Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nagasiva yronwode) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.sexuality,alt.magick.tantra Subject: Purpose of Tantra (was purpose of tantra?) Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net Lines: 245 Sender: yronwode@sonic.net Message-ID: <8e0522$2k@bolt.sonic.net> References: <8d8jo2$s6s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8digfh$doj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8dk9fi$4e9$1@nnrp9.crl.com> <8dlmvl$13p0$1@nnrp9.crl.com> <8dl8s0$gor$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8dlp1e$15fg$1@nnrp9.crl.com> <8dmvec$20rf$1@nnrp9.crl.com> Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:38:15 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.224.36 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 956536695 208.201.224.36 (Sun, 23 Apr 2000 17:38:15 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 17:38:15 PDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:22871 alt.religion.sexuality:41392 alt.magick.tantra:15437 50000423 IVom kali on kaos day Tzimon/"Vistaara" : >>> Tantra is *seeking union* with the divine.... tantra seeks nothing. those involved in tantra seek as they feel the need. some seek unification with the divine (perhaps merely imagining that they do not already have it; perhaps seeking an *experience* of this unity; perhaps seeking an experience of the divine; perhaps seeking unification with the divine in some greater sense). Re O'Stat : >>1) Tantra is NOT 3seeking union2 with anything. Tantra is a complete >>magicoreligious system which includes texts (the Tantras) and numerous >>sects (both ancient and modern).... Tzimon/"Vistaara" : >Tantra is a methodology for achieving union with the divine which is >experienced as jivanmoksha when achieved permanently. It is a specific >method, or more accurately groups of methods (such as dharana, dhyana, >mudra, etc.) ...The aim of Tantra is seeking union, and the practice >of Tantra in its various forms is Tantrayoga. only one? I gather there are many (traditions, systems, methodologies) using this descriptor/characterization, many of which even have extensive history (e.g. Nyingmapa, Shingon), sometimes even containing a variety of system/methodology and welcome correction. >>2) Tantric sex is not 3symbolic2 of union of Shiva/Shakti. between a man and woman it would appear to be at *least* this. :> some would of course suggest that Siva and Sakti are symbolic of tantric sex. >>Just as mantra is god/dess in sound form and yantra is god/dess >>in 2D (and sometimes 3D) form, so, too, is Tantric sexuality >>the actual union of Shiva/Shakti. a lovely progression. >Such things [as mantra, yantra and tantric sex] are symbolic efforts. >That doesn't make them bad things... unless, of course, one becomes >so obsessed with them that they miss out on the real thing, which >isn't temporary. The actual union of Shiva and Shakti is permanent; >they cannot be separated and, in fact, Shiva and Shakti are >two aspects of a singularity. Any other physical union is, at best, >a temporary means of partaking in this, but it isn't the actual union >unless the two are merged together quite permanently. as I understand it, the value of non-dualism and tantric ideas is their decentralization from a single Solution or Paradigm. one may ALWAYS specify some polar Truth and attach oneself intellectually to a brass god. the trouble with this is that the limitations of language make our proffered Solution incomplete and therefore false. logically Siva and Sakti are a duality. this is why they are provided with different names, different descriptions, and different characters and origins. to equate them is effectively to negate them. on one level to specify their identity is obviously false. on another, given a metaphysic which includes manifestation and apparentness as compared with the real (another dualism and thus incomplete), we might say that Siva and Sakti are twin forks of some underlying cosmic reality. in any case if they are "really the same", then "attempting to unify" them is very obviously a ridiculous objective. what is probably meant is either to come to an experience of their unity (thus changing oneself so as to enable a deepening perception of what is) or to realize their unity (perhaps by having a certain experience which reveals this fundamental truth). my experience of Sakti is that She IS the manifest world. to me, exhortations to 'transcend the ordinary', 'see past Maya', and 'leave the temporal behind' is a directive to dwell in the lap of Siva (not a hellacious objective, but no closer to an experience of the real than to live as most do in the lap of Sakti, attached and enslaved). tantra is, for me, not an attempt to find one of their laps and live in it, but instead to dance with both in ecstasy, to become the dance between them. >...It is the experience of the divine union, and not symbolic, only >while it is actually occurring.... somewhat unclear because of the "it"s. I would agree that successful tantric practice yields an experience of divinity. whether this divinity is unity-based or diversity-based seems to depend upon the specific type of tantra one engages. the most profound will see through these dualities, of course. Richard Boothe: >>Sex is clearly 'union' - is it not? not necessarily. it is certainly union in the sense of comingling, but not necessarily in the sense of coincidence. Tzimon/Vistaara" : >Yes, but union with what and for what purpose? What makes this Tantric sex >different from non-Tantric sex? Is all sex union with the divine? sex is union between two bodies by vulgar conceptions. typically sexual union has the purpose of pleasure, though biologists might prefer to think that sublevels direct the prelims and that the "real" purpose of sexual conjugation is the proliferation of genes or progeny. tantric sex differs from non-tantric sex in that the former is the interpenetration of Poles. these Poles, being mysteries, are often characterized in mystical terms. non-tantric sex tends to focus more on the fact of pleasure and particular physical processes than on the integration of multiplex symbolism for mystical synthesis. particulars