Jivotpatti Adv Brahman

Jivotpatti
utpatti back to advaita brahman

Jivotpatti
Was Amalananda a Pncartra-enthusiast (PE)?
In order to give the erroneous impression to their gullible readers, the bloggers have
been propagating
the unfounded idea that Amalananda has approved the jivotpatti of the
Pancharatra doctrine in
discreet disagreement with the Bhashya of Shankara. That such a mischievous
propaganda is without
any basis but merely a result of bigotry is established in the sequel thereby
exposing the bigots.
What the Bhashya says: in BSB 2.2.42 in particular about the jivotpatti:
, , ,

,
;
; ,
;

(. . --)

Translation:
//Further regarding what the Bhgavatas say: From Vsudeva originates
Sankaraa..we have to say
this: It is impossible for the jiva named sankaraa to originate from vsudeva the
paramtm since there
will be the bunch of defects such as anityatva, ephemerality. If the jiva were to be
originating, defects
such as ephemerality will accrue. Hence its attaining Moka by merging with
Bhagavn would not be
possible. When the effect (jiva) attains (merges with) the cause (Bhagavan) it (the
jiva the effect) will get
dissolved. Further, Bdaryaa the Teacher, will deny the originating of the jva in
the Brahma stra
2.3.17 The individual soul has no origin, because the Vedic texts do not mention
this and because the
soul is known from them to be eternal. Accordingly this assumption (of the
Pncartra/Bhgavaas) is
unjustifiable. //
The above is all what the Bhya says about this aspect of jvotpatti in the
adhikaraam.
Amalananda, in the Kalpataru, has said:
What the (Vednta)siddhntin wishes to say in the wake of the Pncartra
contention (holding the jiva to
be originating) is:
2
The Pncartram is a product of human intelligence while the Veda is not so

since it is given out
by the Lord in the manner of breathing out, during the time of every creation.
Since the shruti does not admit of the jivotpatti, the Pncartra, by virtue of its
being given out
by the Lord, Bhagavn, who cannot be admitted to be ignorant of the Vedic position,
admitting it
(jivotpatti) is to be considered to be gaua, that is, not absolute.
By the above idea conveyed by the Kalpataru, the blogger has concluded that
Amalnanda, the author of
the Kalpataru, has admitted the Pncartra doctrine to be free of any defects.
That such is not the case is evident from the following facts:;
Amalnanda, perhaps sensing that what he said in the Kalpataru could give room to
the
misconception as that of the blogger, has taken pains to give the clarification in the
stradarpaam, his other work that is a brief commentary of the entire lot of
adhikaraas of
the Brahmasutras. This is a work in verse form for which his own commentary is
appended. In
this work for that particular adhikaraam Amalananda says over and above what he
said in the
Kalpataru:

[Even though the idea of jiva originating does not contradict the non-dual nature of
Brahman,
yet there is indeed this contradiction concerning (the jiva attaining) moka. The
effect, upon
dissolving in the cause, undergoes fundamental destruction, and it would not be
capable of
being a candidate for liberation.]
It is this part of the Amalnandas commentary that completely annotates the
Bhyam cited at
the beginning. It should be noted that the Bhyam did not say anything about the
Pncartra
view of jivotpatti that could be salvaged by treating it as gauam. All that the
bhya has stated
about this idea of jivotpatti is what has been cited in the beginning and Amalnanda
completely
agrees with Shankara on whatever Shankara says on this.
What would be the consequence of accepting the bloggers unfounded view that
Amalananda
accepts the Pncartra position on jivotpatti?
3
First, there will be no way than concluding that Amalnanda is disagreeing with the
Bhhyam
of Shankara. And further, that Shankara is ignorant of the aspect that Amalnanda
said in the
Kalpataru (that the jivotpatti of the Pncartra should be taken as not absolute but
gaua). But
such is not the case since, Shankara, following the Strakra Bdaryaa, has
admitted
jivotpatti, in Vedanta, in the stra: 2.3.16
.
[.in relation to the soul (jiva) it must be in a secondary sensebhkta =
gaua.]
Shankara says in that bhyam: [ but this
reference to the
birth and death of the soul (jiva) is only in a secondary sense. ]
Thus both Veda Vyasa and Shankara know very well that the jivas birth spoken of in
the
Vedanta is only in the secondary sense. It is only this that Amalananda, out of
compassion, is
pointing out in the Kalpataru and giving a suggestion to the Pncartras that if they
hold the
jivotpatti in their system to be in the secondary sense then on that count they will
not be
contradicting the Veda. This by no means amounts to the Kalpataru accepting the
Pncartra on
this count. Far from endorsing the Pncartra doctrine, Amalananda is pointing to a
possibility of
raising the Pncartra to the level of Advaita Vedanta. This is because, according to
Shankaras introductory words to this stra bhyam, the Bhgavata school has
accepted the
Supreme Reality to be both the instrumental and the material cause. For Shankara,
any system
that does this has to be akin to Vedanta. As such the inert world and the jivas are
vivarta of
Brahman. While there is no question of the inert world attaining moka, there is
indeed the need
for explaining the jiva attaining moka. This is because it is the sentient jiva that is
identifying
itself as a samsrin. Since according to the Pncartra the jiva is a krya, effect, of
Paramtman, there is no way there will be the possibility of the jiva attaining to the
Paramtman,
in terms of Vedanta, for moka. For, as per Vedanta a krya, effect, is jaa and
anitya. The jiva
cannot be admitted to be of this nature. This is the essence of Shankaras bhya
pertaining to
this aspect of the bhgavata school. And this has been completely upheld and
reproduced, nay,
restated, faithfully by the Bhmati and the stradarpaa. In fact the Kalpataru
endorses the
other defects, also having ramifications of the utpattyasambhava-defect, in the
subsequent
sutras of that adhikaraa. It is not as though the pncartra has been rejected
owing to a
minor defect; it is wholesale rejection as far as the pncartra as a doctrine is
concerned. The
other major embarrassment to the Pncartra doctrine is that the last Sutra in that
adhikaranam
says that it is contradictory (to the Veda). Shankara says: it is a product of veda
nind to which
Amalananda has not shown any resentment, which he should have done if he had
been a PE.
4
The Kalpataru endorses the Bhmati idea that this doctrine is apasiddhnta, self
contradictory,
self-defeating. All the defects are brought out in the Bhya elaborately.
Saying that the Kalpataru accepts the Pcartra (even on this count) amounts to a
serious flaw
and impropriety. Not only does it amount to Amalananda indicting Shankara of
ignorance of the
Pncartra doctrine but also, in greater measure, ends up in Amalananda accusing
Veda Vyasa
too of ignorance of the Pncartra doctrine. How? The very sutra 2.2.42 is worded:
utpattyasambhavt which translates to Owing to the impossibility of origin. It is
on this ground,
hetu, that is, because the jivotpatti, an impossibility, is admitted in the Pncartra,
that this
doctrine is rejected. If, as it is wrongly thought that Amalnanda is admitting the
jivotpatti of the
Pncartra as gaua and therefore non-contradictory to the Veda, then it amounts
to saying that
Amalananda (alone) is right and both Veda Vyasa and Shankara are wrong. If Veda
Vyasa
(and Shankara) who have accepted jivotpatti in Vedanta as gauna are not accepting
that in the
Pncartra there must be a reason and that is that they (the Pncartras) have not
accepted the
jivotpatti as gauna and not given any clue thereof. That is why Veda Vyasa has even
worded
the stra thus: Owing to the impossibility of origin. If this impossibility itself is
thwarted, then
the very stra becomes meaningless and a waste. This is the consequence of the
bloggers
unfounded claim that Amalananda accepts the Pncartra on the grounds of
jivotpatti being
gaua. How ones bigotry throws to the wind all rules of propriety of even indicting
Veda Vyasa
of ignorance!!
What clinches Amalnandas true view about the Pncartra is his conclusion in the
stradarpaam that is cited above. It is this conclusion that eminently, completely,
brings out
his total agreement with Shankara and therefore, with Veda Vyasa. For, what all
Shankara (and
the Bhmati) have said about jivotpatti in that sutra bhhya/vykhyna has been
brought out by
Amalananda in utmost faithfulness in that conclusion:

[Even though the idea of jiva originating does not contradict the non-dual nature of
Brahman,
yet there is indeed this contradiction concerning (the jiva attaining) moka. The
effect, upon
dissolving in the cause, undergoes fundamental destruction, it would not be capable
of being a
candidate for liberation.]
5
For Shankara, a system can be admitted only when the ultimate moka is that of
the Vedanta
where the jiva realizes itself to be none other than Brahman. This is possible only if
the jiva is
not an originating entity (utpattimn) but only Brahman with the avidyopdhi that
makes it think
itself as a jiva. Since all this is not possible in the Pncartra doctrine it is rejected
four times in
four stras for various reasons in that adhikaraa by Veda Vyasa and Shankara.
Shankara
rejects this doctrine for the fifth time again in the Daalok by explicitly naming it
na
tatpncartram [The Vedantic Supreme is not that taught by the Pncartra].
This work has
been authenticated by Madhusudana Saraswati in his Siddhntabindu (which is a
commentary
on the Daalok) who endorses Shankaras rejection of the Pcartra doctrine.
In fact Sri Appayya Dikita too (in the kalpataru-parimala for this adhikarana) has
cited proof for
the inadmissibility of the Pchartra (for its being unvedic) from the words of the
Vaikhnasa
doctrine.
Thus, there is no way that Amalnanda is a Pncartra-enthusiast. He has the
greatest regard
for the Veda, Veda Vyasa, Shankara and Vcaspati Misra. He will not say anything
that is
against these luminaries.
Amalananda cannot be regarded as a Pncartra-enthusiast (PE) for these
additional several
crucial and incontrovertible reasons:
1. He is an Advaitin. No PE will approve of Advaita. That is why Ramanuja and
Madhva who are known PEs have rejected Advaita, not caring for the grave
bhgavata apachram they both have committed by calling Shankara an andi
ppavsanvn [one endowed with beginningless sinful tendencies], ignorant
of all disciplines, and an asura who was born illegitimate. It is this Shankara that
the bloggers want to flaunt as a vaiava.
2. Amalananda is a Hari-Hara abheda vdin just like all Vedantins right from Veda
Vyasa, Shankara, Surewara, etc.
3. Amalananda equated Hari and Hara for paying obeisance: Hari-hara vigraham
dadhnam (in the Kalpataru) and in the stradarpaam just as Veda Vyasa
has singled out Hari and Hara to pair them for depicting as non-different. This
is not any abheda in the pramrthika level. For, to state that
everything/everyone is non-different is a statement of tattvam, truth, and not a
6
stuti of those. Contrary to this, the Hari-Hara pair has been singled out for
namaskara as paramewaras by Amalananda, Sridhara Swamin, etc.
4. He called Hari and Hara as Paramewaras which blasphemy no PE will dare to
commit.
5. He composed special verses on ivas glory within the body of the Kalpataru
which no PE would do.
6. Above all, he authenticated the Prapanchasra as that of Shankara, a work that
has everything that is inimical to the PE. It teaches that several devats are
mukti-givers, world-creators, etc.
7. He composed a special verse on the greatness of Ganapati as giving everything
to his devotee as to make him free of wants (which is only moka) within the
body of the Kalpataru, (which is quite in accordance with Shankara in the
Prapanchasra and Sarvajntman in his invocatory verse holding Ganapathy as
vivakt = Creator of the World. In other words Sarvajntman considers
Ganapathy also as Paramewara) which no PE would ever do.
8. Amalananda cited verses from the Yajnavalkya smti that speak of the
mokagiving
capacity of Surya, Skanda and Ganapati worship. This smriti says this
with regard to the pits too even as Shankara does in the Prapancasra. No PE
would consider this as authoritative.
9. Above all, Amalananda honours Vcaspati Misra as a Brahmajnni which no
PE would do.
In their desperation to add numbers to their Vaiava denomination the bloggers
try to enlist
Shankara, Amalananda, etc. who are great names in the horizon of Vedanta. To
meet this end
they throw to winds rules of syntax, propriety and decency. Unless exposed they will
go
unquestioned and their gullible readers will be the unfortunate losers.
Om Tat Sat
utpatti back to advaita
utpatti back to advaita brahman
panca bhuta prapanca utpatti not adevaita only gauna to merge the same back to
Full text of "Panchapadika Vivaranam of Prakasatma Yati"

The latest is the present work Pancha Padika Vivaranam of Prakasatma Yati ... Soon
after these arose divergent developments in 1 n1etaphysis of Advaita ..... In the
same manner the sravana vidhi. does not come into conflict with the 'atma
vakya'. ...... We can only say that the silver has gone back to its earlier state'1.
n But take the case of pratyabhijna\ object has been cognised some time back and
time it is recognised now to be the same. : This does not ...
Sri Guru Tattva: PRAMANA-TATTVA

pratyaksa, anumana, arya, upamana, arthapatti, abhava, sambhava,. aithihya, and
centha, one will ... back.gif - 2340 Bytes next.gif - 2528 Bytes
PRAMANA-TATTVA
Srimad-Bhagavatam Describes the Four Kinds of Evidence.
Appendix 1
srutih pratyaksamaitihyam anumanam catusthayam
pramanesvana-vasthanad vikalpat sa virajyate
There are four kinds of evidence by which reality may be known:
revelation, perception, history and hearsay and inference. (Bhag. 11.19.17)
Manu-samhita Describes Three Kinds of Evidence.
Appendix 2
pratyaksas-canumananca sastranca vividhagamam
trayam suviditam karyam dharma-suddhim-abhisata
If one wants to understand what is reality, one must consider the
three kinds of evidence: Vedic evidence, perception, and inference. (Manu 12.105)
The Ancient Vaisnava Madhva Muni Explains the Three Kinds of Evidence.
Appendix 3
pratyakse 'ntarbhaved yasmad-atithyam tena desikah
pramanam trividham prakhyat tatra mukhya srutir-bhavet
Since hearsay is included in perception, Madhvacarya has said that
the means of proper knowledge are three, among which sruti, or revelation,
is the highest. (Prameya-ratnavali 9.2)
Divine Sound is the Best Evidence for Understanding Reality
Appendix 4
yadyapi pratyaksanumana-sabdaryopamanarthapattyabhavasambhavaitihya-cesthakhyani dasa pramanani viditani, tathapi bhramapramada-vipralipsa-karanapatava-dosa-rahitavacanatmakah sabda eva
mulam pramanam
If one carefully examines the ten kinds of evidence, namely
pratyaksa, anumana, arya, upamana, arthapatti, abhava, sambhava,
aithihya, and centha, one will find that all of them are contaminated with
the four defects of material life: cheating, imperfect senses, illusion, and
mistakes. Therefore of all of these, revelation, sruti, is considered to be
superior for it is above the four defects. Sruti is, therefore, the root of all
evidence. (Tattva-Sandarbha, Sarva-samvadini)
Appendix 5
pramanera madhye sruti-pramana pradhana

sruti ye mukhyartha kahe, sei se pramana
jivera asthi-vistha dui sankha-gomaya
sruti-vakye sei dui mahapavitra haya
svatah-pramana veda satya yei kaya
"laksana" karile svatah-pramanya-hani haya
[Caitanya Mahaprabhu said] Although there is other evidence, the
evidence given in the Vedic version must be taken as foremost. Vedic versions understood directly are first-class evidence. Conchshells and cow dung
are nothing but the bones and the stool of certain living entities, but according to the Vedic version they are both considered very pure.
The Vedic statements are self-evident. Whatever they state must be accepted. If we interpret according to our own imagination, the authority of
the Vedas is immediately lost. (Cc. Madhya 6.135-137)
- Brahma vidya rahasyam part 2(a scintific expotion

