Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nagasiva yronwode) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.religion.tantra,alt.magick.tantra,alt.spirituality.circle Subject: Ascetic Tantra and Balanced Neo-Tantra (was tantra sex and yoga) Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net Lines: 437 Sender: yronwode@sonic.net Message-ID: <8m339p$ka1@bolt.sonic.net> References: <8lk6df$u0m$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> <8llncq$t7v$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 05:35:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.224.36 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 965021745 208.201.224.36 (Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:35:45 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:35:45 PDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:24671 alt.consciousness.mysticism:42158 alt.religion.tantra:2639 alt.magick.tantra:16387 alt.spirituality.circle:23077 50000730 Vom here follows a comparison between Tantric Religion (based on the scrilptures known as the Tantras as understood by BD) and neo-tantra (based on modern notions of sex mysticism incorporating many different teachings represented by Re O'Stat and me). these traditional/non-traditional conversations are often very helpful to students and masters alike. "Bhaktisiddhartha Dasanudas" : >...If it not based on the Tantras, call it something else. Don't pervert >the term Tantra, which is standard Vedic terminology. I think it was all those temples with fucking people and gods on it that gave the association between tantra and sex. perhaps you could explain why there is all this 'tantric' imagery of fucking if there is no connection and little material of that sort in "The Tantras"? in any case, this is where the neo-tantrics get their usage if my guess is correct: the identification was based upon art styles and temples and imagined notions of orgiastic yogic groups. eventually this developed into a whole modern tradition of sex-mysticism which is quite beyond the desired association with the original Indian tradition by some accounts. >Sexuality is indeed part of life--a very small part of life. If it looks big >and important to you, then I suggest that you are taking a very narrow view >of life, one focused on the miserable, temporary material body. spoken like an anti-body ascetic. there is nothing miserable about the temporal or bodily in and of itself as I understand it. >Life is more than matter; without the spirit life cannot exist, >and spirit is far greater than matter. this may be traditional teaching, but my understanding is different than this and I will contrast what I have learned before and during my instruction with Kali here and below. life is indeed more than matter. 'matter' is an objective view on substance. 'spirit' is a subjective view of same. without the object (substance) then no 'spirit' would be possible, since the nature of consciousness requires too many elements in configuration to reproduce outside of complex organisms. this competition between matter and spirit, however, is only intriguing and important to radical dualists such as BD, to whom I'm responding. isn't it interesting how often is the connection between this extreme dualistic presupposition and ascetic tendencies? only in the most strange hippie days in America (what, Leary?) did a kind of dualism and hedonism (the other pole) arise. >In fact spirit is unchanging, infinite and eternal, whereas >matter is temporary, limited and constantly mutable. spirit is more subtle to change because it is not immediately observable. it pleases spiritualists to consider subjective experience to be based upon something unchanging and eternal because they are anti-worldly and the cosmos is constantly changing, whether spirit or matter. the lack of a real soul (cf. 'anatman' in Buddhism) gives spiritualists incentive to imagine something constant and focus fanatically upon it, pretending to a stable base and authority where it does not, in fact, exist. >Therefore real life and happiness are based on spirit, not >matter. while I don't agree with your logic in getting here, I do agree that spirituality is a more important focus of personal experience than material concerns (though if you take away those physical supports your spirit will quickly wither and die). >How can anyone be happy if they know they have to die? knowledge is only of secondary importance to happiness. this is one of the more important instructions in world mysticism. knowing one thing or another will predispose us to certain moods, and 'knowing you have to die' (whatever this means to a being who has never yet experienced it) need not concern those who have renounced the world (let go of it, whatever their relation to it may be at any one time). true happiness (bliss, ananda as I understand it) is not dependent upon knowledge or one's future circumstances. >Sex is part of material life. It is not necessary for >spiritual life. no absolute statements such as this are realistic where spirituality is concerned. different people require different combinations of circumstance and discipline in order to have a fulfilling subjective experience. sex may WELL be a part of it, but not necessarily for those such as BD. >In fact many people in spiritual life are lifelong >celibates and they are quite well. correct, and many people in spiritual life are fucking like bunnies. what we accept as 'spiritual life' and what we accept as 'spiritual activity' varies. >This proves that spirit is independent of matter >and sex. you really gotta work on those logic