Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Some scholars state that Sri Caitanya is a typical Tantric god. Advaita Acarya invoked Him with Ganga's water, mantras and tulasi leaves following the Tantric system and dismissed Him by sending Him a letter in Puri according the rules on how to dismiss Tantric vibhutis. For certain that is not scholars' exclusive viewpoint, as anyone who has a little understanding of Tantra will attain the same conclusion on Sri Caitanya avatara. In Tantra god is the combined aspect of male and female. All saktis came from the male aspect who is the potent but not the potency. The male and female counterpart are eternally in sexual activities. Devotes want to serve these sexual activities and feel the orgasm that they call prema. In Gaudiya's Tantra the worship of Radha is a sakta worship of the female aspect of the Tantric god, very common in Bengal's heritage. Krsna is worship as the male aspect of this Tantric god. This is purest Tantra. It has nothing to do with Vedanta no matter how hard they try to proof otherwise. That's why they can never quote any Vedic evidence on Radha, Caitanya and all of their thesis, and methods of worship coming from sruti texts, itihasas and sattvik-smrtis. In this kind of Tantra one should adopt a dvaita philosophy, since one may observe dualism to worship separately the male aspect and the female aspect of the Tantric God, or even His combined aspect as Caitanya. That is why they are so averse to advaita-vada in all of its forms, that sees no dualism in Hari's aspect and this kind of result (orgasm as felt by the female aspect, krsna-prema) would be impossible to be attained. This kind of Tantric god is not a new creation. It is actually very ancient. One may find His evidences in the temples at Khajuraho, in Vaisnava Maha-Tantra, Pañcaratras, and many Agamas. So, they have a Tantric god, that must to be dual. But the Vedic god is non-dual. Trying to harmonize both conceptions of God they made the philosophy of acintya-bedha-abheda-tattva. But obviously no one can find any evidence in sruti about a hybrid god like that. Tantra literally means "to expand the mind". Tantric teachings allow a person to experience the "absolute" through excess of the flesh. Recent sex gurus have tarnished the purity of Tantra, but the ideal of a Tantric society is the one where the mind and body were in unison with the spirit. A society in which art and science combined happily with spirituality and sexuality. A society that believe in dealing frankly and openly with all aspects of life, including sex. Sex too has a role to play in life, over or under representation of sex is eventually harmful to any society. Frank depiction of uninhibited sex speaks of a liberated society which is open minded in its views concerning sex and sexuality. Tantric Texts seems to graphically and realistically illustrated scenes of love. All aspects of love, from seduction to copulation, enticement to separation are carefully described. Tantra does not deny any aspect of life, because that would mean denial of God himself. It finds the divine spark in both beauty and ugliness, transcending both, desire and aversion, is its ultimate goal. Tantric cosmos is divided in to the male and female principle. Male principle has the form and potential, female has the energy. According Tantric philosophy, one can not achieve anything without the other, as they manifest themselves in all aspects of the universe. Nothing can exist without their co-operation and coexistence. Hence, the whole universe is based on the union of male and female, why feel ashamed of it! The bliss and joy of a union between soul and god is so intense, it is almost impossible to describe this feeling except as an intense and prolonged orgasm. In the ultimate union, one sees love overflowing the body and soul. According to Tantra, sexual enjoyment is complementary to the moral, material and spiritual well-being of a person. Sex is as natural as sunshine and rain, as food and drink, as sight and scent. It is not something to be hidden in shame and then brooded on with guilt. Pleasure is as essential as food for our existence, yet it must be pursued with moderation and caution. The whole point of Tantras is to regulate and become perfect masters of sex, rather than be a slave to it. Enjoyment is an essential step to renunciation, as detachment is achieved only by going through and overcoming all attachments. So, Sri Caitanya is the perfect Tantric God, were the male (potential ) principle and the female (active) principle are both combined in an eternal orgasm called mahabhava. Very interesting indeed, but then there was the Muslim and also the Christian influence during the medieval India. Part of this Tantric god was somewhat mutilated. Nowadays the theology by Bhaktivinoda Thakura and the saffron police created by Gaudiya-math has castrated this Tantric god. If one is to relish this Tantric god the only way seems to drive by the old and nasty sahajiya road. If one