It is not This is real Advaita on which so many unnecessary controversies have ... It
is this that reaches another Atma, gets back and builds up ...... This Prapanca which
shows itself to us in various varieties, various colours, ...... Since there is nothing
else here except Jagat for Jivotpatti the Jagat also is Satya.
Sri Tantralokah - Volume II (Sanskrit Text with English
Tantraloka is a magnum opus of the Indian Tantrika-world, written in ... the period
mentioned here of Guhyasamajatantra, Prapancasaratantra is the ... Recently the
sixteenth, i.e. the advaita philosophy of Samkara is published
Description
Foreword
Abhinavagupta's magnum opus 'The Tantraloka' is a great work in the ambience of
tantragama treatise. This precept of right descriptions of almost all branches of
saiva and
sakta agama. The right will to translate the entire work into English (direct from
Samskrta) is
reflected in the mind of Mr. Gautam Chatterjee. As the result, the translation work of
the ten
chapters has been completed with illustrious explanatory notes. I pray to Lord Siva,
who
blesses with his Trisula of powers i.e. will, knowledge and action, may accomplish
the
translations of the entire work. I believe, all the scholars of the tantragama will
appreciate this
work with their blessings.
Situated on the upper portion of the Trisula of Jnanaguru Lord Samkara, Kasi,
represents the
whole world, so it is quite natural that people from Bengal come here and stay. In
such a
family, on 18th August 1963 (Bhadrapada masa), this child was born to enhance the
joy of his
mother Meera and father Amaresh Chandra Chatterjee, in order to flourish the grace
of his
lineage as his sunsign is Leo (simhasthasurya).
Sisyaprajneva bodhasya karanam guruvakyatah', by such blessings from scriptures,

the
spiritual mother Rangama blessed and elevated this fortunate. After completing his
education
in science subjects from Banaras Hindu University, he cultivated his skill in the field
of
musicology, and dramaart. He performed his teachings in these subjects in
Mahatma Gandhi
Kashi Vidyapith. His mother Smt. Meera Devi was initiated (consecrated) by the
ascetic
Rangama and benefited by the teachings of great sages like Anandmayi Ma. M.M.
Gopinath
Kaviraja and others.
By the blessings of these great dignities, Gautam's interest arisen the spirituality. He
mastered himself by the grace of great scholars like Swami Lakshman Joo, Sri
Govind Gopal
Mukhopadhyay, Thakur Jaideva Singh and others in the area of literature, music art
and
Pratyabhijnasastra. He interviewed art stalwarts such as Satyajit Ray, Kumar
Gandharva,
Kelucharan Mohapatra, Nirmal Verma Badal Sircar and others and published it with
the
concerned seminars. He had keen interest in journalism so he enriched the journals
Dharmayug, Svatantra Bharat, Rastriya Sahara and the Hindu with his talent, and
got great
fame.
At present, with Abhinava Gupta Academy, busy with the scholarly works regarding
Natyasastra and Pratyabhijnasastra, researches and seminars, Mr. Chatterjee is
constantly
engaged to accomplish his right resolves. I wish for the success of his zeal.
In 2006, he published his own collection of ten plays (as a playwright) 'Dasarupaka'
in Hindi.
In the preface of this book, he has discussed the ideas of his own and other
scholars. Here, the
effort is praiseworthy but we can not approve every idea presented in this preface.
Here
discussed topics as the Buddhist tantras are inspired by Gautam Buddha, there are
effects of
Tantras on Natyasastra, the period mentioned here of Guhyasamajatantra,
Prapancasaratantra
is the work of Adya Samkaracarya, the use of the word Sandha Bhasa (the twilight
or upside
down language) are expected to have genuine proofs. We must not forget that the
Jains are
more harmonious to the nation than the Buddhists.
In the English translation of 'the Tantraloka', Mr. Chatterjee has written valuable
notes as
required by the help of several works with great pain and hard work. His effort in
this respect
is very much appreciable. I stop myself by saying that this method should be
followed in the
entire work.
Back of the Book
Tantraloka is a magnum opus of the Indian Tantrikaworld, written in the Tenth
Century, in
the light of Kashmir Saivism by the great polymath Sri Abhinavagupta. This great
work does
31/07/2015 Sri Tantralokah Volume II (Sanskrit Text with English Translation,
Transliteration of Chapter Two, Three, Four)
file:///C:/Users/Raghav/Desktop/Sri%20Tantralokah%20.html 3/17
not only include all the philosophical and Tantrika essence of monistic Kashmir
Saivism but is
also often considered the apex of Indian Tantrika Philosophy. Abhinavagupta
explains in detail
in its thirty seven chapters the allinclusive vision and way to truth, the Prakasa state
of
Parama Siva. This publication is the first attempt to unfold this Prakasa (Light) for
the Englishspeaking
horizon.
Gautam Chatterjee, wellknown writer, President, Abhinavagupta Academy, has a
lineage of
Pt. Ishvara Chandra Vidyasagar, with deep Sanskrit tradition and has been a close
associate of
Thakur Jaidev Singh. His two books (collection of plays), related to Kashmir
Shaivism, have
already been published. At present, working on the interinfluence of Indian Classical
Music
and Agam.
'Recognition of Actor' is his forthcoming book.
Introduction
The philosophy of Indian Philosophy is not apriori. But the worship of Siva or Rudra
goes back
to the Vedas. If we consider the excavation of Mohenjodaro and Harappa as prevedic
(according to John Marshall's view over the Indus Valley Civilization, and also the
views from
R.C. Majumdar and A.D. Pusalkar), we can come across the found image of Pasupati,
as
Pulaskar writes, the representation of male gods, the most remarkable is a threefaced deity,
has at least three concepts which are usually associated with Siva viz. that he is (i)
trimukha
(threefaced), (ii) pasupati (lord of animals, in Kamira Saivism, the term 'pasu' means
individual soul, pasa means maya and pati means Lord), and (iii) yogisvara or
Mahayogi. The
first two aspects are apparent from the seal itself. The deity is sitting crosslegged in
a
padmasana posture with eyes turned towards the tip of the nose which evidences
the
yogisvara aspect of the deity. It has been suggested by some scholars that the Sivacult was
borrowed by the IndoAryans from the Indus culture but as there is a reference to
Siva in the
Rigveda itself. Siva may not be a later intruder in the Hindu pantheon.'
Again, in the Yajurveda we have the Satarudriya. The Taittiriya Aranyaka tells us that
the
whole universe is the manifestation of Rudra. Some of Upanisads, the Mahabharata
and some
Puranas glorify Siva or Rudra. We find Rudra in the Atharvaveda, Brahmanas,
Upanisada and
Sutras.
In the Puranas, Siva is demonstrated with two aspects, benevolent and malevolent.
Siva is
generally worshipped by 'linga' i.e. phallic form and 'in the shape of man' i.e.
anthropomorphic
from (greek anthropos means man, morphe means shape). The puranas invariably
present
Siva with a single head whereas the installation of Siva's image with five heads
(pancamukhasiva), we find in religious place of worship like Varanasi (or Kasi), in
both the
Visvanatha temples. We also find lingas with five faces (pancamukhalingas), also
known as
pancavaktra (Pancavaktra mohadevah in Skanda Purana). The Ardhanarisvara form
of Siva is
too found in the Puranas. And finally the twentyseventh chapter of the Vayu Purana
explains
in detail the eightfold from of Siva. Rudra, Isana, Pasupati, Mahadeva,Nilalohita,
Sankara,
Siva, Sadasiva, Sambhu, Vyomakesa, Trinetra, Trilocana, Tryambaka, Virupaksa,
Nilakantha,
Nilagriva, Srikantha, Sitikantha, Astamurti, Santa are few names, we can find these
for Siva in
the Puranas.
In Indian Philosophy, linga originally meant symbol or sign of creation,
grammatically it is sex,
and etymologically, linga and langala (plough, as Przyluski studied) are of austroasiatic origin
and the same thing. In nigama and agama, therefore we find clear traces of Siva
from the
ancient time, historically and religiously, as an essential cult. The sacred literature
of the
Saivas is called Saivagama. Srikantha places it side by side with the Vedas.
Madhavacarya
refers to the four schools of Saivism Nakulisapasupata, Saiva, Pratyabhijna and
Rasesvara in
his percept 'Sarvadarsanasamgraha, written in twelfth century. Here mentioned
Saiva
indicates the dualistic school of Siddhanta saiva, the belonging of Madhavacarya.
After six long centuries, Pandita Isvaracandra Vidyasagara found the copies of this
precept
'Sarvadarsana samgraha' in the late nineteenth century. During this dark period,
people were
unaware of saivism and saivagamas of ancient India. No other traces were there in
moghul
period. Pt. Vidyasagara found one copy of the same Samskrta script in Kolkata and
two more
copies from Kasi. He edited the entire script, consisting of fifteen major philosophies
of ancient
and medieval India and 142, Bibliotheca India) in 1853. Pt. Vidyasagara was then
principal of
the Samskrta College, Calcutta. After receiving this book with Samskrta text, E.B.
Cowell and
A.E. Gough translated it into English with fifteen philosophies and published it by
indicating in
the index that Madhavacarya had compiled sixteen philosopies. Recently the
sixteenth, i.e. the
advaita philosophy of Samkara is published from Adyara Library and Research
centre, Adyara,
Chennai in 1999. Klaus K. Klostermaier has translated the Samskrta text into
English.
Therefore he was actually Vidyasagara ji who brought about this great work of
Madhavacarya
into light so that, after the English version by Cowell and Gough, the whole world,
we came to
know about Kashmira Saivism or the philosophy of Pratyabhijna and scholars traced
the major
works of this nondualistic school from the Kasmiri Panditas for the very first time in
late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Therefore he was actually Vidyasagara ji who brought about this great work of
Madhavacarya
into light so that, after the English version by Cowell and Gough, the whole world,
we came to
know about Kashmira Saivism or the philosophy of Pratyabhijna and scholars traced
the major
works of this nondualistic school from the Kasmiri Panditas for the very first time in
late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
In his preface Pt. Vidyasagara writes: writes: There are two manuscripts (of
Sarvadarsanasamgraha) in Calcutta, one in the Library of the Sanskrit College, and
the other
in that of the former manuscripts was sufficiently correct. But scrutinizing it with the
care
necessary for publication, I collected it with the copy in the Society's Library and
found that
without the more manuscripts, the readings in several passages in which the two
manuscripts
differ, could not be reconciled. No other manuscripts were however procurable in