maneuvers, BD. this proves nothing of the sort, nor is it true. >...Material is temporary. Temporary >knowledge is not spiritual knowledge. more of your fallacious logic. all knowledge is temporary. all things are temporary. some temporary knowledge has to do with spiritual (subjective) experience and the creation of long-term satisfaction (bliss). re: yogic knowledge such as that about kundalini, chakras, etc. >Such knowledge may be useful for >correcting imbalances in the body, and that is good as far as it goes. But >this class of knowledge does not address the spiritual disease of birth and >death caused by the covering of the gross and subtle body on the spirit soul. this illustrates a fundamental problem which ascetic tantrics seem to have with ordinary human life. they are convinced of the Meat-Puppet Paradigm: that we are ghosts putting on flesh-bodies. I'm here to tell you that this is false, and that their dissolution will be the same as all the rest of us upon the disintegration of our nervous systems, which provide the basis for the subjective experience (spirit). >Real spiritual knowledge is always beyond the body on the actual >spiritual level of relationship between the soul and God. while the metaphysics of most ascetic tantrics is mistaken, many of their assertions about the way the spirit may be influenced do have some basis in experience (in part because of the systemic exploration of subjective response to mystical discipline and the knowledge systems that have arisen to describe these). extremist though it may be, the assertion that subjective experience (spirit) is affected by non-bodily choices (such as intentions and attitudes, as well as foci of attention) is well-founded. however, what BD does not here acknowledge is the very important dietary and physical regimens that shape and strongly influence subjective experience. these are the typical elements of mystical discipline inherent to tantric and yogic traditions, among many others. >...Some so-called tantrics become angry when we suggest that sex >should be controlled or regulated according to (tantric) scriptural >principles. We have never tried to separate sex from spirituality, >merely put them in their proper perspective. controlling the wild and pleasurable aspects of life is common among ascetics, yes. the 'proper perspective' is typically not related to natural inclinations (being more restrictive and fraught with fear of overstepping religious rules). BD, if you could say more about what 'the proper perspective' (other than what you have already said about how the body is temporal and thus 'not spiritual' because you believe that, contrary to the spirit which is eternal, it changes) I'd greatly appreciate it. please also say why knowledge based on something changing is not reliable or valuable for application to which does change. I don't see the necessity of the dualism. >Spiritual initiation cannot be received by those whose bodies >are too much influenced by the lower modes of passion and >ignorance. this 'higher/lower' dichotomy appears also to be important to dualistic tantrics. that which is lower to the ground, dirty, closer to the terran core, is regarded as 'lesser'. human beings are imagined as 'dropping their fleshy bodies and flying off into the spatial heavens', with all the naughty bits about fucking and reproduction left behind. where BD's assertions are relevant, however, is in that they make reference to attachment to temporal results. we would probably agree that passion is valuable when one is not ruled by it into blind subservience (because it may allow progress to take place). >Therefore children >should be generated according to scriptural rules, so their bodies are >conducted by the mode of goodness. The world is so troubled today because of >so much varna-sankara population produced by people in low-quality sexual >consciousness. Sexuality to satisfy one's lust is certainly in the mode of >ignorance, so the children from such connections is of low consciousness. this is a kind of bigotry or classicism which is foreign to my understanding. it sets up the members of the cult as the elites and relegates the rest to 'depraved ignorant rutting hordes' as I see it. >...According to the actual Tantric >teachings, all spiritual knowledge is eternally existing and is received by >the descending method (avaroha samjnana) of parampara, or disciplic >succession. this preserves the authority-structure of the tradition. most religious groups seem to operate this way. no surprise here. >You are involved in the ascending (aroha) method of mental >speculation, changing the teachings to suit your whim. that is one evaluation. another might be that changing what one regards as authoritative can do more than suit whims -- it can allow for real progress, scientific and rational means of revising ancient and outdated falsities. if we always presume the perfection of the knowledge of the past then we shall become enslaved to it. that you may call this 'tantra' is quite possibly traditional, but it does not suit today's neo-tantrics, who aren't betrothed to enshrining the knowledge of the past beyond practical usefulness. >...By focusing on the body you are just preparing an additional >term of bodily existence. That is not yoga, it is material >consciousness. by focussing on the spirit or subjective consciousness you are just adding additional compartments to fantasy constructions. without some connection to the material you enter into delusion. that is not tantra, by my understanding, it is just as mistaken as materialism and partakes not of the nature of wisdom. >...No one in material consciousness can understand the purport >of the Vedas or the Tantras. That is stated in the literatures >themselves. a good means of dismissing those whom you may not like. my understanding is that those who are in delusional consciousness such as the typical ascetic traditionalist who makes an appearance in alt.magick.tantra condemning its participants seems able to understand the purport of neo-Tantric sex-based mystical disciplines. >The eternal truth is never passe. 