vary amongst tantrics, but the interpenetrative symbolism is clear. inasmuch as everything is divine, so is all sex union with the divine. inasmuch as only certain experiences can truthfully be said to include divinity (or an experience of divinity), so all sex is not truly union with the divine. >How can union with divine be profane? How can union with God disgrace the >consciousness? union with the divine can be profane where it corrupts or destroys divinity. profanation occurs outside the proper methods of approach. this is not a moral tragedy, as I understand it, but one of practicality. taking the wrong path can lead to a kind of short- circuiting, a blown fuse, damage to our spiritual equipment. when our spiritual equipment is damaged, we are disgraced, the grace of our perfection is unavailable to us. the capacity of our equipment may be due in some measure to the conditioning we have received. Tzimon: >>> Maybe if one focuses on baseball... Richard Boothe: >>That's precisely what one Shouldn't do. >Why not? Isn't God also a baseball game, if indeed God is everything? >If God is everything, as you state above, then what difference does it >make what one thinks about? as one comprehends the identity between baseball and the divine, so attention to baseball during tantric sex is perfect. what one thinks about during ritual (or, more specifically, tantric sex), contributes to the effect produced. it may be that thinking about baseball even when one does NOT comprehend the difference between it and the divine, during a time when one's entirety is primarily otherwise directed toward the mystical interpenetration of the Sacred Marriage (/Great Work, whatever you want to call it) will result in it. that is, perhaps the *combination* is what is impacted by thinking, not necessarily the overall result. perhaps during this the individual would be *incapable* of maintaining this thought-stream and therefore its influence is merely as an important factor. what one thinks about can become a very important influence upon one's experience of the world (and, not necessarily different than this, the divine). the importance of 'set' amongst those who study psychoactives and nonordinary experiences is well-known. conditioning toward receptive and malleable states of mind or spirit is a very important part of most practical mysticism, including tantra. >[Gautama Buddha's] enlightenment, as the legends go, though, was based >upon his own realization of the impermanence of life and the sufferings >therein, and by this realization a means of overcoming these things >(the 8-fold way).... not only the impermanence of life, but of ALL THINGS. the principle of anatman destroys the old notions of a reformable 'soul', denies the existence of some separable divinity interior to one, and provides for the individual a mystery that only the delinquent will avoid. the subsequent teachings of Nagarjuna on this subject (regarding sunyata) *underscored* this instruction, making it clear that there is no fabulous eternal deity reigning supremely in the heavens, no singular Solution to the innumerable Poles that surface in every philosophical discussion, and that the problems language poses the wakeful as a medium of communication are most likely insurmountable despite the variety of skillful means to awaken. Re O'Stat: >>Tantra includes magic. No union there. >>Tantra includes astrology. No union there. >>Tantra includes medicine. No union there. >>Tantra includes palmistry. No union there. >>Tantra includes methods for removing karma. No union there. what tantra includes varies depending upon the culture and time period of its origination. even traditional systems don't all contain these elements. "Lavana" >All of these things are aids in achieving union. that is one objective for which they are used. >They are the methods that compose a given Tantric system.... well said. >...It's symbolic in that the real thing lasts >forever, so its not the real thing. Merely a sign post... and like a road >sign, it may show you the direction, but it isn't the road. "forever" is a fiction. it transcends knowledge and conceptualization and is therefore not a part of rational speculation (moving instead to the realm of mystical utterance). all terms including delimiters (e.g. omnipotent, infinite, even pantheism) are necessarily vague and impossible to confirm through any rational means. my understanding is that Sakti dwells in the present. She is the living dynamo, the fulcrum of change, the powerful manifestor of the present moment. without Sakti there would be no time (and this is why Kali is said to be one of Her faces or manifestations). without Sakti there would be no consciousness. inasmuch as Siva is *identified* with consciousness, so there would be no Siva without Sakti. inasmuch as Sakti is the Mover, so would She also cease to exist were there no Siva, the Moved. are theyl "merely symbols"? from a rational perspective, analyzing the cosmos into discrete packets of energy observed aiming for an objective perspective, yes they are. from an emotional perspective, integrating the depth of experience from personal interaction, to describe them as 'mere symbols' is the height of folly. from a more comprehensive and penetrating viewpoint, this question quickly becomes meaningless. >Are [Re O'Stat] you saying that Shiva and Shakti are two >distinct beings, that each is finite? here is the trap. how one answers dictates one's death on the rocks of linguistic projection. to say that Siva and Sakti are distinct and finite is to undermine them in some way, to relegate them to the status of objects one may taxonomize, capture and label like insects. to say that they are indistinct and infinite is to admit of one's inability to apprehend their nature, to escalate their status beyond our mind's capacity with which to grapple. in either case one's answer distances one from an interaction with the mystery of their perfect existence and beautiful magic. namaste, nagasiva -- mailto:nagasiva@luckymojo.com ; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html mailto:boboroshi@satanservice.org ; http://www.satanservice.org/ emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired