Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.tantra,alt.magick.moderated,alt.pagan.magick,alt.religion.sexuality,alt.sex.wizards,alt.fan.kali.astarte.inanna
Subject: RDawn: Re: TANTRA, SEX MAGICK, SAKTISM
Followup-To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick.tantra,alt.pagan.magick,alt.religion.sexuality,alt.sex.wizards,alt.fan.kali.astarte.inanna
Date: 29 Apr 1996 21:48:21 -0700
Organization: Portal Communications (shell)
Lines: 524
Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com
Message-ID: <4m462l$l7o@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Reply-To: rose.dawn@ouroboros.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.magick.tyagi:7867 alt.magick.tantra:1237 alt.magick.moderated:318 alt.pagan.magick:467 alt.religion.sexuality:12514 alt.sex.wizards:46760 alt.fan.kali.astarte.inanna:653

[been putting this off to give it the attention deserved - tn]
[from private email: rose.dawn@ouroboros.org; continuing conv]

93,
  
|Jai Kali!
  
Namah Durga Svayambhu!
  
You quote me and go on to say:
  
|>_Kalidas_ is the gender-neutral form of either _Kalidasa_ <masc.| 
|>or Kalidasi <fem.|, the "Kali" in this case being Kali Ma in  
|>any/all ofHer 'forms.' _Das/a/i_ would be literally translated as 
|>"slave,"although modern translators seem to often play a bit 
|>loose, translating as the less-loaded term "servant of" or even  
|>"devotee"or "follower" of, to avoid the negative associations  
|>most of us would, consciously or otherwise, slap onto the word 
"slave." 
 
|By these terms I am a Kalidas as 'devotee' and perhaps 'servant', 
|yes, since I have dedicated my life to Kali, whom I approach via 
|the (dangerous?  Ramakrishna seemed to indicate this) path of 
|Lover.
  
I was intrigued when a _chola_ girl from the neighborhood told me 
the word _amo_ meant both "lover" and "master" in Spanish. No S/M 
connotations required: the Lover is the Master of one's heart. 
<How was that for a diversion?|  <g>  Do you think Ramakrishna 
really considered _vira sadhana_ "dangerous"? Or just more 
"difficult?" We could probably each quote a zillion scriptural 
descriptions of the "best" <read: easiest| yogas for the Kali 
Yuga, and many of them would be diametrical opposites. I guess 
most would agree that for a _pasu_, everything save blind 
obedience or almost desperate _bhakthi_ is "dangerous."
  
|>The type of Slavery implied is not a servile or forced condition
|>at all, but one entered into willingly and with full *power*, a 
|>state of submission so intense that it leads not only to 
|>"freedom," but absolute identification--at least in theory.  ;|  

|I do not currently identify often with Kali, no.  More often I 
|identify as Siva, whose being and essence I have only begun to 
|understand.  First I shall approach Kali as Lover, and as I 
|become the Siva of the Nagas more fully I feel I may take up a 
|more diligent reflection of myself as Siva.  
  
My first approach <like many folx'| was to Kali-as-Mother, 
proceeding <naturally?| toward a view of Kali-as-the-Power-of-
Siva, a period where I viewed Her as more or less a "Divine 
Rival." Over time, I suppose naturally, since it didn't seem to 
stem from anything specific I did or refrained from doing, I began 
to identify *strongly* as Kali Her OwnSelf, in fairly diverse 
ways. Thus far I've been unable--or unwilling--to identify as 
Siva, much less Ardhanarisvara. It doesn't concern me at this 
point, though I freely cop to being a fairly pedestrian person.
  
|>_Yajna_ means "worshipful ritual" or "sacrifice." While the _Veda 
|>Bramanas_ and _Srauta Sastras_ had elaborate, detailed  
|>rules'n'regs about performing _yajna_, in more modern times, it's 
|>come to mean *any* sort of ritual or 
|>sacrifice performed by an individual without the aid of a  
|>_pujari_, or Priest. Kinda like "gnostic puja."

|Thank you.  I do not make regular puja of any type I am aware 
|that resembles what would be called by this term in Indian 
|tradition.  I could of course explain some of the practices I 
|*do* engage as 'sacrifices' (such as maintaining a vow (intent) 
|of poverty (limited resources, balancing these out in the 
|dedication I feel)), but this word has many meanings and how I 
|live doesn't conform to some of these.
  
