|
Devi-bhakta Thank you for sharing these thoughts of Swami Sivananda on Tantra Yoga Sadhana. As always, Sivananda is a veritable well of knowledge; however, there are several points in his presentation that could be misleading. I am not saying that he is *wrong* (I am certainly not qualified to question a religious authority of Sivananda's vast knowledge and experience). However, as a Shaiva monk who has renounced the world,the swami's views of Shakta non-renunciate practices may be slightly colored by his own preferences and beliefs? And so there are several points upon which I'd like to offer an alternative viewpoint: SHAKTISM AND TANTRISM: NOT THE SAME THING Sivananda appears to equate Tantra Yoga Sadhana with Shaktism, which is not strictly accurate: There are numerous Tantra Sadhanas which are not Shakta -- some are Vaishnava, some Shaiva, some Jain, some Buddhist. And likewise, there are forms of Shaktism which are not Tantric -- the massive Devi Bhagavata Purana, one of the most detailedsources of Shakta theology and lore, explicitly places Tantra second to Bhakti (conventional devotional worship) as an approach to worshiping the Goddess. THE LITERAL 5 M's ARE *NOT* FOR PASHUS While Sivananda's discussion of the three levels of Sadhak, i.e. Pasu, Vira, and Divya, are excellent, he makes the assertion that "It is only the Pasu Sadhaks who practise the Pancha Makaras, viz. Matsya, Mamsa, Madya, Mudra and Maithuna." (For readers who don't understand this statement, Sivananda is referring to the so-called "5 M's" --those infamous Tantric rituals involving consumption of meat, alcohol, and sexual intercourse that still luridly define Tantra in the mindsof those who are not very greatly with the subject.) On this point, Sivananda would appear to be simply incorrect. In fact,there are three distinct "sets" of "5 M" rituals -- one for each level of Sadhak: Pashu, Vira, and Divya. The only "set" involving *actual* meat, alcohol and sexual intercourse (which I assume is Sivananda's concern here) is the Vira set. Allow me to explain: Just as so many Hindu concepts come in threes, so does that of Adhikara, or levels of "competency" for worship, which vary depending on the temperament of the Sadhak. "Methods which aresuitable for highly advanced Sadhakas will fail as regards the ignorant and undeveloped, for they cannot understand them," explains Woodroffe. And so the three Bhavas [temperaments] of the Sadhaka are: 1. Pashu (lit. "Animal"). This is the mass of humanity; people whose vision is largely limited to the World -- to external rather than internal realities. This is not to say that a Pashu is a "bad person" -- in fact, s/he may be and often is a very good person. However, the Tamas guna prevails, and so this person remains best suited for gross (i.e. material) worship -- which, again, isn't a slur; it's the commonly known physical worship of the deity through its image, with physical pooja (ritual offerings and prayer). 2. Vira (lit. "Hero"). This is a very advanced Sadhak, who has largely(though not completely) liberated her-/himself from the World, and has thereby ceased to be a Pashu. Here, Rajas guna prevails -- the active principle that can accelerate movement either toward Tamas guna or Sattva guna. The heroic Sadhak is ready to confront the enemy, Tamas, face to face, with an offensive assault upon her/his remaining attachments, in situations where the less-developed soul would falter or flee. S/he seeks out and confronts humankind's biggest fears and temptations (i.e the things that most signify human lack of control) -- death, cremation grounds, corpses, sex, mind-altering substances like alcohol, etc. -- and heroically overcomes them. 3. Divya (lit. "Divine"). The most advanced Sadhak; the spiritual woman or man. She is calm, pure, refined, and wise; free of materiality and passion. Here, Sattva guna predominates. Within each of these three groups are (as is so commonly the case in Hindu philosophy) various further subdivisions -- so that one can be of a relatively advanced Pashu, or a relatively low Divya temperament, and so on. WHY THE "REAL 5 M's" ARE ONLY FOR VIRAS Put simply, the 5 M's are only for Viras because Pashus are not sufficiently advanced to understand them and Divyas are presumably beyond them. In fact, the Tantras emphatically *exclude* Pashus -- i.e., the ordinary run of less spiritually minded human beings -- from engaging in the 5 M rituals. Why? Because they have not had the physical, mental, spiritual and doctrinal training to properly understand the exoteric and esoteric meaning and purpose of these ceremonies. The whole point of these rituals is to experientially drive home the realization that those things and acts which are traditionally considered "impure" are actually (like everything else in Creation) the body of the Goddess. In a religious parallel, Roman Catholicism preaches that, given the proper ritual, mere bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Well, in the same way Tantra teaches that the 5 M's transform the mundane materials and functions of life into Devi, the Goddess. But for the Pashu -- the average person without an intense amount of Tantric training under her or her belt -- no amount of "talking the talk" of Tantra will make this transformation real. On the contrary -- no matter how they may try, sex will still be sex, meat will still be meat, and booze will still be booze. To continue with the Roman Catholic comparison, church doctrine holds that -- for those individuals not initiated into the mystery of transubstantiation (i.e. non-Catholics who've not received the preparatory sacraments) -- bread and wine, even if properly administered by a priest, *remains* nothing more than bread and wine. In other words, the ritual only works if you're spiritually ready for it. And most people aren't. Still, it's important to understand the fundamental theory that is at work behind the 5 M's, and Woodroffe