Tantras

[zebra16]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Palindrome in another thread entitled "brahma rakshas in ramayana" which is closed now had raised some issues regarding tantras. This post seeks to reply to the said post:

In India, no one knows how many tantras exist.

66 years since independence is more than sufficient for a representative government interested in knowing and preserving its culture, at least to catalogue the different tantras

Some say 64 shakta agamas exist based on a verse from saundaryalahiri. But IMO 64 is the number of vaidika agamas. Nobody has counted how many avaidika agamas exist. Vaidika agamas accept svadharma and the suzerainty of dharmashastras; whilst avaidika agamas do not.

There must have been fights between different tribal cultures; such that those which did not accept authority of dharmashastras remained avaidika agamas.

All IMO stuff. One can hold any opinion one wants.

Though the texts are divided into Agama (Shiva replying to Parvati), Nigama (Parvati replying to Shiva) and Samhita (Vaishanva tantric texts), the whole culture is dubbed 'tantric' or 'agamic'.

What is the origin of the words, agama, nigama and samhita and what is its etymology according to the poster? Is it Sanskrit or any other indo European or proto indio European language? If the word is a loan word to Sanskrit from another language, which is the loaner or source language?

How does Agama translate into Shiva replying to Parvati and Nigama to Parvati replying to Shiva? Is this classification universal? If so who is the authority?

Some say tantric culture and all tantras are pre-vedic (the Narayaneeya claims vedas originated from yamala class of tantras); though undoubtedly some were composed in different periods of post-vedic history. IMO, some tantras were composed in the epoch when native agamic priests and their deities were absorbed and elevated into the indo-aryan fold.

Again a lot of IMO stuff. But questions about “yamalas”. What is the origin and etymology of the word “Yamala”? Is there only one yamala? If there are various yamalas, which is the fore runner amongst them? If Yamala is a class of tantras as the poster has suggested, what are the other classes of tantras called?

Tantricism has its origins in shaman / shramana culture of tribal periods and were independent of religion at first.

What is the origin of the word “Shaman” according to the author? What is the approximate tribal period alluded to here? Is to pre vedic, post vedic or co-existing with vedic?

It was later absorbed by various religions, hence, one cannot expect culture to be the same.

Was tantra a method of worship or was it a culture according to the author?

Even without a religion or religious laws; as a tribal faith system itself, tantric culture is varied. The usage of mantras, method of worship, the story associated with a given deity, etc was never homogeneous.

In what language is the mantra, method of worship etc. recorded? If it is in Sanskrit in original, why were the mantras composed in a non tribal language? If on the other hand, the mantras in Sanskrit are translation of some other original works, which is the language in which the original works were composed?

Bhagavathy Amman of Kerala and Kali Ma of Bengal have nothing in common. They are invoked differently, supplicated with different verses, and each is associated with a different legend. There is no evidence to show priests ever had a common origin. Priests arose from different cultural sets of people. It was only in the Gupta period, the earliest attempt was made to rope in regional feminine deities into a single entity, Devi. IMO all unification attempts, whether of pre-gupta period or post-gupta period, are linked with political power; and so is the absorption or elevation of some agamas with dharmashastras.

Once again IMO stuff.

I request more info on this. How, in your opinion, were trayee-vedists lenient towards idol worship ?

In earlier threads there were heated discussions on, prohibition of idol worship in trayee-vedas; such as, verses in Rig looking down upon Sisnadeva (linga) worship, vedic aryans looking down upon worship practices of dasyus, quotes like na pratima asti to denote lack of idol worship in yajur, the case of Dayanand Saraswati quoting from vedas to reject presence of idol worship in vedas, etc.

We had also discussed differences between Atharva and the trayi-vedas earlier. In this thread we had also dealt with changing form of worship; ie., how it differed in the samhita period and the brahmana period. Quite apparently, there was an absorption scenario, where purvamimansa became an outcome of brahmanas (texts); and purvamimansa priests absorbed native deities in their fold. This IMO is linked to absorption of specific agamas (which came to be dubbed vaidika agamas) and their native priests into the purvamimansa fold; which happened in the post-brahmana period (must be long after the brahmana texts were composed).