_Jivayajna_ or the sacrifice of the individual, is traditionally 
recognized. The _Chandogya Upanisad_ is filled with 
'correspondences' between ritual religious acts, and 'the things 
one does while going about his life.' The 16th Khanda states 
"Verily, a person *is* a sacrifice," comparing the stages of life 
to the stages of the Soma Sacrifice. The 17th Khanda compares 
life's circumstances with ceremonies: "1. When one hungers and 
thirsts and does not practice enjoyment; that is an Initiation 
(_Diksa_). 2. When one eats and drinks and enjoys, then he joins 
in the Upasada <literally, 'always bringing near; always striving 
toward,' a portion of one form of the Soma sacrifice|. 3. When one 
laughs and eats and fucks, he joins in the stuta-sastra <studying 
and reciting the Scriptures|. 4. Austerity, charity, the yamas and 
niyamas; these are the gifts to the _pujari_, Priest. 5. When one 
says _Sosyati!_ _Asosta_! <a pun, the words meaning "He will press 
it out! He has pressed it out!" referring both to ejaculation, and 
thus procreation, and to the pressing of the sacred Soma|, that is 
his birth. His death is an ablution at the ritual's conclusion."
  
It wouldn't be scripturally unsound <g| to think of any act, 
including the supposedly "grossest" as a _yajna_ or form of _puja_ 
with oneself as _pujari_, as long as _Tyaga_, the sacrificial 
*intent* is there. I should probably add 'IMHO' here, as I'm not a 
scholar.

|>Generally, four things are still "required" to make a "proper" 
|>yajna if one wants to be traditional: 
|>	_Dravya_, the "substance," that which is sacrificed;
|>	_Tyaga_, the "sacrificial intent," the attitude of giving 
|>	         something--or everything--to the yajna recipient; 
|>	_Devata_, the divine recipient ItSelf; and 
|>	_Mantra_, which is fairly self-explanatory.

|Of these, in a very broad sense (I am not really 'orthodox' in 
|any way and so don't qualify otherwise), I think I do engage 
|these things, yes. However, I don't do things like kill goats for 
|Kali (though I have considered comparable practice prior to meals 
|as upaya or skilful means in an awakening process which fits into 
|my life), or burning ghee (though I do burn incense and/or 
|candles -- I am unsure of my intent completely here however, 
|since there are practical as well as devotional results involved 
|with each of these), or feeding Her in ways I have read, which 
|generates prasad (though I occasionally place my food before Her 
|altar as an offering -- I don't spoon it into Her mouth or 
|anything :>).
  
I'd say practical as well as devotional results is eminently 
"orthodox."  ;|  _Prathana_, personal benefit, is a traditional 
part of the _Puja_ ritual. _Atmartha Puja_ is usually performed 
privately, for the benefit of oneself and/or one's family & close 
pals; with _Parartha Puja_ being the sort performed by Priests in 
Temples. A not-completely-orthodox method of _Bhuta Yajna_ I 
engage in frequently involved placing money, usually coins, on my 
altar as an offering to my Mahadeva; then, when I'm completely 
broke and rolling up pennies to make the rent, thanking my Devata 
for the "financial prasad"  ;|  and taking the money back for my 
use. I also consider the exchange of plasma for $20 as a form of 
_yajna_, often making _japa_ while hooked up to the machine.  The 
money is thus the blessing of the Devata at the conclusion of the 
rite.
  
|That said, I do maintain a temple for Kali out of devotion, have
|constructed a few cyberspace things in honor of Her, and often
|chant mantram when I feel it is right for me to do so.The problem 
|I have with your description is that I don't make hard
|and fast distinctions, in my intentions, about whether Kali is
|'outside me' (as a yajna) or a part or all of me (however you'd
|like to categorize this).  There are often pragmatic reasons I
|am inspired to engage these things as well as the occasional and
|heart-felt enthusiasm which encourages me to do them purely for
|NO reason or with dedicatory intent only.  That is, the 
|expressions of my devotion have beneficial results for me too.
  