explains it thus: "According to Indian Monism [Advaita], man is -- in his essence or spirit -- divine, and one with the universal Spirit. His mind and body and all their functions are divine, for they are not merely a manifestation of Shakti, but they are Shakti itself. So to say that a matter is, in itself, 'low' or 'evil' is to calumniate Shakti. Nothing in natural function is low or impure to the mind that recognizes it as Shakti and the working of Shakti. It is the ignorant and, in a true sense, vulgar mind that regards any natural function as low or coarse. ... Nothing in itself is impure. It is the mind that makes it so." A Pashu may be intellectually able to understand this, and even convincingly parrot back such ideas. But only the true Vira is competent to experientially confront them head-on: "The only ones who are competent for this Yoga," notes Woodroffe, "are those who are truly free, or on the way to freedom, from all dualism." WHAT THE 5 M's MEAN No less an authority than the Mahanirvana Tantra states that, without the 5 M's, the Tantric worship of Shakti is impossible (V. 23-24). "The reason for this," explains Woodroffe, "is that those who worship Shakti, worship Divinity as Creatrix [the Mother] and in the form of the Universe. If She appears as and in natural functions, She must be worshipped therewith -- otherwise, worship is fruitless." Esoterically, the 5 M's symbolize and celebrate -- among other things-- the traditional five elements of Devi's Creation: 1. WINE (Madya) is Fire, which gives joy and dispels the sorrows of humankind. 2. MEAT (Mamsa) is Air, which nourishes and increases the strength of mind and body. 3. FISH (Matsya) is Water, which increases generative power. 4. GRAIN (Mudra) is Earth, which produces and supports all life. 5. SEXUAL UNION (Maithuna) is Ether, the root of the world and the origin of all creation. BUT that doesn't mean that only Vira Sadhaks are qualified to worship Devi. On the contrary, there are specific 5 M's prescribed for each of the three Bhavas: 1. DIVYA. (SYMBOLIC 5 M's): (1) Wine is the intoxicating knowledge acquired by Yoga of the Parabrahman, which renders the worshiper senseless as to the external world. (2) Meat is the surrender of all the worshiper's acts to the Divine. (3) Fish is that Sattvic knowledge by which the worshiper feels the pleasure and pain of all beings. (4) Parched Grain (Mudra) is the act of relinquishing all association with the evil that results in bondage. (5) Sexual Intercourse Ritual, is Kundalini Yoga; i.e., the union of the Shakti (Kundalini) of the Muladhara Chakra with the Shiva of the Sahasrara Chakra. 2. VIRA. (LITERAL 5 M's): (1) Wine is not usually grape wine, but rather wine made from molasses, rice or the Madhuka flower. Palmyra and date wines are also acceptable. (2) Meat must be of a particular kind, and never from a female animal, since the Shakta considers all female creatures to be Shakti's representatives on Earth. (3) Fish also may be of only certain types. (4) Parched Grains (Mudra) are usually saali rice, barley or wheat fried in ghee. (5) Sexual Intercourse Ritual must be performed with a woman who has been properly purified and consecrated for the rite. She may be (depending on the Sadhak, and on the Tantra followed) one's own wife, or she may not. Since this woman is -- in any case -- is considered as Devi Herself for the ritual, any feeling of desire or lust is said to be tantamount to incest with one's own mother, and can cause a massive spiritual backslide. Due to the cosmic risks involved, Vira Bhava is not to be followed without the close guidance of a qualified guru. 3. PASHU. (SUBSTITUTE 5 M's): Instead of (1) Wine, the Pashu takes milk, ghee, honey or coconut milk, depending upon several factors. Instead of (2) Meat, the Pashu takes salt, ginger, sesame, garlic or certain kinds of beans. Instead of (3) Fish, the Pashu takes eggplant, red radish, masoor gram, or one of several other food items. As for(4) Grains, the same parched grains listed under Vira above are acceptable here as well. And instead of (5) Sexual Intercourse Ritual, there are usually offerings to the Goddess image of Yoni-shaped flowers, etc. -- also, according to some sources, non-ritual union with one's own lawful spouse can be a substitute here. WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE 'TANTRIC SEX'? So that, broadly speaking, is where sexual intercourse actually fits into Tantric religious practice. It is part of a rare, esoteric and highly complex ritual -- one designed to transcend, not fan the passions. There is nothing "sexy," "sensual" or "exciting" about sexual intercourse in the highly ritualized, closely controlled, and deeply spiritual context of the 5 M's -- at least not in the conventionally understood sense of those terms. Rather, it is Sadhana. It is sacred worship. It is not an emotionally charged meeting of woman and man, but rather a highly structured transcendence of the very concept of woman and man. As with the rest of Tantra, it's a common act approached with a completely uncommon spiritual mindset. Now, I know that may come as a great disappointment to the many people who think "Tantric Sex" sounds fun and exotic and exciting: "Imagine! A religion where sexual ecstasy is considered worship!" ... Sorry.Wrong. As Woodroffe wryly notes, "For the true sensualist who wishes to get at the object of his desire, these long Tantric rituals would be merely obstructive and wearisome." So what does that tell us about the current flood of "Tantric Sex" books and video kits and retreats and so on, which are so much a part and parcel of the current "New Age" movement? Are they completely illegitimate hoaxes? Spiritual con jobs? Not necessarily. As long as you understand and accept these things for what they are, they are harmless enough, and may even be helpful for some people in certain contexts. They can make for a happy and healthy emotional life, and