>
>
> On Jun 5, 2006, at 1:15 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
>
> > So what is yours (and Bhairitu's) take on MMY and other teachers
> > reported sexual encounters, with regards to tantra? Do you feel there
> > was some reasonable probability, or not, that there was some tantric
> > practice type use of sexual energy involved?
>
>
> In M's case there is no indication that there was any tantric
> practice involved
and were there indications there were not? I am getting at, how much
does anyone but the girls know about what happened behind closed door.
And (this is not an apologetic comment, rather exploratory) could M
have been doing stuff the girls were not aware of? That is, tantra
from his side, regular sex from theirs?
> nor that M. even practices such methods. Indeed his
> emphasis has always been on Veda rather than tantra. So I'd give it
> zero probablility in this case.
But I thought you have been saying a lot of his methods are tantric,
not vedic, regardless of what he calls them. And aren't there
indications that SBS practiced things tantric? Is Sri Vidyha tantric?
Can a student "get it" (things tantric) via transmission? Before or
after the master drops his mortal coil? Did Tat Walla Baba practice
tantra? M was close to him.
>
> Muktananda is something entirely different--he appears to have
> mastered Vajroli or some similar technique. That's not to justify the
> using of young women as unwitting participants in your sexual
> practice as a good thing, but merely to point out what he was
> probably involved in. He most likely needed these methods to be able
> to continue iving shaktipat to groups of people (something rather
> untraditional in and of itself).
>
> Swami Rama, although a great adept in Inner Tantra, appears to not
> have been using it for practice either, but for satisfaction, control
> and release.
"appears" is an interesting word. Appears to whom? (Same questions as
for M. above.) Also, a tantric may engage in sex to detatch
him/herself from it, to condition identifications to diety and not
body. Assuming we had videos, would the latter be apparent and not sex
for for satisfaction, control and release? And who watched? That is,
to whom was his activity in bed manifest?
> Kalu Rinpoche does appear to have actually chosen a "mudra", a sexual
> consort, but the women he chose seems to have confused that with a
> normal romantic relationship (it is not). It was to be the
> culmination of his sadhana.
"Appears" again. Could all that simply be a front for raw sensual sex?
If you saw MDG OR (NOT AND) Bhairu having sex (I am just training your
mind to not be conditioned to environment, thoughts, like the cemetary
thing, etc. :)) , would you assume either is engaged in raw sensual
sex with their female partners -- with a tantric veneer for
appearances? Or, the opposite, that is engaged in a deep sadhana? That
is, do appaearances necessarily have much to do with the inner and
underlying reality?
I suppose you could pull the "one knows the other" defense -- popular
here at late. That is, "a trantric master knows another tantric master
so its obvious if you 'KNOW'". But I was hoping for answers more
substantive.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Religion and spirituality | Maharishi mahesh yogi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