Bengal, but
by good fortune I procured three manuscripts from Benares. These were of essential
service to
me, and it was only after carefully collating them with the texts in Calcutta and that
I have
been able to edit the work. I feel it my duty here to express my great delegations to
Mr.
Edward Hall, late of the Benaras College, through whose kind exertions the
Bengares
manuscripts were received.
Hence the Saiva system (or systems) came to the notice of the modern scholars in
1858 A.D.
The four The NakulisaPasupata system, the Saiva system, the Pratyabhijna or
Recognitive
system ans the Resesvara or Mercurial systemamong sixteen systems appeared for
the first
time when these published in the Bibliothica Indica. Inspite of that, the Pratyabhijna
Sastra
remained unknown to the modern scholars. In the years 1875, G. Buhler discovered
in
Kasamira (Kashmir), the works composed by Kashmiris under the general name
Saiva Sastra.
The available Literature shows that there were eight system of the Saiva Philosophy
asPasupata,
Siddhanta, Nakulisa Pasupata, Visistadvaita Saiva, Visesadvaita Saiva, Nandikesvara
Saiva and Monistic Saiva of Kashmira. Abhinavagupta, the great polymath of
Kashmira, has
categorized these as three Saiva systems Dvaita, Dvaitadvaita and Advaita. Besides
the four
among sixteens in Sarvadarsanasamgraha, we find two more sectsKapalika and
kalamukha, in
Yamuna's Agamapramanya. Saivism is again divided into Vira Saivism (or Sakti
visistadvaita)
and Saiva Siddhanta. The former is also known as Ligayata (or Satasthala). Though
according
to Sripati Pandita, Vira Saivism is Visesadvaita and not Sakti Visistadvaita. Scholars
regarded
this as Sakti Visistadvaita. K.C. Pandey puts this is the category of Visesadvaita. I
consider this
as sakti visistadvaita on the authentic basis of Puranas and my revered guru Pt.
Vraja Vallabha
Dvivedi. Saiva Siddhanta calls itself Suddhadvaita, the name while Vallabha's school
bears.
Whereas Vallabha means by the word 'Suddha' 'that which is free from the impurity
of Maya
(mayasambandharahita) and by the word 'Advaita's 'the Nondual Brahman', Saiva
Siddhanta
takes the word 'Suddha' in the sense of 'unqualified' and the word 'Advaita' in the
sense of
'Dvaita devoid of duality' which means that difference is real in existence. That
means, though,
matter and souls are real yet they are not opposed to Siva but are inseparably
united with Him
who is the supreme reality. This suggests the influence of Aprthaksiddhi of
Ramanuja. Saiva
Siddhanta agrees with Madhava in giving them substantive existence. Siddhanta
Saiva is
dualistic and Madhavacarya had faith in this dualistic philosophy.
Saiva Siddhanta recogonizes eighteen Agamas whereas Saivagamas are twenty
eight. In
Sarvadarsanassamgraha, chapter seventh, the saiva darsana talks about Srimad
Mrgendra,
Karana, Kirana, Bahudaivatya, Puskara and Tantra doctrines. Colebrook found five
books of
Saiva sutras. He says, one is in the five, called the Pasupati sastra, which is
probably the work
quoted by Madhava in his account of the Nakulisa Pasupatas.
Saiva Siddhanta is known as Southern Saivism and Pratyabijna or Kashmira Saivism
represents the Northern Saivism. It was primarily dualistic. This Northern school is
known as
Pratyabhijna or Trika or Spanda system as Kashmira Saivism. In short, historically,
Sivasutra
(these have been revealed to Vasugupta, as it is said). Vasugupta's (eighth century)
spanda
karika or Spandamrta, Somanand's (ninth century) Siva drsti, Utpaldeva's (son and
disciple of
Somanand Nath, tenth century) Pratyabhijnasutra, Abhinavagupta's (950 1025,
disciple of
Laksmanagupta) Tantraloka, Pratyabhijnavimarsini, Paratrimsika Vivarana and
Paramarthasara
(mainly), Ksemaraja's (pupil and cousin of Abhinavagupta) Sivasutravimarsini,
Spandasandoha
and Spandanirnaya, Kallata's (chief disciple of Vasugupta) Svarupa and Vibhuti
Spanda and
Vijnana Bhairava and some of the most important works of this system.
Spandasandoha, by
Ksemaraja, is a commentary on the first verse of Spandakarika, and Spandanirnaya,
is a
commentary on the first verse of Spandakarika, and Spandanirnaya, a commentary
on the
Whole book. Actually he has divided karikas into four sections. The commentary on
the first
section consisting of twenty five verses is Svarupaspanda, second section is
Sahajavidyodaya
and the third is Vibhutispanda.
This system is based on Saiva agamas. Saiva literature or trika system can be
vividly and
broadly divided into three disciplines: Agama Sastra, Spanda sastra and
Pratyabhijna Sastra.
In their verbal meanings, the words or terms 'agama' and 'tantra' are different.
These are
acrostic words like 'bhairava'. But the Saiva literature regarding Agama Sastra can
be
considered or named as tantra. These are Malinivijaya, Svacchanda, Mrgendra,
Rudrayamala,
Sivasutras, Vijnanabhairava, Tantraloka etc. Spanda sutras or Spanda Karikas are
Spanda
sastra. Sivadrsti, Isvarapratyabhijna (and its vimarsini and vivrtivimarsini),
Paramarthasara
and pratyabhijnahrdayam are Pratyabhijna Sastra. We put the Tantraloka (magnum
opus,
work in twelve volumes by Abhinavagupta) and Tantrrasara (or tantralokasara, the
essence of
Tantraloka, in one slim book) in the category of Pratyabhijna Sastra. Pratyabhijna is
Recognition.
This Samskrta word 'Pratyabhijna' has the same connotation and verbmeaning as'
abhhijna and 'abhijnana', meaning Recollection or Remembrance of what is
forgotten which we
knew before. We find this word in ancient texts like Logic or Nyaya Sutras of
Gautam,
Paccabhija in Buddhism and for the same verbal meaning, 'Anagnorisis' in Greek
literature.
Pratyabhijna is recognition, to recognize, slightly different from remembrance. A
lovesick
woman cannot get any consolation and joy even though her lover may be present
near her
until she recognizes him. The moment recognition dawns she becomes all joy. She
does not
need to remember. She recognizes him at once because she had not forgotten him.
She knew
her before, and knows him even from vismrti (forgetfulness) to smrti
(remembrance) is
abhijnana, like in the story of Dusyanta and Sakuntala. The simile of the lovesick
woman is
else to the purpose of pratyabhijnna than the simile of Dusyanta. Let us take the
later simile
as approach. The remembrance takes place into the mind of Dusyanta as sphota,
i.e. the
meaning of something explodes into the mind of Dusyanta so that he is now able to
recognize
Sakuntala as his wife which he had forgotten. Similarly, the modern pandits of
Kashmir
Saivism say that 'I have forgotten that I am world of suffering, for I am wondering in
this
world of suffering, for I know but have forgotten, so remembrance is must. Now I
have the
remembrance that 'I am that' or 'you are me' i.e. 'tat tvam asi'. This is Recognition
and this at
once overcomes bondage. The liberated soul becomes one with Siva and ever
enjoys the
mystic bliss of oneness with Lord and dissolves into Jivanamukti.
And the other approach is that 'There is' and I have to recognize there is that which
is, that 'I
am that' that emptiness, the Siva. And this can happen in one single life, happen in
one single
moment. This entire world is full of reality. The word 'reality is derived from 'res',
thing (like
the word 'true' derived from Latin 'verus', means 'that which is', or German 'wahr',
the English
root meaning of the word 'True' is 'honest and faithful'. And the root of the English
word
'thing' is fundamentally the same as the German 'bedingen', means to condition, to
set the
conditions or determine). Hence the reality is that which is conditioned in time and
space,
subject to birth, grow decay and death. So this world of such reality where every
'thing' is
interrelated, interdependent is actually the content of human consciousness, as J.
Krsnamurti
used to say. Whereas Siva means that which is good, benevolent, tranquility,
ecstasy,
freedom, all in absolute sense. Reality is relative, really. We can look at this reality
outside and
inside, as witness, put the things in order and can negate the order. Emptiness
happens in
serene silence. Because thought is thing or things are thoughts, as Bishop Berkeley
used to
say. Nothingness is the void or emptiness within the human consciousness which
exists as
'that is' as Samkara, means, sam (in Indian Dramaturgy, sama is the permanent
emotion,
sthayi bhava of santa rasa, Abhinavagupta has described in his commentary
'Abhinava Bharati
of Indian dramaturgy Natyasastra of sage Bharata in detail where he talks about
sahrdaya who
is having a mind of 'vimala pratibha'. Adhikari catra vimalapratibhanasalihrdayah.
This pure
intelligence, he also describes in the third ahnika of Tantraloka as a key word
nirmalatva, the
stainless purity) karoti iti samkara, means, He who puts out or extinguishes all the
animal
impulses as dross which are nothing but the thoughtconstructs or ideation, vikalpas,
is
Samkara. This citta, full of real things, thoughts can transform into citi (the technical
term of
Kashmira Saivism for pure consciousness), devoid of all vikalpas. And Kashmira
Saivism
provides that an individual soul can start with a pure thought, suddha vikalpa that I
am Siva
and this entire world is my own grand splendour, vibhuti or vilasa out of my own
svatantrya.
So primarily Kashmira Saivism was a philosophy of dualismahanta and idanta,
subjective and
objective consciousness and after that is spread out all over the realm of wisdom as
visvahanta
or visvamaya and visvottirna, immanent and transcendent. This is the central
philosophy of
Kashmira Saivism, emerged in the ninth century A.D. as a monistic saivism. He is
Anuttara,
state of Parama Siva, the Highest Self, the Absolute, one than whom nothing is
higher, the
first vowel 'a', the Prakasa aspect of 'a'. Vimarsa is his glory, this world, contrast to
Samkara's
maya. Here it is positive, creative, vimarsa aspect of the Absolute Reality.
'Tantraloka's is a creation of Acarya Abhinavagupta, a compendium of all tantra
texts available
in several forms as works, akara grantha, a mine of great wisdom where each and
every
perspective of tantra (is regarded as Sruti or Agama, revelation as opposed to a
Smrti or
Nigama, "Tradition, pancama veda, 'Srutisakhavisesah', Nisvasatattva Samhita, one
of the
oldest available tantra, comprehendsmeaning to hold it all togetherthat Tantra is the
culmination of the esoteric science of the Vedanta and the Samkhya. Another old
Tantrika
text, 'Pingalamata' says, the Tantra, first communicated by Siva, came down
through
tradition. It is Agama with the characteristics of chandas (Vedas). Vaidika
mahavakyas, like
Prapancasara. Tanyate vistarayate jnanam anena, i.e. by which knowledge is pread
or
developed is Tantra) is elaborately explained. It seems at first glance that this is a
grantha of
upasana, text of worship rituals, at a great extent it is but actually this consists of
the entire
philosophical wisdom of Kashmir Saivism, that's why this is put in the pratyabhijna
sastra, not
in the category of agama sastra, for it contemplates (manana or vicara) over the
principles
(tattvas) and pratyabhijna sastra is actually manana sastra or vicara sastra.
So this system says simply that jiva is siva. Siva himself has five doings,
pancakrtyakammanifestation
(srsti), maintenance, (sthiti), withdrawal from manifestation (samhara),
concealment (vilaya or svarupagopan) and grace (anugraha or saktipata or
svaprakasa).
Ucyate vastuto'smakam Siva eva yathavidhah
svarupagopanam krtva svaprakasah punastatha.
(Tantraloka, chapter one, sloka 223)
So, Siva, by his fourth doing, has forgotten that he is Siva and considered himself as
jiva. He
has to recognize himself again by his own grace and the recognition dawns that He
is Siva.
This is just as caitanya. Caitanya plays and attempting into caityana, contemplating
one
caitanya to be caitanya again. This is His parasakti or samvid sakti or citpratibha
who is trying,
the niscayatmikasakti the answering mind of individual soul, Krsna (as in
Pancaratra)
sometimes Bhairava (as in matangatantra, by the use of anpratyaya of taddhita, is
not
matangatantra, this is 'Matanga paramesvaragama', not of dual siddhanta saiva,
but saiva
agama) and sometimes Bhairavi (as in the Saktatantra) according to M.M. Pt.
Gopinatha
Kaviraja. Jiva is samsayatmika sakti, the questioning mind as Arjuna in Gita or
bhairavi in
Vijnan Bhairava This state is Sadasiva.
svayamevam vibodhasca tatha prasnottaratmakah
gurusisyapade'pyesa dehabhedo hyatattvikah.
Liberation or salvation (mukti or moksa) is the meaning, goal and everrelevant light
of Asian
country India and Indian philosophy. From preVedic period to this post modern age,
this
essence of Indian philosophy is still remaining. In quantum, liberation does not
depend on
time or space, on birth and death. It is simply Selfrealization depends on this life
only, here
and now. In one single verse, Acarya Abhinavagupta has put it in an impeccable way
before
the messy conglomeration of several concerning to salvation or moksa. He says:
mokso hi nama naivanyah svarupaprathanam hi sah
svarupam catmanah samvinnanyattatra tu yah punah.
Meaning, the salvation is nothing else but the essential nature or form of one's own
self, the
awareness of one's true nature. This is named Atmasamvit in Pratyabhijna

philosophy.
This voluminous work Tantraloka consists of thirty seven chapters (ahnika). This last
(Sloka) of
the last chapter is:
idamabhinavaguptaprombhitam sastrasaram.
siva nisamaya tavat sarvatah srotratantrah
tava kila nutiresa sa hi tvadrupacarcetyabhinavaparitusto
lokamatmikurusva.
(O Siva! Please listen to this work, not work but the principles, sastratattva, which is
presented
in the best form by Abhinavagupta for you are omniscient. This is my praise or
eulogy for you.
Since this is the discussion or commendation about your form as beauty, so
assimilate the
world by satisfying with this evernew praise.)
The pratyabhijna philosophy talks about thirty six principles, the Atman, The
process of
manifestation through Maya, The Transcendent Parama Siva, Five principles of the
Universal
subjectObject, The limited individual experience with the three coverings
(Kancukas), Two
Principles of the limited individual subject object, principles mental operation, The
principles of
materiality are some main doctrines of the Pratyabhijna system.
So, to recognize that emptiness, full of active energy as Parama Siva, is the
principle of Recognition
philosophically. Tantraloka offers its practical side as well. Here the light is
conspicuously visible and impeccably inescapable. This system, historically, is found
from the
time of Tryambaka and Durvasa. This system, historically, is found from the time of
Tryambaka and Durvasa. This system is also known as Trikasasana, Trika sastra and
Trika
Darsana from Rahasya Sampradaya and Sivagama. We find a lineage or karma from
Vasugupta and Somananda (9th century) and till the disciples of Abhinavagupta
(11th
century). In Kashmira, Abhinavagupta is regarded as Mahamahesvara. His origin &
lineage,
father Narsimhagupta and ancestor Atrigupta shifted to Kashmira from Kannuja
(U.P.) by the
king Lalitaditya (of Kashmir) in 8th century A.D. according to the version of
Abhinavagupta,
Bandyopadhyaya, Mukhopadhyaya, Gangopadhyaya and Bhattacharyas were
shifted to Kolkata
from Kannauj, the then capital of the state of Gurjar Pratihara in 9th and 10th
century, now
known as Uttar Pradesh, as described by Asit Kumar Bandyopadhyaya in his book
'Bangalira
Itihasa') Laksamanagupta was Abhinavagupta's teacher. Narsimhagupta, Utpaldeva,
Bhattatauta were his other teachers. He has created so many Independent treatises
as
Tantraloka, Tantrasara, Bodhpancadasika, Paratrimsika vivarana, Devibhujanga
(found in
Visvabharati), Malinivijayavarttika, Bhagavad Gitartha samgraha, Paramarthasara,
Abhinava
Bharati (Natyasastra vivrti), Dhvanyolokalocana,
Isvarapratyabhijnavivrtivimarsini, Anuttarastika etc. Ksemaraja and Jayaratha were
his
disciples. Jayaratha has made commentary on his 'Tantraloka'.
I have translated this work 'Tantraloka' from the original samskrta text of the K S T S
(Kashmir series of text and studies) and found the other texts are inescapably
incorrect.
Somananda regards sage Durvasa as his manasa guru, in the similar way I regard
Acarya
Abhinavagupta as my manasa guru. Prof Vrajavallabha Dvivedi who has written his
foreword in
my initiating volumes of Tantraloka. Is my revered teacher in the area of Agama and
Samskrta. By dint of their grace, I am presenting these volumes. The entire work
will be
concluded in twelve volume, as I hope. This is the second volume, including the
ahnikas two,
three and four.
This work determines that the caitanya is always there with the forgotten Siva as
jiva as grace
without which one can not perform his trident (Trisula). This is truly the Anuttara
state, (or
Anuttars dhama, as Abhinavagupta stated this term in the 37th chapter of his
commentary on
Natyasastra and at the end of second ahnika of Tantraloka) the fourth witnessing
state of jiva
as AUM who is simply aware of what Gautam Chattopadhyaya is performing as
forgotten Siva
or jiva with His powers of will, knowledge and action. Only these are the powers in
the energy
field of capacity of an individual soul which one can do without knowing destiny but
the grace
is there. Sakti can breath the power and instruction of Siva to perform. When one
recognizes
his or her beloved, at once becomes the grace the Siva. This is Love, unconditional,
agape. The
serene silence.
Back of the Book
Tantraloka is a magnum opus of the Indian Tantrikaworld, written in the Tenth
Century, in
the light of Kashmir Saivism by the great polymath Sri Abhinavagupta. This great
word does
not only include all the philosophical and Tantrika essence of monistic Kashmir
Saivism but is
also often considered the apex of Indian Tantrika Philosophy. Abhinavagupta
explains in detail
in its thirty seven chapters the allinclusive vision and way to truth, the Prakasa state
of
Parama Siva. This publication is the first attempt to unfold this Prakasa (Light) for
the Englishspeaking
horizon.
GautamChatterjee, wellknown writer, President, Abhinavagupta Academy, has a
lineage of
Pt. Ishvara Chandra Vidyasagar, with deep Sanskrit tradition and has been a close
associate of
Thakur Jaidev Singh. His two books (collection of plays), related to Kashmir
Shaivism, have
already been published. At present, working on the interinfluence of Indian Classical
Music
and Agam.
'Recognition of an Actor' is his forthcoming book.
Content
5-Translations of Mndkya Upanishad Verse 7 - Advaita .