greatly enhance a marital relationship. But it is essential to understand this: THEY ARE NOT TANTRA. They are, for the most part, simply sex instruction; guides for enjoying and optimizing worldly, physical love. And there's nothing wrong with that: Any system that teaches a man how to better honor and respect and please the woman who is his partner -- his Shakti -- can only be good for both sides of a householder couple. And if it teaches a woman (and her partner) to love and revere her own body and its sensuality as manifestations of the Goddess, all the better. This is perfectly wonderful. If it teaches the couple to remember the Divine during sexual intercourse and consider their lovemaking a manifestation of the Divine, rather than a low or "dirty" or "nasty" act -- well, that seems like a very nice idea, doesn't it? The world could certainly use more of such attitudes. And remember, some schools say non-ritual union with one's own lawful spouse is an acceptable substitute for Maithuna in less-spiritually evolved (Pashu) couples. "Non-ritual" doesn't have to mean "run of the mill" either -- you can ritualize it however you'd like to increase the spiritual feeling. BUT STILL, to call it -- Tantric Sex -- would really be inaccurate; because these techniques are designed to enhance worldly pleasure, not negate or transcend it. At best, the label "Tantra" in such a context is a marketing slogan -- like "Kama Sutra," for instance. To the average woman or man on the street, neither "Tantra" nor "Kama Sutra" is a term with any real or well-defined meaning: They simply evoke something vaguely exotic and forbidden; and, more to the point,something sex-related. And products that are seen as "exotic, forbidden, and sex-related" tend to sell well. But they have absolutely nothing to do with the famous Tantric Maithuna of the Virabhava. Once again, and as always, I invite correction if any of this is in error. I claim no particular expertise on the subject. I'd also welcome further elucidation on any of the points contained herein -- obviously, this is only a broad overview, intended to clarify some common misconceptions. There is certainly much more to be said on the subject. Aum Maatangyai Namahe Eve _69 This is alot of great secondhand knowledge Devi_B however, we should discuss realities of 5 Ms. I must insist that they are for householders and not renunciates, because renunciates are strictly forbidden from breaking vows of celibacy and such. Therefore they follow symbolic maituna, etc, but householders are not interested in an enlightenment free of experience. So for householders there is vira path, the challenge being to remake all of experience into worship. For instance, I cannot live without music or sex, or wine, but I am a tantrik. I repeat, I cannot live without them or my life becomes dry and unfulfilling and then I commit acts against dharma by cultivating anger and hostility against the enviroment which no longer suits me. But instead I fuldfill my wordly ambitions on a spiritual level by integrating worship into them. Do you know the meaning of tarot card 15? Solve et coagula? This is the mechanics of life provided by moon and his nakshatras. Wax and waning of spiritual ebb and flow. You cannot wax forever, you cannot wane forever, either equals death but so also does balance because balance is stalemate. Life is meeting of wax and wane of strength and mercy and ebb and flow. We sometimes feel cursed by backsliding into old ways when we have made great spiritual progress but guess what? Spirituality is not something in a vacuum where meanings cease but rather something based upon our tangible experiences. One maintains brahma (charya) then one mates with another and recreates the whole universe by celbrating the macrocosm in the micro of ones lover. This is maithuna. Rituals are not the important element but the motivation for higher love duing the union. One can mack on another and merely screw but even such things as foreplay are higher level of love and then the reality of tantra is not ta technique to not ejaculate but one to touch another and be touched deeper. There is no two beings in universe but one being and one mind. In love making a duality is experiences as the be all and end all of all life with one holy being split down middle for play of union. One soul, one being for enjoyment and divine celebration. This enjoyment is no different from pashu celebrating same but for knowledge and inclusion of divine. Sannyassin cannot partake of this at all. Solve et coagula, life is motion and when not then it is death. One can ejaculate, to not do so is to keep sperm from maintaining fresh supply. A man recreates entire sperm count in just three days. Ojas is made from all seven dhatus not just shukra so losing sperm for man is not really important, moreover he will pee it out if he doesnt ejaculate this is fact. He just wont notice. When a tantrik do not question any longer whether pashu. But be happy that all that you do is incorporating divine into this manifest plane. That is highest tantra, remake world in greater glory of divinity. Make it a happy place. Devi_bhakta Hey Eve: Excellent analysis. It gets toward the most interesting overall question about Tantra, which is: What is its relevance for the modern spiritual seeker? There are lots of books about it, some keeping a cautious intellectual distance; some purporting to reveal great secrets. There is the broad assertion that Tantra is the most effective spiritual path for our Kali Age. But there are also the traditional "roadblocks" that require initiation by a qualified guru into an actual lineage, that say mantras and rituals learned from books aren't worth the paper they're printed on. And yet, even in India, a qualified guru is hard to find. More seekers get harmed by fake Tantric gurus than get helped by real ones. Granted, the Tantras are filled with "secret" and symbolic language and