Śrī Matre Namaḥ,

My understanding of Kaulācārā, most people would not have any problem intellectually entertaining the dualities of pure/impure but only the true practitioners of Vāmācārā can live with the dualities of pure/impure all the time and use impure things as objects in their worship. The disclaimer being, it takes time for beginners to develop a relationship with a deity, develop good enough bhakti before they can transcend dualities and till that happens, sādhana during auspicious times, visiting auspicious places like Śakti Pīṭhas will do nothing but only good. Or the beginners should have unflinching faith in Guru's word.

Guruji - What has to be emphasized here is that these four traditions within Srividya are essentially all the same – the difference is only in the tools that are used. In fact, I will use a metaphor that has annoyed people before, but one that I believe is accurate and useful in explaining these concepts: Think of the traditions as four toolboxes available to the initiated Srividya upasak.

Why toolboxes? Because a toolbox is something you open when you have a job to do. You reach in and take what you need for the job at hand. Just because a certain tool is in there, doesn't mean you need to pull it out for every job. It's quite likely, in fact, that you will *never* need to use most of these tools. But they are there in case you do.

(Source - http://amritananda-natha-saraswati.blogspot.com/2016/04/traditions-acharas-within-sri-vidya.html)

Guruji - All our pujas are satvic, which empower and hurt none. This is how Kaula pujas are done to willing and consenting adults at Devipuram.

(Source - http://amritananda-natha-saraswati.blogspot.com/2016/04/kaula-achara.html)

Śrī Gurubhyo Namaḥ

Adikeshava kaula does not necessarily meaning kaulācāra. Kaula śāstra, and śaiva-śākta kaulism as a distinct "tantric" revelation enjoins many lineages, ācāras, and śāstras within its folds, practices, and scriptural classifications

Again my understanding is that there is no difference between Kaulā or Kaulācārā, the LHP of Tantra (instead of Vāmācārā as the LHP) as is practiced today in whatever leftover form (one exception being the Dattātreya lineage at Devipuram) and many of the schools of Śaivism (Vol. 5 of A History of Indian Philosophy by S. Dasgupta) seem to have contributed to the development of Kaulācārā. Vāmācārā influenced the transgressive practices of Kaulācārā or the practitioners of Vāmācārā took the impurity from Kaulācārā to the extreme level is very unclear. Only Dattātreya can settle the debate.

The video below (not the original channel) is all about Kaula tantra by Prabhuji Institute.

Adikeshava Transcending duality is a common goal of several [but not all] tantric paths and one which is also ritually re-enacted by certain types of practitioners who use "impure" objects and dravyams

I think all tantric schools accept that the world is real and not separate from Divine but a manifestation of Divine.

Adikeshava Whether it works or not depends on the qualifications of the practitioner, but the margin of error is much smaller than what is practiced in mainstream Śrīvidyā.

Not sure, I follow this.

Adikeshava but one worth at least being exposed to-especially in the common "post-navaratri depression" days that many may be experiencing right now.

Agree.

Adikeshava but there are, of course, as many definitions of tantra and kaula as there are practitioners, however, not all are as equally informed, knowledgeable, or correct.

I'm curious on what basis you are saying this? There could be Kaulā gurus hiding in plain sight each with their own understanding and practices from Kaulā and depending on the need of a teaching and the grace of Dattātreya, a sādhaka can meet such a guru and a particular sub-sect within Kaulā may become famous. And no one school can claim to be superior over others as Kaulā itself is an amalgamation of practices from different schools of Tantra which Abhinavagupta further refined and endorsed as the highest and supreme path in Tantra.

That is why Guruji's tool box analogy is perfect I think for all sādhakas on the path of Tantra.

admin

but there are, of course, as many definitions of tantra and kaula as there are practitioners, however, not all are as equally informed, knowledgeable, or correct.

My bad if I confused anyone, my question is on what basis Adikeshava says not all Kaulā practitioners are equally informed, knowledgeable or correct when Kaulā itself was formed from different schools of Tantra and got refined over time? Or am I reading the sentence wrong?

admin

I think if you are asking with in one lineage following Kaulā if all those practitioners regardless of their experience are equally informed, knowledgeable and correct? The answer would be definitely no as it depends on the advancement of the practitioners.

As I read what Adikeshava seems to say is there are different thoughts or schools about Kaulā itself and not all these are equally informed, knowledgeable and correct, which I think is incorrect to assume so because Kaulā itself took different things from different schools of Tantra, things which seem to serve all, making Kaulā non-dogmatic.

For example, I have been blessed enough to take diksha in Samayachara, Dakshinachara and Kaulachara paramparas. They are complementary, not conflicting. There is no inherent conflict between the traditions, and those who understand the paths properly know that none rejects the others.

(Source - http://amritananda-natha-saraswati.blogspot.com/2016/04/traditions-acharas-within-sri-vidya.html)

Just like Guruji if some other Guru took diksha in Kaulācārā and endorsed the same tool-box methodology to teach his or her students about Kaulā, how will we ever know if that Guru and his or her lineage are not equally informed, knowledgeable and correct?