Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nagasiva yronwode) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.tantra Subject: Elements of Tantra (was purpose of ...) Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net Lines: 181 Sender: yronwode@sonic.net Message-ID: <8e0p68$qeo@bolt.sonic.net> References: <8do8u4$2uoo$1@nnrp9.crl.com> Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:21:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.224.36 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 956557314 208.201.224.36 (Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:21:54 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:21:54 PDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:22874 alt.magick.tantra:15442 50000423 IVom daos kay! Re O'Stat: >>By your definition, then, EVERYTHING is Tantra. I mean, you have to >>breathe and eat in order to survive and you have to survive in order to >>have union. Defecating and urinating is also Tantra because if you >>don't, uh, you'll explode! And you have to not explode in order to have >>union. if life itself is part of tantra and the world is part of tantra, if everything is part of tantra, then tantra is no different than cosmic process. "Lavana" : >The control of these things *is* part of Tantra. Doesn't Tantra require one >to eat consciously, to breathe consciously? Food and breath are, indeed, >central concepts to Tantra. There is pranayama, no? The degree to which >these basic functions are brought under control control is one of the >criteria for the step from pasu to vira, is it not? control is a very important part of most tantra, yes. discipline, as I understand it, requires elements of control, asceticism. as I learn it, this is importantly contrasted with the other Pole, indulgence. those who specialize take the most difficult route. there is some degree of admiration for these specialists, some maintaining that these are the 'only tantrics' (or the 'only yogins' or the 'only mystics'), but this seems an exaggeration. conventional tantric progress-schemes do seem to integrate the value of self-control, restraining oneself so as to pursue the categorical shift from animal (pasu) to vira (hero, if memory serves). and yet attention to subtle processes and influence over them (control) is not necessarily an aspect of the hero's activity. that is, ABILITY to control does not necessitate its use, and my under- standing is that it is not always necessary. >>But if everything is Tantra then it become irrelevant and cannot be >>discussed.... >It becomes paradox... just like the idea that Shiva (or, at least, brahman) >is both saguna and nirguna. It's the state beyond all of these dualities... so now you say that tantra is something beyond dualities, rather than that it is the search for union with the divine. >...Even back in the classical age, every Tantra proclaimed itself >the best Tantra, and could even list reasons for its superiority... but they >didn't deny that schools which practiced differently than they did weren't >Tantras. I can't recall any of the Shaivite or Vaishnava Tantras saying of >the opposite camp "Hey! That's not Tantra!" where do the camps stop? you have several times proclaimed this in the newsgroup and set up alt.religion.tantra because of the fact that so many items were objectionable to you. you have killfiled those whose expression about tantra with which you disagreed. so what constitutes an "opposite camp"? perhaps we'll never know, since you don't read the text I type very often. >I may disagree with you, and you with me, and yet we both practice Tantra. >Even though our beliefs may be different, we have common points of reference >in terms of procedure, and certainly quite similar goals that impel us to >follow one path or another. I will note that between you and I, neither one >of us has said of the other that they weren't a Tantrika! this is as it should be by my standards and I applaud your words here. >I think this is important. After all, if everything there is, manifest and >unmanifest, sentient and insentient, is but an aspect of the divine, and if >we are seeking union with the divine, why would we want to cut ourselves off >from such variety? What do we exclude from our concept of an infinite >divine? here are some of the motivations I can remember that others cited or that I had myself in severing relations: * fear of the result of continued connection (contamination, corruption, contraction of illness or karma, loss of composure, etc.) * anger in response to the content of their expression (false as we evaluate it, ridiculous, blasphemous, etc.) * offense due to the character of their expression (long-winded, not engaging, etc.) * boredom or impatience (due to the ignorance, simplicity, confusedness, or stereotypical nature of the expression) * personal loyalty (to someone who has declared themself an enemy of the offender, something to which the offender has declared themself a foe, etc.) * unpreparedness (for the content or character of the expression, as when someone shields themselves from an expert or someone without morals, etc.). >There are places where both you and I depart, in our thoughts, from old >orthodoxies. There are also many places where we agree with them! This is >respect, but not blind obedience. If everything is divine, one should >respect everything... even one's enemies and the things they disagree most >strongly with. I don't mean to love them or even accept them, but if >nothing else, then to respect them for what they may do to change your >experience in the world. Just as there are wrathful, frightening, even >loathesome aspects of Shiva-as-divine-figure, so are such aspects manifested >in the world as well. I like this very much and appreciate your saying it, Tzimon. my impression is that that which we hate, our enemies, constitute some of the wrathful faces of the divine. it seems to me that the deepest practice has the adept confronting the wrath and harshness of this divinity and resolving the conflict one way or another (becoming the dance). Re O'Stat: >>So you're saying, then, that physical union with Shiva/Shakti doesn't >>last. Well, I won9t debate a person's experience. >Physical union with Shiva/Shakti doesn't last because the physical doesn't >last. Time goes by, things decay, the body changes and dies. There are >many methods of attaining a glimpse of this union (anutara as well, some say >:), but it doesn't last... and so the act is symbolic. this varies. certain practices yield a permanent identification of the changing body with one Pole or the other (perhaps comparable to the status of an avatar, but not expecting that the rest of the world to treat one as such). in such a circumstance, what constitutes "physical union with Siva/Sakti" may be the equivalent of entering into the dance, becoming it, as one sees everything as a manifestation of this divine cosmic flux. to be alive is to be in physical union with Siva (as self or as other) and Sakti (as self or as Sakti). to do this with a physical partner requires the dedication of a partner who acknowledges this identification and realization. ideally he shares the identification of the cosmic mate, and has (either previously or as part of the merging mystical tryst) dedicated hirself to the worship and love of the compatible divinity. >In any case, the >body is already the physical union of Shiva and Shakti; it is the mind that >changes! Does a jivanmukti look different after achieving permanent union? I imagine so. >Does his body change from the moment before until the endless moment >afterward? I haven't heard this claim made. the endless moment is experiential, not physical. there aren't any immortal sages living out their nondying lives in plane Terra. these are myths, not physical realities. the myth relates to important truths, but taking the truths literally is a mistake. so to answer your question directly, yes, bodies change at every moment. I will make the claim, even if it is seen as in error. >I'm saying what I've been taught and what I base upon my own experience. I >accepted the teaching after due consideration. I don't see what's dogmatic >or authoritarian about the statement that I've questioned authority in this >instance and found my own conclusion to be in alignment with what the >authority taught me. this makes a great deal of sense to me. >Everything manifest is changeable; the union of Shiva >and Shakti is permanent. So neither Siva nor Sakti are manifest as you see it? (someone else may have to ask him this if they want to see the answer, as I am killfiled). >If Shiva is Shakti and Shakti is Shiva, then their union is permanent. to me this sounds like: if 1 is 0 and 0 is 1, then their union is never a number. 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