I'd be interested in the cyberspace constructions, but not having 
web-access, suspect my interest will go unexplored--yes? no?
  
I make no hard and fast distinctions either. Despite what the 
various schools have to say on the matter of dualism/non-dualism, 
I personally feel it's impossible to discern, and so don't spend 
time trying. At various times, I've "experienced" Kali as an 
actual discarnate Being; as a form of _brahman_ <actually, 
impossible, but hopefully you'll understand what I mean|; as 
mySelf; and as a sort of "altered state" of consciousness meaning 
everything from an archetype <according to my admittedly limited 
understanding of the term| to a _Camiyata_-style experience of 
"possession." These levels of attempted understanding have been in 
such a state of flux for so long, that it no longer seems possible 
or useful to attempt to sort out which is more "true" or "real" 
than any other. It doesn't seem to have hurt me in any way--but as 
I said, I'm a pedestrian kinda yogini.  ;|
  
|You mention that 'something' or 'everything' might be sacrificed
|or given in the _Tyaga_ above, and this is very important to me.
|My intent is to honor Kali with great reverence and inspire, 
|through my example (not active proselyzing) others to come to see
|Her beauty if this is possible for them.  In this sense 
|everything I do is 'released' (something I find 'between' 
|'sacrifice' and'giving') to the proper recipient.
  
|I have difficulty with the typical religious attitudes about
|ascetic rigor and 'sacrifice' or 'giving' in the sense of
|disempowering myself in the activity.  This is perhaps my 
|egotistical or self-preservative qualities outdistancing my
|dedication, as I'm sure some would portray it.
  
Perhaps the release you mention above is similar to the concept of 
"surrender," during the _yoga pada_, the "foot," "part" or "stage" 
of "union," when one surrenders without any sense of submission, 
the self to the self, culminating in the _sakha marga_, path of 
the friend. Saiva Siddhantha tradition describes the _Padas_ as 
leading to natural _margas_, paths, defined by the way the 
individual experiences god at those stages: _Das Marga_, when one 
experiences god as a slave would look upon a master; __Satputra 
Marga_, the path of the "true child," as one would look upon a 
loving and beloved parent; __Sakha Marga_ in which god is one's 
longtime close pal; and _San Marga_, or "True" or "Eternal" Path, 
wherein one moves from viewing god-as-Lover, to god-as-Self, which 
is where all the identification/annihilation stuff comes in.  ;|
  
Being a bit more traditional than some, I firmly believe in 
_Chaturvarga_, "Four Good Things," or the traditional Hindu "Four 
Aims" of all human beings: _Artha_, material wealth and comforts 
and the accumulation thereof; _Kama_, lust, pleasure, sensual 
enjoyments and the fulfillment thereof; _Dharma_, which has many 
divisions and is a complicated concept which I apply a pedestrian 
definition to; and finally _Moksa_, or "Liberation," which is 
attained through the fulfillment of the other three Aims. For most 
of u
_Chaturvarga_, "Four Good Things," or the traditional Hindu "Four 
Aims" of all human beings: _Artha_, material wealth and comforts 
and the accumulation thereof; _Kama_, lust, pleasure, sensual 
enjoyments and the fulfillment thereof; _Dharma_, which has many 
divisions and is a complicated concept which I apply a pedestrian 
definition to; and finally _Moksa_, or "Liberation," which is 
attained through the fulfillment of the other three Aims. For most 
of us, practicing rigorous austerities and renouncing the 
pleasures of this world before having reveled in them would be a 
mistake and lead nowhere. Ideally, Moksa would also be a natural 
state, growing from the balanced practice of the first three Aims.
  