references -- gaps that are supposed to be filled by the guru. But most translations today helpfully explain these misleading passages with detailed footnotes. The assertions that books alone are useless come from an earlier time, when literacy was uncommon, and bookstores didn't have shelves full of volumes on Tantra. Days when Tantra was a taboo area, and access jealously guarded by insiders. Just as Roman Catholicism -- another mystery- and ritual-laden sadhana -- taught that access to God could only be gained by a Catholic priest, Tantra taught that access to God/dess could only by had through a Tantric guru. And certainly, there is no substitute for this relationship -- one candle passing its flame to another. But in reality, everything has changed in the last 100 years; even in the last 50 years. Now many Hindus call "guru" a person they never met or saw in person. They read the guru's works and follow the guru's precepts -- but it is a very different thing than the traditional, all-encompassing Guru-chela relationship (for Mother Meera's thoughts on this point, see Post #1531). But the books now available are written by gurus, swamis, scholars of the highest caliber. The person studying Tantra is no longer confronted with the bare precepts of a perplexing, unexplained scripture -- but rather a full, practical "How-To" discussion. You've mentioned in past posts, Eve, that you'd love to find a guru. But in the meantime, you freely assert in your post that, "I am a tantrik." You have developed your own approach to the 5M's, suitable to your nature and spiritual experience, and -- as you say -- "I fulfill my worldly ambitions on a spiritual level by integrating worship into them." I know from your past posts that you are very familiar with Tantric doctrine, and have obviously thought (and acted upon) your knowledge with deep devotion and earnest effort. And yet, an initiated Tantric might still say you're spinning your wheels -- because you haven't fulfilled the formal initiatory requirements of Tantra. But my tendency is to think you're doing just fine. The entire history of religion seems to from the instinctive to the secret and forbidden, and then back again. A form of worship is undertaken by a devotee or group of devotees; in time it grows into a formal religious system; various officials rise to regulate interpretation and access, to control and regulate the flow of knowledge to the common worshipers. Then the religion is gradually "taken back" by the devotees who are its lifeblood. Tantra seems to me an approach to religion that makes sense in the modern world -- there is a vast amount of knowledge and instruction in the public domain now. Is it truly an exercise in futility to put that knowledge to use -- to try and experience it for yourself? Frankly, to say so seems to contradict the fundamental worldview of Tantra. Doubtless a guru is the ideal way to go; but if a guru is not available, is the preferred alternative to do nothing but wait around for one? Again, it hardly seems logical -- it hardly seems Tantric! Isn't that what you're getting at when you say, "Spirituality is not something in a vacuum where meanings cease but rather something based upon our tangible experiences"? You add, speaking of Maithuna, that "This enjoyment is no different from pashu celebrating same but for knowledge and inclusion of divine. Sannyassin cannot partake of this at all." You will notice is my posts that this is a big part of my post -- questioning Shivananda's analysis on the grounds that: (1) that we have here a Shaivite monk undertaking to explain a non-renunciate form of Shaktism (if a celibate Roman Catholic priest [shut up!] explains the tenets of the non-celibate Protestant Baptist faith -- albeit two aspects of the same underlying belief system, can you really trust him to know what he's talking about?); and (2) he's using the term Pashu in a derogatory sense (like, "If you'd do such a thing, then you're obviously a Pashu!"); and (3) he's saying that a famously Vira practice is actually a Pashu practice. So I stepped in. Sure, a lot of the technical knowledge I discussed was "secondhand knowledge," but only in the sense that I didn't think it up -- it's all readily available to the interested public in the no-longer-quite-so-secret literature of Tantra. Two points were especially important to me --(1) that the Pashu(the mass of humanity), by adjusting their mindsets and deepening their understanding, can use sexual intercourse in precisely the way you describe. I cannot say it any better than you did: "When a tantrik, do not question any longer whether [you are a] pashu. But be happy that all that you do is incorporating divine into this manifest plane. That is highest tantra, remake world in greater glory of divinity. Make it a happy place." But wasn't that the very message of the final section of my post? My only real point, although I went far afield in reacing it, was that this approach is not the strictly Vira Maithuna ritual. Sivananda seemed to be suggesting that it was. The Vira might be a renunciate, but Maithuna is still part of her/his Sadhana -- so does this, as Sivananda suggests, make him a Pashu? On the contrary. Yours seems to me a profound and elevating understanding of the 5 M's, and suggests that your practice most certainly Tantric, and unquestionably upward-directed. It is not for me to say whether it's Pashu or Vira -- what the hell do I know? I can only say that it appears to be in accordance with Tantra as I understand it. I do know that there are a couple of initiated Tantrics among us in this Group, however, and I would very much appreciate their input on this whole issue. Might we hope for a few responses? Aum Maatangyai Namahe omprem OM Devi Bhakta Thanks for the interesting post on Pancha Makaras. I agree that Swami Sivananda can be quite 'definite' in his language and that his views are formed partly by his path and his experience