Mystery of the 5M

[Guest guest]

Oh yes. being compassionate is the higest sadhana; and being compassionate when

you are yourself in need of compassion is the test.

 

Lars Hedström <lars wrote:

devi bhakta wrote:

 

"*** Being compassionate to the suffering of others is sadhana ***

 

The truest kind, I think. There can be no doubt of it."

 

 

One thing I have been thinking about is women, their empathy is more natural

than men's, this ought to mean that they are much better yogis?

 

Regards

 

Lars

 

 

 

 

 

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sports

Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

 

 

[Guest guest]

93

 

In order to determine whether a statement is correct we have to agree about the

basic

knowledge that is taken apriori. Otherwise it isn't possible.

 

For i am discussing tantrism, i take as a base Kaula-agama. Then, applying logic

to that i

come to above given conclusion.

 

Of course if U take some other background be it islam or shinto, result will

differ.

 

Finally, to the point of origin of that doctrine - i have met it in some Tantras

but do not

remember exact reference. That are volumes, it's impossible to hold everything

in head

LOL. BTW Kabbalah has the same view, rooted in Sepher ha-Zohar. And Thelema

also.

 

Love is the law, love under will.

A.

 

, "Mary Ann" <buttercookie61> wrote:

> Hi Arjuna:

>

> I read your post accurately. You said "there is an opinion" and that

> you take it to be right. You said that "logically it must be like

> that" that there are differences between male and female at the soul

> level. But you give no real basis for this, other than opinion, which

> comes without even whose opinion (what sources beyond yourself) this

> comes from. I was asking for any other kind of basis you could share.

> Your responses have not satisfied my request. I don't think it is

> logical to make the assumptions you have asserted, but I don't

> question or challenge your right to assert them. They just aren't

> necessarily accurate, nor automatically logical.

[Guest guest]

Yes, you are correct Which teachings one ascribes to form the

bases for different opinions. Thank you for sharing the bases for

your opinions.

 

Of course, even statements in scripture can be "inaccurate" due to

limits on human knowledge and understanding at the time the source

was written, and then of course, in the interpretations thereafter.

 

FYI if you haven't seen it, in Devi Bhakta's post today about the

Ardhanari picture, there is a link to information at Exotic India

that gives details on different views of male/female in one, the

soul, etc.

 

Namaste,

MAV

 

, "Arjuna Taradasa"

<bhagatirtha@m...> wrote:

> 93

>

> In order to determine whether a statement is correct we have to

agree about the basic

> knowledge that is taken apriori. Otherwise it isn't possible.

>

> For i am discussing tantrism, i take as a base Kaula-agama. Then,

applying logic to that i

> come to above given conclusion.

>

> Of course if U take some other background be it islam or shinto,

result will differ.

>

> Finally, to the point of origin of that doctrine - i have met it in

some Tantras but do not

> remember exact reference. That are volumes, it's impossible to hold

everything in head

> LOL. BTW Kabbalah has the same view, rooted in Sepher ha-Zohar. And

Thelema also.

>

> Love is the law, love under will.

> A.

>

> , "Mary Ann"

<buttercookie61> wrote:

> > Hi Arjuna:

> >

> > I read your post accurately. You said "there is an opinion" and

that

> > you take it to be right. You said that "logically it must be like

> > that" that there are differences between male and female at the

soul

> > level. But you give no real basis for this, other than opinion,

which

> > comes without even whose opinion (what sources beyond yourself)

this

> > comes from. I was asking for any other kind of basis you could

share.

> > Your responses have not satisfied my request. I don't think it is

> > logical to make the assumptions you have asserted, but I don't

> > question or challenge your right to assert them. They just aren't

> > necessarily accurate, nor automatically logical.

[Guest guest]

Who is this Will fellow, and how did he get lucky

enough to get you to insist on loving under him?

 

-- Len/ Kalipadma

 

 

--- Arjuna Taradasa <bhagatirtha wrote:

>

> There is no problem, 'coz each human being is

> totally free and fully responsible for himself.

> As it is said, "Thou hast no right but to do thy

> will".

>

> Love is the law, love under will.

> A.

>

 

 

 

__

Sports

Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

http://football.fantasysports.

[Guest guest]

Mary Ann:

"I read your post accurately. You said "there is an opinion" and that

you take it to be right. You said that "logically it must be like

that" that there are differences between male and female at the soul

level. But you give no real basis for this, other than opinion, which

comes without even whose opinion (what sources beyond yourself) this

comes from. I was asking for any other kind of basis you could share.

Your responses have not satisfied my request. I don't think it is

logical to make the assumptions you have asserted, but I don't

question or challenge your right to assert them. They just aren't

necessarily accurate, nor automatically logical."

 

Personally I have to a great part left logic behind, my soul decides what is

rigth or wrong to me. If 2000 years of tradition says that I am wrong, then so

much worse for the tradition!

 

Regards

 

Lars

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Lars:

 

That sounds like a good approach. It can be hard to buck the effects

of tradition, though.

