Concerning the debile question described in the post above (#207).
When writing #207, was additionally going to post the line:
The above statement holds, as it's confirmed in [color="#0000FF"]the following wherein my lips are obviously not moving[/color]:
I hate having to do this. Having to quote from books - and not even particularly the kind I want to be quoting from, but some things are easier to reach than others and can go in public, besides I just wanted no more than some backing support for my statement anyway, and that's served with the above -
The sentence again: hate having to quote books on matters that are stuff that Hindus should know (this Is your religion, right). In order to this, Hindus don't need to know by rote what Hindu scripture said what - am pleased and proud of you if ya do, since I don't - but people need to at least be able to recognise things that are part of their religion. [And practically speaking, several Hindu practises (incl. mantras) that derive from Hindu Tantra manuals are followed by even younger generations of Hindus, though the older Hindoos perform all such things more knowledgeably, consciously and thoroughly. But they know what they're doing.]
"Is [Hindu] tantra a part of Hinduism" indeed.
:woedend:
You're as good as those you allow to 1. lecture you on your religion and 2. speak on your behalf to others (though they shouldn't ever be dialoguing with deadly enemies - which is a separate problem altogether). If you would never of your own choice have elected them to the position, you *need* to ask them to Stand Down.
When writing #207, was additionally going to post the line:
Quote:(* And in this context: IIRC, several Hindu Tantra texts state repeatedly they're of the Vedic religion and constitute an extension to the Vedam.)(Note, am obviously only speaking of *Hindu* Tantra scriptures, not any others.) Removed the statement from the post since I didn't want to be wrong yet again, and decided to confirm first.
The above statement holds, as it's confirmed in [color="#0000FF"]the following wherein my lips are obviously not moving[/color]:
Quote:The Tantra is regarded as a Shruti or Agama [...] It is thus classed with the Vedas. It is usually defined as "shrutishAkhAvisheShaH", a particular branch of the Vedas. This claim is strongly maintained not only by the later Tantras, but also by the earlier ones. One of the oldest Tantras available in manuscript, NS, holds that the Tantra is the culmination of the esoteric science of the vedAnta and the sAMkhya. In fact, it combines with the ultimate reality of Brahman or Shiva the validity of the world as an expression of His Shakti. The consort of Shiva therefore is first taught the vedAnta, then the 25 sAMkhyas [saamkhya categories], and after that the Shiva Tantra. P, which is an equally old tAntric text, says, 'The Tantra, first communicated by Shiva, came down through tradition. It is Agama with the characteristics of chandas (Vedas).'
The later Tantras reiterate the same claim. The K Tantra says (II. 140-41) that kuladharma is based on, and inspired by, the truth of the Vedas. In the same place, Shiva cites passages from the shruti in support of His doctrine. P2 and other Tantras cite vaidika-mahAvAkyas and mantras; and as mantras are a part of the Vedas, the M Tantra says that the Tantra is a part of the Vedas. The N Tantra calls the Tantra the fifth Veda, and kulAchAra the fifth Ashrama, which follows all the others. The MSM-tantra says that the disciple must be pure of soul and a knower of the Vedas. He who is devoid of vaidikakriyA is disqualified. The GT says that the tAntric sAdhaka must be a believer in the Vedas, ever attached to Brahman, living in Brahman and taking shelter with Brahman. The K Tantra says that there is no knowledge higher than that of the Vedas and no doctrine equal to the kaula.
I hate having to do this. Having to quote from books - and not even particularly the kind I want to be quoting from, but some things are easier to reach than others and can go in public, besides I just wanted no more than some backing support for my statement anyway, and that's served with the above -
The sentence again: hate having to quote books on matters that are stuff that Hindus should know (this Is your religion, right). In order to this, Hindus don't need to know by rote what Hindu scripture said what - am pleased and proud of you if ya do, since I don't - but people need to at least be able to recognise things that are part of their religion. [And practically speaking, several Hindu practises (incl. mantras) that derive from Hindu Tantra manuals are followed by even younger generations of Hindus, though the older Hindoos perform all such things more knowledgeably, consciously and thoroughly. But they know what they're doing.]
"Is [Hindu] tantra a part of Hinduism" indeed.
:woedend:
You're as good as those you allow to 1. lecture you on your religion and 2. speak on your behalf to others (though they shouldn't ever be dialoguing with deadly enemies - which is a separate problem altogether). If you would never of your own choice have elected them to the position, you *need* to ask them to Stand Down.