related to that path. But, as a Self-realized being, it is unlikely that Swami Sivananda is wrong in this area. He did say that the Pasu aspirant is susceptible to a tamasic misuse of the Pancha Makaras. He also said that the Divya aspirant will find an esoteric meaning in the Makaras, viz., "The esoteric meaning of these five Makaras is "kill egoism, control flesh, drink the wine of God-intoxification and have union with Lord Siva". This is the divine practise of Divya Sadhaks who lead the life Divine." That he did not mention the practices of the Vira aspirant doesn't invalidate what he did say. Swami Sivananda (and his disciples) are famous for urging one and all to rigorously uproot their tamasic tendencies, but also to go beyond their rajasic qualities as well. Swami Sivananda often emphasizes the sattvic qualities as he did in the portion that I posted, viz., "The Tantric student must be endowed with purity, faith, devotion, dedication to God, dispassion, humility, courage, cosmic love, truthfulness,non-covetousness and contentment." He says that resting on anything less than "these qualities is a gross abuse of Shaktism." A point that we would all do well to keep in mind during our practice and our participation in this forum. Jaya Maa Devi_bhakta Namaskar OmPrem: Yes, I agree that Sivananda seems to be addressing Shakta as he has seen it wrongly practiced, rather than Shakta as it its prescribed by its scriptures. *** He did say that the Pasu aspirant is susceptible to a tamasic misuse of the Pancha Makaras. *** He did, and he is definitely right on that. In fact, that is the point I attempted to open in my last post responding to Eve. Whether or not Eve's use of the 5 M's is a "misuse" or a spiritual step forward is really between himself and the Divine. Each person has their own path, and what works for one will never work for all. That is why I was interested in having some of our initiated Tantric participants address the question of whether abuse of the 5 M's is inevitable when practiced without a guru. Although almost all forms of Hindu sadhana are deeply informed by Tantric practice, I do not consider myself a Tantric -- as my ID suggests, my path is Bhakti. That much, I know I can do without the physical presence of a human guru. And yet, it does seem that much of what I know of Tantra is eminently practical and wise for anyone on the spiritual path, and I find myself applying these principles frequently in all aspects of my life. And so I find myself often resorting to Tantric texts to learn more of the theory and practice of Shaktism. I am not comfortable enough to declare, with Eve, that "I am a Tantrick." For all of my supposedly "anti-Guru" posts of the past, and for all of my doubts about the tradition's atual relevance in most contexts of modern life, I respect Tantra's precept that one is not a Tantrick until receiving diksha in a recognized lineage. But I must ask, in practical terms, whether that's a distinction without a difference. Is it simply Tantra without the label? *** That he did not mention the practices of the Vira aspirant doesn't invalidate what he did say. *** What he said was very clear: "It is ONLY the Pasu Sadhaks who practise the Pancha Makaras, viz. Matsya, Mamsa, Madya, Mudra and Maithuna." That is wrong, at least from the standpoint of Shakta theology, which says Pashus, Viras and Divyas *all* practice the 5 M's; however, for each group those M's have different meanings. Sivananda then defines Maithuna as "coitus" -- and that is a 5 M ritual only in the Virabhava. You suggest, correctly I would assume, that Sivananda is speaking from his own firsthand encounters with Tantra rather than any particular familiarity with Shakta scripture. From that point of view, as I noted, sexual intercourse -- practiced in the proper state of mind -- is sometimes said to be permitted to the Pashu for fulfilling the Maithuna tattva. And there, he is correct to say that Pashus who choose this approach are -- to use your words -- "susceptible to a tamasic misuse" of it. Strictly speaking, Eve's description sounds like a Pashu tattva, simply because he is not a renunciate, and the Vira (in my understanding) probably would be quite advanced into a renunciate path by the time s/he becomes a Vira. Would Sivananda consider Eve's approach "a tamasic misuse" of the Maithuna concept? Judging by his words, I think he would consider *any* sexual activity, Pashu, Vira, or otherwise, to be so. Which only means he is not a Tantric. The question remains -- are his judgments valid as applied to people who *are* Tantrics? *** Swami Sivananda (and his disciples) are famous for urging one and all to rigorously uproot their tamasic tendencies, but also to go beyond their rajasic qualities as well. *** Would it be fair to say that he urges a "safe" route to spiritual realization? Since the 5 M's represent a "razor's edge" approach to spirituality, and knowing -- as I mentioned in my reply to Eve -- that "a good guru is hard to find," perhaps Sivananda is simply saying, "Don't mess with that stuff; it's too dangerous; there's too much room for error. Stick to the beaten path." It is also possible that Sivananda knows more than he's saying. From time immemorial, the Tantric guru has publicly denied, or even disparaged Tantra. Initiated Tantras have publicly condemned it as well, dismissing it as "black magic," etc. The idea is, those who are in already know better, and those who are not in shouldn't dabble in such practices until such time as they *are* in. Ramakrishna was a Tantric adept, but -- if I'm not mistaken -- he doesn't advocate or discuss the 5 M's etc. Tantra is a closed society, and the "membership list" isn't published. Those who say books won't teach you Tantra are, in essence, saying, "You're not going to learn anything by standing outside on tiptoes, trying to peek in through the sealed windows." Instead, Sivananda seems to say, be satisfied