 

I was thinking about your post about women seeming to have easier

access to being compassionate. Although I made a joke based on

something else you had posted about men having greater lung

capacity, of course there are differences in the hormones that

affect our bodies, combined with what we are taught we should be as

male and female. These things (and other things too, no doubt) make

it different for women and men to access their emotional aspects.

But I do think msbauju is right, men and women have equal capacity

for compassion. I also felt kochu's post was very apt, about being

compassionate toward oneself.

 

Kind regards,

Mary Ann

 

 

, Lars Hedström <lars@2...>

wrote:

> Mary Ann:

> "I read your post accurately. You said "there is an opinion" and

that

> you take it to be right. You said that "logically it must be like

> that" that there are differences between male and female at the

soul

> level. But you give no real basis for this, other than opinion,

which

> comes without even whose opinion (what sources beyond yourself)

this

> comes from. I was asking for any other kind of basis you could

share.

> Your responses have not satisfied my request. I don't think it is

> logical to make the assumptions you have asserted, but I don't

> question or challenge your right to assert them. They just aren't

> necessarily accurate, nor automatically logical."

>

> Personally I have to a great part left logic behind, my soul

decides what is rigth or wrong to me. If 2000 years of tradition

says that I am wrong, then so much worse for the tradition!

>

> Regards

>

> Lars

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

[Guest guest]

, "devi_bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> As far as I know, Hindu scripture doesn't address the issue. As in

> the West, homosexuality -- while not necessarily condemned -- was

not > until recently considered an actual "lifestyle choice." It was

> certainly out there; people were aware of it; but in the main it

was > something that took place behind closed doors -- it was

nobody's > business but those involved.

 

Check out the following article:

 

http://www.galva108.org/Tritiya_prakriti.html

 

Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the Third Sex

By Amara Das Wilhelm

 

Kindest regards,

Francesco Brighenti

[Guest guest]

Thank you for posting this excellent article.

 

, "Francesco Brighenti"

<frabrig> wrote:

>

> , "devi_bhakta"

> <devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> > As far as I know, Hindu scripture doesn't address the issue. As

in

> > the West, homosexuality -- while not necessarily condemned -- was

> not > until recently considered an actual "lifestyle choice." It

was

> > certainly out there; people were aware of it; but in the main it

> was > something that took place behind closed doors -- it was

> nobody's > business but those involved.

>

> Check out the following article:

>

> http://www.galva108.org/Tritiya_prakriti.html

>

> Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the Third Sex

> By Amara Das Wilhelm

>

> Kindest regards,

> Francesco Brighenti

[Guest guest]

Hi All -

 

Went back up the thread to the original article and realized it was

only the abstract. I'm kind of currious where the original article

is and where I can find the full text.

 

The course of discussion seems to be going into a lot of direction

where the article (abstract or not) seem to be taking the reader. Is

eroticism, hedonism and enjoyment (inner-joy-ment) three exclusive

things? From my profession, I tend to be legalistic but isn't what

this is NOT saying: "Because enjoyment is the means to reveal that

spiritual bliss which is said to be the form of the Absolute

manifested in body." That is saying that there is somekind of

relationship between the physical and the spiritual.

 

Now I maybe odd in that I've not been all that impressed with the

notion of the dicotomy between spirit and body that was given to us

through the the gnostics and worked it way through so much western

religions. D.H. Lawrence addresses this with his critics who just

didn't grok what he was going after in terms of sexuality and

eroticism. For myself and perhap for Mr. Lawrence, I didn't see as

the two being separate or one better (higher?) than the other. The

abstract is going along that direction with the starting point TOWARDS

bliss with the body & enjoyment. Then again, we are men.

 

If the article was written by a woman, it is suggesting many things

than where the threads are going. For men or women, she is

suggesting that one has to proceed after one's authentic path or

direction.

 

If I can be pointed to the original article, I'd like to read it. I

appreciate your collective patience with me. Remember, being

clueless is the begining of enlightenment. I'm pretty clueless.

 

Sincerely,

 

Eric

 

===============================================================

 

The Mystery of the "five M".

(extract from the article)

 

One of the most essential components of doctrine and practice of

Kaula-tantrism is panchatattva or the mystery of the "five M"

(panchamakara). In the context of sadhana (religious practice)

panchatattva is the main ritual, the sacrifice of Kula and the

mystical communion with the Goddess. Doctrinally it reveals itself as

a gnosiological matrix upon which the Body of the Godhead, macro- and

microcosm are classified.

 

According to the doctrine of Tantras, the method to reach full

perfection is enjoyment of the world in love towards the Goddess.

Yoni-tantra 6.25 says:

 

"Happiness is achieved through enjoyment, through enjoyment liberation

is achieved. Thus one has to devote himself completely to enjoyment".