I see the disempowering form of sacrifice or surrender, _prapati_ 
carried to extremes, as more a Vaisnava form of Bhakti, given the 
attitude of complete helplessness and desperation for the grace of 
a god always to be experienced as separate. While I'm prone to 
occasional bhaktifits  ;|  it's not often that I engage in 
anything resembling self-humiliation, or even ego-destruction. As 
a _grihasthini_, or householder, it's not yet my _dharma_ to do 
so.  ;|
  
|And yet Kali shows me the value of egotism and what I have come
|to know as 'the Law of Thelema' (expressed by many as 'Do what
|thou wilt').  She does not encourage my dissolution (perhaps
|because She knows of my resistance to such) except as part of
|ritual and immersion in what I know as 'kirtan' (from my friends
|who worship Krishna through celebration and ecstatic immersion). 
  
Perhaps because She knows it's not "your time" yet? Perhaps 
because it isn't necessary at all. I don't know that answer for 
myself yet, and most definitely wouldn't presume to speculate 
about anyone else. 
  
|This latter (less ascetic and, short-term, lessgenerous)immersion
|leads to what I can only describe as bhaktik frenzy at times,
|or ecstatic trance.  It is here where Kali and I become one,
|though I have rarely been able to enter into this experience 
|outside kirtan (singing, dancing, art etc. in devotion to Her).
  
Kirtan, bhajans, japa, and even asana have led me to states of 
ecstatic trance. I'm apt to wander off into _samadhi_ at the drop 
of a hat, though, and have to learn to restrain myself rather than 
to let go.  ;|  The sense of complete immersion, unity with Kalika 
Mahadevi, has come most frequently--not surprisingly--for me 
during and/or after sexual union, whether explicitly ritualized, 
or simply a Most Excellent Fuck. One of the most long-term, 
unusual,  even a bit frightening states of idenfitication came 
about for me in this way, with Camunda being the manifestation-in-
question, and me extremely weirded-out for quite some time.  ;|

|I am so new to the dedicatory practices that I am unsure of the 
|cause-effect here.  Do my ritual methods inspire my ecstatic 
|trance and make possible my full-hearted devotional kirtan?  Or 
|does the kirtan trigger the trance?  I have come to few 
|conclusions about this or many other intellectual analyses, but 
|would welcome discussion about it as I feel it to be very 
|important.
  
Several years ago, I engaged in a ritual of Formal Dedication to 
Kali Ma, following a _Sakthipat_ initiation, _Mantra Diksa_, and a 
bunch of other stuff which might sound impressive to those who 
don't know me in the flesh.  ;|  It was a powerful experience. It 
also had *no* lasting effects whatsoever. "It went away." 
Depending on the Authority one asks about such an effect, it could 
mean that Sakthipat has no value; that I was/am an unworthy 
vessel; that the Diksa was improperly performed; or that it was 
natural, even valuable, to be utterly overwhelmed by the pure 
power, and emerge with one's skepticism, perhaps tempered a bit, 
but intact. I'm not sure if that was really responsive to your 
text above--but it was intended to be! 
  
|>_Reta Yajna_ is a ritual worship/sacrifice using _reta_ as the  
|>_dravya_. The word _retas_ as used in the Rg-Veda has been  
|>translated as "Divine Seed," or the "Semen of the Gods," so to  
|>speak. More properly,_Reta_ is the *combination* of _rakta_,  
|>blood, specifically menstrual blood, and _sukra_, or semen, as 
|>such. This combo theoretically elevates 
|>normal human discharges into _Reta_, the "Divine Seed."

|Very wonderful, and quite appropriate material for 
|alt.magick.tantra.
  