Lot of IMO stuff and a lot of wild speculation at best. Even a cursory reading of a reasonable translation of poorva meemamsa will show that the “meemamsa” covered both mantras (as contained in samhitas {as also mantras appearing in brahmana portions of taittiriya shaka} and bramaNas)

So we have a 2-way situation here. One, of agamas accepting authority of dharmashastras such that native priests were absorbed or elevated into Indo-aryan ritual fold as vaidika agama priests. Two, of purvamimansa priests absorbing native deities in their fold.

In what manner is the word “agama” used here? You mean the agama texts (that is those tantras based on Siva replying to Parvati accepted the authority of dharmashastras? And the others, viz. nigama and samhita did not accept?

If agama is a tantra, as you have been saying so far, where does the “idol” worship come in here? Is not the tantras a type of worship involving yantras, viz. geometrical shaped objects?

Which poorva meemamsa priests absorbed which native deities in their fold? Some pointers please!!

Priests of different cultures were not a common class. Those who became brahmins, obviously got to be so because of social power or victorious outcomes of tribal wars; irrespective of whether they arose from agamic groups or from purvamimansa groups.

Once again IMO stuff.

The gnanakanda ascetics on the other hand, were always, a markedly different class. Also, there have been very many different schools and cultures of asceticism.

Did the gnanakanda ascetics themselves say that there were a markedly different class? What is the source for this affirmation?

The disagreement between Karmakanda ritualists and Gnanakanda ascetics was also discussed in older threads. Gnanakanda ascetics have more in common with non-vedic sharamana traditions.

Unless you give the origins of shaman traditions, this has to be categorized as IMO stuff.

The ultimate goal itself; being Moksha for Gnanakanda ascetics is markedly different from the pitruloka of karmakanda ritualists. Asceticism is not acceptable to Karmakanda.

Can you please give the exact sutra in poorva meemamsa which says asceticism is not acceptable to them?

Obviously, Adi Shankara was the first who made an attempt to merge gnanakanda asceticism with karmakanda ritualism

Can you quote any work attributed to Adi Sankara which brings out such an attempt of Sri Sankara to merge gnanakanda with karmakanda?

(with regard to this, i doubt if certain verses of Brahmasutra bhasya were written by Adi Shankara at all, or were interloped into the text by later day writers, probably during vijayanagar period, to justify establishment of 4 institutions..)

.

Awaiting the recovery of your book for you to quote how Adi Sankara gave an irrelevant bhashyam to some sutras in brahma sutras.

It appears to me, the austroasiatic nagas were the original inhabitants and there was a prolonged war between indo-aryan speakers against the austroasiatic speakers (the latter constituting brahman rakshasas).

Again IMO stuff, now giving a specific twist to bring in the concept of brahma rakshasas.

 

[palindrome]

There are far too many books on Tantras. For beginners, I suggest the book "A Companion to Tantra" by S.C.Banerji; which answers nearly all of the doubts raised above. The rest have already been discussed in older threads with quotes from various texts. Some points are new topics.

However, I am not inclined to converse on any matter with the following posters (a) Prasad1 (b) Zebra16 (c) Suraju06 (d) Sarang. For either one or more of the following reasons -- they either bait, or post personally insulting remarks, or are incapable of decent exchange of information, or at times lack ability to understand certain subjects. While I feel, probably the system helps them along; however, when personally insulting remarks are made, I reserve the right to defend myself. That of course, does not mean, I will engage in exchange of information with them.

Thank you.

 

[sangom]

Shri Zebra seems to abhor the word "in my opinion (imo)". But in my opinion, it is not all that bad; when a person has learnt over the years something but has forgotten the actual source, the person may say "imo". Again, from reading various sources, a person may have come to some conclusion about a certain issue/topic. It may not be possible at this point of time to give the various sources and the detailed thought process/es which worked in the person's mind and brain to form the said conclusion.

Of course, one can simply bluff and to give some presentability to the bluff, the member may add "imo", but can we not at least believe that our members won't do this?