'eternal truths' are always filled with ambiguity and difficult to apprehend without depth of experience. it is a relative quantity which would vaporize without the meaning of human experience that creates it. humans fantasize their eternality hoping to connect with the Alien Creation God. >Only if truth can change do the fads and fashions of human society >come into play. unless the fads and fashions are variations in manifestation of themes important to human experience, in which case they may, within their depth, reveal important truths that dismissing them outright might overlook. >The original teacher of the Vedic tradition is >indeed God Himself. Therefore there is no possibility of change >or error in the Vedic teachings.... spoken from the confines of a traditional religion, yes. I hope that you will excuse our scrutiny and skepticism in these forums to which you are posting, since your authority does not reach here. we tend to find grandiose claims of authority and truth rather specious. >The Tantric system is based on disciplic succession. If you are not >initiated into the lineage, you have no access to the mystery of the >Tantras. This is stated in the Tantras themselves. You will see only the >externals, which is exactly what is happening here. self-referent scripture is no more convincing in its claims of authority merely because it states it. in fact I have learned to regard self-proclaiming truth as itself a lie until proven otherwise. I'd like to know what besides some personal revelation (perhaps you were given in initiation) convinces you of these claims you are making. >...Actually you are just trolling here. that is a misuse of the term 'troll'. Re O'Stat may not be part of your tradition, but his posts constitute far more substance than any kind of "troll". for you to characterize him as such is an example of your type of 'spirituality' and internet dynamics. >For your information, I have written books and do teach, both >very privately. My students are quite satisfied with the tools >they are getting, and they are making very nice progress, >thank you. there are many teachers. some convince their victims that they have something to offer when instead what they are giving out is delusion and abuse. that you are involved in instruction provides little more than that you are sure of yourself and convincing enough to some individuals to be taken seriously. instead of playing the Teacher card, why don't you tell us what tradition of Tantra you are from, who your teacher is, and what its lineage includes as consistent forms of practice? >To use spiritual teaching to earn money is an offense. God is no >shop-keeper. This reveals your mind. just as your taboo of combining psychospiritual instruction with business reveals your mind (anti-material). which one is better? I think that any extreme is ridiculous, though each has their traps and dangers. >...You can't sell spirituality, and the people who make a business >of teaching so-called spirituality are greedy, pretentious phonies. what a generalization! my impression is that such generalizations are made by those ignorant of true spirituality, because if they knew it they would understand that there is more under the sun than can be encompassed by all-encompassing scriptural "truths". rules and 'knowledge' are easy to make. they can harden and rigidify one into a veritable crustacean instructor, but they do not do much for compassion and love -- these are the typical lessons ascetic traditionalists never learn. >What kind of ego trip is this? But what kind of karma will >they receive for these illegal acts? karma is a device dreampt up to constrain those without ethics to compassionate behaviour but does nothing to increase the capacity of the heart (because it rules through fear). it is combined with fantasies about post-mortem experience without a basis in reality that I am able to discern. >...How can you spiritualize something material? by finding its proper place in my life; by coming to know its value and beauty; by working past any prejudices that I may have about it and seeing it for whatever it truly is (as it changes ;>). >Can you make sex eternal? nothing can be made eternal, for everything is temporal. fantasizing its eternality doesn't change its changingness. >...You cannot spiritualize something that is based on the >body, this appears to be your limitation. >because the body itself is material, subject to death, >time and other material laws. as are all things. that you choose to live in the delusion of some fantasy-self which resists and transcends these principles is not my problem and will lead you to yours. >>>We silly Westerners will find someone who is saying whatever >>>we want to hear and follow them around like a puppy, with >>>no discrimination. >> >> Speak for yourself, please. > >Actually I was speaking about you in a polite way. This manner of >speaking is also a Vedic or Tantric cultural thing. then your Vedic or Tantric culture is offensive and rude. speak for yourself and be done with your puerile antics, please. >...Any 'tantra' not based on the Tantric literature, is a new invention