emptybill wrote:
> he also imparted much of the Vedika view of values.
> According to him, the Tantrika view was that the
> universe was actualized by limitless shakti-s that
> structured its being, patterns and interactions.
>
Your teacher may have been confused. As a Buddhist tantric you would be
knowing that there's no "shakti" mentioned in Tibetan Buddhism. According
to my guru, The Lama, there is wisdom and means; male - female polarity,
but the female is the wisdom aspect and the male aspect is means,
represented by the Tibetan vajra and bell respectively.

The vajra is representative of upaya (skilful means) whereas its companion
tool, the bell which is a female symbol, denotes prajna (wisdom).

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


On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 3:11 PM, <emptyb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Actually, you have no idea what you are talking about
> .
> As you know, I had a ritvikâcharya teach me mahârudrâbhishekam. Over a
> period of 5-6 years he also imparted much of the Vedika view of values.
> According to him, the Tantrika view was that the universe was actualized by
> limitless shakti-s that structured its being, patterns and interactions.
>
> The only thing he wouldn't yield about was teaching me the mechanics of
> agni-hotra (although he performed one for me at the installation of my
> shiva-lingam). I believe he considered me too far from being a renouncer
> and therefore prone to get into trouble with an agni-hotra ... all because
> if done properly, the yajñamana receives the results quickly and decisively.
>
>
>
> You also forget that I have a Vajrayana Tantric and Dzogchen teacher.
> Certainly different practices but when he first saw my altar he pointed to
> the traditionally carved shiva lingam and commented “original Tantra”.
>
>
>
> All this means that your evaluation is a parody of a Willy-ism - which is
> as much value as I can give it.
>
>  
>

Reply via email to