ektma pratyaya sram prapaca upasamam - the motion and ... brings back 99%
of TM initiates, all the time, in spite of the vicissitudes of life.
In a message dated 6/5/2002 10:15:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
sunderh writes:
> It would be highly desirable to discuss the 7th mantra of
> Mandukya Upanishad, Gaudapada's karikas #10-18 in Agama Prakarana,
> and Shankara's Bhashya on both.
>
Mndkya Upanishad Verse 7
Below are five translations of this verse, whereby all of the neti, neti
stuff is pretty obvious and in agreement. It is interesting, however, to
explore and expand upon an expression in the last 1/3 of this verse in more
detail:
ektma pratyaya sram prapaca upasamam - the motion and extension (hence
energy transformations) of the mental fluctuations of this One Self (are the
source of) the expansion and development of calmness and tranquility (in all
the world)
Yes, so very profound. Indeed, this is the single most profound and always
most dependably repeatable event of the TM experience, and that which always
brings back 99% of TM initiates, all the time, in spite of the vicissitudes
of life. I never knew this was in Mndkya until just now. Of course, I
never looked. Amazing!
ektma - one self

pratyaya - thoughts, mental fluctuations, content of mind, cognitions,
notions, presented idea, awareness, intuition, consciousness, understanding,
belief, feelings, emotions, conviction, trust, faith, assurance, notion of
distinction
sram (course, motion, stretching out, extension; firmness, strength, power,
energy, substance, essence
prapaca - expansion, development, manifestation, manifoldness, diversity,
amplification, diffusely
upasamam - becoming quiet, calmness, tranquility, stopping, relaxation,
alleviation, cessation, patience
ALSO:
Continuing immediately thereafter is:
sntam sivam advaitam - peace, grace, and non-duality.
Wow! All of this from that one self, ektma. And it is the experiential
truth, over and over again. I see so many suffering folks around me, but
hardly a one will (wants to) take notice of such a thing. It just remains
unbelievable and most prefer the alternative they choose of suffering,
sometimes deep suffering, annihilating the value of their material estates
while lying in deep pain in a hospital bed. Even at this stage, most cannot
(will not) hear such a message. Sad (<English).
Thank you Sunder for bringing up this topic.
jai guru dev,
Edmond
------------------------Mndkya Upanishad Verse 7
S Radhakrishnan
(Turya is) not that which cognises the internal (objects), not that which
cognises the external (objects), not what cognises both of them, not a mass
of cognition, not cognitive, not non-cognitive. (It is) unseen, incapable of
being spoken of, ungraspable, without any distinctive marks, unthinkable,
unnameable, the essence of the knowledge of the one self, that into which the
world is resolved, the peaceful, the benign, the non-dual such, they think,
is the fourth quarter. He is the self; He is to be known.
Juan Mascaro
The fourth condition is Atman in his own pure state: the awakened life of
supreme consciousness. It is neither outer nor inner consciousness, neither

semi-consciousness, nor sleeping-consciousness, neither consciousness nor
unconsciousness. He is Atman, the Spirit himself, that cannot be seen or
touched, that is above all distinction, beyond thought and ineffable. In the
union with him is the supreme proof of his reality. He is the end of
evolution and non-duality. He is peace and love.
Swami Nikhilananda
Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor
that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is
conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not
simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived,
unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinakable, and indescribable.
The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self (in the three
states), It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss,
and non-dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman,
and this has to be realized.
Swami Gambhrnanda
They consider the Fourth to be that which is not conscious of the internal
world, not conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds,
nor a mass of consciousness; which is unseen, beyond empircal dealings,
beyond the grasp (of the origins of action), uninferable, unthinkable,
indescribable; whose valid proof consists in the single belief in the Self;
in which all phenomena cease; and which is unchanging, auspicious, and
non-dual. That is the Self, and that is to be known.
Swami Prabhavananda
The Fourth, say the wise, is not subjective experience, nor objective
experience, nor experience intermediate between these two, nor is it a
negative condition which is neither consciousness nor unconsciousness. It is
not the knowledge of the senses, nor is it relative knowledge, nor yet
inferential knowledge. Beyond the senses, beyond the understanding, beyond
all expression, is The Fourth. It is pure unitary consciousness, wherein
awareness of the world and of the multiplicity is completely obliterated. It
is ineffable peace. It is the supreme good. It is One without a second. It
is the Self. Know it alone!
vaiShNava bhakti mArga - 1 - Sri Kamakoti Mandali

bhairavo.aha ivo.aham || ... parabrahmAnande sakalasuravandye svarasataH ...
Thus, jIvotpattivAda of the pAncharAtra is rejected as avaidika by ... Unlike the
shAkta systems, though a sthiti of advaita seems to exist ...
vaiShNava bhakti mArga - 1
By admin on Jul 27, 2009 | In Darshana
parabrahmAnande sakalasuravandye svarasataH
kShatadvandvAmandAkRîtidanujakandA~Nkurahare |
shriyaH kande nandAtmaja uditachandrasmitamukhe
mukunde spando me bhavatu manaso dvandvavirateH ||
hare krShNa hare krShNa hare krShNa hare hare |

hare rAma hare rAma hare rAma hare hare ||
This article aims to present before Astikas a high-level overview of the various
vaiShNava sampradAya-s. Much of this has been already captured by scholars such
as baladeva upAdhyAya, mahAmahopAdhyAya shrI gopInAtha kavirAja, shrI
krShNasVami aiyyangAr, mahAmahopAdhyAya haraprasAda shAstrI, nIlakaNTha
dave, mysore muttukrShNa shAstrI and others. A quick and precise overview is
perhaps what is missing in these exhaustive compendiums. As a part of our effort to
visit every possible branch of Arya (simply meaning venerable) darshana, such a
summary is being attempted here. With growing disinterest within the Aryas and the
pseudo-intellectual threat posed by bauddha, mlecCha, turuShkAdi patitas, every
branch of sanAtana dharma needs to be studied, discussed and actively
propagated, more so those dealing with bhagavad-bhakti. For this to happen, it is
rather important to rise above sectarian prejudices and see the usefulness of each
such darshana, at least in the sopana krama.
sAtvata/pAncharAtra
The oldest of the vaiShNava schools are the bhAgavata and pAncharAtra schools.
The upAsya devatA of the pAncharAtra school is vAsudeva this word is interpreted
to mean sarvavyApaka or all-pervading. On account of ShaD-guNas of vAsudeva, he
comes to be called as bhagavAn:
j~nAna-shakti-balaishvarya-vIrya-tejAMsyasheShataH |
bhagavacChabdavAchyAni vinA heyairguNAdibhiH ||
The Lord complete with these six qualities (i.e. jnAna, shakti, bala, aishvarya, vIrya,
tejas) and devoid of all heya guNas - is referred to as bhagavAn. The mode of his
worship, named pAncharAtra, is defined differently in different scriptures:
a. Shanti parva of mahAbhArata describes pAncharAtra as a mahopaniShat that
arises from the shrImukha of shrImannArAyaNa and as encompassing the essence
of the four Vedas and sAmkhya-yoga. The term pancha is thus indicative of four
Vedas plus sAmkhya-yoga.
b. nArada pAncharAtra derives the term pancha from the number of vivechya
viShayas in these scriptures parama-tattva, mukti, bhukti, yoga and samsAra.
rAtra is explained to mean jnAna and the knowledge of these five concepts is
defined as pAncharAtra. This definition finds support in ahirbudhniya samhitA as
well.
c. According to Ishvara samhitA, the five sacred weapons of the Lord incarnated as
sages shANDilya, aupagAyana, maunjAyana, kaushika and bhAradvAja. Pleased
with their penance on totAdri, bhagavAn vAsudeva instructed them into the secret
of ekAyana veda. Based on the number of seers, this instruction was completed in
five nights leading to the name - pAncharAtra.
d. According to pAdma tantra, the name pAncharAtra denotes the superiority of this
shAstra over other shAstras. That shAstra, compared to which the other five
shAstras (such as pAshupata etc.) are dark like the night, is called pAncharAtra.
e. According to viShNu samhitA, the five mahAbhUtas or the corresponding five
viShayas (such as shabda, rUpa etc.) are termed pancharAtra-s. As the study of this
shAstra results in the rise of the sun named parama-tattva that destroys these rAtris, it is known as pAncharAtra.
Some features of pAncharAtrAgama are held to be anukUla to shruti and smrti and
hence acceptable. These are:
1. paramAtman, through mere desire, assumes various forms.
2. According to pAncharAtra, there are five vyApAras or activities that please the
Supreme:
a. abhigamana entering the devagrha, having restrained the kAya, vAk and chitta.
b. upAdAna the collecting of pUjA dravya
c. ijyA deva pUjA
d. svAdhyAya japa of mantras such as aShTAkShara and study of scriptures
e. yoga meditating on the Supreme Lord
All these can be grouped under Ishvara-praNidhAna which is not opposed by either
shruti or smrti. However, the theory of chaturvyUha does not find vedic sanction
and hence is considered anAdaraNIya. According to pAncharAtra doctrine, from the
first vyUha named vAsudeva, the second named sa~NkarShaNa vyUha is
originated. These two respectively represent the paramAtmA and the jIvAtmA.
Pradyumna or manas originates from samkarShaNa and from pradyumna is born
aniruddha vyUha representing ahamkAra. To summarize, the theory of four vyUhas
claims the utpatti of jIvAtmA from paramAtmA. But according to shruti, jIva is nitya
and hence cannot be born as the sense of utpatti of jIva would result in his anityatA.
Thus, jIvotpattivAda of the pAncharAtra is rejected as avaidika by AchAryas such as
shankara bhagavatpAda. Appayya dIkShita sees vaikhAnasa samhitA as favorable to
vedic thought, but does not extend the same approval to pAncharAtra.
The shrIvaiShNava AchArya-s have left no stone unturned to prove that the
pAncharAtra mata is unopposed to shruti in every way. According to rAmAnuja, the
utpattyasambhavAdhikaraNa of the brahmasUtra supports the cause of pAncharAtra
as opposed to its khaNDana that shankara interprets in his bhAShya. Even before
rAmAnuja, yAmunAchArya attempted the same in his work Agama-prAmANya.
Adopting the paddhati of mImAmsA, vedAnta deshika and bhaTTAraka vedottama
try to establish the same in their works pAncharAtra rakShA and tantrashuddhi.
According to them, pAncharAtra is related to the ekAyana shAkhA of the veda and
the word pAncharAtra is traced back to shatapatha brAhmaNa where the description
of pAncharAtra satra is seen. The nArAyaNIyopAkhyAna of mahAbhArata declares
vedAnukUlatva of pAncharAtra. According to bhArata, a group of seven sages
named chitrashikhaNDins extracted the essence of the shruti to create a shAstra
named pAncharAtra. King uparichara vasu is said to have learnt this shAstra from
bRîhaspati and he performed a gigantic vedic sacrifice where pashu was
substituted by tila yava. Thus, a notable feature of pAncharAtra, true also for
sAmkhya-yoga, is the unacceptability of pashu himsA in yajnas. But this does not
negate their devotion to yajnas. When the Lord appears to nArada as described in
pAncharAtra, he sports in his hands vedi, kamaNDalu, maNi, upAnaha, kusha, ajina,
daNDakAShTha and hutAshana, indicating his svarUpa as yajna-mUrti.
According to Ishvara and pArameshvara samhitA-s, sage shANDilya performed a
penance towards the end of dvApara and obtained the knowledge of ekAyana veda
from samkarShaNa. He taught the sAtvata vidhi embedded within this veda to his
disciples sumantu, jaimini, bhrgu, upagAyana and maunjAyana. The word ekAyana is
here interpreted as the single-most or best path to mokSha. The word ekAyana finds
mention in the chAndogya upaniShad:
Rîgvedam bhagavo.adhyemi yajurvedam sAmavedamatharvANam
vAkovAvyamekAyana~ncha |
The word ekAyana is seen as referring to nItishAstra by shankara whereas
rangarAmAnuja interprets this to mean ekAyana shAkhA. It is also held by some that
the kANva shAkhA of shukla yajurveda is also known as ekAyana shAkhA. This
notion finds puShTi in jayAkhya samhitA where aupagAyana, described as a master
of prapatti shAstra, is an exponent of kANva shAkhA. utpalAchArya of kAshmIra, in
his spandapradIpikA, quotes various verses from pAncharAtra shruti and upaniShad.
Prof. upAdhyAya and krShNasvAmi ayyaingAr point us to a possibility that these
verses belong to ekAyana shAkhA. It is also ascertained that during the times of
utpala, pAncharAtra was classified into three groups: shruti, upaniShad and
samhitA.
We have dealt in detail with pAncharAtra samhitA-s before. This article can be
accessed here.
The chief topics discussed in the pAncharAtra samhitAs are four in number:
1.
2.
3.
4.
jnAna the relation between brahma, jIva and jagat and the process of creation.
Yoga the means for mukti and related techniques.
kriyA the construction of temples, installation of idols etc.
charyA description of Ahnika, Archana, japa, utsava etc.
According to pAncharAtra siddhAnta, parabrahma is advitIya, anAdi, ananta,

duHkharahita and endless bliss. He is like a great ocean free of waves. While he is
the Ashraya sthAna of aprAkrta guNa-s, he is at the same time untouched by
prAkrta guNa-s. As he is not bound by desha, kAla and AkAra, he is pUrNa, sarvavyApaka and nitya. He is also beyond idamtA (svarUpa), IdrktA (prakAra) and iyattA
(parimANa). As he is resplendent with the six auspicious qualities, he is referred to
as bhagavAn. On account of his presence within all bhUtas, he is referred to as
vAsudeva. As he is the shreShThatama among the Atma-s, he is called paramAtmA.
Thus, owing to his special attributes, he is variously referred to as avyakta,
pradhAna, ananta, aparimita, achintya, brahma, hiraNyagarbha, shiva etc.
To pAncharAtrika-s, both saguNa and nirguNa forms of brahma are acceptable. He is
neither the past, nor the present or the future. He is without a beginning or an end.
On account of being devoid of prAkrta guNa-s, he is nirguNa but he is also saguNa
due to the attribution of shaDguNa-s. The ShaD-guNas are explained as existent
solely for the sake of prapancha vyApAra.
Now, coming to our favorite part, the sAmAnya samjnA for the immeasurable shakti
of the lord is lakShmI. The Lord is shaktimAn and his shakti is ramA. Unlike the
shAkta systems, though a sthiti of advaita seems to exist between the Lord and his
shakti, there really is no advaita as during pralaya, when the prapancha attains
laya, there is no nitAnta aikya between lakShmI and nArAyaNa. They seem to be
eka-tattva but vastutaH are not the same. While an avinAbhAva sambandha
between them is accepted, like that in the case of dharma-dharmI, ahamtA-aham,
chandrikA-chandramA, Atapa-sUrya etc., there still is a bheda between shakti and
shaktimAn. Thus, one can see here the same relation that one finds between shiva
and shakti in some of the shaivAgamas. Ahirbudhinya samhitA clearly distinguishes
between shakti and shaktimAn in all stages. This shakti, mainly representing the
svAtantrya of the Lord, appears in various forms due to guNa-vaishiShTya, as
AnandA, svatantrA, lakShmI, shrI, padmA etc. In the beginning of creation,
bhagavatI appears in two forms: kriyAshakti and bhUtashakti. The samkalpa or the
desire of the Lord towards creation of the Universe is called kriyAshakti and the
pariNati of the jagat from this samkalpa gets termed as bhUtashakti. The
icChAshakti of the Lord is denoted by lakShmI and kriyAshakti by sudarshana.
Accompanied by these two shaktis, the Lord conducts the vyApara such as srShTi,
sthiti etc. When devoid of these, there is no indulgence of the brahma in any
activity. The grace of lakShmI is the chief cause behind the creation of the universe.
The srShTi is of two kinds: shuddha and shuddhetara. jayAkhya samhitA sees the
antarbhAva of three kinds of srShTi within the aforesaid two shuddha, prAdhAnika
and brahma sargas. Similar to the occurrence of the first wave in the silent ocean
that causes a stir, the unmeSha of the svAtantrya shakti in brahma leads to its
association with the ShaDguNas. This initial rise of lakShmI is termed as
guNonmeSha or shuddha-srShTi. The Lord then assumes four kinds of avatAras for
the sake of loka kalyANa:
a. vyUha
b. vibhava
c. archA
d. antrayAmI
Due to the predominance of two guNas taken at a time, from the previously listed
set of ShaDguNas, the three vyUhas are created, saMkarShaNa, pradyumna and
aniruddha. samkarShaNa vyUha is characterized by the prAdhAnya of jnAna and
bala, pradyumna by aishvarya and vIrya and aniruddha by shakti and tejas. We
explained earlier the sequence of utpatti of these vyUhas as explained by shankara
but that is opposed to the krama detailed in the ahirbudhniya samhitA which sees
all the three vyUhas directly originating from vAsudeva.
Vibhava is really what is popularly considered as an avatAra of nArayaNa and they
are thirty-six in number. Of these, mukhyAvatAras grant mokSha whereas the
upAsanA of gauNAvatAras grants one bhukti. padmanAbha, dhruva, trivikrama,
kapila, madhusUdana etc. are listed as vibhavas.
Idols made of gold, silver etc., when sanctified according to prescribed procedures,
are considered avatAras of the Lord. As the Supreme manifests as mUrti here to
accept worship from the devotees, he is referred to as archAvatAra.
The form of the Lord which resides in the heart of all creatures, inspiring them to
indulge in various thoughts and actions, is called antaryAmI svarUpa. This kalpanA
of antaryAmI svarUpa seems to be based on the concept of antaryAmI puruSha