If anyone wants opinions fully backed by references only, it will be necessary to look into scholastic journals and research papers only, not from posts in social websites like this, imho

 

[zebra16]

Shri Zebra seems to abhor the word "in my opinion (imo)". But in my opinion, it is not all that bad; when a person has learnt over the years something but has forgotten the actual source, the person may say "imo". Again, from reading various sources, a person may have come to some conclusion about a certain issue/topic. It may not be possible at this point of time to give the various sources and the detailed thought process/es which worked in the person's mind and brain to form the said conclusion.

Of course, one can simply bluff and to give some presentability to the bluff, the member may add "imo", but can we not at least believe that our members won't do this?

If anyone wants opinions fully backed by references only, it will be necessary to look into scholastic journals and research papers only, not from posts in social websites like this, imho

For many members what you say is correct that it can be trusted that the information exchanged is what knowledge the member gathered over the years, the source of which is long forgotten.

For some members (as you readily acknowledged) passing of own prejudices and outright bluff under the garb of IMO has become routine. These members almost always ask the other posters with a question "What proof" and any proof offered is inadequate and these members have called others "liars" in open posts.

It is not that the other members who routinely do not comment on most of the posts are not aware of the actual or factual position and the IMO posters can just go on adding IMOs, many of them quite spurious, like some of those pointed out in message # 1. IMOs should have at least some believability quotient,

 

[palindrome]

Shri Zebra seems to abhor the word "in my opinion (imo)". But in my opinion, it is not all that bad; when a person has learnt over the years something but has forgotten the actual source, the person may say "imo". Again, from reading various sources, a person may have come to some conclusion about a certain issue/topic. It may not be possible at this point of time to give the various sources and the detailed thought process/es which worked in the person's mind and brain to form the said conclusion. Of course, one can simply bluff and to give some presentability to the bluff, the member may add "imo", but can we not at least believe that our members won't do this? If anyone wants opinions fully backed by references only, it will be necessary to look into scholastic journals and research papers only, not from posts in social websites like this, imho

I have not forgotten the sources; although I do not have many books and papers (which were printed out carefully over the years) with me currently. Sometimes a person may use IMO to present a hypothesis derived from linking research from several sources. Sometimes i too use IMO in that context. I do not mind presenting info and writing down all that I have learnt. However, the very manner in which doubts are raised in a shoddy biased exercise leaves little room for anything else. In such cases it becomes very clear the person has no intention to learn or exchange info in a decent manner. There are people who resort to cheap tricks, cheap comments, lying, openly insulting, baiting, veiled or indirect personal attacks here. These are supposed to be decent people in the real world otherwise. This forum indeed offers a lot of insight. Over the years I have become aware that Getting into any form of info-exchange with certain folks is a futile exercise. For interested readers, I do suggest book(s). All the same, the readership gets to form a myriad of opinions based on the comments of people here. So, I would like to take care about what I post; and also choose the post to which i reply rather carefully. PS: It is not good on your part to suggest bluffing. I do not know if you meant to bait with it.

 

[sangom]

PS: It is not good on your part to suggest bluffing. I do not know if you meant to bait with it.

I fail to understand why this possibility (i.e., bluffing) being included in my post, irks you. I wrote so because the imo usage can gainfully be used to put something for which just no evidence or proof is there, also; is it not?

I am constrined to say that my post was general and not even addressed to anyone. If at all, my remarks about bluffing may be misunderstood as pointing to Shri Zebra whose name I had used. I am sorry to say that your PS possibly goes against your own interest.

 

[palindrome]

I fail to understand why this possibility (i.e., bluffing) being included in my post, irks you. I wrote so because the imo usage can gainfully be used to put something for which just no evidence or proof is there, also; is it not?

I am constrined to say that my post was general and not even addressed to anyone. If at all, my remarks about bluffing may be misunderstood as pointing to Shri Zebra whose name I had used. I am sorry to say that your PS possibly goes against your own interest.

Sorry sir, you have misunderstood. Why should your comment irk me? Your post may have been general. However, Zebra twisted the context as can be read here. It is good you have clarified. However, so far, I have not seen Zebra resorting to bluffing. Anyways, am not out of this topic. Relevant doubts on tantricism, if discussed in an amicable manner, is welcome for me.

