[Advaita-l] vajrOli yOga & shankara bhagavatpAda

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Dear Vidyashankarji

If you permit me, I wish to answer the question as to where did Shankara learn the Vajroli yoga and who could have been his guru. His guru Shri Govindapada was called an avatara of Patanjali and that should at least mean that Shri Govindapada was good in the Patanjali yoga.  Patanjali though started his Yogasutra with the later angas of the Ashtanga yoga he never underestimated the need for the earlier angas. He very well could have familiarised his young disciples to all the angas of the ashtanga yoga. In Shivasamhita Lord Shiva says that the Hathayoga is not complete without the  Rajayoga and the Rajayoga is not complete without the Hathayoga and I am sure patanjali was aware of this.

Now coming to the Vajroli Mudra there are samhitas which give the specific procedures, practising which even a young yogi can strengthen the abdominal muscles so needed for the Vajroli. I will not go into the details of this as this is beyond the scope of our discussion.

Regards.

Sunil KB





On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:50 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
 
Okay, list members, let's end this discussion here.

First, we have to realize that we should give up our contemporary assumptions about
sexuality and sacredness. Our attitudes about these today are shaped by an education
informed by Victorian assumptions that are quite alien to the life and times of Sankara.

Second, like it or not, this episode about Sankara using parakAya-praveSa to gain an
experience asked of him in the context of a debate is there in the Sankaravijaya texts.
It is easy to find fault with these texts and their authors by claiming that they lived
many centuries after Sankara and that they have not understood advaita, brahmacaryA,
deha-sambandha etc correctly. The reality is that our assumptions today are quite alien
to the life and times of the writers of these Sankaravijaya texts too.

No matter what, the details are what they are. Beyond the point already reached in this
thread as of now, these details are not pertinent to advaita vedAnta and the aims of this
list. Any further issues should be discussed with a living guru, with experience of these
topics in a practical way in daily life. Theoretical discussion on this list is not going to
help anybody.

Regards,
Vidyasankar

> To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> From: bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:16:44 +0530
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] vajrOli yOga & shankara bhagavatpAda
> 
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
> 
> Adi Sankara was a Brahma Jnani. He cannot commit sin or merit in his own
> body and also in another body. Even if he enters into thousand bodies also
> he cannot commit sin in any body. 
> 
> >  If that is the case what was the need for shankara to opt for 'another' 
> body!!??  Since he is brahma jnAni and he is dehAteeta he could have had 
> the experience of kAma shAstra in the current body only...after all as you 
> are saying above, brahma jnAni will have the absolute dis-association with 
> his upAdhi-s and will always be in upAdhi-rahita/bAdhita sva-svarUpa.  If 
> you say, he wanted to maintain 'his' yati dharma, 'his' body of the 
> saNyAsi intact then it means he was still associating & identifying 
> himself in that yati body / saMyAsi body and chosen another bhOga 
> shareera, an inert shareera to enter with his karaNa and upahita or 
> parichinna chaitanya i.e. jeeva bhAva is it not?? 
> 
> 
> Why he said he did not commit sin in 'this body'? The king's body was not 
> sinning also because he was mixing
> freely with his own wives.
> 
> >  Please note, a dead body of the king was not the one which was mixing 
> with king's wives...the 'driving force' behind the dead king's body was 
> that of a yati / a bAla saMnAsi who had the intention of proving himself 
> as a sarvajna to an orthodox house wife who asked totally unorthodox 
> question to the saMnAsi :-))
> 
> I do not understand Saraswati's question and Adi Sankara's defending his 
> actions.
> 
> > While one can atleast understand saraswati's question, shankara's 
> justification was really something silly.
> 
> Hari Hari Hari bol!!!
> bhaskar
> 
> PS :  Kindly dont think by saying all this, I am doubting the character of 
> bhagavatpAda, I am just doubting the credentials of these episodes in 
> shankara digvijaya-s and rationality behind the answers / justifications 
> provided my the biographers through the mouth of shankara.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

                          
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org