I should have added an "IMHO" after my own translation/commentary 
on _Reta_, as I'm not a Vedic scholar, and thus, not properly 
qualified to give T&C, other than to myself.
   
|>The actual rite can take any of several forms, from eucharistic, 
|>which the Reta becomes Prasad, that consumed after being offered 
|>to/accepted by/blessed by the Devata of the ritual; to pure  
|>'sacrificial offering,' consumed by a homa fire, fer-instance; to  
|>use in further rituals in the form of drawing yantras or  
|>performing _nyasa_ on the partner's body before sexual ritual; to 
|>any number of specifically "occult" or 
|>magical rituals for aims from completely worldly to completely  
|>'spiritual' to anything in between.
  
|I have been exposed to such things in the past, and yet as I 
|learn tantra from Kali, I come to know it in less ceremonial or 
|ritualistic terms.  Yes, I do engage ritual and usually this is 
|celebratory or dedicatory in nature (not always).  However, when 
|it comes to sexuality perhaps my history has been what would be 
|called more 'vanilla' in sadomasochistic circles. :>  I am 
|exploring alternatives to this slowly while maintaining my focus.
  
At one point, I had a *very* traditional guru/sisya relationship 
with a man whom I considered my Satguru at the time. Ironically--
or maybe not?--at that point, I was unpleasantly rigid, didactic 
to the point of rudeness, and extremely caught up in ritualism, 
and also embarrassingly ignorant about most of the stuff I 
prattled endlessly on about _vis_ "Tantra." After the traditional 
relationship ended, not only did I find myself loosening up, but 
<so it seems to me NEwayz|, doing the most learning, progressing, 
& alla dat. I don't regret the experience, nor do I regret moving 
beyond, into the "great wide open." It may be a _Tyaga_ thang, 
with an inner attitude born of practice or a natural tendency 
toward, I don't know which, to view the "mundane" *as* "sacred," 
or it may be the "clicking" between myself and my present 
magical/mundane partner, or something else entirely, but 
unfettered fucking seems to have become mostly identical to formal 
_maithuna sadhana_ for me.
  
|Perpetually two things have struck me as 'difficult' about what 
|is described as 'ritualized sexuality' and 'ceremonial magick' 
|within esoteric traditions.
|
|In the first, I have favored the connection with the 
|individual(s)with whom I was being intimate, and so preferred to 
|reject 'goals' in the sexual interaction in favor of none at all, 
|moving to the dance of our sincerety and mutual pleasuring and 
|occasionally entering into trance-states or 'nonordinary states 
|of consciousness' (even for sex) due to the way in which we 
|merged and dallied.  The notion of 'using this energy' has always 
|struck me as repulsive, though I think I am beginning to see the 
|value of sex magick as practiced by others and have been lovers 
|with others who wished to engage these types of rites with me 
|(still do :>).
  
I'm not sure what you mean by "using this energy." Toward a 
*specific* goal, I spoze, but isn't mutual pleasure a "goal" 
itself? At this point, I don't think I see it as a less "worthy" 
or "magical" or even "valuable" goal than mingling with Divinity 
or material gain of some sort. I may be weird about sex, though--
it's definitely the straightest route toward just about 
EVERYTHING, for me. Sexual practice has taken forms from very 
traditional _Pancamakara_ <traditionally non-traditional?| to what 
I suppose could be described as "traditional western C.M." sex-
magick rites, to an invocation followed by a fuck, for purely 
investigative purposes, to a fine rowdy romp for its own sake, 
which is gradually taking the name and form of "something else." 
I'm still not entirely sure *what*!
  
|Maybe I'm just a kind of battery or surrogate or something for 
|sex magicians. :>  Yet I feel that I engage a very important 
|intimatic process or 'rite' when encountering my lovers, 
|especially those with whom I have shared a great deal of time and 
|to whom I have dedicated a great deal of my energies (thus strict 
|physical sexuality is only one part of the dance, and my 'tantra' 
|is much larger than intercourse).
  
Almost sounds like the "magician/seer" relationship--a description 
I personally dislike. The energetic weaving is definitely focused 
on more than physical sexuality with my present partner, and the 
ways in which we relate seem to be getting stronger as they get 
more elastic--or something like that!
  
|As far as ceremonial magick is concerned I am typically resistant 
|to pre-formulated ceremony, associating ritual with a state of 
|mind that I may induce in myself in response to *changing*, 
|*living* circumstances which appear to fluctuate enough to 
|preclude formatted recipe results.
  
