On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:46 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 5, 2006, at 1:00 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> And what specifically was MMY's response. It had to be more than "I am
> dismissive of that".

It was not very approving.

> > > 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 didn't ask them. But why does that directly have anything to do
> with" "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."

To show how improbable it would be to see  'this tantric sexual 
knowledge brought out'. Jyotish, Ayurveda, etc. has been taught side-
by-side with the tradition he comes from for a long, long time. 
Sexual tantra has not.

Therefore it's unreasoable to expect that to happen--esp. from 
someone who claims to be a monk.

> > >
> > > > 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.
> OK. You find things "highly improbable" and "zero probablility in this
> case" on weak evidence.

I see no evidence that M. ever practiced sexual aspects of tantra!

> >
> > Yes, amd the word tantra does not exclude the sexual,even if its 
> > a small part. So his REAL emphasis has NOT always been on Veda 
> > 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.

> That was not my intended meaning.
> Let me try again to see if this is clearer:
> "Yes, and the word tantra does not exclude the sexual, even if its
> only a small possible part of it. Given MMY had external teachings
> that refelcted things tantric, why do you presume he did not also have
> energetic, including kundalini and sexual, knowledge of tantra? I am
> not claiming he did, but maybe its sort of a "smoking gun". (hahaha,
> that pun just unfolded.)

Because the style of tantra which would contain those teachings would 
be ones we would be very unlikely to have an interest in based on his 
what his other spiritual interests seem to be. I think you have to 
understand that the practices we're talking about contain 
*transgressive practices*, in other words they are going to have 
practices built into them which would be considered a violation of 
"natural law". One of the reasons there there is to blow away your 
conceptions--another is to keep certain people out.

>You have entire lines a practice that do not include sexual
> practice and that's not a problem .

Yes. No argument.

> 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.'

> Well while it may not (or may) be part of the Shankaracharian
> tradition and the  Advaita Vedanta traditions (Isn't Brahman which is
> EVERYTHING part of those traditions :) )

Brahman in tantra? Find me a quote if you think it is.

> , but appartntly explicit
> tantric couplings in temples and on temple walls indicates that sexual
> tantric practices are part of Indian religious traditions.

Certain styles and lines of tantra.

> And the Shiva lingum, while much more, has no sexual refences or
> antecedants?

It's pre-Vedic. But it also has different meanings at different 
levels, e.g. the koshas for an Advaitin.

> >
> > > > And aren't there
> > > > indications that SBS practiced things tantric?
> > >
> > > Indeed he did. I've received practice in SBS's line of 
> > > however none of those practices involved sex.

> They postively and absolutley did not include union with the Goddess?

Not in the teaching I received.

> And is 1000 Heaeded Purusha related to shankaracharian andavaitian
> traditions?

Rig Veda, a famous quote I thought.

> They have sexual practices. Energol. "Shake-up the energy"
> etc. (clarifications from puruasha welcome.)

Presumably to keep ojas from drying up.

> Some celibate sadhus seem to have sexual related rituals.

Indeed they do.

> So you are absolutely positive that no practices from advaitain /
> shankaracharian tradition do not invole sex in any form?

It's a renunciate trip dude. It would also depend on what you mean by 
"any form". And also there are householders who are involved with 
these institutions.

In any event, you're getting off tangent here.

The person who there is the most evidence FOR using sexual tantric 
practices with his disciples is probably Muktananda IMO. Not M.

Of course there is Adi Da also.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to:
and click 'Join This Group!'

Religion and spirituality Maharishi mahesh yogi


Reply via email to