Bindi

If you don't like my sources, find your own, but please research the issue thoroughly first.

From the little that I know of this text, "a wine-drinker is different from the drinkers of ecstasy" because wine is used ritually to induce ecstasy and is not to be confused with 'just drinking wine', same for sexual intercourse, "the union of delight is between the ascending Sakti and the presiding Lord above, and not between man and woman" even though physically it is between a man and a woman. What did I miss exactly?

The professor of Religious studies noted that Muktananda quoted some sections of the Tantra frequently, while avoiding others sections that wouldn't go down well with a Western audience, presumably references to tantric sex. This claim requires research into Muktananda's discourses and a familiarity with the contents of the Tantra, for which she is no doubt well equipped, unless you believe otherwise?

The author Andrea R. Jain is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Purdue University Indianapolis. She is not a credible source?

Perhaps you can find it by searching; Selling Yoga: From Counterculture to Pop Culture By Andrea R. Jain and maybe add keywords Kularnava Tantra Muktananda.

When you say the method shifts, do you mean the Buddhist method is surpassed by the Christian method?

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=C2q6BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=Kularnava+Tantra+shaktipat&source=bl&ots=gbXpVimejz&sig=E4RGVyIlg04d5EWAsESkEM5xQDc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2mfCP2a3SAhWqxVQKHRCpA0k4ChDoAQgvMAQ#v=onepage&q=Kularnava%20Tantra%20shaktipat&f=false https://books.google.com.au/books?id=vDfPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT19&lpg=PT19&dq=Kularnava+Tantra+shaktipat&source=bl&ots=p3Cpf22dkQ&sig=fLq8ZSoEwPR41wBQ4Z2Fls8PQoI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOrPLn1a3SAhUrqFQKHcZmCQoQ6AEIOzAH#v=onepage&q=Kularnava%20Tantra%20shaktipat&f=false I prefer these sort of Buddhists: Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here mere belief is dethroned and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge, which, in Pali, is known as saddha. The confidence placed by a follower on the Buddha is like that of a sick person in a noted physician, or a student in his teacher. A Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha because it was he who discovered the path of deliverance. A Buddhist does not seek refuge in the Buddha with the hope that he will be saved by his (i.e. the Buddha's own) personal purification. The Buddha gives no such guarantee. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others. One could neither purify nor defile another. The Buddha, as teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha, he does not make any self-surrender. Nor does a Buddhist sacrifice his freedom of thought by becoming a follower of the Buddha. He can exercise his own free will and develop his knowledge even to the extent of becoming a Buddha himself. The starting point of Buddhism is reasoning or understanding, or, in the Pali words, samma-ditthi. To the seekers of truth the Buddha says: "Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word). "But when you know for yourselves -- these things are immoral, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken conduce to ruin and sorrow -- then indeed do you reject them. "When you know for yourselves -- these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness -- then do you live acting accordingly." Furthermore, it must be mentioned that there are no petitional or intercessory prayers in Buddhism. However much we may pray to the Buddha we cannot be saved. The Buddha does not grant favors to those who pray to him. Instead of petitional prayers there is meditation that leads to self-control, purification and enlightenment. Meditation is neither a silent reverie nor keeping the mind blank. It is an active striving. It serves as a tonic both to the heart and the mind. The Buddha not only speaks of the futility of offering prayers but also disparages a slave mentality. A Buddhist should not pray to be saved, but should rely on himself and win his freedom. In Buddhism there is not, as in most other religions, an Almighty God to be obeyed and feared. The Buddha does not believe in a cosmic potentate, omniscient and omnipresent. In Buddhism there are no divine revelations or divine messengers. A Buddhist is, therefore, not subservient to any higher supernatural power which controls his destinies and which arbitrarily rewards and punishes. Since Buddhists do not believe in revelations of a divine being Buddhism does not claim the monopoly of truth and does not condemn any other religion. But Buddhism recognizes the infinite latent possibilities of man and teaches that man can gain deliverance from suffering by his own efforts independent of divine help or mediating priests. http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm Is it usual for God to hit an obstruction or fear?

A quick internet search tells me he also states in the Kularnava Tantra that without shaktipat there is no liberation or Self-realisation, which I absolutely disagree with, also I found that apparently Muktananda cited this exact text “frequently but selectively” because "it includes certain transgressive elements" that don’t sit well with "contemporary dominant ethical standards", so I am disinclined to take his opinion on gurus too seriously either. Do you mean "the only way to the Father is through the Father" or the only way to the Father is through the Son? It's not always so clear in the bible that "Jesus and the Father are one", how would you explain this: About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" -- which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46-47

Reading the full passage referring to 'we are all one in Christ': For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28 seems to very clearly refer to the equality of all baptised Christians being 'one in Christ', we aren't all one in Christ except through baptism. Everyone having the same inherent buddha-nature makes complete sense to me. TBH 'the shared space of the primordial Adam' sounds kind of new-agey to me, and a very personal theology. The potential to attain Buddha-nature was around before Jesus, as was the potential for 'Self-realisation', and these are enough for me.

