>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:46 PM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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?
Sorry, for some reason am not getting all messages, so responding on this weird web
interface.
Tantra in general.
> > > 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.
Yeah I got that, but the "return" joke is Brahman is more part of prissy Vedanta.
>
> 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. :)
Yes I got that. The real joke is, it is not generally part of tantra.
>
>
> > > They postively and absolutley did not include union with the Goddess?
> >
> > Not in the teaching I received.
>
> But that is hardly comprehensive or conclusive.
It wasn't intended to be, it *was* intended to be a window on the style of practice of SBS.
>
> > >
> > > 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:
Oh, those.
>
> 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.
>
Once again, ANYTHING is possible, some things are more probable. It's highly improbable
M. is a tantric adept, for the numerous valid reasons I've already given. But it would be
helpful to have a clearer blow-by-blow description from one of the ladies involved. ;-)
One further comment. Most tantra which is of a sexual nature also requires a
corresponding female adept, otherwise there is utter imbalance in the equation. Since
there is no mention of these women being trained in such--quite the opposite, extant
accounts seem to show more of a "shock" at the spiritual incest they endured.
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.