with what you *can* know (and I quote once again, for his words are highly worthwhile): "The Tantric student must be endowed with purity, faith, devotion, dedication to God, dispassion, humility, courage, cosmic love, truthfulness, non-covetousness and contentment." He says that resting on anything less than "these qualities is a gross abuse of Shaktism." As you rightly note, this is a point we should all agree upon. Aum Maatangyai Namahe omprem OM Devi Bhakta You said, "What he said was very clear: "It is ONLY the Pasu Sadhaks who practise the Pancha Makaras." This, of course, is not true as I pointed out. Swami Sivananda also said that Divya Sadhaks practice the Pancha Makaras but are aware of and focus on an esoteric meaning. Again, that he did not mention Vira Sadhaks is neither here not there. You asked if Swami Sivananda promoted a 'safe' route to God-realization. The answer is no. He constanly challenged disciples to do more sadhana, and emphasized the 'knife-edged' nature of the spiritual path. In addition, he emphasized selfless service as the true sadhana. Nor do I think that it is likely as you suggest that Swami Sivananda was speaking without "particular familiarity with Shakta scripture". In most of your posts you have presented a balanced viewpoint. It is only on the subject of Gurus that you demonstrate bias and allow that bias to distort what the Gurus actually said and meant. Your logic and bhakti nature break down when it comes to Gurus. Jaya Guru/Jaya Maa Eve _69 Thank you again Devi as always for very poignant topics and for both writing and reading responses. I certainly am no expert and yes haven't had tantrik iniation. I have had about ten iniations in Transcendental Meditation of Maharishi however and am 7 advanced technique sidha. So I do practice meditation and have since fifteen (20 yearsnow). If Maharishi is good for much besides a laugh now then he at least has made a formal mantra technique available to the world. I don't brag about being a sidha or yogi etc because Maharishi has made such difficult for me by charging 2,500 dollars for TM and advertising Flying Olympics, world's tallest buildings, groups of 40,000 pundits chanting Rudram, millionaires enlightenment courses. I am certainly at a loss except that he is universally laughable and ludicrous which is a statement I guess quite similar to Rajneesh (who I did like!). So not devoid of practice I am yet a member of human race and Western society, and in fact western society at a step up from its worst because while not a criminal I work with them as a cook. I am listening right now to Marilyn Manson, I just ate Buffalo wings and had a six pack cause it's my day off. My wife isn't home yet hehe (just kidding,) but I am almost racking up whole panchmakaras in a single day. I am wearing my fourteen faced strand of rudrakshas and surrounded by siva lingas, shaligrams and tulsi plants which I take care of daily. Am I pashu? I don't think so. This is merely my life and I am not Hindu or Buddhist. I am from Los Angeles, California originally. I am from Kali. I am a chef so let me use some analogies for my previous email. I have trained in famous kitchens but lets stick for now to pastry. Pastry is very difficult because some steps must always happen regardless of the recipe. Notably some things like creaming butter and sugar or eggs and sugar, if one creamed butter and sugar then one adds eggs and creams them then. Understand? Many pastry books exist and yet I can make every cake mix using the same procedure regardless of the words on the pages or whether the home cook believes my technique. It will always work because I learned from the baking masters. In fact I can make any cake mix from knowledge and without recipes because of experience alone. So many pundits say baking especially has very specific procedures and recipes and one will mess them up by deviations but I do know better. It's all experience. But I could not tell you or anyone else how to bake as I do and I don't like being watched because pedants will criticize but my product will still work and faster because I basically know what I'm doing. Tantriks in India had already followed yamas, niyamas, and higher techniques of yoga and sadhanas by the time of iniation and the agamas and nigamas were recipes. For instance I could master chocolate devils food cake but not know sour cream pound cake. But tantras give me recipes for higher experience. I know from my life that people will buy "Cake Bible" and still mess up cakes because they didn't learn how really to bake first. But practice does make perfect whereever you start but a professional diksha or iniation certainly helps. Eventually. Yes I am bereft of a true tantrik teacher and probably always will be because well just think why the hell would they want me of all people? I am loud obnoxious and headstrong and I don't like gurus anyway as I hate being told what to do. I will respect spiritual teachers but as opposed to Bramin catse people I don't respect the rich or unsullied because to me they don't know shit about this earth and I couldn't care less about them. Their day is over and all the gurus who live on alms are on the way out. You wont find one left in fifty years. It's a fact. In only 400 more years the dharma will be totally dead and long forgotten. But let's forget this for now. 5 Ms. I am the five Ms. I cannot cook without salt and pepper. Or butter and sugar. We're not discussing suagrbusters and other fad diets but life. In life we are the 5 ms and nothing else and we must raise them up or we will be nuked by sattva. Pure sattva is light like atomics and next time one sees a nuke just know that sattva annihilated whatever was there. 