>
>
> On Jun 5, 2006, at 11:14 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 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?
>
> Based on what I've heard he said (i.e. his dismissive attitude
> towards tantra)
What specifically have you heard? I never heard him mention tantra --
that I can recall.
But I did hear him make cautionary or dismissive comments on Jyotish,
ayurveda, etc, and later strongly endorse them. My sense is prior
negative statements were to "wait until the time is right" rather than
i) not know anything about them, or ii) beleiving they had no value.
> I would doubt it. Of course it is possible he was
> practicing tantra, but IMO, highly improbable.
Again, why. Were you that close to him? Sitting around yagya pit under
the full mmoon, trading yogi stories?
He used to sing bajans in his bathtub. (per people attending to his
needs). Was that "highly improbable" to you given his outward teachings?
> > > 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.
>
> The word *tantra* does not necessarily infer *sexual*. Yes, the TM
> mantras are tantric in origin, but not in a sexual sense.
Yes, amd the word tantra does not exclude the sexual,even if its only
a small part. So his REAL emphasis has NOT always been on Veda rather
than tantra. Why would you presume he only took on SOME partial
tantric knowledge and not the WHOLEness of it? If anything MMY goes
for the Wholeness.
> > And aren't there
> > indications that SBS practiced things tantric?
>
> Indeed he did. I've received practice in SBS's line of transmission,
> however none of those practices involved sex.
Just because he didn't practice the sexual practices, being a life
celibate, that in no way indicates that he did not have knowledge of
such, and could not pass them on when appropriate. I have heard he --
being a "world teacher" taught those of all faiths (including muslims
and christians) giving them things that would help them in their
paths. EVEN though he did not practice such.
> > Is Sri Vidyha tantric?
>
> Yes, highest yoga tantra.
>
> > Can a student "get it" (things tantric) via transmission?
>
> Well, it depends what you mean by *transmission*. In some lineages
> you always receive a transmission before you practice, that's your
> "initiation" and permission to do the practice.
I mean even if you assume SBS did not much explicitly andverbally
share his tantric knowledge with MMY, could a disciple, later in an
awakened state, receive such knowledge by"transmission" or simply
placing attention on their master? (I "GET" stuff by placing attention
on saints -- those currently in and out of mortal coil. So I know its
a valid means of insight.)
> > Before or
> > after the master drops his mortal coil? Did Tat Walla Baba practice
> > tantra? M was close to him.
>
> Presumably yoga, no?
>
> I do know that M. has received tantric transmission
How do you know this?
>--but these were
> essentially yoga-tantra (not Kaula or vama-marga practices, i.e.
> sexual practices).
And how do you know of this exclusion?
> >
> > >
> > > 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.)
>
> To me and others who've commented.
So its just appearance. Appearances are always true? Appearances are
always pure SAT?
> > 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?
> It might of[sic, or] might not be apparent. Some of the methods used
are quite
> strenuous and therefore more "obvious" to an innocent, ahem,
> bystander. Therefore it would depend on which method was being used
> (*if* a method was being used).
So are you clear M would never practice the less strenuous?
> >
> >
> > > 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?
>
> In the case of Kalu Rinpoche, of course it *could* be, but it is also
> a logical conclusion of the path he was known to be on to practice
> with a karma-mudra (i.e. a sexual consort).
Same with MDG. Same sadhana?
> >
> > 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?
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> >
> > 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.
> It is true that the style of moving energy would be apparent to one
> who had practiced it.
And could it also be true that the style of moving energy might NOT
be apparent to one who had NOT practiced it? Do you believe many if
any (Ned, Casey, Rob, Billy, Shannon, Louis, Johnny, etc. ) then, at
that time, had practiced that style of moving energy and could easily
recognize it? Or since none claim such practices, is it possible they
MISSED seeing it in others?
[not being argumentaitive, but seeking to unravel what we really know
and what we don't really know -- things that are layers of myth.]
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.