I don't think he was a megalomaniac, I think the megalomaniac words just weren't spoken by him but by later Christians with an investment in the doctrine of faith only in Jesus. As another example, the Lord's prayer is addressed directly to the Father, not to Jesus as intermediary. But in your terms and preferably in your words, why can I only find the Kingdom of God through faith in Jesus, why can't I seek it directly?

The only role I can imagine for a guru is to point you to the guru within. Jesus does this when he says seek the Kingdom of God within, but when he says that he himself is the only way to God, he is a religion at war with all other ways to God. Though being in the presence of a guru might bring a person to some desirable mental state, which incidentally requires no effort from the devotee, as soon as they leave the guru they will start to be as themselves again, so they have two choices. Stay with the guru so that s/he can keep you forever in the desired state, or find the place within that you desire to be in.

There are two Jesus's in the bible, one is a simple man who asks people to seek for the kingdom of God, and likens it to a treasure hidden in a field that we must find, the other is almost megalomaniacal, saying 'I am the way, the truth and the light, no man cometh to the father but by me.' One says seek within, the other says only have faith in him, which has created the religious division that we know today. The bible is a many layered text, and it seems to me we are reading the layer that most appeals to us.

If Jesus himself speaks of making every effort to enter through the door, is it reasonable to accept that this directive be overturned by either *Paul, or a later author influenced by Paul's thought? Isn't this the birth of a religion that would be unrecognised by Jesus himself? *Ephesians authorship has traditionally been credited to Paul the Apostle but, starting in 1792, this has been challenged as Deutero-Pauline, that is, written in Paul's name by a later author strongly influenced by Paul's thought. (wikipedia)

"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able." Luke 13:24

Jeff, it does seem to me that you are suggesting that 'no effort' is being promoted in the NT, what about 'But seek ye first the Kingdom of God', which must involve intention and surely effort? And presumably one must keep seeking until one finds the Kingdom, is this an effortless task?

I agree. I suspect this stuff goes on at the causal level, and very few are operating at this level and aware of those causes and effects, or able to consciously affect things on that level, mostly this stuff goes on 'behind the veil'. I think many more would have been affected by this level now and then, unconsciously though. 


The goldsmith is up and doing while melting gold. As long as the gold hasn’t melted, he works the bellows with one hand, moves the fan with the other, and blows through a pipe with his mouth. But the moment the gold melts and is poured into the mould, he is relieved of all anxiety. - Ramakrishna

Yes some of these do suggest that you are in tune with your Higher Self to some extent. Personally I would discount anything to do with kundalini as miraculous though, it is a very powerful energy afterall, and some of the visions that you mention can be just personal mental states. But some of it does seem to be beyond mere luck

I mean have you personally witnessed miraculous feats such as "Drinking tubes of Lie for example, shitting in their own hand and transforming it into sandal paste aroma and all, to prove the point of nothing making a difference, eating hot coals, being imprisoned only to be found on the roof of the jailhouse, walking on water" etc. I am interested but could you just write the specifics here?

And did you witness any of his miraculous feats first hand?

This is the full passage, I don't believe it is a bad translation. You might somehow have to come to terms with the idea that the Buddha did not endorse dependence, or let go of Buddhism as a support for your own personal opinion. Chapter 12, The Self 157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. Let the wise man keep vigil during any of the three watches of the night. 158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached. 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is self-control. 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain. 161. The evil a witless man does by himself, born of himself and produced by himself, grinds him as a diamond grinds a hard gem. 162. Just as a single creeper strangles the tree on which it grows, even so, a man who is exceedingly depraved harms himself as only an enemy might wish. 163. Easy to do are things that are bad and harmful to oneself. But exceedingly difficult to do are things that are good and beneficial. 164. Whoever, on account of perverted views, scorns the Teaching of the Perfected Ones, the Noble and Righteous Ones -- that fool, like the bamboo, produces fruits only for self destruction. [14] 165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another. 166. Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good.

Sounds about right.

What could be different about the 1800's that spawned all these miraculous feats, that no longer exists today in the age of video at hand?

sorry, I meant video footage, have any of these feats been recorded on video?