Mystery of the 5M

[Guest guest]

According to the dharma shastra Homosexuality is considered patanIya

i.e makes one fallen. That is the traditional Hindu position.

 

You may refer to related ancient literature on the same.

 

People like that might be there in ancient India but that behaviour

was never accepted.

[Guest guest]

Hi DB:

 

I interpreted Amritananda's words that you posted, and what

Kochu posted, as inclusive, not dismissive. Have you been

interpreting my posts on this topic as hand-wringing? I consider

it as taking action, even in a small way of sharing words with

others online.

 

I guess some who would be accused of "wringing their hands"

over such issues would be people who have been hurt by such

externals, including parents and friends and family members of

gay teens who commit suicide or gay adults that live broken

lives, or whose children/friends/family members are murdered

or beaten, or die of AIDS, or gay or lesbian or bisexual or

transgender people who have suffered. Many such folks begin

to take action in the world, to bring awareness and compassion,

if they aren't stuck in believing their child/friend/family

member/self to be damned by God.

 

Being compassionate to the suffering of others is sadhana, I

feel, and my words were meant compassionately.

 

Mary Ann

 

 

 

, "devi_bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> Hi Mary Ann:

>

> You wrote: *** Not having human wholeness recognized

externally

> matters in that it makes it that much more difficult for people ...

> to recognize their self-worth, the value of their lives, and what

> they have to contribute to the world. ... [C]ompulsory

heteroxuality

> [and other acts of societal discrimination] are externals,

imposed in

> ways that do not honor human wholeness. ***

>

> Precisely. Which is why, I think, Amritananda -- in the brief

passage

> I quoted -- dismisses human gender and sexual-orientation

issues

> outright: So that people don't get bogged down in parsing

> such "externals" at the expense of more spiritually productive

> endeavors.

>

> *** I think when matters of the heart are only handled

"discreetly

> behind closed doors" it says that the heart is something to

hide, not

> to admit to, something shameful. Or, possibly, something one

> must "protect" by not allowing the world to see. Either way, the

> cycle of imposed false externals continues. ***

>

> Right. And as societies evolve beyond these "false externals,"

so new

> elaborations and clarifications of the traditions are called for. A

> few advanced souls are already responding, as Amrita did in

his

> statement, "Shakti could be any lovable person, male, female,

or your

> own self." Or our own Kochu, in his statement, "This can be

achieved

> in hetero, gay or auto-erotic states." Two simple sentences,

both

> essentially saying "Stop wringing your hands over these

externals,

> and get back to your sadhana!"

>

> Aim MAtangyai NamaH

[Guest guest]

Well, I think the Dalai Lama's idea assumes that human

attraction and sexuality is only about procreation. I think it's a lot

broader than that, about creative energy, not just procreation, and

that all love is valid, not only heterosexual love. I agree with

Amritananda's statement, too.

 

, vikram vanam

<vikram_vanam2005> wrote:

> Namaste to all

>

> About this issue...

>

> I would fully accept what Sri Amritananda would saythe

teachings in the past ie from scriptures may not have included

the preference people would make in the future

>

> About homosexuals , His holiness Dalai lama has said, that

they might be identifying themselve with there previous birth

where they might be of the opposite gender

>

> If we carefully analyse what Sri amritananda's statement, The

shakthi can be ourselve, can a estimate be made of how much

we love ourselve than someother person have been the

opposite gender

[Guest guest]

Anangananadanatha once said,it is only when people identify with the physical

body there is male and female. Once you identify with yours soul there is no

difference.In this context, gays too can practice kaula sadhana.

 

 

satisharigela <satisharigela wrote:According to the dharma shastra

Homosexuality is considered patanIya

i.e makes one fallen. That is the traditional Hindu position.

 

You may refer to related ancient literature on the same.

 

People like that might be there in ancient India but that behaviour

was never accepted.

 

 

 

 

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - You care about security. So do we.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sri Swami Sivananda on Tantra (and the 5M)

 

http://www.dlshq.org/teachings/tantrayoga.htm

[Guest guest]

That it is not described does not surprise, but the points below do

not rule out lesbians. And let's not forget the lesbian sex scenes on

the walls of some temples...

 

Max

>1. There is no reference in Tantras describing shakta sadhana for

>gays in any way.

>

>2. There is a prohibition against making kula-chakra without at

>least one woman.

>

>3. It is stated that sadhana without a woman is useless.

 

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's History

http://www.suppressedhistories.net

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Mary Ann:

 

You write: *** Have you been interpreting my posts on this topic as

hand-wringing? ***

 

Not at all. Quite the contrary, in fact: The "hand-wringers" I refer

to are those who get stuck in the easy trap of criticizing external

human characteristics (invariably of others, not themselves), rather

than doing the hard work of getting on with their own sadhana, and

living their professed beliefs.