 

[suraju06]

Please refer to palindrome in post #2:

I am not inclined to converse on any matter with the following posters (a) Prasad1 (b) Zebra16 (c) Suraju06 (d) Sarang. For either one or more of the following reasons -- they either bait, or post personally insulting remarks, or are incapable of decent exchange of information, or at times lack ability to understand certain subjects. While I feel, probably the system helps them along; however, when personally insulting remarks are made, I reserve the right to defend myself. That of course, does not mean, I will engage in exchange of information with them.

Not that I consider it a big loss or that I am very bothered. But my position has always been this and will continue to be the same:

1. When people, thinking that they are very smart, try to pass on false information as truth, try to obfuscate truth by a presentation of good and bad together as if they are all the same, try to discredit the true course of events with their specious and spurious interpretations,(for sample please refer to "Sociology thread on 'caste.....' "), do a bit of brahmin bashing whenever the opportunity presents itself, undermine the development of my Country and people by supporting and propagating stupid, vicious and retrograde political ideologies, I will come and present the counter view and challenge them for sure.

2. I will certainly come here and hit them hard-whoever they may be. It does not mean that I have a lot of respect for them or their views. It is just that the young minds which read their writings should not get corrupted and that what they write here and present should not go unchallenged. I will engage them if they come for a discussion. I will ignore them if they think they are going to cause any impact by keeping silent. In this I will not feel offended by any personally insulting remarks made about me. I will leave all the clutter and handle only the substantive points and in that I will not be mincing words.

Cheers.

 

[sangom]

Sorry sir, you have misunderstood. Why should your comment irk me? Your post may have been general. However, Zebra twisted the context as can be read here. It is good you have clarified. However, so far, I have not seen Zebra resorting to bluffing. Anyways, am not out of this topic. Relevant doubts on tantricism, if discussed in an amicable manner, is welcome for me.

Palindrome,

In some circumstances, silence is golden, I think.

This thread, AFAI can see, was started to elicit your replies to some of your statements made in another thread, Brahmarakshasas in Valmiki Ramayana. As regards Tantra/s I do not think many people will come forward openly to show their interest in or knowledge of Tantra because, in people's mind, there still is a little reservation about Tantra being, after all, vAmAchAra or the left-handed path and hence not approved by orthodox hinduism.

 

[sangom]

Please refer to palindrome in post #2:



Not that I consider it a big loss or that I am very bothered. But my position has always been this and will continue to be the same:

1. When people, thinking that they are very smart, try to pass on false information as truth, try to obfuscate truth by a presentation of good and bad together as if they are all the same, try to discredit the true course of events with their specious and spurious interpretations,(for sample please refer to "Sociology thread on 'caste.....' "), do a bit of brahmin bashing whenever the opportunity presents itself, undermine the development of my Country and people by supporting and propagating stupid, vicious and retrograde political ideologies, I will come and present the counter view and challenge them for sure.

2. I will certainly come here and hit them hard-whoever they may be. It does not mean that I have a lot of respect for them or their views. It is just that the young minds which read their writings should not get corrupted and that what they write here and present should not go unchallenged. I will engage them if they come for a discussion. I will ignore them if they think they are going to cause any impact by keeping silent. In this I will not feel offended by any personally insulting remarks made about me. I will leave all the clutter and handle only the substantive points and in that I will not be mincing words.

Cheers.

Shri raju,

I appreciate the sentiment expressed in your above post. My observation has been that while presenting "the counter view" and "challenging (the others) for sure", etc., there is a definite streak in your writings/posts as if your world view is the only correct view and anything different expressed (especially by members not belonging to a certain list) is always to be challenged as coming from anathema. A little more balanced view of the world in this regard may be salutary.

May be because of your writings or some other reason, I find that Palindrome has also lately started using "smartas" as the villains of many of the pieces, if I may say so!

 

[renuka]

1. I will come and present the counter view and challenge them for sure.

2. I will certainly come here andhit them hard-whoever they may be.
Cheers.

Sounds like a Sambhavaami Dine Dine avatar !LOL

Hit them Hard?? What is this hitting hitting yaar?

Sattva is NOT supposed to be hitting.