is seeking after any evidence from sruti on a Tantric god he is simply wasting his time. One will never find any relationship with a Tantric god and Hari in sruti texts. Many of Gaudiya gurus are very clear in that point: Tantra is the basis of all of Gaudiyas practices, beliefs and aim. Sruti text and smrti text are only interpolations into Tantric-god's organism. A basic understanding on Tantra may be fond in the 'Vaisnava Maha-Tantra' that is a supplement of Narada Purana. A very clear and scientific approach on all kind of Tantras, tamasic, rajasic and sattvic. In essence Tantra explains you that one may invoke vaibhavas, or the powers given by the saktis of the vibhuti. No one but Siva may invoke a vibhuti (saktiman), what to say the maha-vibhuti (Supreme Saktiman). According Tantras one may invoke all kinds of vaibhavas, or simple bhavas given by very powerful saktis such as Devi, Lalita, Radha, and so on. One may have some their attributes, aspects, feelings, etc. by Tantric methods. But these are not the real mystic experience that one may have when he faces Hari, that cannot be invoked by Tantra (only Siva can do it, not even Brahma). So, what kind of mystic experience is that krsna-prema? It is only the orgasm that the saktis may have while dealing with their vibhutis. It is not the same experience described by Vedic (orthodox) seers such as Tulsidas, Vallabhacarya, Mirabai, Surdas, San Juan de La Cruz and countless others. Therefore one may easily conclude that the whole system as taught by Gaudiya-vaisnavas will lead to another aim, that is not exactly union with Hari. They consider such union as undesirable, as sayujiya-mukti, because their aim is to attain sakti and not saktiman. So, they are saktas, not real Vaisnavas. Vaisnavas are seeking after Hari, not after Hari's saktis. Any comment on that thesis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauracandra Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 I don't know a whole lot about the Tantric philosophy but I do believe they reject the idea of liberation from this material world. My understanding is that to them, this material creation is all there is, with nothing beyond it. One can never escape the cycles of birth and death, as such one should seek to control this universe knowing full well the karmic reactions which will befall them in future lives. To them its like surfing the ocean. You can take the small waves and have a little fun, or take the big waves with lots of exhiliration and then be smacked down hard when it crashes. I know I'm not doing justice to the Tantric philosophies, but perhaps someone else can share their ideas. Gauracandra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 Some scholars state that Sri Caitanya is a typical Tantric god. Advaita Acarya invoked Him with Ganga's water, mantras and tulasi leaves following the Tantric system and dismissed Him by sending Him a letter in Puri according the rules on how to dismiss Tantric vibhutis. This is pretty off the wall. Ganga water, tulasi and mantras have nothing to do with the tantric tradition, any more than they have to do with any Vedic tradition. Actually they have less to do with the tantric tradition. I could understand someone saying this if Advaita Acharya invoked Sri Chaitanya with the pancha-ma-kara (fish, meat, liquor, grain, and union). The fact is there is absolutely no connection between the tantric rituals and Sri Chaitanya. There are few who have studied or belong to the traditional tantrik path. But there are many who write and speak on tantra nowadays. As a result there is a great misconception as to what is tantra, and what are the principles of tantra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa: So, they are saktas, not real Vaisnavas. Vaisnavas are seeking after Hari, not after Hari's saktis. Any comment on that thesis? They (Gaudiyas) may be construed as being not real Vaishnavas because they are seen to worship Radha as the Shakti of Krishna. The orthodox Vaishnavas only recognise Rukmini as Krishna's Shakti (cf Lakshmi and Narayan; Sita and Rama etc). Whether categorising the Gaudiyas as Shaktas is appropriate or fruitful is moot. Frankly a lot of the thesis that you present seems to be fishing in troubled waters with a load of different baits. What is the intended Catch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagat Posted June 16, 2001 Report Share Posted June 16, 2001 Originally posted by talasiga: Frankly a lot of the thesis that you present seems to be fishing in troubled waters with a load of different baits. What is the intended Catch? I rather agree with this. "Typical Tantric deity". What is a typical tantric deity? And how is Mahaprabhu fit anything in that category? I don't think there is any evidence anywhere of an "avatar" being identified as a Tantric deity, especially not a male. Another point is that the Hindu tradition is so mixed up with Vedic and Tantric elements that there is almost no real meaning to the word Tantric except to describe