 

As soon as we begin condemning and excluding others rather than

working on our own shortcomings, we have basically missed the whole

point of spiritual endeavor. At the low end of this dark scale, we

waste time calling others names and trying to elevate ourselves by

denigrating others; at he extreme end, we lose our grip altogether --

blowing up abortion clinics and discotecques, crashing planes into

buildings, and so on, all in the name of whatever limited notion of

God that we cherish. It's patently absurd.

 

The ideal, of course, is to get rid of the idea of "others"

altogether. To attain that completely is of course impossible, short

of truly experiential enlightenment. But you've gotta start

somewhere.

 

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

 

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

 

Aim MAtangyai NamaH

[Guest guest]

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

 

Manusmrti is one that prohibits lesbian sex, prescribing cutting off

fingers for second or third "offense."

>Hindu scriptures have never been seen as carved-in-granite laws for the ages.

 

I agree this is mostly true, tho many fundamentalists today would disagree.

 

Max

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's History

http://www.suppressedhistories.net

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Max:

 

I wrote: *** As far as I know, Hindu scripture doesn't address the

issue [of how homosexual people should practice Shakti puja]. ****

 

You replied: *** Manusmrti is one that prohibits lesbian sex,

prescribing cutting off fingers for second or third "offense." ***

 

Oh, I know that negative references to homosexuality exist in the

impossibly vast Hindu canon (tho' I have share some of the growing

doubts about the reliability and complete authenticity of

Manusmrti). The apparent omission I spoke of specifically concerned

ritual references in the various Tantras.

 

I wrote: *** Hindu scriptures have never been seen as carved-in-

granite laws for the ages. ***

 

You replied: *** I agree this is mostly true, tho many

fundamentalists today would disagree. ***

 

That's for sure. This gem just appeared in my mailbox a few hours

ago:

 

**********

 

Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:32:52 -0000

< @>

"devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta

Re: Mystery of the 5M

 

, "devi_bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> So the Tantras did not arise in a world where homosexuality was

> considered a legitimate "lifestyle choice" -- but Amritananda's

> elucidations were made in a world where such arrangements are

> increasingly commonplace. So, accordingly, he addressed it. If you

> accept his teachings, that is all that matters.

 

He has no authority to change anything. Be assured about it and come

out of that delusion.

 

**********

 

More fun with the fundies! ;-) For every positive statement, you

will always find a naysayer.

 

Que sera sera ...

 

DB

[Guest guest]

93

 

There is an opinion - and i take it to be right - that difference of sexes

remains on level of

soul. Logically it must be like that. Siva and Sakti are not bodily forms only -

there is sexual

polarity on every level up to Paramashiva.

 

Love is the law, love under will.

A.

 

, suresh deepak <onthispath> wrote:

> Anangananadanatha once said,it is only when people identify with the physical

body there

is male and female. Once you identify with yours soul there is no difference.In

this context,

gays too can practice kaula sadhana.

[Guest guest]

, "devi_bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> The apparent omission I spoke of specifically concerned

> ritual references in the various Tantras.

 

See this.

 

/message/16917

 

On matters where Tantra does not say anything regarding a particular issue, it

is generally understood that the word of the smriti-s is the one which

determines what is acceptable and what is not.

 

A related example will be the statement of the Kularnava where it says that

there should not be any varNa difference in the chakra but when the chakra

ritual is complete the varNa differences exist as usual, i.e as in the smriti-s.

 

Of course people who grew up in a gay (accepting) atmosphere/ surroundings will

find it hard to accept with their non-authoritative (pseudo?) liberal drivel.

 

sa.

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

[Guest guest]

, Lars Hedström <lars@2...> wrote:

>> [women's] empathy is more natural than men's, [....]

 

I know you mean well, Lars, and this is not a criticism of you.

 

But compassion is simply not gender-linked; both men and women have an

equal capacity for compassion.

[Guest guest]

Why would there be such a distinction on the soul level? Why would

that be logical? What is the basis for the opinion, and who came up

with it initially?

 

, "Arjuna Taradasa"

<bhagatirtha@m...> wrote:

> 93

>

> There is an opinion - and i take it to be right - that difference

of sexes remains on level of

> soul. Logically it must be like that. Siva and Sakti are not bodily

forms only - there is sexual

> polarity on every level up to Paramashiva.

>

> Love is the law, love under will.

> A.

>

> , suresh deepak

<onthispath> wrote:

> > Anangananadanatha once said,it is only when people identify with

the physical body there

> is male and female. Once you identify with yours soul there is no

difference.In this context,

> gays too can practice kaula sadhana.