discussed in upaniShads such as the bRîhadAraNyaka.
While this is the popular theory, there is no aikamatya regarding srShTi-krama
within the pAncharAtra samhitA-s. Causality of pAncharAtra shares similarities with
sAmkhya but only to an extent. While prakrti is vyAprtA even without the assistance
of puruSha in sAmkhya, in the case of pAncharAtra, she is strewed by the brahma
tattva before becoming active towards creation. Like the movement is seen in a
metal only in the presence of a magnet, the sanchalana of prakrti is only in the
presence of the puruSha here; this concept finds support in the gItA shAstra as well.
The jIva is anAdi, aparicChinna and chidAnanda-ghana and always inspired by
bhagavAn. Both jIva and jagat are the manifestations of vilAsa or play of the
svAtantrya shakti of nArAyaNa. The samkalpa of the Lord, known as sudarshana,
though manifests in infinite ways, the chief manifestations are srShTi, sthiti,
vinAsha, nigraha and anugraha. Though jIva is vyApaka, shaktimAn and sarvajna,
the nigraha shakti of the Lord actualizes tirodhAna of the vibhutva, shaktimattva
and sarvajnatva of the jIva, making it aNu, kinchitkara and alpajna. This nigraha
shakti is referred to by various names such as mAyA, avidyA, mahAmoha,
hrdayagranthi etc. Thus, though inherently free, jIva is bound and experiences jAti,
Ayu and bhoga based on pUrva karma. On seeing the miseries of the baddha jIva,
the naturally compassionate Lord gives birth to his krpA right from the center of his
heart and this shakti is called anugraha-shakti or vaiShNavI. This shakti is also
termed as shaktipAta by the tantras. The melting of the heart of the parama
puruSha on seeing the miseries of the jIva results in his grace. At this stage, the
shubha and ashubha karma of the jIva attain samatva and are negated. At this
stage, bandha transforms itself into sAdhana for mokSha and mumukShutA sprouts
in jIva.
puNya-pApa
There were some queries on karma, puNya, pApa etc. but the method of enquiry
adopted was somewhat incorrect; it is karma mImAmsA that shall present the
required answers and not vedAnta.
The mImAmsA sUtra says:
dvividham karma shubhamashubham cha ||
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so states the law of karma. For
every kriyA, the utpatti of the phala or fruit is in the avasthA of pratikriyA. Hence it
is said:
avashyameva bhoktavyam kRîtam karma shubhAshubham ||
That action which is predominantly sAttvika in nature leads to shubha phala. That
which is amangala vAsanAtmaka and dominated by tamas leads to ashubha phala.
Like the various dvandvas in the creation (night-day, light-shadow etc.), the two
facets of karma phala are also true and not imaginary [sargadvandvanimittam tat].
Shubha phala may lead one to pitrloka, svarga loka or to jIvanmukti in the sopAna
krama. Ashubha phala may lead to naraka, apamRîtyu, pretayoni, duHkha yoni
etc. Thus, it is these two upward (Urdhvagatika) or downward (adhogatika) streams
that are collectively known as puNya and pApa. Again, these lead one to sukha or
duHkha [sukhaduHkhopalabdhistAbhyAm]. By sAttvika karma, ones antaHkaraNa
becomes Atmonmukha and thus attains Atma-rati. On the contrary, under the
influence of rajah and tamas, antaHkaraNa becomes vimukha from the Atman and
attains misery. The klesha is simply caused by this vimukhatva of the antaHkaraNa
from the Anandamaya svarUpa which is the Self. Moreover, all this is of utmost
importance to the human being who, on account of adhikAritva on puNya and pApa,
is the center of AvAgamana chakra:
mAnuSheShu maharaja dharmAdharmau vyavasthitau |
sampUrNAvayavA jIvA martyapiNDaM gatAstataH ||
Every yoni lower to that of the human is asampUrNa as jIva is said to possess
pUrNAvayava in manuShya yoni alone. On account of this, the adhikAra for both
dharma and adharma rests here. While the effects of puNya and pApa are
anubhavagamya in this very birth, their effect encompasses any of the fourteen
worlds that the jIva may attain. bhUlokAntargata pitrloka and the six worlds above
that are said to be devasukhamaya. The seven nether worlds are said to be AsurIsukhamaya. Thus, all these fourteen worlds are for the sake of sukha-bhoga and the
difference lies only in the nature of sukha. It is the martyaloka which is a
combination of sukha and duHkha. Pretaloka, naraka and others are exclusively for
duHkha-bhoga. It is again prArabdha samskAra that translates into not only jAti,
Ayu, and bhoga, but also prakRîti, pravRîtti, shakti and samskAra. One should
refer to an earlier discussion we had on AkAsha-traya (chitta, chit and mahAkAshas) for further insight. The bottom-line is: karma, pApa, puNya are real and hence
anubhava gamya and cannot be dismissed as imaginary or irrelevant. But one
cannot and should not live in constant fear of this two-edged sword. And the clever
way out is to surrender to the lotus feet of paramashiva bhaTTaraka - initially
through demonstrative words (japa, stotra), thoughts (manana, dhyAna) and actions
(saparyA, namana, homa, pAdasevA) and gradually through conviction and other
subtle faculties.
tRîShNAture chetasi jRîmbhamANAm
muShNAnmuhurmohamahAndhakAram |
puShNAtu naH puNyadayaikasindhoH
kRîShNasya kAruNyakaTAkShakeLiH ||
Personalities of bauddha nyAya - 1
By admin on May 7, 2009 | In Darshana
asa~Nga
asa~Nga is most probably the first Buddhist AchArya to establish vij~nAnavAda on
the basis of tarka. He was the first Buddhist philosopher to introduce the
pa~nchAvayavI parArthAnumAna of the naiyAyika-s into the field of study of
vij~nAnavAda. He is also the source of numerous axioms of vAdakalA used till the
current day by Buddhist theologians. These axioms or rules are similar to those of
gautama popular within the school of nyAya. Though maitreya had already
discussed vAdakalA in his work saptadasha bhUmishAstra, asa~Ngas handling of
this topic far exceeds that of his guru both in terms of depth and detail.
Arya asa~Nga took birth in gAndhAra in 450 A.D. Initially he was an adherent of the
vaibhAshika sampradAya but later turned to vij~nAnavAda after coming in contact
with AchArya maitreya. asa~Nga was the elder brother of vasubandhu, known as
the second Buddha in Buddhist circles. The greatest contribution of asa~Nga is his
bauddha nyAya or pramANa-shAstra, which is available to us today in the seventh
and sixteenth chapters of mahAyAnAbhidharma-saMyukta-sa~NgitishAstra. His
thoughts on nyAya however do not contradict those of maitreya.
asa~Nga accepts four pramANas: pratyakSha, anumAna, upamAna and Agama. As
an a~Nga of anumAna, he also accepts pratij~nA and other avayavas. Thus, the
influence of prAchIna gautamIya nyAya on asa~Nga is distinctly evident.
Vasubandhu
Vasubandhu was initially a sarvAstivAdin and later turned to vijnAnavAda under the
influence of his brother asanga. Vasubandhus contribution to the school of
vjnAnavAda is incomparable. This statement can be even expanded to include
entire Buddhism. The vaibhAShika school finds itself frequently expressing gratitude
ot vasubandhu as well. Of the thirty-two written works of vasubandhu available
today, three are of importance from the standpoint of nyAya.
While these three works do not seem to have been translated to Tibetan,
incomplete Chinese translations of vAda-vidhi are available scattered across Asia.
From a close examination of the available portion of this work, a striking similarity to
gautamIya nyAya becomes clear. It is known that Hiuen Tsang gathered these three
works during his visit to India. Apart from these three works, a Chinese translation
of another work named tarka-shAstra is also available. This work constitutes of
three chapters, the first one dealing with a commentary of the panchAvayava-s. The
second chapter deals with jAti or asaduttara and the third with the twenty-two
nigraha-sthAnas. This indicates another important aspect, the influence of
vAtsyAyana on vasubandhu. According to vasubandhu, there needs to be a prayoga
of panchAvayava-s in vAda, two for bodha (which are pratij~nA and hetu).
There is also a notion that vAda-vidhi is a part of the larger work tarka-shAstra.
Di~NnAga
In the arena of bauddha nyAya, di~NnAga is second only to vasubandhu. Even with
the expansive flourishing of the four schools of Buddhism, bauddha nyAya saw little
development till about fourth century. Though nAgArjuna authored an independent
work on nyAya in the third century, it was merely an examination of gautamIya
nyAya siddhAnta. The concepts of nyAya popularized by maitreya, asanga and
vasubandhu were not only based on vijnAnavAda but borrowed heavily from
vaibhAShika siddhAnta as well. The credit of establishing bauddha nyAya on the
canvas of pure vijnAnavAda goes undoubtedly to di~NnAga. His key contribution
was to separate nyAya from darshana and dharma and establish it as an