the five practices that are so detested by the orthodox. Thus the word itself has a misleading aspect to it. Speculation about male and female elements in creation is very old and can be found in the Upanishads, Sankhya, Yoga, Buddhism, Taoism, Alchemy, Sufism, etc. In short, almost every mystic tradition has some kind of speculation based on sexuality. Jagat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jijaji Posted June 16, 2001 Report Share Posted June 16, 2001 Mahanirvana Tantra Tantra of the Great Liberation Translated by Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodroffe) [1913] on-line version... http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/maha/index.htm ------------------ PEACE NOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted June 16, 2001 Report Share Posted June 16, 2001 Re: "Peace Now" Why do keep saying this, Jijaji? What about afterwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted June 16, 2001 Report Share Posted June 16, 2001 Now is not static. It is from moment to moment. And so, it is always valid. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Originally posted by shvu: Now is not static. It is from moment to moment. And so, it is always valid. Cheers you have posted a paradox The very essence of Now is beyond movement, In stillness beyond time Beyond judgement it is Incomparable, how can Shvu assess its validity or otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 The very essence of Now is beyond movement, In stillness beyond time, Beyond judgement it is Incomparable That is a poetic description. Let us not bother about "beyond judgement" concepts. When a person says now, it means in the present. If someone tells you something like "I will do it now", you don't tell him that now is a paradox and beyond judgement, do you? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amanpeter Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Now now, prabhus... ------------------ No offense meant to anyone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jijaji Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Originally posted by talasiga: Re: "Peace Now" Why do keep saying this, Jijaji? What about afterwards? OH............... peace off! ------------------ PEACE NOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Originally posted by shvu: If someone tells you something like "I will do it now", you don't tell him that now is a paradox and beyond judgement, do you? Cheers Of course not!Nor would you say to them, "Now is not static. It is always valid", would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Originally posted by jijaji: OH............... peace off! Jijaji! If someone makes a joke Of course you may grin But must you bare your teeth? Peace Always Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jijaji Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Originally posted by talasiga: Jijaji! If someone makes a joke Of course you may grin But must you bare your teeth? Peace Always lighten up dude..no baring of teeth..I was making a joke as well.. ------------------ PEACE NOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Of course not! Nor would you say to them, "Now is not static. It is always valid", would you? Point accepted. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Originally posted by jijaji: ...baring of teeth.. Jijaji! I am just jealous of your teeth because I have to wear dentures No matter how genuine my smiles They are always false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Sruti (Veda, Upanisada, Vedanta) texts sing on the intuitive knowledge one should acquire in order to get a glimpse of the Absolute Truth, who is a non-dual substance. Seers who had realized this Ultimate Reality described It as threefold: Brahma, Paramatma and Bhagavan according the unique and individual aspects of the realization attained by the seer himself. These sruti texts do not designate that Absolute Truth to be so and so with such and such shape or size or format, but show you your own way to realize that Ultimate Reality. Technically the term " Philosophy " may not be identifiable with any philosophical systems in a Western concept. That is why they are called " Darsanas , ( visualizations, conceptualizations ) because each of them is interrelated and interpolated. According the traditional concept these "darsanas" have been brought into limelight by the three Acaryas who are called "Tri-mata-acaryas"; Adi Sankara ---Advaita --- Non-Dualism; Ramanuja ----Visista Advaita -- qualified Non-dualism; Madhva ----- Dvaita --- Dualism. All darsanas agree that these sruti mantras are not employed in rituals, hence taken as philosophic treatises. There is a great difference between philosophy's Absolute and religion's God. The God aspect is not vividly described in sruti, but because there is an Absolute Truth present as ' a priori ' it is decided that He must be the God, or the Supreme Rituals and religion are ruled by Tantras. Not by sruti. Tantras will