[Guest guest]

Possibly women's diminished lung capacity is responsible for their

namby-pamby compassion -- this is a joke, folks!

 

, "msbauju" <msbauju> wrote:

> , Lars Hedström <lars@2...>

wrote:

> >> [women's] empathy is more natural than men's, [....]

>

> I know you mean well, Lars, and this is not a criticism of you.

>

> But compassion is simply not gender-linked; both men and women have

an

> equal capacity for compassion.

[Guest guest]

Then why are there sculptures of same-sex couples (and

groups!) making love on the outside of South Indian

mandapanas? The Ancient Hindus were more accepting of

sexual variety than today's Hindus, who have adopted

Moslem and Christian views of sex.

 

-- Len/ Kalipadma

 

 

--- satisharigela <satisharigela wrote:

> According to the dharma shastra Homosexuality is

> considered patanIya

> i.e makes one fallen. That is the traditional Hindu

> position.

>

> You may refer to related ancient literature on the

> same.

>

> People like that might be there in ancient India but

> that behaviour

> was never accepted.

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

__

Sports

Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

http://football.fantasysports.

[Guest guest]

So some things about Hinduism are Christian-like after all.

 

A group member sent me a link on this topic, for anyone interested:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(India)

 

 

 

, Len Rosenberg

<kalipadma108> wrote:

>

> Then why are there sculptures of same-sex couples (and

> groups!) making love on the outside of South Indian

> mandapanas? The Ancient Hindus were more accepting of

> sexual variety than today's Hindus, who have adopted

> Moslem and Christian views of sex.

>

> -- Len/ Kalipadma

>

>

> --- satisharigela <satisharigela> wrote:

>

> > According to the dharma shastra Homosexuality is

> > considered patanIya

> > i.e makes one fallen. That is the traditional Hindu

> > position.

> >

> > You may refer to related ancient literature on the

> > same.

> >

> > People like that might be there in ancient India but

> > that behaviour

> > was never accepted.

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> __

> Sports

> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football

> http://football.fantasysports.

[Guest guest]

, Len Rosenberg

<kalipadma108> wrote:

>

> Then why are there sculptures of same-sex couples (and

> groups!) making love on the outside of South Indian

> mandapanas? The Ancient Hindus were more accepting of

> sexual variety than today's Hindus, who have adopted

> Moslem and Christian views of sex.

 

If we observe the temple sculptures closely, we can also find

depictions of humans mating with animals. Such behavior is apparently

condemned in the smriti-s. Given that, having sculptures of same-sex

couples on temple panels doesnt really say anything about their

acceptance or non-acceptance.

 

As an aside, as far as my observation goes(it is possible that I

might

be mistaken here), such depictions usually find place only on the

lower

level(s) of the structure. As one's gaze progresses upwards, only

carvings of devata-s and their various avatara-s can be seen.

 

Rgds

sa.

[Guest guest]

93

 

Mary, it seems that U have not read my post or read it without attention .

I do not try to convince U, please note this. U as anyone else are totally free

to hold any

opinion and do what they will.

 

However there are certain objective laws independent of point of view. To that i

address

currently.

 

If we take as truth that there is Siva and Sakti in yamala on *spiritual level*

and we clearly

see they exist on physical, there are all grounds to admit that they exist on

intermediate

levels as well. Otherwise it is illogical. Why does sex exist on body level? U

may say to

procreate - but procreation could exist without sexual polarity. If there is

polarity in

Godhead, NECESSARILY is is reflected in EVERY level of existance. Because

everything that

is is in GOD only. For this reason souls have gender - not in bodily sense but

in essence.

Second reason is intuitive knowledge - when U love someone U feel her/him as a

polarity,

not as same as U kind of friend. Even gays do feel in same way!

 

Once again, i do not impose my view upon U or anyone. But i state that this is

truth. And i

have a full right to .

 

Love is the law, love under will.

A.

 

 

, "Mary Ann" <buttercookie61> wrote:

> Why would there be such a distinction on the soul level? Why would

> that be logical? What is the basis for the opinion, and who came up

> with it initially?

>

> , "Arjuna Taradasa"

> <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote:

> > 93

> >

> > There is an opinion - and i take it to be right - that difference

> of sexes remains on level of

> > soul. Logically it must be like that. Siva and Sakti are not bodily

> forms only - there is sexual

> > polarity on every level up to Paramashiva.

> >

> > Love is the law, love under will.

> > A.

