Tanrrik Vidhya

[Guest guest]

Can anyone eloborate what this tantrik vidhya is? I am told by one of

the astrologer that someone has done tantrik against me. I would like

to know what and how to know such thing and what are the remedies for

this nonsense tantrik " meli-vidhya " .

 

thanks in advance.

[Guest guest]

dear friend

 

tantra is not what is made out to be. anyway since this is a knowledge

sharing group, let me share with you that tantra is briefly divided

into two types viz. dakshina chara and vama chara. dakshina chara or

right hand tantra is satvik in nature and is most practiced by the

traditional conservative people. vama chara or left hand tantra is

tamasic in nature and is difficult to be practiced and hence is not

advised.

 

vedas have many verses where shat prayogas were mentioned and how to

get protected from them. prayogas are not known beforehand and are

discovered only after they happen.

 

pratyangira homam is supposed to be the best to ward off any prayogas

and sudarsana homam is the next best remedy. if you cannot afford to

do these havans, wearing a rudraksha will protect from all invisible

creatures and prayogas as mentioned in the scriptures. 12mukh

rudraksha is the best rudraksha which works as a protective shield to

the wearer from any prayogas.

 

with best wishes and blessings

pandit arjun

www.rudraksharemedy.com

 

, " Raja " <desi.raja wrote:

>

> Can anyone eloborate what this tantrik vidhya is? I am told by one of

> the astrologer that someone has done tantrik against me. I would like

> to know what and how to know such thing and what are the remedies for

> this nonsense tantrik " meli-vidhya " .

>

> thanks in advance.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Arjun ji and all,

Is it possible

to differentiate between Tantrik and non-Tantrik? Don’t we have a

superimposition

of Yantra, Tantra and Mantra in our minds and practices? How can we segregate?

We use tantra in yogic and mantra in tantra. What is meditation? Is it tantrik

or yogic? What is Vigyan Bairav Tantra then? Are they tantrik techniques for

self realisation as revealed to DEVI by Lord himself? May be tantra is the

oldest and most scientific and others are all sub branches.

Nevertheless, as we understand today, I

thought there were four acharas in the Tantrik Vidya. Apart from Dakshinachara

and Vamachara, don’t we have Samayachara and Kaulachara? If we leave

kaualachara which can be a mixture of all others, what about Samayachara which

refers to internal mode of worship, the fire rituals and the homas. Here homas

are performed as internal visualisations without external articles. Some

exponents have called it non-tantrik, but it is the most evolved and purest

form of Tantrik vidya. I find techniques like Reiki and Pranik healing as

offshoots of this Vidya.

Dakshinachara is

the bahya puja, meaning that one is worshiping something outside of oneself;

usually

a vigraham, i.e., an idol or yantra. In Kaulachara focus

turns to the human body itself as the microcosm that allows us to interface

with the Macrocosm. This is where many people who have no knowledge of the

subject get uncomfortable and the practices and methods have been abused in the

name of Tantrik Vidya.

The last Achara

is called the Vamachara tradition. In contrast to the other three Acharas

described here – which are based on the worship of the protective, nourishing,

healing kind of aspects of the Divine – the Vamachara tradition worships the

terrible aspects of the Divine, the laya pradhana, where dissolution is the

main aspect. It is dissolution of the upasaka into the ultimate, resulting in

absolute merger.

What we as

laymen follow today, is a mixture of everything. We follow some tantrik rituals

with some yogic kriyas and top it up with our religious fantasies. What is

nyasa? Isn’t it remnant of some tantrik ritual?

Tantrik Vidya however

is like a toolbox. The toolbox has tools which for the gross aspect, the subtle

aspect, and the supreme aspect. You reach in and take what you need for the job

at hand. Just because a certain tool is in there, doesn't mean you need to pull

it out for every job. It's quite likely, in fact, that one will *never* need to

use most of these tools. But they are there in case we do.

Tantrik

techniques were so potent that they had to be protected from masses otherwise

they could be misused. Atom bombs and can't be put into the hands of ignorant.

Most of the

tantrik vidya seems to have been lost now. Whatever leftovers are there, should

only be learnt under a proper master and the practices best performed under

guidance.

Now in modern

parlance – here’s what Osho tries to explain to a common man:

The devil

creates sin and God creates the devil. Then who is the real sinner -- the devil

or God? But the dualist conception always leads to such absurdities. For tantra

God and the devil are not two. For tantra there is nothing that can be called

" devil " , everything is divine, everything is holy. And this seems to

be the right standpoint, the deepest. If anything is unholy in this world, from

where does it come and how can it be? So a tantra is nondualist.

That is why Tantra

has always been misunderstood. It is so deep and so high that it is normal that

people will misunderstand it. Also because tantra moves beyond duality, its

very standpoint is amoral. We understand morality, we understand immorality,

but it becomes difficult if something is amoral -- beyond both.

Tantra is

amoral. Like a medicine which is amoral; it is neither moral nor immoral. If

you give it to a thief it will help; if you give it to a saint it will help. It

will make no differentiation between a thief and a saint. The medicine cannot

say, " This is a thief so I am going to kill him, and this is a saint so I

am going to help him. " A medicine is a scientific thing. Your being a

thief or being a saint is irrelevant. So is tantra. It is only like a mechanism,

it works for everyone. Tantra gives us scientific techniques for changing the

mind, and once the mind is different your character will be different.

There are two

paths, yoga and tantra. Tantra could not be so appealing because of our crippled

minds. But whenever there is someone who is healthy inside, not a chaos, tantra

has a beauty. Only he can understand what tantra is. Yoga has appeal, an easy

appeal, because of our disturbed minds.

For those who

are psychologically male -- aggressive, violent, extrovert -- yoga is the path.

