> --- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jun 5, 2006, at 11:14 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
> >
> > > --- In [email protected], 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.
A friend I know asked him directly about tantra, so I'm replying
based on that response.
> 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.
Anythings possible. Have you ever met any renunciates in the practice
line of the Shankaracharya Order who practiced sexual tantra?
>
> > 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?
No, I'm just commenting based on what I do know and his line of
practice.
>
> 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.
What makes you think that excluding sexual tantra what not keep it
whole? You remove the relevant line of practice, wholeness still
remains. You have entire lines a practice that do not include sexual
practice and that's not a problem.
I think your answer lies in 'what types and styles of tantric
practice do we see aligned with the Shankaracharya tradition and the
Advaita Vedanta tradition.'
>
> > > 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.
Perhaps that was part of the role he acquired as part of his
administrative position of Shankaracharya, i.e. to promote Shankara's
tradition a la Smarta Brahmanism. I think you should consider that
what he really taught was outside this role.
>
> > > 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.)
It's possible he received transmission of Sri Vidya in this manner,
however there is no evidence that I am aware of he did receive such.
In fact, there is strong evidence that he was actually quite ignorant
of many details and was actually coached by both western scholars and
eastern pundits. There is also evidence that things he claimed to
have had revelations on were items he was coached on the night
before. In other words they were phony revelations. Indeed some of
the more prominent revelations of MMY are straight out of various
commentaries.
In other words, if he did claim to have received such revelation, I
(personally), would take it with a very large grain of salt. Imagine
the Bonneville salt flats. That big.
>
> > > 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?
From people who were there.
>
> >--but these were
> > essentially yoga-tantra (not Kaula or vama-marga practices, i.e.
> > sexual practices).
>
> And how do you know of this exclusion?
I am referring to the specific teaching I know he received. Of course
it is possible M. hangs out with Aghoris in cemeteries, worshiping on
top of dead corpses. Anything's possible, certain things are less
probable.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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?
No of course not, but there are specific reasons WHY Muktananda's
sexual escapades may have been him doing a tantric practice, and
these are pretty hard to dismiss if you are familiar with what he has
actually told some of the women and what he actually did sexually. Of
course it could also be an elaborate way to get screwed hidden under
the veneer of tantra.
Also, in the case of Sw. Rama, it's hard to believe he was practicing
tantra based on first hand accounts of people who had sex with him.
These are clearer claims. Mahesh's situation is less clear since I
know fewer technical details.
>
> > > 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?
We really don't have the details to know. Someone probably does--I do
not. I know enough.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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?
Huh?
>
> > >
> > > 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?
Of course.
>
> [not being argumentaitive, but seeking to unravel what we really know
> and what we don't really know -- things that are layers of myth.]
We DO know that renunciates in the Holy Shankaracharya Order do not
usually screw their students. In fact I think you'll find, women
sleep separately from the men and sexual contact is forbidden in
these ashrams and pithas.
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.