Sattva is supposed to be preaching with gentleness in their heart.

Remember the story of the Wind and the Sun where the Wind was blowing hard to blow off the coat a man was wearing but yet failed?

Then the Sun came out and smiled gently and the man felt hot and removed his coat cos he started to sweat.

One can win without resorting to harshness.

Even in Geeta, a Brahmana is described as "Vidya Vinaya Sampanne Brahmana"

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sangom Sir,

I appreciate the sentiment expressed in your above post. My observation has been that while presenting "the counter view" and "challenging (the others) for sure", etc., there is a definite streak in your writings/posts as if your world view is the only correct view and anything different expressed (especially by members not belonging to a certain list) is always to be challenged as coming from anathema. A little more balanced view of the world in this regard may be salutary.
May be because of your writings or some other reason, I find that Palindrome has also lately started using "smartas" as the villains of many of the pieces, if I may say so!

I take the understanding expressed here in befuddled lingo. It is all flawed again. Is there any other way of saying that? May be like Winston Churchill said, I should say that they are all terminological inexactitudes (if those words can take away the sharpness and roughness of the word flaw). However, I find this game of saying and yet not saying,shouting and yet not shouting, packaging the harsh truth in glittering cellophane paper)very boring. Whom are we trying to satisfy? That explains my style of presentation here.

I have absolutely no idea that my view is the right view. Rather I challenge people to come out with strong arguments so that the validations I am looking for are denied to me and I have to change some of what I believe. If you really get an impression that I challenge only a select set of people, it may be true and it may be because I think they are the only ones in which there is scope for some discussion and exchange of info. But your accusation that I select only the smarthas is way off the truth. Your attack of smarthas has been much more virulent than mine. But when it comes to analysing the attack you want to become an indignant smartha and take me to task indirectly telling me that I am a non-smartha and I have no business to talk about smarthas. In this you have even created a non-existent coalition between me and palindrome. I repeat I am a lone wolf here and do not form any front to fight any ideology here.

To put it in simple non-offending words, you are seeing ghosts where not even shadows exist. Cheers.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Renuka,

Sounds like a Sambhavaami Dine Dine avatar !LOL
Hit them Hard?? [COLOR=#DA7911 !important]What is[/COLOR] this hitting hitting yaar?
Sattva is NOT supposed to be hitting.
Sattva is supposed to be preaching with gentleness in their heart.
Remember [COLOR=#DA7911 !important]the story of[/COLOR] the Wind and the Sun where the Wind was blowing hard to blow off the coat a man was wearing but yet failed?
Then the Sun came out and smiled gently and the man felt hot and removed his coat cos he started to sweat.
One can win without resorting to harshness.
Even in Geeta, a Brahmana is described as "Vidya Vinaya Sampanne Brahmana"

You won't believe. I actually thought of adding sambhavami kshane kshane. But thought it would again be a red rag for a bull which is already upset with my mada, dambA and mAscharya.

This hitting is different which you failed to perceive. Don't you hit hard the hot iron to shape it?
A certain amount of purposeful harshness and controlled anger has been used by even great acharyas to achieve a certain goal. I am no Acharya and I have just taken a leaf from one. In your own words somewhere else, the typical 'vidya vinaya sampanna brahmana' has been called an Ambi. So a certain amount of anger(controlled expression) and harshness is deliberately used by me for a purpose. I am not lost irretrievably in them. I am in control of them always. I travel in a AC car usually. The example you have quoted brings a smile. My coat is always on me, no matter sun or wind. I am beyond the influence of the sun and wind. So I sambhavami kshane kshane. LOL.

No hard feelings please.

Cheers.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom Sir,



I take the understanding expressed here in befuddled lingo. It is all flawed again. Is there any other way of saying that? May be like Winston Churchill said, I should say that they are all terminological inexactitudes (if those words can take away the sharpness and roughness of the word flaw). However, I find this game of saying and yet not saying,shouting and yet not shouting, packaging the harsh truth in glittering cellophane paper)very boring. Whom are we trying to satisfy? That explains my style of presentation here.