probably true. >manufactured in the tiny, fallible brain of some spiritually incompetent >human being. all the Tantras were thusly composed also. that you believe differently just explains how gullible you are. why someone could not, as a new invention, add to the tantric corpus, is not explained by you except for your lauding of them as transcendent truths in and of themselves. for you and for those of your tradition, this may suffice, but neo-tantrics don't follow the gurus of your culture around "like puppies with no discrimination", to quote your ridicule. >Real spiritual knowledge is eternal, unchanging and perfect. because you say it is so? I disagree. there is no knowledge which is eternal because everything constantly changes, even knowledge systems. you can proclaim the monolithic quality of your scripture (people have been doing it for years), but you can't stop the fact that in its base it changes, in its translations it changes, in its interpretations it changes, and in its origins it changes based upon revised understanding borne of new experience and new cultural contexts. scholars of religion have identified this, sometimes quite slow, changes. >It does not need constant updating, like some mundane literature >because the source of that knowledge is the Supreme Lord, who >is beyond all imperfection. your Supreme Lord is just as much a fiction as is your soul, your eternal scripture, and your Meat-Puppet cosmology. it has no basis in observable fact, and is easily dismissed and deconstructed by those who seek to reconcile empiricism with mystical comprehension, discovering the impermanence of the world. >...you have no idea of my state of self-realization. Nor are >you in any position to judge. who is? what state is that, by your self-assessment? >You have no qualification to interpret the relationship between >Krsna and Visnu. who does? how can you tell when someone is so qualified? >...I have nothing against sexuality. It's just fine in its proper >place, as defined by the Tantric and Vedic scriptures. what is its "proper place" by your assessment, as defined therein? >misunderstanding and disinformation promulgated in the name of >'tantra' in the West these days. better qualified as 'neo-tantra' probably. >...Unless you are willing to discuss my points in a mature >philosophical manner, I don't see any point in continuing this >discussion. However, I will continue to post my opinions >concerning your bogus 'tantric' teachings. thank you for identifying your criteria for continuing a conversation. I don't require anything of you in response, but if you wish to answer the questions that I have asked, I would appreciate it. namaste nagasiva -- FREE HOODOO CATALOGUE! send street address to: catalogue@luckymojo.com 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 Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nagasiva yronwode) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.magick.tantra,alt.satanism,alt.religion.sexuality Subject: Re: Ascetic Tantra and Balanced Neo-Tantra (was tantra sex and yoga) Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net Lines: 171 Sender: yronwode@sonic.net Message-ID: <8m82lo$jmr@bolt.sonic.net> References: <8lk6df$u0m$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> <8llncq$t7v$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> <8m339p$ka1@bolt.sonic.net> <3987344B.1DB13491@kahealani.com> Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 02:55:44 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.224.36 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 965184944 208.201.224.36 (Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:55:44 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:55:44 PDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:24728 alt.consciousness.mysticism:42236 alt.magick.tantra:16425 alt.satanism:152658 alt.religion.sexuality:41762 50000801 Vom Hi Angela! Angela Kahealani : > Here ... we are limited to exchanging words, tools of the mind, the > playground of the ego monkey. Tantra, if anything, is about overcoming > the ego, to the extent that it fails to sabotage the spiritual > consciousness, and the guidance of spirit in all of life. hmm, I got the impression that tantra (at least Satantra) has a different relationship to ego than does traditional ascetic practice (which tends to oppose ego and egotism). tantra engages that which is forbidden and changes its relation to spirituality. this includes ego, which is why, at least in the West, we have so many 'Masters' who blow themselves out and demonstrate their ineptitude. > Therefore, if anything, the PRACTICE of Tantra, sexual or non > sexual, requires first, the cessation of focus upon the illusions > of mind, their expressions (speaking words) and their being > externally triggered (hearing words or reading them visually). ridiculous! using the stick to remove the splinter (as zen would have it) requires no axiomatic dogma. engaging Maya and therein seeing past the limitations of Maya, learning from the 'sins' as described by ascetic religious the beauty of this life, the Logos of this Aeon is FUCK! and rejoice therein. > ...HOPEFULLY both the facility of participation in consciousness > in the physical world (the physical vehicle, i.e. the Human Body) has > evolved, and the souls participating in the experience have evolved, so > that we transcend the previous limitations and have a more evolved here > now soul-in-body conscious experience beyond what was documented by the > previous experiencer who documented their experience. don't count on it. > Sex is only part of life. Body is only part of life. Soul is only part > of life. Spirit is only part of life. Being conscious, and using all of > these in balance is living a full life. parts is parts. got bliss? > ...the important thing is that modern "Tantra" serve the necessary and > useful purpose of bringing modern humans more into balance, and into a > higher level of consciousness. this appears to be the aim of most systems of mysticism. > The primary dis-ease of western "culture" is the overemphasis upon > the individual and upon the physical. 