 

But alongside it is stressed that love is the most essential on this

way. For instance, Meru-tantra 10.67 says: "Only that one whose love

is strong succeeds on this way of the Left"; same is stated by

Kularnava-tantra, Parananda-sutra and other Tantras. Why enjoyment is

so important? Because enjoyment is the means to reveal that spiritual

bliss which is said to be the form of the Absolute manifested in body

(Kularnava-tantra 5.80). And as Devi-rahasya puts it, "the Supreme

Lady is satisfied through the worship of the taste of bliss"

(Uttarakhanda 58.11). However this path of enjoyment is opened not for

everyone; Tantras underline that only "hero", vira, is capable of

following it. Such vira possesses complete faith in himself and

God, right knowledge and logic (saljnana and sattarka), devotion to

Shakti (Goddess and beloved woman) and appropriate initiation into

Kula lineage. Then there is only one prescription which he has to

follow - svechchhachara, "following one's own [true] will"

(Kali-tantra 8.19). Thus Kaula-tantrism gives the same Law of Thelema

as Liber AL does.

 

The doctrine of "five M" has to be set in this context. Panchamakara

is the essence of kula-yoga. It is stated in Jnanarnava-tantra 22.68

that "the union of male and female is the true yoga". Through the

union in love one enters the transcendent abode, paramapada. As Shiva

says in Maheshvara-tantra, "being in love is [being] above the world".

 

Five essences of Kula, panchatattva, are five aspects of amorous union

with Shakti. Mahanirvana-tantra 5.22 insists that panchatattva is

necessary in the worship of Her. The "five M" are that much important

so Kularatnavali states that without 5M the Goddess is never pleased.

 

Five kula-tattvas are signifying the totality of the Goddess'

presence. It can be put that the tantric communion exists in five

forms: wine, meat, fish, mudra and maithuna. In sanskrit all these

words start from letter "m", thus the title panchamakara. Out of these

five two last are left without translation; the reason is that

their meanings are several. Mudra commonly stands for fried grain

(which symbolise that seeds of karmas are burned in the fire of

knowledge), but original sense must have been "sexual partner". This

reading is supported not only by buddhist tradition but also by the

tantric etymology of the term: "that which brings joy is called

mudra". Final makara, maithuna, is a sexual communion and its result,

emission of secretions.

>From one side the ritual usage of 5M was the act of antinomianism,

transgression of socio-religious law of Smriti. Like that

Niruttara-tantra suggests to reject vedic prescriptions. However this

is merely surface of this ritual; its essence is much deeper.

 

Symbolically five tattvas represent five aspects of the Goddess, five

parts of Her Body. In their succession 5M constitute the method of

tantric yoga. Wine (madya) symbolises the mystical intoxication of

love-feeling, prema-rasa, which occurs as a result of awakening of the

heart under the impact of divine grace (anugraha-shakti). Wine

corresponds to Shakti, feminine side of the Divinity. Meat on the

other side stands for Its masculine side, Shiva. It symbolises

awareness, inner silence, contemplation (dhyana). Wine and meat are

Shakti and Shiva (see Kularnava-tantra 5.78), they are Nuit

and Hadit. The verse of Kularnava further reads: "The one who enjoys

[their union] is himself Bhairava, and the bliss springing up from

their union is Liberation". Bhairava or Hor of Liber AL is symbolised

by a fish (matsya or mina), dragon or serpent. This dragon is

arising, it is a personification of arohana-shakti, energy of

uplifting. As Shiva-sutra says:

 

"Bhairava is raising". This is also sankshobha, sexual arousing of the

Goddess (see Niruttara-tantra 5.19). Then, the bliss of union is

mudra, "that which brings joy". Mudra is Maat and Babalon, Scarlet

Woman and the lower Shekhinah of Kabbalah.

 

The four elements described are corresponding to the four letters of

the Holy Name of God, four sphiroth, four aeons of Liber AL and four

directions. They are the four aspects of fifth tattva, which is above

all. Maithuna represents the return to the primal Unity, which is the

state of the Godhead. It is the perfect union of man and woman in

love-taste, mahasukha of buddhist Tantras. While wine and meat

correspond to the descent of Shakti, graceful power of the Divine, and

fish and mudra - to the consequent accent of lower kundalini, maithuna

is samarasya, "merging in one taste". It is in maithuna,

sexual union with shakti, that the highest bliss, paramananda, is

realised. As Tantras say, "happiness that manifests in the union has

the quality of bliss supreme" (samyoge jAyate saukhyaM

paramAnandalakShaNam).

 

According to the teaching of Kula, the ritual of 5M ought to be

performed only when one has an authority (adhikara) given by the

Goddess and guru and when he has love towards his shakti, woman.

Tantras underline that woman has to be viewed as an incarnation of the

Goddess (for instance, see Mahakala-samhita Guhyakali-khanda

10.1663). Moreover, Annadakalpa-tantra 15.46 goes as far as to say

that "one can reject his mother and father, one can reject Shiva and

Vishnu, one can even reject the Goddess - but never his beloved woman".

 

"That Supreme Lady Shakti, who is glorified as [the Giver] of

Liberation, She is manifested in the form of a woman"

(Bhutashuddhi-tantra 7.17).

 

Love is the law, love under will.

[Guest guest]

93

 

The original version is in Russian, written also by me . English one is little

shorter and with

different final part.

 

Regards,

A.

 

, "Eric Otto" <eottoe2001> wrote:

> Hi All -

>

> Went back up the thread to the original article and realized it was

> only the abstract. I'm kind of currious where the original article

> is and where I can find the full text.