Well I am receptive to suggestions on things generally if I think people reading what I write know what I write.
I may be at fault for writing things unclearly but nevertheless your first assumption was not what I intended.
I corrected it and you continue on that path as if I had said nothing..which is find..but that accounts for why I take no such no unsolicited suggestion.
The specific was N mentioned that Millararepa did by kagyu not have consort. Which would imply as millarepa is considered as advanced as one may get in this life spiritually, by this line of thinking that Millarepa did perform sexual tantra without consort. It is stated elsewhere to attain full human enlightenment sexual tantra must be employeed to exclusion of other method....that's it sexual tantra..no sexual tantra no human enlightenment.
My commment was a suggestion that.... as no consort was implied.... this thing of sexual tantra was more closely to diety tantra(N's Millarepa mention stated diety) than it was to sexual tantra as we think of it. As I follow Kagyu teachings by majority I feel free to question or elaborate upon this issue as Kagyu see it. There seem distinction on sexual tantra by school.
So this is not making gross elaborations on content fo tantra but discussing a finer point of one thing generally discussed.
And I don't care a bit to know any "secrets" I have enough of my own to deal with. I suspect none on this subject have empowerment for this one tantra as it is realtively rare .Can't say for sure, certainly, but suspect none do. Anyway it was initiated by one of another school, without tantric vow I can conjecture, so the field of discussion is open to those without tantric vow of this.
N's comment I was referencing was this..."but in the later Kagyu histories, only his relationship with the goddess Tseringma is mentioned.
N ...that comment was in reference to another comment on some monastic being humanly enlightened, but apparently not with consort.
N did not actually say by Kagyupa Millarepa practiced sexual tantra but infered in prior statement, other schools state he did.
So I allow that what he may have practiced may have been other by kagyu..to rehash.
YOu jump in and state we are discussing secret tantric practice...we are not really. Historical fact and differences amongst schools on this thing of tantra.
Other comments I have made may approximate that...but those you did not read or see something else in them. But those are clearly qualified, so as not to produce harm. Those were proferred earlier in the discussion.
Me personally...I suspect I may practice some things, as I have some empowerments of sorts and practice some things daily .... I am only guessing. I'd be hard pressed to tell you many things about me or my practice as my mind works in strange ways. My communications perhaps speak to that. Personally I do know that I don't give a flying capital F about sexual tantra....mostly by my take in the west what is called sexual tantra commonly it is excuse for beating off or joyous sex.
Some may have empowerments in that... I suspect few do. Far more discuss it. It is discussed everywhere. Anyone discussing it..in other than general terms they may not discuss it. In general terms I don't believe it violates the vows. So such things about discussing could be said about to everyone.If you had empowerment in this thing how then could you enter into this discussion if so strictly were those vows, as being here even with any comment could be construed as talking about secret tantra.
VEry general only is this discussion to my opinion, not violatating vows, nor producing harm. Myself......a waste of time for me, I have other means I expect are as effective for my spiritual path. I don't criticize others path, but to state one must do one thing and not another....I question it a bit especially if it however superficially seems to prohibit others by gender of other arbitrary things and thusly conflicts with what I know. Though but layperson and not even buddhist may I be with little understanding and no education.
I forget why i am here..on this thread...there was a initial reason...it is long gone.
Hopefully the original poster will not consider this to far from point this video.... ...
DEath as means as I stated earlier..if not the dying to be considered as alive is not dead ....why not dead as means do we not say?
If sex with no male ejaculation yet practiced by male with no consort of male or of female, not really not always...why sex it is called at all...it is not.
Both by my take misnomers...it is in the dying we learn not as dead and thusly more closely to alive than dead and this thing of sex it is of the passageways is this thing not of the sex in and of itself...so there is a point being made...secret point it is not, nor about secret matter....linguistics...it is. nothing more. I am commenting upon linguistics. Not linguini...the wording...what this is called. Before we discuss this thing at all we must be certain we are all refereing to the same thing....if we are to discuss this thing at all...I opt for not at all...but what it is called makes for a good read by my take.
Zombies are not dead or alive they are inbetween....tantra of death is not tantra of dead.
TAntra of sex is called such...but no conventional sex there is or about it...so the video expresses point.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.