>
>
> On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:46 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
>
> > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> 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.
Not approving of real tantra or sexual tantra?
> > 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.
OK DOKIE. Perhaps my sense of references is out of whack, maybe not.
Let my joke be made abundantly clear:
"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 Shankaracharian tradition and the Advaita
Vedanta traditions :) )"
If you are still "reading" that I am saying "Brahman is in tantra",
well what can I say.
I was making a joke via an indisputable tain of logic: Everything is
in Brahman, thus tantra is in Brahman. And since Brahman is at the
core of part of Shankaracharian and Advaita Vedanta traditions,
therefore tantra must be part Shankaracharian tradition Advaita
Vedanta traditions. :)
> > They postively and absolutley did not include union with the Goddess?
>
> Not in the teaching I received.
But that is hardly comprehensive or conclusive.
> >
> > 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".
I just gave several examples:
union with the Goddess?
Energol. "Shake-up the energy"
> In any event, you're getting off tangent here.
Well I may be on a tangent for your train of thought. Not mine. I hope
you see the difference.
>
> 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.
Which is fine. My primary hypothesis, which you have provided no
evidence of substance to counter is that i) it is possible M. had
knowledge of multiple, if not many real tantric practices, including
the small subset related to sex and union and flows, and ii) its
possible he expermiented or practiced such in his encounters,and iii)
maybe it was raw sensual sex.
If you have any such evidence that it was i) NOT possible M. had
knowledge of multiple, if not many real tantric practices, including
the small subset related to sex and union and flows, and ii) its NOT
possible that he expermiented or practiced such in his encounters, and
iii) OR that maybe it was NOT raw sensual sex, then provide away.
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.