[Guest guest]

satisharigela wrote:

 

"If we observe the temple sculptures closely, we can also find

depictions of humans mating with animals. Such behavior is apparently

condemned in the smriti-s. Given that, having sculptures of same-sex

couples on temple panels doesnt really say anything about their

acceptance or non-acceptance.

 

As an aside, as far as my observation goes(it is possible that I

might

be mistaken here), such depictions usually find place only on the

lower

level(s) of the structure. As one's gaze progresses upwards, only

carvings of devata-s and their various avatara-s can be seen."

 

I asked about this on the list a couple of mounths ago but no one answered.

 

I think sculptures mating with animals symbolize sheer sexual desire without

human moral or love etc This ought to be true if it is as you say, that such

depictions usually find place only on the lower levels.

 

Lars

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"Arjuna Taradasa" ¨ wrote:

> There is an opinion - and i take it to be right - that difference

of sexes remains on level of

> soul. Logically it must be like that. Siva and Sakti are not bodily

forms only - there is sexual

> polarity on every level up to Paramashiva.

 

 

I agree. My perception of the souls of the women is that these are different. A

male soul + a female soul = wholeness.

 

But I accept homosexuality to 100%. We are all different. I think that two male

homosexuals can perceive a mixture of female and male ingredients in their

spiritual unity.

 

Lars

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

msbauju wrote:

 

"I know you mean well, Lars, and this is not a criticism of you.

 

But compassion is simply not gender-linked; both men and women have an

equal capacity for compassion."

 

Yes I agree but that wasn't my point. My point is that women has a more natural

gift of emphaty. Women has a higher EQ, and that is not so strange, women need

it to raise their children.

 

Who is the real psychopaths? Who started and fought ww1 and ww2? Was it women?

 

 

Lars

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

/

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Lars Hedström <lars@2...> wrote:

> I agree. My perception of the souls of the women is that these are different.

A male soul +

a female soul = wholeness.

 

Exactly.

 

Thus Tantras say, ekAM shaktiM samAnIya eka eva tu sAdhakaH.

> But I accept homosexuality to 100%. We are all different. I think that two

male

homosexuals can perceive a mixture of female and male ingredients in their

spiritual unity.

 

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

 

, "Arjuna Taradasa"

<bhagatirtha@m...> wrote:

> 93

>

> Mary, it seems that U have not read my post or read it without

attention .

> I do not try to convince U, please note this. U as anyone else are

totally free to hold any

> opinion and do what they will.

>

> However there are certain objective laws independent of point of

view. To that i address

> currently.

>

> If we take as truth that there is Siva and Sakti in yamala on

*spiritual level* and we clearly

> see they exist on physical, there are all grounds to admit that

they exist on intermediate

> levels as well. Otherwise it is illogical. Why does sex exist on

body level? U may say to

> procreate - but procreation could exist without sexual polarity. If

there is polarity in

> Godhead, NECESSARILY is is reflected in EVERY level of existance.

Because everything that

> is is in GOD only. For this reason souls have gender - not in

bodily sense but in essence.

> Second reason is intuitive knowledge - when U love someone U feel

her/him as a polarity,

> not as same as U kind of friend. Even gays do feel in same way!

>

> Once again, i do not impose my view upon U or anyone. But i state

that this is truth. And i

> have a full right to .

>

> Love is the law, love under will.

> A.

>

>

> , "Mary Ann"

<buttercookie61> wrote:

> > Why would there be such a distinction on the soul level? Why

would

> > that be logical? What is the basis for the opinion, and who came

up

> > with it initially?

> >

> > , "Arjuna Taradasa"

> > <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote:

> > > 93

> > >

> > > There is an opinion - and i take it to be right - that

difference

> > of sexes remains on level of

> > > soul. Logically it must be like that. Siva and Sakti are not

bodily

> > forms only - there is sexual

> > > polarity on every level up to Paramashiva.

> > >

> > > Love is the law, love under will.

> > > A.

[Guest guest]

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio / Than are dreamt

of in your philosophy."

 

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002. This

is a phrase used by the title character in the play Hamlet, by

William Shakespeare. Hamlet suggests that human knowledge is limited.

 

http://www.bartleby.com/59/6/morethingsin.html

 

 

 

 

 

, "Arjuna Taradasa"

<bhagatirtha@m...> wrote:

> --- Lars Hedström <lars@2...> wrote:

> > I agree. My perception of the souls of the women is that these

are different. A male soul +

> a female soul = wholeness.

>

> Exactly.

>

> Thus Tantras say, ekAM shaktiM samAnIya eka eva tu sAdhakaH.

>

> > But I accept homosexuality to 100%. We are all different. I

think that two male

> homosexuals can perceive a mixture of female and male ingredients

in their spiritual unity.

>

> 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.