'We the People'? 'One Nation Under God'? I dunno. what about the People's Revolution that focussed upon materialism? > The primary dis-ease of eastern "culture" is the overemphasis upon the > collective this seems more clear. > and upon the spiritual. I'm not sure that any culture has a monopoly on this. > Thus a consciousness-raising-practice useful to one of these > cultures problem: more than one 'culture' is included in these 'Western' and 'Eastern' categories you're using. > may in fact be exactly the opposite from that of the opposite culture. agreed. > "Western Tantra", to bring westerners into balance needs to raise > consciousness from purely scientific physical to incorporate > spiritual, my impression is that this is false, that those who are taken by materialism don't bother trying to learn 'tantra' of any kind, and are much more likely to buy porn and join swinger's clubs. more resonant to my thinking is that a Materialist Tantra (that is, the Satantra of which I am being instructed) is much more important to 'Western' consciousness, especially as it delves deeply into ecology, anarchism, and concepts of Thelema. you have hit on some of its aspects in your posts over time, and this has led me to follow your expression. > and therefore likewise, in the subset of that experience known > as "sex" needs to extend physical body sex to become also chakra > connecting spiritual sex, and kundalini sharing sex. I think that the (Western) spiritualists who become entranced by these spiritual models would be better served by abandoning them and paying a greater degree of attention to the physical sensations accompanying their sexual rituals and disciplines. from this I think they would discern the difference between the map and the territory, lose the preconceptions and delusion that accompany these terms from their original religious context (such as karma and dietary rules), and place emphasis on the false division between 'physical' and 'spiritual' things, coming to see their unity within the context of human experience. > Since kundalini serves the dual purpose of both being triggered by > physical sex, and opening up higher chakras to make possible > spiritual consciousness, sex can never be at odds with > spiritual development. traditionally kundalini is described as 'dangerous' and 'capable of being unlocked or awakened too early by the unwary and unready'. for those who are divided between believing in some ultimately dualistic and anti-sex metaphysics and attempting to address obvious obsessions with physical pleasure, sexuality can become problematic and may be at odds with their spiritual development. in and of itself, of course, I agree that it is not, just as no other ordinary, animal behaviour is so. in the Kali Yuga the route into and through the world (worshipping Maya) becomes the spiritual path. > In fact any religio-cultural dogma which represses sexuality > is repressing spiritual consciousness, a process necessary for > the priest class to maintain power over the commoners. then why is it that the priests are the ones who are the most impinged by this repression and are the ones who tend to violate their charges, sexually? do you contend that this ensures that the priests are spiritually immature on account of this celibacy? does it matter whether the celibacy comes naturally to the individual or is instituted from above? > In summary, let it be considered that you can "sex your way to > enlightenment", thanks to the clever design of the human > spiritual-body system, with this I agree strongly if 'enlightenment' be but understood and if sex be seen in its proper context. > and the operation of kundalini in opening the higher chakras of > spiritual consciousness. However, in the normal course of average human > development, the process takes approximately 7 years per chakra, and > therefore, there is likely to be a lot of purely carnal sex before the > participants achieve the age of 35 to 42 and awaken higher chakras due > to raising kundalini (classic western "midlife 'crisis'"). it seems to me that this is merely conjecture based upon models taken for the reality. numbers and limitations seem prone to error when attempting to generalize across human experience. > ...upon examining the ills of modern life on planet > Earth/Terra/Gaia/Goddess, that most problems are SEVERELY > exacerbated by the rampant overpopulation of the eco-system > by human beings. ONE of the aspects of Tantra has to do with > practicing sex for both pleasure and spiritual development without > producing offspring, and THAT is the single most important development > human beings could practice on this planet at this time. AMEN! or I should say FUCK YES! >YES... develop spiritually. >YES... enjoy carnal pleasures. >YES... reduce the population of humans before we collapse the ecosystem. >Aloha, Namaste, and Practice Birth Control... I'd go further than this. PRACTICE STERILIZATION! technological, Satanic neo-tantra! nagasiva -- FREE HOODOO CATALOGUE! send street address to: catalogue@luckymojo.com 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