For those who are basically feminine, receptive, passive, non-violent, tantra

is the path. For tantra, Mother Kali, Tara, and so many DEVIS, BHAIRAVIS --

female deities -- are very significant. In yoga one does not have a feminine

deity. Tantra has feminine deities; yoga has male gods. Yoga is outgoing

energy; tantra is energy moving inwards.

Behind the colourful

symbolism of tantra is deep wisdom coupled with practical methods for realising

oneself. Let us not wait for the west to publish ‘Tantra for Dum(b)ees’ to

realize

the true worth of our ancient heritage and let us start seeing things in the

right perspective.

Regards

Apoorva

 

 

 

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to

http://messenger./invite/

 

 

[Guest guest]

Very well written. Thanks

 

Regards

 

Dasgupta

 

On Behalf Of Apoorva K

Tuesday, December 16, 2008 1:31 PM

Re: Re: Tanrrik Vidhya

 

 

Dear Arjun ji and all,

 

Is it possible to differentiate between Tantrik and non-Tantrik? Don’t we

have a superimposition of Yantra, Tantra and Mantra in our minds and practices?

How can we segregate?

 

We use tantra in yogic and mantra in tantra. What is meditation? Is it tantrik

or yogic? What is Vigyan Bairav Tantra then? Are they tantrik techniques for

self realisation as revealed to DEVI by Lord himself? May be tantra is the

oldest and most scientific and others are all sub branches.

 

Nevertheless, as we understand today, I thought there were four acharas in the

Tantrik Vidya. Apart from Dakshinachara and Vamachara, don’t we have

Samayachara and Kaulachara? If we leave kaualachara which can be a mixture of

all others, what about Samayachara which refers to internal mode of worship, the

fire rituals and the homas. Here homas are performed as internal visualisations

without external articles. Some exponents have called it non-tantrik, but it is

the most evolved and purest form of Tantrik vidya. I find techniques like Reiki

and Pranik healing as offshoots of this Vidya.

 

Dakshinachara is the bahya puja, meaning that one is worshiping something

outside of oneself; usually a vigraham, i.e., an idol or yantra. In Kaulachara

focus turns to the human body itself as the microcosm that allows us to

interface with the Macrocosm. This is where many people who have no knowledge of

the subject get uncomfortable and the practices and methods have been abused in

the name of Tantrik Vidya.

 

The last Achara is called the Vamachara tradition. In contrast to the other

three Acharas described here – which are based on the worship of the

protective, nourishing, healing kind of aspects of the Divine – the Vamachara

tradition worships the terrible aspects of the Divine, the laya pradhana, where

dissolution is the main aspect. It is dissolution of the upasaka into the

ultimate, resulting in absolute merger.

 

What we as laymen follow today, is a mixture of everything. We follow some

tantrik rituals

with some yogic kriyas and top it up with our religious fantasies. What is

nyasa? Isn’t it remnant of some tantrik ritual?

 

Tantrik Vidya however is like a toolbox. The toolbox has tools which for the

gross aspect, the subtle aspect, and the supreme aspect. You reach in and take

what you need for the job at hand. Just because a certain tool is in there,

doesn't mean you need to pull it out for every job. It's quite likely, in fact,

that one will *never* need to use most of these tools. But they are there in

case we do.

 

Tantrik techniques were so potent that they had to be protected from masses

otherwise they could be misused. Atom bombs and can't be put into the hands of

ignorant. Most of the

tantrik vidya seems to have been lost now. Whatever leftovers are there,

should only be learnt under a proper master and the practices best performed

under guidance.

 

Now in modern parlance – here’s what Osho tries to explain to a common

man:

The devil creates sin and God creates the devil. Then who is the real sinner

-- the devil or God? But the dualist conception always leads to such

absurdities. For tantra God and the devil are not two. For tantra there is

nothing that can be called " devil " , everything is divine, everything is holy.

And this seems to be the right standpoint, the deepest. If anything is unholy in

this world, from where does it come and how can it be? So a tantra is

nondualist.

 

That is why Tantra has always been misunderstood. It is so deep and so high

that it is normal that people will misunderstand it. Also because tantra moves

beyond duality, its very standpoint is amoral. We understand morality, we

understand immorality, but it becomes difficult if something is amoral -- beyond

both.

 

Tantra is amoral. Like a medicine which is amoral; it is neither moral nor

immoral. If you give it to a thief it will help; if you give it to a saint it

will help. It will make no differentiation between a thief and a saint. The

medicine cannot say, " This is a thief so I am going to kill him, and this is a

saint so I am going to help him. " A medicine is a scientific thing. Your being a

thief or being a saint is irrelevant. So is tantra. It is only like a mechanism,

it works for everyone. Tantra gives us scientific techniques for changing the

mind, and once the mind is different your character will be different.

 

There are two paths, yoga and tantra. Tantra could not be so appealing because

of our crippled minds. But whenever there is someone who is healthy inside, not

a chaos, tantra

has a beauty. Only he can understand what tantra is. Yoga has appeal, an easy

appeal, because of our disturbed minds.

 

For those who are psychologically male -- aggressive, violent, extrovert --

yoga is the path.

 

For those who are basically feminine, receptive, passive, non-violent, tantra

is the path. For tantra, Mother Kali, Tara, and so many DEVIS, BHAIRAVIS --

female deities -- are very significant. In yoga one does not have a feminine

deity. Tantra has feminine deities; yoga has male gods. Yoga is outgoing energy;

tantra is energy moving inwards.

 

Behind the colourful symbolism of tantra is deep wisdom coupled with practical

methods for realising oneself. Let us not wait for the west to publish ‘Tantra

for Dum(b)ees’ to realize the true worth of our ancient heritage and let us

start seeing things in the right perspective.

 

 

Regards

Apoorva

 

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to

http://messenger./invite/