I have absolutely no idea that my view is the right view. Rather I challenge people to come out with strong arguments so that the validations I am looking for are denied to me and I have to change some of what I believe. If you really get an impression that I challenge only a select set of people, it may be true and it may be because I think they are the only ones in which there is scope for some discussion and exchange of info. But your accusation that I select only the smarthas is way off the truth. Your attack of smarthas has been much more virulent than mine. But when it comes to analysing the attack you want to become an indignant smartha and take me to task indirectly telling me that I am a non-smartha and I have no business to talk about smarthas. In this you have even created a non-existent coalition between me and palindrome. I repeat I am a lone wolf here and do not form any front to fight any ideology here.

To put it in simple non-offending words, you are seeing ghosts where not even shadows exist. Cheers.

Dear Shri raju,

I feel you have not read my post correctly. I said, "May be because of your writings or some other reason, I find that Palindrome has also lately started using "smartas" as the villains of many of the pieces, if I may say so! ". I did not mean to say that you attack smartas, though your conclusion is not unwarranted from the inadvertent use of the word "also" by me.

I am not indignant at this attack, btw, but a bit amused to see the change, that's all.

 

[sangom]

Sounds like a Sambhavaami Dine Dine avatar !LOL

Hit them Hard?? What is this hitting hitting yaar?

Sattva is NOT supposed to be hitting.

Sattva is supposed to be preaching with gentleness in their heart.

Remember the story of the Wind and the Sun where the Wind was blowing hard to blow off the coat a man was wearing but yet failed?

Then the Sun came out and smiled gently and the man felt hot and removed his coat cos he started to sweat.

One can win without resorting to harshness.

Even in Geeta, a Brahmana is described as "Vidya Vinaya Sampanne Brahmana"

We all should be happy that he is a (self-certified) sAtveeki brAhmin. Had he been rAjasic what would happen?!

 

[suraju06]

Dear Shri raju,

I feel you have not read my post correctly. I said, "May be because of your writings or some other reason, I find that Palindrome has also lately started using "smartas" as the villains of many of the pieces, if I may say so! ". I did not mean to say that you attack smartas, though your conclusion is not unwarranted from the inadvertent use of the word "also" by me.

I am not indignant at this attack, btw, but a bit amused to see the change, that's all.

Dear Sangom Sir,

I read your post correctly and my reply was just apt. I did not add one word in excess of what was needed. Well. We perceive situations differently. Perhaps that accounts for your latest post. These days when I am amused I am just amused-not 'a bit'. Be happy in an unrestrained way. Enjoy your self. It is still a beautiful world. Cheers.

 

[suraju06]

We all should be happy that he is a (self-certified) sAtveeki brAhmin. Had he been rAjasic what would happen?!

Sangom Sir,

please read my post # 13 for reply. And by the way, do we have any certifying agency for certifying some one sAtviki? I would like to obtain a certificate and present it here. Cheers.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,



You won't believe. I actually thought of adding sambhavami kshane kshane.

Cheers.

LOL! I can't stop laughing cos I was actually thinking of typing even smaller units of time eg Trasarenu but I changed my mind and stuck to Dine Dine!

 

[sarang]

Quite a few expert historian witnesses in the ayodhya case were admonished by the learned judge. They gave their affidavit taking excerpts from newspaper reports, what other JNU professors said, their PhD guide, or from the forward written by jnu historians for books by jnu historians and definitely for jnu students and cocomrades.

Nothing more to be said.

Palindrome in another thread entitled "brahma rakshas in ramayana" which is closed now had raised some issues regarding tantras. This post seeks to reply to the said post:



66 years since independence is more than sufficient for a representative government interested in knowing and preserving its culture, at least to catalogue the different tantras

All IMO stuff. One can hold any opinion one wants.


What is the origin of the words, agama, nigama and samhita and what is its etymology according to the poster? Is it Sanskrit or any other indo European or proto indio European language? If the word is a loan word to Sanskrit from another language, which is the loaner or source language?

How does Agama translate into Shiva replying to Parvati and Nigama to Parvati replying to Shiva? Is this classification universal? If so who is the authority?