establish the mantras, yantras, and all the other process on how to attain an istadeva, a qualified God. The Tantric god should have aspect, form, abode, and they should be vividly described in the literature originated from that Tantra. This is the religion's God. One may argue; "Is this Ultimate Reality attained by this Tantra?" The answer is no. Never. This Tantric god is worshiped according vaidhi-bhakti, or maryada-marga, the path of rules and regulations prescribed by smrti and Tantras. But even the proposers of vaidhi-marga state that only raga-marga or pusti-marga (spontaneous devotion) may cause the realization of this Ultimate Reality. At a stage of the path, such rules and regulations should be abandoned. The Tantra will vanish forever. It is not perenial. Some acaryas such as Sri Rupa and the other Gaudiya Goswamis from Vrindavana argue that rules and regulations may act as a platform for raganuga-bhakti in their sect. Other acaryas such as Vallabhacarya simply had abolished all sort of vaidhi-marga (maryada-marga) such as ekadasi vow, worship of tulasi, hanirana, vaisnava dress, tilaka marks, and so on and he has proposed only pusti-marga (the path of grace) to his sect. Some great maha-janas not even had establish any sect, but they actually have more followers than any sect or sampradaya, such as Mirabai, for example. Do you know something about her? Hers teachings and way of life? Her devotion? Her example of devotion would minimize Sri Caitanya's in many aspects. One should also learn the path and the realization attained by Tulsidas, Surdas, Kabir, San Juan de La Cruz, and many others seers who had attained the utmost realization of the Absolute Truth in His personal aspect, and hear from their conclusions. It is foolish to imagine that a single darsana or a sect can give one the perfect and full realization of the Absolute Truth. [This message has been edited by Satyaraja dasa (edited 06-18-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Yes Satyaraja, back to the thread. Forgive the humourous interludes Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa: It is foolish to imagine that a single darsana or a sect can give one the perfect and full realization of the Absolute Truth. All roads lead to Rome but one need not travel them all to reach there! Roma Now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Thanx for the saying Talasingaji, but there is another one: 'If Mohamed does not go to the mountain, the mountain goes to Mahamed.' Sruti's conclusion is that Hari gives His realization to the ones He choices. By His absolute selfsh free will and by nothing else. So we can also state that no path leads to Hari, and at the same time that all paths leads to Hari, as there is nothing than Hari. So, what is the path? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa: Seers who had realized this Ultimate Reality described It as threefold: Brahma, Paramatma and Bhagavan according the unique and individual aspects of the realization attained by the seer himself. 1. Seers acknowledge that "Ultimate Reality" is beyond description. It may be more precise and HELPFUL to say that Seers described their EXPERIENCE of It as xyz etc (eg Sat Chid Ananda or Sat Chid Ananda Vigraha). 2. Your typo in rendering Brahman as "Brahma" will confuse many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animesh Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Why do we use the word Brahman even though it is pronounced as Brahm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa: According the traditional concept these "darsanas" have been brought into limelight by the three Acaryas who are called "Tri-mata-acaryas"; Adi Sankara ---Advaita --- Non-Dualism; Ramanuja ----Visista Advaita -- qualified Non-dualism; Madhva ----- Dvaita --- Dualism. They are brought together under the Moonlight as Footprints by the Jamuna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa: All darsanas agree that these sruti mantras are not employed in rituals, hence taken as philosophic treatises. For their unified exegesis, all three Darsanas refer, as their primary scriptural authority, to the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedanta Sutras. Here is a "sruti mantra" from Isha Upanishad, often used in the Agni Hotra RITUAL when offering hawan samagri: Aum agne naye supathaa raaye asmaan vishvaani deva vayunaani vidvaan yuyodhi asmaj juhu raana meno bhooyish tthaante nama ukteem vidhema Svaahaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talasiga Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa: There is a great difference between philosophy's Absolute and religion's God. The God aspect is not vividly described in sruti, but because there is an Absolute Truth present as ' a priori ' it is decided that He must be the God, or the Supreme Yes, of course there is - one is theory and the other is Real. The philosophers' Absolute is the discursive conclusion that invites the Grace of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts