to take on the

points of several people at once in one single reply. that is directly

because I can give a limited amount of time and participation in the

forum. and the imflammatory part -- well, it is always the last thing

that I myself would want to do, but often on e-forums you do come across

a type of cyber-warriors who are only fit to be given " inflammatory "

replies, in fact, they ask for it.

 

As far as volume is concerned, hope you will agree that some answers on

some topics cannot be given in a few words -- and if one tries to give

laconic answers that may only bring forth more questions, or if the

questioner has no sufficient baskground info on the matter, he/she will

probably not make anything out of it. Also, more than often, if one is

required to answer all points in a particular post properly ( for

example this one from you), one has to write more than two or three

sentences. I am someone who does wnat to answer properly when I am

answering anything -- otherwise, if the other person says so, I have no

problems in being laconic and answering partially and vaguely.

 

Yes I agree that in e-mails people tend to skim. But I am not obviously

writing with skimmers in my mind in the first place. My lengthy

explanation regarding sacrifice would not have appeared in the first

place, had their not been a specific query first. And under normal

circumstances, nobody automatically suspects or foresees that the one

who had asked that question will receive the answer, only to react

ultimately with a predecided reaction. But there are those (maybe like

you) who will go through the whole thing (and can therefore in a

position to appreciate or not appreciate). I am participating only for

those who themselves are interested in participating. Also, judging from

the amount of responses my short-time participation has made possible, I

wonder whther the rest of them are shooting off mails addressed to

" Riktanandanath " -- without reading my voluminous posts and after just

skimming.

 

I also did not say that lineage and background are unimportant, what i

said very clearly was that *my* lineage and background are not relevant

*at this moment*. I cannot possibly say such a thing that lineage and

background are not important per se. Our tradition, as you will know

fully well, is guru-mukhi vidya, and what we know and learn comes from

our lineage. But in the present discussion, I want to, and want others

to, stick to the subjects matters that are discussed, and not go into

what *my* background is. Because someone's lineage or background by

themselves do not make his/her points, contents, information or

knowledge right or wrong. Questioning me or anybody else about my

lineage or background out of the blue, is just to deviate away from the

discussion and the subject. So you are not really differing with

anything that I did say, but only with what you thought I was implying.

You, being an initiated follower and a direct practitioner, (expectedly)

have the same standing and understanding that I have on the matter of

background and lineage.

 

The " ideas " that you speak of, are not my own, nor did I give birth to

them. The explantion that I gave regarding sacrifice is but what I

myself have learnt -- just like anybody learns or understands anything

-- through my own studies, my understanding of my tradition through

sadhana and training. But as far as this specific " ideas " -- that of the

explanation of sacrifice, I fail to see how it requires a bonefide

sadhak to understand it. It should be pretty elementary and obvious to

anybody who has some mind and intellect, and who does some reading and

research. You, others -- everyone should be having at least some -- if

not that much clear -- idea of what sacrifice is all about. The

explantion that I gave is the " explanation " as the Tantrik tradition,

the Shakta way, itself self-understands. I have not invented anything

out of thin air. There is no " perspective " or 'standpoint " of my own or

anybody else's -- that is THE significance and symbolism behind

sacrifice in shakta dharma -- worshipping Mula-Prakriti with her own

manifested forms, offering Life to the source of all Life. At least as

far as the explantion of sacrifice is concerned, one does not have to be

a sadhaka in some particualr lineage to be able to understand like that,

or explain like that. All that is need is the appetiate for knowledge

and understanding, and the habit to do some reading.

 

Lastly, the authority that you speak of, comes and will come from study

and knwoeldge and strong grounding in one's tradition. Speaking with

authority is nobody's monopoly -- you too, can speak authoritatively on

what you know well, and have taken the effort to be knowledgeable on.

The authority comes form the tradition, and one's (in his case mine)

grounding in and understanding of that tradition. It does not come from

the individuial that is me. Everyone is free to be authoritative in

their own right, and everyone is also free to not take that choice.

Grudging others their self-earned authority is no solution.

 

thanks & regards -- Jit.

 

 

 

 

 

, Kulasundari Devi <sundari

wrote:

>

> Jit, it would be easier, I think, for many members of this forum to

take you

> seriously and try to take your comments in context if your posts were

> somewhat less voluminous and inflammatory. While I appreciate the

> perspective you bring here, length and insult don't tend to breed

> understanding, because in email people tend to skim rather than read

> in-depth.

> And I beg to differ with you that your lineage and background are not

> important. You are giving a lot of information from one perspective,

giving

> it authoritatively, and it's important to know the perspective from

which

> you speak. Where do these ideas come from? What informs your

perspective?

> Your sampradaya would certainly play a big role in that. Without

speaking to

> at least your current standpoint you appear to be speaking

universally,

> which is problematic when we're talking about the inherent heterodoxy

of our

> great tradition we call Tantra.

>

> respectfully,

> kulasundari

>

>