true Tantrics and sin

01-09-2004, 01:07 PM

Hello- I stand corrected. I think Kochu is right to wonder if there are true and
not-true Tantrics. Dangerous language. I used it without thinking. Everyone is
on the path.
Re: sin. Papa and punya are kind of like 2 opposites in a duality, yes? Are they
not better translated as "demerit" and "merit", or something like that? Actions
produce either punya or papa, a positive or negative effect. There is no notion
of some kind of collective negative condition somehow ingrained into the human
condition, original sin. Christianity has no notion of reincarnation or samsara
and has got to account for why humans are not aware of the presence of God and
often act in negative and destructive ways in God's good creation. In my
opinion, papa is definately not sin. Unfortunately it does seem to be a
convenient word for translators-short, to the point, but correct? In the same
vein, is "dharma" righteousness? That's another word that has a particular
meaning in Christianity. It's misleading to define Hinduism with Christian
concepts. It's also just as misleading to define Christianity in Hindu terms.
i.e. Jesus, another avatar of Vishnu. Jesus' sacrifice of his life on the cross
redeemed the sin of humanity for all time. Not the same thing as when dharma
declines etc. the avatar comes for the upliftment of humanity. Similar, but not
the same. I wonder what is the solution?
Jai Ma, Gitaprana

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

01-10-2004, 03:43 AM

dear sadhaks/sadhikaas,

dear all ,

i feel that even though aquiring siddhis is not the
core of sadhana but is not opposite to bramh gyana.whole world is in
middle of fear siddhis are as relevant now as they were in ancient
times.though this part of art was filled with all the human
emotions good and bad.i personally feel that challenging in the
field of tantra is not always a dance of unripe-ego and the siddhis
which are classified as "great" or "advanced" are always connected to
pusti karya and not kshudra karya . a tantric is soft as a flower and
sometimes hard as a thunderbolt bcos he is dosent want to be
a "victim of non-voilence".and the gandhian philosophy is a great
enemy of a human being and the society.most of the knowledge of our
nation was destroyed bcos people tolerated cunningness and "back
biting".and there is no old or young in this field and i absolutely
dont beleive that an aged person is very wise. my param poojya
gurudev has said that old age comes from inside not outside.a person
will never be young if he dosent have pranashchetana or a divine
madness and joy even if he in his youth.the only "advanced" tantriks
are those who achieved bramh gyana. i would no way call anyone with
great siddhis as advanced.

a real tantrik cannot be judged by people who are on the surface and
dont dare to go deep .a famous tantrik called vamakshepa used to
utter ugly curses at everyone but he was a divine child of mother
tara.when he was beaten for throwing urine at tara idol ,mother tara
was seen crying and howling that night in the village.even
ramakrishna paramahamsa used to hurl abuses at mother kali for not
manifestimg in front of him.

here is a story from chatrapati shivajis life. i got it from the
file section of aanother group

It is impossible to understand a Siddha [perfected Master] by your
gross
sense of perception. You can understand him only if he reveals
himself,
and that is exactly what happened to Shivaji Maharaj the first time
he went
for Ranganath's darshan.
The story goes that Ranganath Swami had just had his lunch and was
chewing a little betelnut. He was lying on a beautifully decorated
bed, and
two very beautiful girls were massaging his feet with complete
devotion. As
he lay there relaxing, eating pan, Shivaji Maharaj entered…. When
Shivaji
saw Ranganath, a little doubt about his saintliness, about his
renunciation,
about his greatness, entered his mind. Siddhas, of course, are
wonderful
mind readers. Reading minds is child's play for them. So Ranganath
Swami
asked those two ladies to leave, and called for a silver bucket. Then
he
closed the door, and in the presence of the king he ejaculated his
seminal
fluid into the bucket, filling it to the brim. Then he took a drop of
the
fluid with a small stick and put it onto Shivaji's palm. A blister
immediately
appeared on his hand. Shivaji cried, "Ah, it's burning!"
Ranganath replied, "Yes, Raja don't you know? This is brahmavirya, the
power of Brahman…. It cannot be borne by anybody…. Now do you
understand? From the outside we look like everybody else, but inside
we
are totally different. Only because you had a doubt in your mind did I
show you this miracle. I wouldn't show it to everyone…."
Then, by the power of his yoga, he reabsorbed all of the semen within
himself and went back to sleep. The girls came back in and again
began to
massage his feet.
This reminds us of what Baba says again and again. Unless you are
thoroughly anchored in your own inner bliss, you are lost. It is
impossible
to understand a Siddha. It is better to bow to him from a distance
instead
of going near him.

--- In Shakti_Sadhana (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "gitaprana"
wrote:
> Hello- I stand corrected. I think Kochu is right to wonder if there
are true and not-true Tantrics. Dangerous language. I used it without
thinking. Everyone is on the path.
> Re: sin. Papa and punya are kind of like 2 opposites in a duality,
yes? Are they not better translated as "demerit" and "merit", or
something like that? Actions produce either punya or papa, a
positive or negative effect. There is no notion of some kind of
collective negative condition somehow ingrained into the human
condition, original sin. Christianity has no notion of reincarnation
or samsara and has got to account for why humans are not aware of the
presence of God and often act in negative and destructive ways in
God's good creation. In my opinion, papa is definately not sin.
Unfortunately it does seem to be a convenient word for translators-
short, to the point, but correct? In the same vein, is "dharma"
righteousness? That's another word that has a particular meaning in
Christianity. It's misleading to define Hinduism with Christian
concepts. It's also just as misleading to define Christianity in
Hindu terms. i.e. Jesus, another avatar of Vishnu. Jesus' sacrifice
of his life on the cross redeemed the sin of humanity for all time.
Not the same thing as when dharma declines etc. the avatar comes for
the upliftment of humanity. Similar, but not the same. I wonder what
is the solution?
> Jai Ma, Gitaprana
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]