5 ms are our life and comforts in the west especially and not just as pashus. I watch a segment on tv about some macrobiotic nerd yesterday. Boy was he stressed out. That's not living. It just isnt. . We can descend to ignorance on panchmakara misuse as pashus or rise to Brahmin consciousness through their divination. Many can only make tasteless food for sustenance but some can truely cook gourmet and the key is not always ingredients but how to use the salt and pepper. Or sugar and butter. Life isn't about sitting in a cave and it's not about being perfect because look around noone is in the whole freaking world. It's about combining the sattva with the tamas as a cook would do or a musician. It's about raising the bread of existance from flat to fluffy. And sharing. I wanted a really good analogy for my thoughts but all I can come up with is this. 5 Ms are salt and pepper to the food of life and without them even spiritual bliss loses flavor. Thanks again for the great response to last letter. devi_bhakta Namaskar OmPrem: *** You [devi bhakta] said, "What he [Sivananda] said was very clear: "It is ONLY the Pasu Sadhaks who practise the Pancha Makaras." This, of course, is not true as I pointed out. *** With all due respect, it is a direct quote, if you will refer back your original post. However, I agree that he stressed the Divya (most Sattvic) symbolic interpretation as opposed to the the literal interpretation usually prescribed to the Vira, but here attributed to the Pashu. *** In most of your posts you have presented a balanced viewpoint. It is only on the subject of Gurus that you demonstrate bias and allow that bias to distort what the Gurus actually said and meant. Your logic and bhakti nature break down when it comes to Gurus. *** Guilty as charged, it appears. So what should I do? How do I correct this shortcoming? Colin Robinson Hello Devi bhakta. "Tantra taught that access to God/dess could only by had through a Tantric guru. And certainly, there is no substitute for this relationship -- one candle passing its flame to another.Doubtless a guru is the ideal way to go; but if a guru is not available, is the preferred alternative to do nothing but wait around for one? Again, it hardly seems logical -- it hardly seems Tantric!" Here is quote that would seem to support what you've just said. It is from a summary of the _Tantraloka_ of Abhinavagupta in S.C. Banerji's _Brief History of Tantra Literature_. "Of the three sources of knowledge, viz. Guru, Shastra and one's ownself, each succeeding is superior to the preceding one. One, in whom good reasoning spontaneously arises, acquires the right to yogic knowledge etc...Such a person gets Abhisheka [initiation] by reflection, dhyana, japa, svapna [dream] and homa...In such observance, Devi Herself initiates the devotee... The Guru who, though Akalpita [not originally initiated], gets refinement from somebody else, is Shiva himself. The knowledge, spontaneously acquired, becomes perfect by the study of Shastras and instruction of the Guru." "And yet, even in India, a qualified guru is hard to find. More seekers get harmed by fake Tantric gurus than get helped by real ones" Francis King makes a similar point in the last part of his book _Tantra for Westerners_. He concludes: "It is safer to avoid all supposed gurus and to rely on the ancient Buddhist tantric tradition that the sincere aspirant will eventually obtain any initiations that are necessary from a disembodied initiator." One point Francis King fails to consider is whether a seeker's "disembodied initiator" is necessarily any "safer" than an embodied one! Omprem OM Colin Swami Sivananda has this to say about choosing a Guru: "Do not use your reason too much in the selection of your Guru. You will fail if you do so. If you fail to get a first-class Guru, try to follow the instructions of the Sadhu who is treading the path for some years, who has purity and other virtuous qualities, and who has some knowledge of the scriptures. Just as as student of the Intermediate Class will be able to teach a student of Third Form when a professor with M.A. qualification is not available, just as a sub-asistant surgeon will be able to attend on a patient when the civil surgeon is not available, this second-class type of Guru will be able to help you. "If you are not able to find out even this second-class type of Guru, you can follow the teachings contained in the books written by realised saints like Sri Sankara, Dattatreya and others. You can keep a photo of a realised Guru, if available, and worship the same with faith and devotion. Gradually you will get inspiration, and the Guru may appear in a dream and initiate and inspire you at the proper time. For a sincere Sadhaka, help comes in a mysterious way." OM Namaha Sivaya Sankara Menon Dear All: Here is my 2 paise on pancha makaras. IMHO Panchamakaras are Panchamakaras. I agree with DB that it is not for Pasus as the chances of Pashus getting stuck on the sensual allure and not progressing is great. For Viras they have prgressed and the chances of transcending panch makaras is bright. A few may fall. But they will rise again later. For Divyas {to my knowledhe they also (some that i know) use the prathyaksha makaras}they have transcended and sometimes need the reminder and they do use them. I have used the first four and not the fifth - maybe because of cowardice. I dunno. I agree that "Tantri Sex" advertised is not tantra but sex pure and simple. As for Swami Sivananda - neither Krishnanandaji nor Chidanandaji have decried Tantra. It must also be remembered that Tantra is "Swechaachaara" or self chosen path unique to the Sadhaka. Maybe Eve is following a path that is unique to him. I will not deride any person or path because it does not agree with me. As for guru, if you are going to Panchamakara path you DO need a Guru. The books cannot be a substitute. devi_bhakta Dear Kochu: Thank you for your thoughts on this matter of the Panchamakara. They seem direct, informed and sensible. I also agree with your statement that, "As for guru, if you are going to Panchamakara path you DO need a Guru. The books cannot be a substitute." And I actually