As long as the pre-formulated ceremony isn't so rigid as to 
preclude deviation, I don't see it as a problem, for myself.
  
|It may well be that I am simply too eclectic and lacking in 
|discipline or interest to achieve this 'ritual' through ceremony 
|(as I have seldom found the experiments I have engaged to lead to 
|this state of mind as compared to my other, more devotional or 
|ecstatic and unplanned acts),though I have taken exploratory 
|steps in this regard and met resistance or seen omens which 
|turned me back.
  
I'm an eminently undisciplined individual myself.  ;|  I do strive 
against laziness, and so engage in daily routines as a form of 
discipline, among other things. I think a large part of whatever 
"knowledge" I may seem to possess stems simply from my being 
interested in matters that seem UN-interesting to a lot of other 
people.
  
|>Love is the law, love under will.

|Very interesting, this 'tantric-thelemic' polarity or energy 
|current, is it not?  I find those who stand betwixt or amongst 
|these often to be quite similar of temperament and interest once 
|I get to know them.  
|
|I would love to hear more about your own pathway and how you have
|found the combination of these traditions (or intersection?  
|unity?) to be helpful to you or of hindrance.  Are there specific 
|teachers you favor offline, in books or in cyberspace?  Are you 
|as wildly eclectic as myself (enjoying studies in zen, tantra, 
|sufism and other esoterics)?  Your name sounds familiar.  Have we 
|exchanged words in cyberspace previously?  Do you find 
|experimental, exploratory and self-transformational practices to 
|be your ilk?
  
Heh! As you *must* have realized by now, I do tend to go on, so 
I'll try for the "short version."  ;|  I was "independent" at a 
much younger age than most people, being a wife at 13, a mother at 
14, and sole wage-earner for the family from around 15 or so, 
through the present <my daughter is now a teen herself|. It 
started, as "it" often does, with hatha yoga in various forms with 
various instructors, and the fact that "yoga" and Hinduism in 
their broadest senses caught my interest. I did all the usual 
stuff--went to India, hung out in _asrams_, began laborious 
transliterations/translations from the Sanskrit <did I mention 
laziness? I'm *still* studying the Devanagari script, and am not 
yet at the point where translation is anything remotely like 
easy!|, and eventually threw in my lot with Sri Sri Sri A R 
Virananda, the aforementioned former _guru_.  ;|  It struck me 
only recently that my formal studentship of Things Tantric have 
been under the guidance of--and after that, still under the 
*influence* of--a Saivite teacher. I've never had the benefit of a 
_Saktha_ guru, and occasionally feel the loss <though not, so far 
at least, enough to seek such a situation out|.
  
I then went straight from yoga to Thelema, without pausing to 
explore any of the neo-pagan or satanic systems along the way, 
something I've heard is relatively unusual. The "formal 
conclusion" of the guru/sisya relationship came about, in fact, 
when I asked permission <LOL!| to initiate into the O.T.O., did 
not obtain same, and decided to go ahead NEwayz. I still have 
nothing but the utmost respect, love, and gratitude toward my 
Beloved Teacher, and in fact, have been in contact several times 
since the--change?--in the status of our relationship. At one 
point I was on the verge of formal conversion to the Saiva 
Siddhantha, one of the schools of Saivite Hinduism which *permits* 
conversion <many do not|, when I realized that, high as my esteem 
for Subramuniya was and continues to be, he isn't *my* "Gurudeva."
  