independent branch of knowledge.
The time of di~NnAga is established to be around fifth century. It is also believed
that di~NnAga was a disciple of vasubandhu and belonged to Southern India. It can
be guessed that he received instruction into bauddha dharma from some
vAtsIputrIya AchArya. Owing to several disagreements with his guru, he migrated to
Magadha for instruction. Those were the times when vasubandhu was known
throughout India as pratibuddha.
Di~NnAga challenged various philosophers to debates during his travels in Nalanda,
Odissa and Maharashtra. He even expressed disagreement with his own guru
vasubandhu at times. Not only does he face criticism from udyotakarAchArya,
vAchaspati and other Astika naiyAyikas, but also from several jaina tArkikas. His
disciple and commentator dharmakIrti is critical of his guru at places as well.
All written works of di~NnAga re possibly related to nyAya. His independent works
on nyAya include pramANa samucchaya, nyAyapravesha, AlamvanaparIkShA,
hetuchakra samarthana, nyAyamukha, Alamvana parIkShAvrtti and trijAla parIkShA.
Of these, pramANa samucchaya is the pathapradarshaka grantha of bauddha
nyAya. Various smaller essays of di~NnAga are available in Chinese and Tibetan
languages today. He himself later collected these essays with extensive notes in six
volumes: pratyakSha, sarvArthanumAna, parArthanumAna, hetudrShTAnta, apoha
and jAti. A commentary on these by jinendra buddhi is available currently.
Di~NnAga rejects the panchAvayava-s of gautamIya naiyAyikas and accepts only
three pratijnA, hetu and udAharaNa as angas of anumAna. The critique of the
lakShaNa of pratyakSha and anumAna - as expounded by gautama and vAtsyAyana
- by di~NnAga is so emphatic and extensive that udyotakarAchArya has authored
an entire vArtika for the khaNDana of the siddhAnta-s of di~NnAga. shrI kumArila
bhaTTapAda extensively refutes the theories of di~NnAga in his shloka-vArtika.
pAshupata siddhAnta - 1
By admin on Jun 23, 2009 | In Darshana
- By jnAnakunjastha mahAmahopAdhyAya shrI gopInAtha kavirAja
The sarvadarshana samgraha of mAdhavAchArya devotes a chapter to the
treatment of the philosophical doctrines and teachings of the pAshupatas. It seems
therefore clear that as early as the fourteenth century of the Christian era the sect
had assumed such importance that it claimed recognition as a distinct theologicophlosophical school. From a careful study of the earlier literature it would appear
that the sect is much older than the days of mAdhava. Udayana (1000 AD) refers to
it in his nyAyakusumAnjali and the author of nyAyasAra wrote a work viz.
gaNakArikA, dealing with the pAshupata categories. Uddyotakara, the author of
nyAyavArtika (500 AD), calls himself a pAshupatAcharya. The purANas and even the
mahAbhArata contain numerous references to this sect. the brahmasUtras of
bAdarAyaNa include a section in the second pAda of chapter II, refuting the views of
the adherents of this sect.
The earliest history of this sect is shrouded in mystery. In the vedic literature, the
word pashupati indeed occurs in various places (atharvaNa samhitA 11,2,28, vAj.
Sam 16,28, pArask. GrhsUtra 2,8, Ashv. GrhsUtra 48) but only as a synonym of
Rudra. It has not got there that technical meaning which we find invariably attached
to it in subsequent pAshupata literature. This sect was of course known to the
mahAbhArata. The vAmana purANa classifies the worshippers of shiva linga under
four groups:
a. Shaiva
b. pAshupata or mahApAshupata
c. kAladamana
d. kApAlika
It observes that all these sects had their origin in brahmA. The pAshupata sect was
represented by maharshi bharadvAja and his disciple, rAjA somakeshvara. The
shaiva sect was led by shakti, son of vasistha and guru of gopAyana. The
kAladamana sect was represented by Apastambha, the guru of krAtheshvara.
Dhanada or kubera headed the kApAlika sect and had a disciple named arNodara,
who was a shUdra by caste; dhanada is described as a mahAvratin. It is also stated
in the shiva purANa that vAsudeva krShNa learnt the pAshupata system from
uamanyu, the elder brother of dhaumya.
We have now no means of ascertaining the extent of the early literature of this sect
or its details. But from the statement of the shiva purANa, it appears that the
original doctrines of the sect were contained in four samhitAs compiled by ruru,
dadhIchi, agastya and upamanyu. The atharvashira and some other upaniShads
belong to this sect. The philosophical position of the school is based on a sUtra work
called pAshupata shAstra panchartha darshana and attributed to maheshvara. This
work was in five chapters (hence called panchAdhyAyI) and commented on by
rAshikara, the supposed twenty-eighth and last incarnation of shiva.
mAdhavAchArya, keshava kAshmIrI and rAmAnanda (on kAshI khaNDa) refer to this
work. bhAsarvajna wrote eight kArikAs, called gaNakArikA dealing with the
pAshupata doctrines. An unknown author commented on these kArikAs ratnaTIkA.
The same wrote a work called satkAryavichAra. samskArakArikA is a manual
treating of pAshupata rituals. Haradatta was one of the earlier authors of this
school, but no detail regarding life or works is known. The yogachintAmaNi of
shivAnanda speaks of a work named nakulIsha yogaparAyaNa which evidently
belongs to this sect.
The historical foundation of the sect, evidently a subsequent branch of the original
school, is attributed to one nakulIsha, who was an inhabitant of karavana near
modern Broach in the Boroda state. His name appears in various forms viz.
lakulIsha, laguDIsha etc. The origin of the name is not known, but it is surmised that
he was so called on account of his always holding a cudgel in his hand. The bairAgIs
of this sect bear this characteristic even now. It is difficult to determine the age of
this early shaiva preacher. He is believed to have been an incarnation of shiva. It is
stated in vayu purANa that simultaneously with the appearance of shrI krShNa as
vAsudeva, shiva manifested himself as lakulI at a place, thence called
kAyAvarohaNa, now corrupted into Karwana. A temple of lakulIsha is still seen there.
An inscription is found in the neighborhood of the temple of Ekalingaji, at a distance
of 14 miles from Udaipur. The shiva purANa refers to lakulI of kAyAvarohaNa as one
of the sixty-eight forms of shiva.
According to this purANa, lakulI had four disciples who practiced the pAshupata
yoga and besmeared their bodies with ashes and dust. The names of these four
heroes are: kushika, gArgya, mitra and kauruShya. The Chintra Inscription alludes to
this story. In this description however, the name of the third disciple, as give above
appears as maitreya. Though the synchronism of vAsudeva krShNa and lakulIsha, as
pointed out by the purANa, is hardly capable of being established, the age of the
shaiva teacher remains still unsettled. Farquhar believes that lakulIsha was a
historical person and lived between the ages of mahAbharata and vAyu purANa. The
age of this purANa, according to him, is 300-400 AD. Hence lakulIsha is placed at an
earlier date. Fleet says that the figure of shiva with club found on the coins of the
kushAn king HuviShka represents lakulIsha.
1. kArya
The kArya is threefold: vidyA, kalA and pashu.
vidyA is a quality of the pashu, and is of two kinds: knowledge (bodha) and
ignorance (abodha). The former is essentially either vivekapravrtti or
avivekapravrtti, but from the standpoint of object it is fourfold or fivefold. The
vivekapravrtti is manifested by a valid source of knowledge and is called chitta. It is
by means of the chitta that an animal is conscious of the light of chaitanya. The
second tye pf vidyA (abodha-vidyA) is described as pashvartha-dharmAdharmikA.
ratnaTIkA observes that the character of vidyA as a guNa is from the standpoint of
pAshupata system, but according to vaisheShika it would be dravya.
kalA is dependent on a conscious agent and is itself unconscious. It is of two kinds:
kArya and kAraNa. The former is of then types: the five tattvas (prthvI etc.) and the
five guNas (rUpa etc.). The latter is of three kinds: five senses, five motor organs
and three inner organs (buddhi, ahamkAra and manas).
The pashu is either sAnjana (endowed with body and senses) or niranjana (bereft of
body and senses).
2. kAraNa
kAraNa, literally a cause, is the name of pati (Ishvara, God). He is the anugrAhaka of
all creation and destruction. He is one and without a second. His classification is
based on a difference of guNa and karma only. The kAraNa is independent in this
system and is not dependent on karma and other factors. He is pati which implies
possession of infinite power or knowledge and action i.e. possession for all times of
aishvarya. He is Adya or the Primal One, i.e., possesses natural powers.
3. Yoga
It is defined as the communion between Atman and Ishvara through the medium of
chitta. There are two varieties of yoga one is kriyAtmaka (active) in the form of
japa, dhyAna etc. and the other stands for cessation of all action (kriyoparama). The
latter kind is technically known as samvidgati. The fruit of yoga in this system is not
kaivalya (as in sAmkhya and pAtanjala) but realization of Supreme Power
(paramaishvarya) accompanied by end of pain.
4. Vidhi
Vidhi is the name of a function which aims at dharma or artha. It is twofold, being
primary or secondary. The primary vidhi is charyA, which is of two kinds: vrata and
dvAras. The vratas are thus enumerated:
a. Ash bath
b. Ash bed (bhasmasnAnashayyA)
c. upahAra or niyama consisting of:
- Laughter or hasita, which aTTahAsa (side-splitting laughter with lips gaping wide)
- Song or gIta (in praise of Shiva)
- Dancing or nrtya
- huDukkAra involving the utterance of the sound huDuk in the manner of an exbellowing. This sound is produced from the contact of the tongue with the palate
(probably some kind of tAlavya kriyA?)
- Obeisance or namaskAra
d. Japa
e. Circumambulation or pradakShiNa
The dvAras are:
a. krAthana or the showing of the body during waking moments as if it were in
sleep.
b. Spandana or the quivering of the limbs as under the influence of vAyu.
c. maNDana or going in the manner of one suffering from injury in the leg, or rather
limping.
d. shRî~NgAra or showing oneself by means of ones physical erotic movements
(vilAsAH) as if one is in passion at the sight of a beautiful and youthful lady.
e. avitatkaraNa or performing an evil action condemned by the world in the manner
of one devoid of sense of discrimination.
f. avitadbhAShaNa or uttering of meaningless, contradictory words.
The secondary vidhi is what is subsidiary and auxiliary to the primary vidhi, i.e.,
anusnAna and bhakShocchiShTa.
5. duHkhAnta
With the pAshupatas duHkhAnta means, not only the negation of sorrow but also
realization of Supreme Lordship (paramaishvarya). duHkhAnta is of two kinds:
anAtmaka and sAtmaka. The former is absolute cessation of all pain. The latter is
realization of power which consists in drk-kriyAshakti. Drk-shakti (=dhIshakti) is
really one, but is called five-fold through difference of object, viz. shravaNa,
manana, vijnAna and sarvajnatva. Similarly kriyAshakti too, though one, is
described as three-fold through upachAra manojavitva, kAmarUpitva and
vikaraNadharmitva. The word darshana means knowledge of everything amenable
to sight and touch subtle, distant and closed. The perfect knowledge of every
shabda is shravaNa, of every thought is manana, of every shAstra through text and
sense is vijnAna; and omniscience is the perfect knowledge, eternally shining, of all
tattvas in regard to all things, said or unsaid, either in summary or in detail or
severally. Manojavitva is the power of doing something instantaneously.
kAmarUpitva is the power of controlling any form simply at will and under the stress
of karma. vikaraNadharmitva is the power of doing or knowing anything (niratishaya
aishvarya sambandhitva) without any organ.
rAdhA
By admin on Jul 25, 2009 | In Darshana, Bhakti
taptakA~nchanagaurA~Ngi rAdhe vrndAvaneshvari |
vrShabhAnusute devi praNamAmi haripriye ||
The word rAdhA originates from 'rAdh' associated with the vRîddhau dhAtu and on
adding the upasarga A, the sense of ArAdhanA or archanA is attained. In the rg
veda, where indra is ascribed great importance, he is described as rAdhAnAm pati
and this association seems to have continued with viShNu, who gradually came to
be described as bhuvanasya rAjA and rAdhAnAm pati. nIlakaNTha chaturdhara a
commentator on the mahAbhArata, traces rAdha to the rk atAriShurbharatA
[3/33/12] where the word surAdhA occurs. In this rk, surAdhA is interpreted as gopis
represented foremost by rAdhA and krShNa by the word shIbha. The next authority
considered by some vaiShNavas is of the upaniShad: rAdhopaniShad and
rAdhikAtApanIyopaniShad. rAdhopaniShad describes rAdhikA as the antarangabhUtA
and AhlAdinI shakti of shrI krShNa. rAdhikA tApanIya describes her as the foremost
among the nAyikAs of krShNa. The allegory of krShNa carrying the padadhUli of
rAdhA on his forehead, which is an important aspect of many madhura bhakti
schools, finds a mention in this quasi upaniShad.
A popular work which showcases rAdhA as the primary among the consorts of
vAsudeva is the gAthAsaptashatI, written somewhere in the first century. While
describing the shrngAra lIlA of krShNa, it is said here: O krShNa, you are dispelling
the speck of dust on rAdhAs face through your mukhamAruta (blowing of air) and
thus reducing the prestige of other gopikA-s. Bhandarkar associates rAdhA with the
chief goddess of the Abhirs of Syria and the assumptions he makes to arrive at this
speculation are questionable. It cannot be denied however that the Abhirs had
settled in the Indian sub-continent before the first century as the vAyu purANa lists
the vamshAvaLI of Abhir Kings.
The next popular references to rAdhA seems to be in the pancha tantra, which
probably originated in the Gupta period. As for the purANas, viShNu, harivamsha
and bhAgavata purANas do not explicitly mention rAdhA. The purANas which glorify
rAdhA are matsya, padma and brahmavaivarta. Matsya purANa describes rAdhA as
the chief deity worshipped in vrndAvana but no mention is made of the prema of
rAdhA and krShNa. The bhAgavata purANa, which abundantly deals with madhurA
bhakti, is silent in this regard as well. During the description of rAsalIlA, there is
mention of the priyatamA sakhI of krShNa and the word used here is anayArAdhitA.
Some commentators of bhAgavata purANa, like vishvanAtha charavartI, hold this to
be the indication of apratyakSha vidyamAnatva of rAdhA in this important episode.
Shukadeva, a follower of the nimbArka mata, in his siddhAntapradIpa, interprets the
use of word rAdhita in bhAgavata to mean rAdhayA yuktaH. He envisions the

hetubhUtatva of rAdhA in the vihAra lIlA-s of krShNa and argues that gopanIyatA is
the reason for the omission of reference to rAdhA by shuka. Elsewhere in the
bhAgavata, one can see the verse, rAdhasA svadhAmni brahmaNi rasyate namaH.
Here, the reference is to the shakti or aishvarya of the Brahman, and this naturally
finds a convenient interpretation as referring to rAdhA.
Brahmavaivarta purANa deals at length with the lIlAs of rAdhA and krShNa. The
significance of the word rAdhA is explained thus in the same purANa:
rAshabdocchAraNAt bhakto rAti muktiM sudurlabhAm |
dhAshabdocchAraNAt durge dhAvatyeva hareH padam ||
The same purANa describes the origin of rAdhA from the pArshva bhAga of krShNa
in goloka and her avataraNa in vraja maNDala. She is said to have taken birth in the
house of vRîShabhAnu and kalAvatI in varAha kalpa. She is also described to have
later married a vaishya named rAyaNa.
The problem posed by many scholars is the overall weight carried by
brahmavaivarta purANa in terms of antiquity, authenticity etc. Popular vaiShNava
works also refrain from quoting the episodes of rAdhA as described in this purANa.
There are also works such as the dashAvatAra charita of kShemendra and the
vikramArkadevacharita which refer to rAdhA as krShNa prANa-priyA. gItagovinda is
probably responsible for the current day image of rAdhA as the primary nAyikA of
krShNa. It appears that it was nimbArka mata that first popularized the
yugalopAsana of rAdhA and krShNa, followed by chaitanya, vallabha, rAdhAvallabha
and other vaiShNava schools.
Garga samhitA refers to krShNa as hari and rAdhA as kamalAlayA [haristvam
kamalAlaye.ayam]. According to viShNudharmottara, ramA is visualized with two
hands when meditated beside nArayaNa and as chaturbhujA when meditated on
individually [prthakchaturbhujA kAryA devI simhAsane shubhe]. This is clearly the
lakShaNa that the mUrti of rAdhA adopts, and can be used to establish abheda
between rAdhA and ramA. This very description of dvibhujA lakShmI fits that of
rAdhA stationed beside krShNa that finds a place in skanda purANa. devIbhAgavata
purANa is another important source to understand the mUrti lakShaNa of rAdhA,
where she is described as vahnishuddhA shukadharA nAnAlamkArabhUShitA etc.
Brahmavaivarta describes her thus:
sharatpArvaNakoTIndushobhAmRîShTashubhananA |
charusImantinI chArusharatpamkajalochanA ||
Again, gItagovinda kAvya shapes much of the image of rAdhA as seen today in
pictures, idols and descriptions.
A Periodic grouping of dvaitins and advaitins
Group 1
dvaitins:
kaNAda, gotama
advaitin:
krShNa-dvaipAyana (vyAsa)
Group 2
dvaitins:
vAtsyAyana, prashastapAda, udyotakara
advaitins:
gauDapAda, govindapAda, shankara bhagavatpAdAchArya, padmapAdAchArya,
sureshvarAchArya, hastAmalakAchArta, to(tro)TakAchArya
Group 3
dvaitins:
bhAskara, shivAditya, jayanta bhaTTa
advaitins:
sarvaj~nAtmamuni, avimuktAtma bhagavAn, bodhaghanAchArya, prakAshAtmayati
Group 4
dvaitins:
udayana, shrIdhara, vallabha, pArthasArathi mishra, yAmunAchArya,
yAdavaprakAsha, rAmAnujAchArya, shrIkaNTha, nimbArkAchArya
advaitins:
shrIharSha mishra, kRîShNa mishra, chidvilAsa
Group 5
dvaitins:
gangeshopAdhyAya, vardhamAnopAdhyAya
advaitins:
Anandabodhendra bhaTTaraka, AnandapUrNavidyA sAgara, j~nAnottamAchArya
Group 6
dvaitins:
madhvAchArya, trivikrama, padmanAbha
advaitins:
chitsukha, sha~NkarAnanda, shrIdhara svAmin, pratyaksvarUpa bhagavAn,
amalAnanda yati
Group 7
dvaitins:
akShobhya tIrtha, vedAnta deshika, sudarshanAchArya
advaitins:
bhAratI tIrtha, vidyAraNya, sAyaNAchArya
Group 8:
dvaitins:
jayatIrtha, ra~NgarAmAnuja, anantAchArya
advaitins:
anubhUtisvarUpAchArya, narendragiriprakAshAnanda sarasvatI
Group 9:
dvaitins:
shankara mishra, pakShadhara mishra, raghunAtha shiromaNi, vAchaspati mishra,
vallabhAchArya
advaitins:
mallaNArAdhya, nRîsimhAshrama, nArAyaNAshrama, ra~NgarAjAdhvarI, appayya
dIkShitendra, sadAnanda yogIndra, rAmatIrtha, bhaTTojI dIkShita, ra~Ngoji bhaTTa
Group 10:
dvaitins:
vyAsarAja, shrInivAsa tIrtha
advaitins:
madhusUdana sarasvatI, balabhadra, ve~NkaTanAtha, dharmarAjAdhvarIndra
Buddhist Tantra - 1
By admin on Jun 18, 2009 | In Oriental/New Age
[Many seem to hold Buddhist Tantras as being close to Hindu Tantras because of the
similarity in rituals or mantras. But a core principle or view that guides these rituals
is what really determines the outcome of the ritual and thus, the two cannot be
clubbed together. Buddhism is as different from Hinduism as Christianity or other
religions, if not more. One should look beyond the garb of culture which creates a
misnomer of similarity between the concepts of the two systems. Two systems
cannot be judged based on rituals or practices alone as philosophy is what really
defines a philosophical system. Rituals and other aspects are useful but secondary
elements of a philosophical framework. As Tathagata says, the same ritual when
employed by a Hindu gives a different result and a different one when used by a
Buddhist as the goals are different, the view behind the activity is different and the
entire perception that is key to achieving the fruit of the ritual is different. While this
aspect of right view is subtle, it does really make a difference when a lofty goal is
considered. Please note that the author of the piece below is biased towards
mahAyAna and some of the things he states should be taken with a pinch of salt.
This article, for what its worth, can be a good starter for the ignorant who see the
two systems as same or similar based on popular practices or cultural exchanges.
We can consider Jainism next.]
- By Dr. Benoytosh Bhattacharya
Both Hindus and Buddhists were alike prolific writers of Tantras and the literature
extant on them is wonderfully extensive. One of the reasons why the word Tantra
cannot be defined but can only be described is because of the fact that an
astonishing number of subjects come within its purview, not to speak of its own
numerous subdivisions. The Buddhist Tantras in outward appearance are similar to
the Hindu Tantras but in reality there is no similarity between them neither in
subject-matter, nor the philosophical doctrines embodied in them, nor in religious
principles. This is not to be wondered at since the aims and the objects of the
Buddhists are widely different from those of the Hindus. It is difficult to determine
when and under what circumstances the word Tantra came to be employed in the
sense in which it is used in this literature, nor is it possible to trace the origin of the
Tantras or the people who first introduced them. To any careful student of Sanskrit
literature it will be evident that when the magical practices become extremely
popular with one section of the Indian population, the other section takes them up
and incorporates them in its religion, mostly in a modified form so as to suit its own
requirements and tenets; and this process or emergence and relapsing goes on
continually.
The Vedic sacrifices as performed by the orthodox Brahmanic society in the very
earliest times attracted a large number of converts on whom the orthodoxy laid
down its foundation, and it can very easily be imagined from what we find now that
people in those days looked upon these sacrifices and the Brahmins performing
them with awe and reverence. The sacrifices were at one time very popular,
especially in the pre-Buddhistic period, and as a matter of fact, no undertaking of
any consequence was hazarded without a sacrifice immediately preceding it.
Sacrifices were performed mostly for obtaining happiness in this, the next and
future lives. Buddhism came in when sacrifices were the order of the day and when
numerous animals were immolated and eaten in huge assemblies. In Ashokas time,
we find sacrifices and the free use of meat in the assemblies very popular. That the
very first of a long series of rock edicts of Ashoka should deal with the stoppage of
such assemblies displays the great influence that sacrifices with their cooked meat
exercised on the minds of the Indian people. On the dismemberment of the Mauryan
Empire, the sacrifices prohibited by the Buddhist Emperor revived with great vigor
under the sAmavedI Shungas and two sacrifices were performed on a grand scale in
the very capital of the king who insulted the orthodox sacrifice.
Though Buddha is known to have been antagonistic to all sorts of sacrifices,
necromancy, sorcery, magic or mysticism, he nevertheless is credited with having
given instructions on mudrAs, maNDalas, yogas, tantras etc., so that prosperity in
this world, by virtue of these, could be attained by his less advanced disciples who
seemed to care more for this world than for the nirvana preached by him. It is also a
social fact that India in Buddhas time was so steeped in magic, sorcery, tantra and
mysticism, would hardly be able to withstand popular oppositions. A clever