said exactly that in my original, longish post on the so-called 5 M's. My confusion about the concept of Guru was directed more at the less extreme forms of spiritual endeavor. I think my musings about the role of the Guru in this modern age was misinterpreted by some as a declaration that Gurus are not necessary. It was not. Rather, it was more of a question, a call for opinions. As always, I am interested in bringing out what seems to be rarely discussed in many Groups -- which is, the street-level applications of these concepts. Tantra says a Guru is necessary. Vedic Hinduism would say the same in most cases. And yet the reality is that most people have to get by in the interim, for all practical purposes, without one. And so I asked about that. It is not my intention, as some have assumed, to assert that people can get along fine without a Guru or that a Guru is unnecessary for full Self-realization. I have made no such claim. In my experience in other aspects of life, it's often been apparent to me that people should not criticize that with which they have no experience. And frankly, I cannot claim to have had a guru, although I have had the good fortune to encounter several "mentors," if you will -- people who seem, in retrospect, to have acted as guides of sorts, pointing me in the right direction at various key forks along my path. However, I've known a number of people -- often from Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, if that means anything -- who've considered various living saints, such as Satya Sai Baba, to be their gurus. They keep pictures of him around the house, and on their home altar. They might have seen him once in person, from a distance, or perhaps in a brief darshan, one devotee among hundreds of others in a queue. And one woman I know (Bengali) once spoke of her guru, whom she said was dead and whom she never met -- and yet she claimed he'd changed and enriched her spiritual life incalculably. It is *this* concept of Guru that confuses me. In that sense, it seems, I could just as accurately call Sir John Woodroffe my Guru -- he too is dead, and has greatly enriched my life through his writings. Or I could say my guru is Mother Meera, with whose darshan I *have* been honored and whose power (I don't think the term shaktipat would be appropriate here) is absolutely tangible and transforming. I also (as one without a Guru) appreciate her teaching that a Guru is not, for all people in all circumstances, a sine qua non. In fact, she absolutely insists that she is *not* to be considered a Guru. On the other hand, the Gurukul tradition -- the student who lives with and serves the Guru "24/7," as they say, receiving knowledge in the context of life itself -- seems totally comprehensible. It seems that this must be the true concept to which the old texts requiring a Guru refer. Not long ago, I had the honor of a detailed conversation with the esteemed Carnatic vocalist Sudha Ragunathan (I was interviewing her for a magazine article) in which she spoke of her traditional Gurukul relationship with her guru, the great Dr. M.L. Vasanthakumari. What she described to me was almost a form of indentured servitude, in which she lived under her guru's roof as a teeneager, carting her guru's luggage, washing her guru's sarees by hand while on concert tour, basically acting as her maidservant. And in return she was granted the secrets of MLV's art -- and the spiritual lessons and realizations that give the life and power to Carnatic classical music. In time Sudha was allowed to provide vocal support in public recitals. When her parents wished her to marry, MLV met with and interviewed the prospective grooms and her word was law. Sudha told me: "MLV was my guru. If she told me to jump down a well, I probably would have." Similarly, I once read an interview with the great sitarist Ravi Shankar, who described his very similar Gurukul in his own youth -- where, for the longest time, he was not allowed to touch a sitar, but only to pluck a single note on a tamboura until his Guru believed that he truly felt and respected the holiness of sound. The novelist Gita Mehta beautifully rendered the depth of feeling involved in such another such relationship in her fictional work, "A River Sutra." In such cases I can totally understand a statement like that of OmPrem, who beautifully wrote a few messages back: "The Guru, because he/she knows the past lives of the aspirant and what will befall the aspirant in this life, can guide the aspirant toward God in all situations. The Guru protects the aspirant and elevates the mind, intellect and consciousness of the aspirant." Yes, and in a Gurukul situation, this is clearly a "connection" that is designed to happen -- it's the purpose of the whole arrangement. But what about the case of the woman with a dead Guru she's never met? And what about the Tamil-American stockbroker with a picture of Sai Baba tacked up over his telephone? Or the chela whose guru gave him diksha long-distance via a "recent photograph," or in the context of a mass darshan? All of these are real situations! But are they true Guru-Chela relationships? Because if so, the individualized knowledge I just referenced, the tailoring and guidance in the chela's sadhana, is either totally lacking, or totally supernatural. Sorry for rambling. But I did not want OmPrem or anyone else to feel that my "inquiring mind" in matters concerning Gurus is a simple, unconsidered, "knee-jerk" reaction of the species "I don't have one, therefore nobody needs one." I do not believe that for a minute. As I suggested before, my posts on the Guru dynamic are more queries than statements. Most often, the replies I receive are counter- statements: "Don't you dare question the value of a Guru!" Which is fine, of course, and understandable. But the reason I bring these matters up again and again, I suppose, is that I've yet to receive an answer. Aum Maatangyai Namahe |