Other than that, my studies have been self-generated. As for *why* 
Thelema and the O.T.O., I met up with members of a local O.T.O. 
body, and liked them. The interest was definitely spurred, for 
better or worse, after two Wiccan women I know and consider more-
or-less friends "warned" me against the Evyl <tm| Crowley, O.T.O., 
etc. The warnings didn't match the faces, so to speak, so I 
decided to check it out for myself and then decide. Being a 
"Dharma-freak" instead of a "karma <sic| junkie," I was attracted 
by the idea of personal responsibility, of action rather than fear 
of consequences, and intrigued by what I perceived to be 
parallels. I consider _Swadharma_ to be, *for me*, identical with 
Thelema-as-Will. I have fun being a COP and self-interpreting _AL_ 
I:57, fer-instance, in such ways as "There is Kapota and there is 
Kundalini" or "There is Anahata and there is Muladhara," tweaking 
the "Law of the Fortress" into "Durga Dharma" or "Durga Nyaya," 
and considering the "great mystery of the House of God" in terms 
of _Grihesvara_, "House of God," and "Lord of the House," and 
meditating upon the etymilogical <sp??| roots of _grh_ and _grah_, 
equating "house" with "book" and also with "knot."  Y'know, the 
usual!  ;|
  
I'd probably describe the Hindu-Thelemic currents as 
"complementary." The fact that I don't see things yogic as Crowley 
appeared to at times hasn't been a hindrance to me, thus far.
  
Probably the single most "enlightening" occurrance of my life 
would be viewed as non-spiritual, or even UN-spiritual by a lot of 
folx. About five years ago, I was diagnosed with a Central Nervous 
System disorder similar to M.S., which at this point is incurable, 
progressive, debilitating, and ultimately fatal. Being smacked 
upside the head with my own mortality at a rather young age led, 
naturally, to contemplating, questions, etc.--is there something 
beyond this life? beyond this physical body? is there something, 
anything, which will "endure?" and blah-de-blah. At the time, I 
reached the conclusion that there was *not*...that the sole 
"purpose" of "life" was to propagate the species; that the only 
kind of "immortality" anyone could hope for was through spreadine 
one's DNA; that the "Big Secret" was that there WAS no secret, 
that the Mission of Humanity was to procreate and then die. Rather 
than leading to any sense of futility, fear, or depression, it was 
a liberating experience for me, and an impetus to get with 
existence as "pure joy," followed by an individual _mahapralaya_ 
with no re-creation process necessary. The linking of "no dread 
hereafter" with "no keen hereafter"  ;|  left me free to...I 
dunno. Just "walk" I guess. BTW, my "conclusions" about Life, the 
Universe, and Everything <g| have changed since then--several 
times. At this point, my conclusions about almost everything are 
"I dunno, I don't think it's possible to know, and that won't 
interfere with my doing what needs to be done, what wants to be 
done, what will be done."  ::shrug::
  
Seems to have left me both more eclectic <whatever works!| and 
less so, as I realize I don't have time to dive deeply into 
everything that catches my eye, and have chosen to focus more 
intently on the more lasting fancies.  :|
  
I don't believe we've exchanged posts, but you may have seen my 
name whilst I was spouting inanities on alt.magick, or discussing 
the deification of Draupadi on the AHA mailing list.  ;|
  
I'm odd enough to really ENJOY Woodruffe/Avalon as far as 
translation goes. I dislike Usha Harding's writings on Kali 
intensely, and enjoy Mokerjee's with equal intensity. I personally 
recommend Iyengar's T&C of Patanjali above all others. I've 
performed many s-l-o-w, painful, letter-by-letter transliterations 
followed by translations of a whole lotta Sacred Texts over the 
years; it's getting just a *bit* easier as I make studying 
Sanskrit a personal _sadhana_. I recommend Nataraj Books whenever 
possible as an excellent source of difficult-to-find books, 
whether in Sanskrit or English, or--my personal fave--Devanagari 
script with word-by-word transliteration, followed by translation, 
with or without commentary, according to whim.
  
Did I say "short version?" Sheesh!  :/
  
By the way, if anyone says anything interesting, I would *greatly* 
appreciate it if public posts inaccessible to me could be 
forwarded and/or cc'd to my I-net address.
  
93 93/93
  
Aum Candikayai Namah