organizer as the Buddha was, he did not fail to notice the importance of
incorporating such practices in his religion to make it popular from all points of view
and thereby attract more adherents. A clear proof of this is to be found in his
doctrine of Iddhis which were obtained by the more advanced disciples. The means
of attaining Iddhis or Iddhipado are also indicated. In Cullavaya V.8 Buddha
condemns Bharadvaja for wantonly showing his miraculous power for a bowl of
sandal wood. It does appear that he himself ever stressed on tantras. So long we
were ignorant about the Buddhas attitude towards the tAntric practices excepting a
few meager references in Pali literature and were unable to determine the time of
their introduction in Buddhism but shAntarakShita and his disciple kamalashIla
brought out this connection very forcibly in the tattvasamgraha and its
commentary, stating fully the reasons which made the Buddha to incorporate them
in his system:
Yato.abhyudayaniShpattiryato niHshreyasasya cha |
Sa dharma uchyate tAdRîk sarvaireva vichakShaNaiH ||
taduktamantrayogAdi niyamAdvidhivatkRîtAt |
praj~nArogyavibhutvAdidRîShTadharmA.api jAyate ||
kamalashIla adds:
tena bhagavatoktashchAsau mantrayogAdiniyamashcheti vigrahaH | yogaH
samAdhiH | Adishabdena mudrAmaNDalAdi parigrahaH ||
Tantra has been practiced by the Buddhists since the time of the Buddha, but
unfortunately we do not possess any connected account of them except for a few
works on the dhAraNIs which were translated into Chinese early at the beginning of
the Christian Era. These dhAraNIs are only unmeaning strings of words which are
said to confer great merit when muttered repeatedly for a number of times. Then
comes the worship of Buddha in the prajnApAramitA with all the paraphernalia of
worship such as we find in the tAntric worship for obtaining worldly happiness. Then
follows the different recensions of prajnApAramitA, its sUtra, hrdayasUtra, its
dhAraNI, the recitation of all of which confers the benefit of reading the whole of the
prajnApAramitA.
Side by side, the paurANika literature attracted a large number of people by their
wonderful stories holding out a promise of an award of merits to be gained by
hearing the purANas and practicing the rites and observances recommended
therein and worshipping the gods described in them. Moreover, the conception of
Gods and Goddeses in the paurANika literature was so very attractive that the
Buddhists in later times could not help incorporating the idea of godhead in their
religion. And when they actually did this, they deified all important personalities of
Buddhism, together with the deification of a large number of Buddhistic ideas and
philosophical concepts along with a few purely Hindu gods such as gaNesha,
sarasvatI etc. The Buddhists busied themselves with producing a variety of
literature on the Tantras, and during the tAntrik age thousands of works were
written. These works were readily transmitted through the Himalayan passages to
Tibet, Mangolia, and thence to China and Japan. The Tantric works, especially of the
Buddhists, whose originals in Sanskrit are lost, are now preserved in translations in
the pages of the Tibetan Tangyur. The developments on Tantra made by the
Buddhists and the extraordinary plastic art they developed did not fail again to
create an impression on the minds of the Hindus, and they readily incorporated
many ideas, doctrines and gods, originally conceived by the Buddhists in their
religion and literature. A bulk of the literature which goes by the name of the Hindu
Tantras arose almost immediately after the Buddhist ideas had established
themselves, though after the Tantric Age, even up to the last century.
Having thus given a survey of the history of tAntrik literature and the mutual
interchange of ideas, doctrines and concepts in this branch of literature, we will now
proceed to give a definition or rather a description of what is ordinarily meant by
the word Tantra. many scholars have tried to show what Tantra contains but each
and every one of their descriptions are partial and insufficient; they are bound to be
so because the writers of Tantras were most erratic and never followed any definite
plan. Moreover, the definition which holds good in the case of the Hindu Tantras is
not found adequate when applied to the Buddhist branch of this literature.
Therefore the definitions of Tantra as given by critical students are not unlike the
description of an elephant given by a number of blind men.
The Hindus will not call any work a Tantra which does not include the following
subjects among many others, for instance, the stories of the creation, destruction,
mystic charms, a description of the abode of the gods, and of holy places, the duties
of men in the four stages of life, a description of nocturnal beings, the origin of
psychic powers and celestial trees, of the position of the stars, description of vows
and observances, distinctions between purity and impurity, account of the duties of
the king, the customs of the age, and of the rules of law and of spiritual subjects.
The Hindus distinguish this shAstra from two others of a similar kind which go by
the names of Agama and yAmala. They treat of certain subjects which are not
covered by the description of the tantra given above. The characteristics of Tantra,
yAmala and Agama are given in almost every important Hindu Tantric work. The
definitions are not all alike and rarely give a complete idea, and all the definitions
taken together will not suffice to give a true account of the entire contents of this
enormous literature. In the definition given above, it will be seen that speculations
on alchemy, medicine, divination, astrology, horoscopy and many similar subjects
are not included in it though they frequently appear in tAntric literature.
Similar features present themselves in the Tantras of the Buddhists and, the range
of the numerous subjects treated in this literature will be evidenced by the two
volumes of the Catalogue of Tibetan Tangyur in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris
so far published by P. Cordier. To understand the bulk of the tAntric literature of the
Buddhists, we must first take into account that it is distributed among the three
grand divisions into which later Buddhism was divided, namely, vajrayAna,
sahajayAna and kAlachakrayAna. Besides these there were other minor yAnas with
no marked individuality, such as the tantrayAna, the bhadrayAna, etc., which may
be said to have originated from the vajrayAna, the principal yAna among the three
mentioned above. Moreover, we must also consider the numerous divisions of each
of these three powerful yAnas and many less powerful systems in all of whom the
Buddhist tAntric literature showed its great interest. The tAntric literature was
mainly written by the vajrAcharyas, and the Siddhas whose number is reputed to be
eighty-four.
The Buddhist Tantras belong more properly to mahAyAna and not hInayAna with its
subdivisions of shrAvakayAna and pratyekayana, though it is quite possible that
their followers had also some sort of magical practices current amongst them.
Works like sAdhanamAlA seem to lead us to infer that the Tantras were a
development of the yogAchAra school which evolved out of the shUnyavAda of the
mAdhyamikas; but the form or the branch of the mahAyAna that was directly
responsible in this matter seems to be a tertium quid which is known as vajrayAna,
and about which very little is known to the students of Buddhism. In sAdhanamAlA,
the word mahAyAna occurs twice and from these references we can assume that
the tAntric religion was only an outcome of mahAyAna and that the vajrayAna
acknowledged its suzerainty. The mahAyAna in the opinion of the vajrAyanists, is coextensive with what they called dharma, which they considered as eternal and to
which was given a more important place in later Buddhism, than that was assigned
by Buddha himself. The word shUnya occurs almost on every page of sAdhanamAlA
but so far as it can be ascertained, this shUnya does not represent the shUnya as
conceived by the mAdhyamika school. To the mAdhyamikas both the subject and
the object are shUnya in essence; there is no reality either of the mind or of the
external world. Obviously, this is a position which is not desirable for the
vajrAyanists because to them a positive aspect in the vijnAna is absolutely
necessary. Moreover, the mAdhyamika school is not referred to anywhere in
sAdhanamAlA except in one place where it is in the form of an epithet,
mAdhyamikarucheH, to one of the authors of the sAdhanas, namely
dharmAkaramati. But if the sAdhana itself is analyzed, ample evidence will be found
to prove that it belongs more to yogAchAra than to mAdhyamika. Though the word
yogAchAra occurs in the sAdhanamAla only twice, vijnAnavAda as formulated in this
school of thought is explained in many places and this leads us to infer that the
vajrAyana is a direct development of the yogAchara school and the vijnAnavAda it
inculcates.
vajrayAna is characterized as the path which leads to perfect enlightenment or what
they call in Sanskrit anuttarasamyaksambodhi. vajrAyana literally means the
adamantine path or vehicle, but its technical meaning is the shUnya vehicle
wherein shUnya is used in a special sense to represent vajra shUnyata is
designated as vajra because it is firm, and sound, and cannot be changed, cannot
be pierced, cannot be penetrated, cannot be burnt, and cannot be destroyed.
The mahAyanists differ from the hInayAnists in several important points, though for
both of them the realization of shUnyatA which leads to cessation of sufferings is
imperative. But the methods followed by the two branches of Buddhism are widely
different, if not altogether antagonistic. The hInayAnists are very keen on obtaining
liberation for themselves by their own efforts, without looking into the condition of
suffering humanity. They obtain nirvana and freedom from sufferings and the
consequential repetition of births and rebirths, and virtually an extinction of Self
altogether. But it must be remembered that even if they are able to gain nirvana,
they cannot know the perfect truth or remove the veil which conceals the
transcendental truth, nor can they impart the knowledge of salvation to others.
The mahAyanists on the other hand do not care for their own salvation; they are
more solicitous about the deliverance of their fellow creatures who are in the grip of
constant suffering than about their own. They are not afraid of the samsAra or the
cycle of birth and rebirth in the same sense as the hInayAnists are, but they are
always ready to undergo any troubles and sufferings if these lead even in a small
measure to the spiritual upliftment of all beings. This ideal of a mahAyanist finds
expression in the karaNDavyUha where the example of avalokiteshvara bodhisattva
is set up, who refused to accept his nirvana, thought fully entitled to it, until all
creatures of the world were in possession of the Bodhi knowledge and obtained
freedom from the worldly miseries. They therefore keep their chain of vijnAna ever
active for the benefit of all. it is said that the mahAyanist, or more properly a
bodhisattva, obtains omniscience only after he has crossed the ten bhUmis such as
are described in the dashabhUmikA shAstra. This may be considered the goal of
every bodhisattva and can be obtained either by following the tenets of the
shUnyavAda or the vijnAnavAda. The mAdhyamika theory of nirvana is shUnya or a
state about which neither existence, nor non-existence, nor a combination of the
two nor a negation of the two can be predicated. But in yogAchAra, which seems to
be only a latter development of the original shUnyavAda, the element of vijnAna or
a positive element is present in addition to shUnya or the nairAtmya. The Bodhi
mind is a chain of vijnAna which is changing every moment, the vijnAna of the
previous moment giving rise to the vijnAna of the next moment with the same
memory, quality, conformations etc., and this process goes on until the vijnAna
attains either omniscience or extinction or nirvana after having eliminated all
impurities. But once omniscience has been attained the chain of consciousness will
not strive further for nirvana but will engage itself in the spiritual uplift of all beings;
it can only get rest when the whole world is delivered.
Now this is the sort of nirvana to which the vijnAnavAdins will lead their followers. In
this nirvana, as we have already pointed out, there are two elements: vijnAna and
shUnya. The vajrayAna which is the direct outcome of the vijnAnavAdin school
introduced a new element, or the element of mahAsukha or eternal bliss and
happiness. It introduced further the theory of the five dhyAni Buddhas each
presiding over one of the five skandhas or elements and formulated the theory of
kulas or families of each of the dhyAni buddhas emerging out of them in times of
need. It introduced the worship of shaktis in Buddhism for the first time, and a host
of other things including a large number of gods and goddesses, their sAdhanas,
panegyrics etc.
It is indeed very difficult to point our finger to the scripture from which Buddhist
Tantra drew its inspiration; but a perusal of Padmavajras guhyasiddhi, a grossly
tAntric work, leads us to infer that it was the guhyasamAja which was regarded as
the most authoritative work of the school. Padmavajra not only advocates the
doctrines, tenets and theories embodied in the guhyasamAja in all matters but also
gives a succinct digest of the work which he designates shrIsamAja in his treatise.
Other writers also, for instance, indrabhUti in his work jnAnasiddhi, acknowledges
the guhyasamAja as a work of great authority and gives a summary of some of the
chapters and topics dealt with in this work. Thus, it appears to us quite probable
that this was the original work from which tantra drew its inspiration. It is believed
to have been delivered in an assembly of the faithful by the sarvatathAgata
kAyavAkchitta. The work which is written in the form of a sangIti is considered as
highly authoritative, even now, amongst vajrayAnists and is regarded as one of the
Nine Dharmas of Nepal. This is probably the first work of the Buddhist Tantra school
and asanga quite conceivably may have had something to do with it, as it is
commonly believed that the Tantras were introduced by him, from the tuShita
heaven where he was initiated in mysticism by maitreya. But of course, this view
cannot be said to be definite, or to be based on sufficiently strong evidence, and it
is very doubtful whether we will ever be in a position to trace the origin of the tantra
in the most precise manner possible.
It cannot be denied that in the very beginning of early Buddhism and even when
mahAyAnism sprang up in later times, a very strict discipline was enjoined on the
followers of the faith. On the bhikShus the rules were very strictly put into
operation; for instance, they must not have anything to do with women, must not
take any food that is forbidden etc. Wine, flesh, fish, appetizers and many similar
objects of enjoyment were specially forbidden. The rules were indeed good and
were very attractive in the time of Buddha but inasmuch as they were unnatural,
their followers could be expected to follow them only for a certain time but not
always or for centuries. It was wholly absurd to expect obedience to such strict
disciplinary measures from all members of the sangha even in Buddhas lifetime, if
not for centuries after his mahAparinirvANa. The members of the sangha must have
