"The actual yogas to do so are quite strenuous and not necessarily the same as reproductive or recreational sex. And just because the practices involve sex does not make them 'black magic'. Puritanical westerners have a real hard time getting this, but at the same time, such practices are also some of the most dangerous."
-- I have read several of Svoboda's book ,I understand the aghori. Sex does not make it black,using another human being for your own gain makes it black. One can practice making the semen or ohas rise upwards with a willing participant, not one of unequal position. And all the books I have read on uredveda, are talking about an erect penis, and mastering suction.While spending a long time inside the vagina and not ejaculating Muk did non of these. no egual partner no erection no nothing, but an old man taking advantage of his position of power anks, Rad --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Apr 23, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Bhairitu wrote: > > > Good points, Shemp and exactly what I was thinking. Unfortunately > > they > > only half read what I wrote and misconstrued things. I even asked my > > guru yesterday if Muktananda was a monk and he said probably not. If > > so he was not bound by any vows of celibacy. Keep in mind that > > India is > > a culture when grown men have for centuries married young girls as > > despicable as we westerners find it. Cultural differences come very > > much into play and must be understood here. I'm also not sure why he > > would have preached celibacy in a householder tradition other than > > there > > are some good ayurvedic correlations where excessive sex can > > derange vata. > > Well also the gurus in their alleged omniscient wisdom should also > have at least some awareness of the laws of the country they're in! > > In the case of Muktananda, when the NY state officials investigated > his death they found the gynecological stirrups Mukti used for women. > From the accounts I've read it does appear, if I'm objective, that > he was practicing a form of tantra that is supposedly best performed > on 16 year olds (according to the Hindu tantras). It sounds like he > was trying to perfect urdharetas. The reason this makes sense is that > he would then be able to give almost unlimited shaktipat. It is said > that Muktananda relied heavily on alchemical mercury provided by > various alchemists to be able to give so much shaktipat. If he had > perfected urdharetas, he would no longer needed to rely on such > practices. > > People should be aware that such practices do exist and, in fact, > some tantras in the early stages rely on celibacy but in the > completion stages rely on coitus (although not conventional sexual > pleasure) to work. The actual yogas to do so are quite strenuous and > not necessarily the same as reproductive or recreational sex. And > just because the practices involve sex does not make them 'black > magic'. Puritanical westerners have a real hard time getting this, > but at the same time, such practices are also some of the most > dangerous. > > Robbie Svoboda's paper on sexual tantra should be a first read for > anyone interested in such practices, as he's very clear on the level > of mastery required. >