Again a lot of IMO stuff. But questions about “yamalas”. What is the origin and etymology of the word “Yamala”? Is there only one yamala? If there are various yamalas, which is the fore runner amongst them? If Yamala is a class of tantras as the poster has suggested, what are the other classes of tantras called?


What is the origin of the word “Shaman” according to the author? What is the approximate tribal period alluded to here? Is to pre vedic, post vedic or co-existing with vedic?


Was tantra a method of worship or was it a culture according to the author?



In what language is the mantra, method of worship etc. recorded? If it is in Sanskrit in original, why were the mantras composed in a non tribal language? If on the other hand, the mantras in Sanskrit are translation of some other original works, which is the language in which the original works were composed?



Once again IMO stuff.


Lot of IMO stuff and a lot of wild speculation at best. Even a cursory reading of a reasonable translation of poorva meemamsa will show that the “meemamsa” covered both mantras (as contained in samhitas {as also mantras appearing in brahmana portions of taittiriya shaka} and bramaNas)




In what manner is the word “agama” used here? You mean the agama texts (that is those tantras based on Siva replying to Parvati accepted the authority of dharmashastras? And the others, viz. nigama and samhita did not accept?

If agama is a tantra, as you have been saying so far, where does the “idol” worship come in here? Is not the tantras a type of worship involving yantras, viz. geometrical shaped objects?

Which poorva meemamsa priests absorbed which native deities in their fold? Some pointers please!!



Once again IMO stuff.

Did the gnanakanda ascetics themselves say that there were a markedly different class? What is the source for this affirmation?



Unless you give the origins of shaman traditions, this has to be categorized as IMO stuff.

Can you please give the exact sutra in poorva meemamsa which says asceticism is not acceptable to them?


Can you quote any work attributed to Adi Sankara which brings out such an attempt of Sri Sankara to merge gnanakanda with karmakanda?

.

Awaiting the recovery of your book for you to quote how Adi Sankara gave an irrelevant bhashyam to some sutras in brahma sutras.


Again IMO stuff, now giving a specific twist to bring in the concept of brahma rakshasas.

 

[palindrome]

Palindrome,

In some circumstances, silence is golden, I think.

This thread, AFAI can see, was started to elicit your replies to some of your statements made in another thread, Brahmarakshasas in Valmiki Ramayana. As regards Tantra/s I do not think many people will come forward openly to show their interest in or knowledge of Tantra because, in people's mind, there still is a little reservation about Tantra being, after all, vAmAchAra or the left-handed path and hence not approved by orthodox hinduism.

Yes Sir. I understand. Am aware interest level may be low and some content may cause folks to be very angry. I don't think this is a forum for it. I think i have been careful so far also. Even while providing a book link to polyandry in the caste system thread, i did so a while after i had first made the post; and refrained from providing relevant verses or details from that book or other papers. None of my references are jnu and so it is amusing to read some posts here. Anyways, am out of this thread. Maybe after things have cooled down, I will start a thread on tantricism (but based on how things are at that time). Thank you sir.

 

[sangom]

Yes Sir. I understand. Am aware interest level may be low and some content may cause folks to be very angry. I don't think this is a forum for it. I think i have been careful so far also. Even while providing a book link to polyandry in the caste system thread, i did so a while after i had first made the post; and refrained from providing relevant verses or details from that book or other papers. None of my references are jnu and so it is amusing to read some posts here. Anyways, am out of this thread. Maybe after things have cooled down, I will start a thread on tantricism (but based on how things are at that time). Thank you sir.

Palindrome,

All that I can say, after observing for two years or so, is that this Forum does not basically synchronize with your vast readings, grasp of various topics and your uninhibited way of original thoughts. This forum is essentially a railroad from one location to another and what is possible is that the maximum number of trains (depending on factors like speed etc., in the case of a real-life railway line; but those factors don't apply here.) can move on the very same worn out rails; nothing more.

Since the majority membership here is attuned to this monotonous railroad type of things, it becomes necessary that when a person like you (whose views are not usually appealing to a group in this forum) should produce verifiable evidence/s in support of your various observations which often tend to be unorthodox.

I hope you will understand this post of mine in the correct sense. No hard feelings please.

 

[zebra16]

There are far too many books on Tantras. For beginners, I suggest the book "A Companion to Tantra" by S.C.Banerji; which answers nearly all of the doubts raised above. The rest have already been discussed in older threads with quotes from various texts. Some points are new topics.

However, I am not inclined to converse on any matter with the following posters (a) Prasad1 (b) Zebra16 (c) Suraju06 (d) Sarang. For either one or more of the following reasons -- they either bait, or post personally insulting remarks, or are incapable of decent exchange of information, or at times lack ability to understand certain subjects. While I feel, probably the system helps them along; however, when personally insulting remarks are made, I reserve the right to defend myself. That of course, does not mean, I will engage in exchange of information with them.

Thank you.

1. <edtd. KRS>

2. This forum is merely for "exchange of ideas" and not for "propogation of idealogy", as you are wont to do in almost all the threads that you participate.

3. You cant browbeat all the readers all the time with your "up in the face comments" with your home grown ideas of smartaism or dharmashastra religion (whatever you may mean by those terms) goaded by caustic, sarcastic, ironic, smug etc. posting of some others.

4. Learning a subject for its own sake is quite different from learning for propoganda purposes. It is better to focus on the substantiative issues rather than mere propoganda.

 

[zebra16]

Sorry sir, you have misunderstood. Why should your comment irk me? Your post may have been general. However, Zebra twisted the context as can be read here. It is good you have clarified. However, so far, I have not seen Zebra resorting to bluffing. Anyways, am not out of this topic. Relevant doubts on tantricism, if discussed in an amicable manner, is welcome for me.

This post itself is a testimony to your propensity to attempt to twist the posts. Of course there arent any buyers is a different matter.

 

[KRS]

I do not know much about the tantric path of our religion and would very much like to know about it from a scholarly pov. Even though he renounced his religious beliefs, Professor Nara Ji's postings on Vaishnavism still stand out as a great example of dealing with the erudite subjects.

This Forum has always maintained that any subject under the sky (with a few limitations based on civilized conduct and within legal bounds) and the Moderation, in my opinion, has safeguarded that principle for the most part.

If such a topic is opened elsewhere in the Forum, where opinions about the ideas presented are limited to the substance, such as the religious postings, I am sure we can all benefit from Srimathi Palindrome's vast knowledge. I for one, surely will.

This is just a suggestion.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sangom]

I do not know much about the tantric path of our religion and would very much like to know about it from a scholarly pov. Even though he renounced his religious beliefs, Professor Nara Ji's postings on Vaishnavism still stand out as a great example of dealing with the erudite subjects.

This Forum has always maintained that any subject under the sky (with a few limitations based on civilized conduct and within legal bounds) and the Moderation, in my opinion, has safeguarded that principle for the most part.

If such a topic is opened elsewhere in the Forum, where opinions about the ideas presented are limited to the substance, such as the religious postings, I am sure we can all benefit from Srimathi Palindrome's vast knowledge. I for one, surely will.

This is just a suggestion.

Regards,
KRS

"Tantra" is considered as an undesirable method by the poorvameemamsakas I am told and this general "black mark" on Tantra applies even today. However, we hindus have adopted a good portion of tAntric methods in our daily routines, right from sandhyavandanam. I don't know how this mingling came about. On the higher end we have the Lalitha upasana which many of our very respected ancients practised.

I am under the impression that all tantras are based on finding or experiencing the Supreme Truth, ultimately through the route of sexual union of male and female, the purusha & prakruti of the sAmkhyas and that all tantric systems do recommend "yOni pooja" and similar rituals, culminating in sex, as the ultimate level of the tantric sadhana.

Yet another point is that it is in the Tantric system that the notions of "kula" and "guru" (kulaguru) occupy such unquestioned importance that the guru is virtually the Supreme Truth. The mainstream hinduism of today has, perhaps because of confusion, adopted this and elevated the so-called "guru" concept to ridiculous levels. The very many acharyas, swamijis, babas and devis plus all the godmen and godwomen thrive on this basic misconception.

Due to the above factors, I am not particularly interested in learning more about Tantra, which, in the ultimate analysis can be learnt only after you join a school, just as in the case of "Free Masons".