revolted from time to time against these unnatural rules of discipline and party
quarrels on such points were already in evidence in the second great Council when
the mahAsAnghikas were expelled from the Church by the sthaviras because the
latter were unwilling to make any concessions on ten minor points of discipline.
Rebellion against the rules on broader and more important matters of discipline
must have been in existence amongst the monks, but they could not create a party
of their own which would sufficiently be able to cope with the orthodox section
which was sure to go against them and denounce them as heretics. Those monks
who saw salvation only in leading a natural life went on devising plans and probably
by writing what we call the original Tantras which were secretly handed down
through their trusted disciples who could practice the rites only in secret. These
Tantras are in th form of sangItis and are said to have been delivered by the Buddha
in an Assembly of the Faithful. It is in this sangIiti form that all new ideas were
introduced into Buddhism and the sangItis, we must remember, were very powerful
agencies in the introduction of innovations.
The orthodox followers of the faith were sure to challenge anything that had not
been said by the Buddha and that seems to be reason for the great popularity of the
sangIti literature. The original Tantras of Buddhism were also therefore in the Sangiti
form wherein were inculcated doctrines which were diametrically opposed to the
teachings of Buddha. Easy methods leading to happiness in this world were held out
in this literature; easy paths leading to salvations were shown; great parade was
made of the merits to be gained by the repetition of the mantras, dhAraNIs,
panegyrics and worship of gods. But everywhere any casual reader can detect a
desire on the part of the authors to thwart all unnatural rules and regulations
imposed on the followers. These disciplinary rules and regulations gradually
slackened down one after another and ultimately when the vajrayAnists gained in
power and got an overwhelming majority a general revolution was declared against
the mahAyAna orthodoxy which in course of time dwindled to nothingness as it was
powerless to fight against the growing disorder among the tAntrics.
The vajrayAnists were however conscious that they were doing something which
was against religion and morality, and covert hints to justify their actions are not
altogether infrequent in their literature. Indulgence in five makAras cannot be
directly described as conducive to the good of anybody in any religion; to gain
emancipation through the agencies of women such as was advocated in vajrayAna
did not also fail to create a baneful impression on the minds of their followers.
Hence we find on their part, like their Hindu counterparts, a keen desire to justify
their broad principles, and examples of this kind may prove interesting. The
responsibilities of the Bodhisattva indeed are very heavy entailing untold sacrifices.
They have to sacrifice everything for the good of suffering humanity; they have to
sacrifice their family, children, worldly enjoyments for the benefit of all beings in
order to lead them to the path of salvation. The Bodhisattvas cannot obtain their
salvation even if they are entitled to it. If these Bodhisattvas committed little
mistakes such as taking wine, being in the company of women, indulging in good
food, fish, meat etc., these certainly could not be taken into account in view of the
colossal sacrifices the Bodhisattvas were required to make daily for the good of the
others.
Later on this idea changed, and the vajrayAnists gave a blank charter by boldly
declaring that there is nothing in the world that cannot be done by the Bodhisattva
who has taken a vow to emancipate the world. It is of course very interesting to
note in this connection that ultimately in the tAntric literature, the vow to
emancipate the world was reduced to a mere convention, and though every
vajrayAnist had to express this pious wish, indulgence in all actions for which
common men are ordinarily doomed to hell were the only things practiced by them
to attain Siddhi. indrabhUti who was one of the greatest diffusers of tantra says in
his jnAnasiddhi that by those identical actions which make ordinary men rot in hell
for hundreds of crores of cycles, the yogis obtain emancipation. They went a degree
still further and in an authoritative tAntric work, we find the following still bolder
declaration:
sambhogArthamidam sarvam traidhAtukamasheShataH |
nirmitam vajranAthena sAdhakAnAm hitAya cha ||
But the sAdhaka has to see that his mind is not troubled or that he is not attached
to anything, meaning thereby to any special food or woman. If the mind is troubled
once, emancipation is considered difficult to obtain. Anangavajra says, Without
prajnApAramita emancipation is not possible, and prajnApAramitA resides in
women. Emancipation can only be obtained by coming in contact with any woman
of low origin or high or whether mother, sister or other relatives. vajrayAnists went
beyond due limits in their spite against the strict rules of morality, and they violated
all of them and plunged headlong into the worst immorality, which has been
characterized by Raja Rajendra Lal Mitra in the following most significant words:
Seeing however that the work in which they occur is reckoned to be the Sacred
Scripture of millions of intelligent human beings, and their counterparts exist in
almost the same words in Tantras which are held equally sacred by men who are by
no means wanting in intellectual faculties of a high order, we can only deplore the
weakness of human understanding which yields to such delusions in the name of
religion, and the villainy of the priesthood which so successfully inculcates them.
Probably in the course of time, the vajrayAnists would have stepped back and
brought in a more healthy tone to their religion, but by the time a reaction could set
in Mohammadans struck with force.
Further, the vajrayAna incorporated many leading tenets of mantrayAna which was
a form of mahAyAna Buddhism, where mantras, mudrAs, maNDalas and gods were
given the greatest prominence for the attainment of Siddhis and nirvana. The
earliest book of this class is the Vidyadharapitaka which has been characterized by
Hiuen Thsang as belonging to the canonical literature of the mahAsAnghikas. But
this unfortunately is not available to us in original Sanskrit and we cannot say
anything with regard to its subject matter or the particular tenets inculcated
therein. But the case of the other work entitled the manjushrImUlakalpa discovered
by the world famous scholar the late mahAmahopAdhyAya T Ganapati Shastri is
otherwise. The text of the book which forms a part of the vaipulya-sUtras of the
mahAyAna school is decidedly the earliest work of mantrayAna available at present.
It is written in the sangIti form, and in the same style as other mahAyAna sUtras are,
in prose and verse, and in an archaic style very closely resembling the gAthA style.
This book must have been very popular even after the destruction of Buddhism in
India as will be evident from the fact that the book was copied only about four
hundred years back in a monastery of Southern India. The manjushrImUlakalpa
deals with the formulae and practices which lead to the material prosperity of the
followers of mahAyAna, and probably belongs after the time of the composition of
the amitAyus sUtra which ushered in the conceptions of amitAbha or
avalokiteshvara for the first time in mahAyAna. The amitAyus sUtra was first
translated into Chinese at a period between A.D. 148 and 170 and hence the time of
its composition may be fixed at about 100 A.D. or a little later. The
manjushrImUlakalpa in that case would be only about a hundred years later than
the amitAyus sUtra. If we take guhyasamAja as the very first and the most
authoritative work of the vajrayAna school, we must admit also that much time
must have elapsed between the age of manjushrImUlakalpa and the age of
guhyasamAja.
The beginning of the sangIti in the mUlakalpa is in the orthodox style in opposition
to the tAntric style which is decidedly later and where in the very opening scene
Buddha is introduced in the company of a large number of women instead of an
assembly of pure and pious bodhisattvas as in the case of the earlier sangItis. The
doctrine of the five dhyAni Buddhas or even their names and mudrAs and their
families are all absent in the mUlakalpa while all these are present in the
guhyasamAja. Moreover, the mantras and mudrAs which were later on systematized
in the vajrayAna book are found scattered in the body of the text of the mUlakalpa
in a disorganized manner. The mantras of some of the dhyAni Buddhas themselves
are found in the mUlakalpa though not exactly with the same meaning or form in
which they are met with in the guhyasamAja. Furthermore, the example of a
Bodhisattva disobeying all rules and obtaining emancipation by the five makAras
and other generally prohibited rites something that Hindu tantra later absorbed
has not made its appearance in the mUlakalpa. The kalpa indeed speaks of the
mantrayAna but it does not refer to vajrayAna which is mentioned for the first time
in guhyasamAja. Under these circumstances, we may be justified in calling the
mUlakalpa as one of the earliest mahAyAna sUtra works on which perhaps is based
the original foundation of the vajrayAna system. But one careful will not fail to
notice that the mUlakalpa is the product behind which there is a history of
development of several centuries. And probably, if we could go to the root of this
mantrayAna, we would have voiced the opinion of shAntarakShita and kamalashIla
that instructions on Tantras, mantras, mudrAs and maNDalas were delivered by
Buddha himself for the benefit of such of his followers who cared more for the
material prosperity than the spiritual. Again, this goal seems to be re-stated
differently over a period of time as attaining both spiritual and material benefits
simultaneously.
We can see thus that the vajrayAna took into account all the good things, tenets,
philosophical notions and theories, and incorporated all that was best in Buddhism
and probably in Hinduism also, and it was owing to this that it attained great
popularity. It satisfied everybody, the cultured and the uncultured, the pious and the
habitual sinners, the lower and the higher ranks of people and devotees. The
vajrayAna which was in essence as very demoralizing religion so to say that went
against all the teachings of Buddha and of great patriarchs of Buddhism, could be
popular only because it could cater for all tastes and because it was cosmopolitan in
character.
It is difficult to suggest the exact place where the Buddhist Tantra originated. The
introduction of Shakti worship in religion is so un-Indian that we are constrained to
admit it as an external or foreign influence. Some of the Tantras also support this
view, like nityA tantra as pointed by harabhaTTa shAstri. But these tAntrikas who
incorporated shakti worship into their religion had some strongholds of their own
from where the Tantras were disseminated amongst the Indian public and became
popular. In the sAdhanamAlA, we find mention of four pIThas or sacred spots of the
vajrayAnists, namely, kAmAkhyA, shrIhaTTa, pUrNagiri and UDDiyAna. The
identification of the first two is certain. Both are situated in the province of Assam.
kAmAkhyA is now known both as kAmAkhyA or kAmarUpa which is a few miles off
from Gauhati. shrIhaTTa or sirihaTTA is modern Sylhet. The identification of the two
others has given rise to much speculation and theorizing. pUrNagiri is sometimes
identified with modern Poona but this is very doubtful. uDDiyAna is by far the most
frequently mentioned among the four pIThas and its exact situation is a matter of
great controversy. L A Waddel identified this uDDiyAna with udyAna in the Swat
Valley. M Sylvain Levi will place uDDiyAna somewhere in Kashgarh. M M Haraprasad
Shastri definitely placed it in Orissa. We supported the third theory in several
instances and assigned grounds. indrabhUti is described as a king of uDDiyAna, and
guru padmasambhava as his son. Padmasambhava married a sister of
shAntarakShita in the latters native place in Zahor. shAntarakShita belonged to the
royal family of Zahor, and therefore it is hardly possible that the king of this place
would allow his daughter to be married to a vagabond who comes from such a long
distance as Kashgarh or Swat, being driven out of the kingdom by his father
indrabhUti. We can explain this marriage only if uDDiyAna and Zahor are believed to
be nearer to each other. Moreover, uDDiyAna is mentioned along with kAmAkhyA
and sirihaTTa which, as we can see, are very near each other.
uDDiyAna, according to the authority of Pag Sam Jon Zan, is the place where tAntric
Buddhism first developed. In the history of the eighty-four siddhas uDDiyAna is
described as containing 500,000 towns and divided into two kingdoms. In the one
called Shambhala indrabhUti ruled, and in the other lankApurI jalendra ruled, whose
son had for his wife indrabhUtis sister lakShmImkarA who became a Siddha after
which indrabhUti handed over the kingdom to his son. This also does not clear up
our difficulties but the identification of uDDiyAna becomes dependent on that of
lankApuri which is generally identified with a peak in the amarakaNTaka mountain, a
place in Assam, Central India or Ceylon. Now if we accept the identification of Lanka
in Assam, then uDDiyAna will have to be located in the same country probably in
the Western part of it, and this seems to be more likely as kAmAkhyA and Sylhet are
both situated in Assam.
Moreover, the first siddhAchArya Luipa in the Pag Sam Jon Zan is described as
sprung from the fisherman caste of uDDiyAna who rose to be the writer in the
employ of the king of uDDiyAna and was then known as samantashubha. He ment
sharvarIpA who initiated him into the mysteries of tantra. but in the Tangyur
Catelogue he is characterized as a mahAyogIshvara and what is important, as a
Bengali! Haraprasad Shastri discovered some Bengali songs composed by him and
published them in his now classical work Bauddha Gan O Doha with a short account
of the author and his songs in the introduction. luipA seems to have composed a
book of songs entitled luhipAdagItikA, which is now preserved in Tibetan translation
only and from which only a few songs are extant in the original language.
Buddhist Tantra - 2
There is then an apparent discrepancy in the two statements about the native place
of Luipa, the testimony of Pag Sam Jon Zan will take it to be uDDiyAna whereas the
Tangyur Catelogue will have it in Bengal. There is, however, in our opinion no
discrepancy in the two statements because LuipA can belong to uDDiyAna and still
be a Bengali. The identification of uDDiyAna not being settled under the
circumstances enumerated above it is quite possible to locate it in Bengal. If
however lankApura, the counterpart of uDDiyAna is located according to Prof. Jacobi
in Assam, then uDDiyAna also will have to be located in Assam possibly in the
Western part of it which also is a part of Bengal. It is then in uDDiyAna that tantra
first developed and was probably transmitted to the other pIThas kAmAkhyA,
sirihaTTa and pUrNagiri and thence to the rest of India.
From the foregoing it will appear that it is indeed very difficult to trace the origin of
the strange religion of vajrayAna, that also greatly influenced current day Hindu
Tantra, but it is much more difficult to attempt to build a chronology of vajrayAna.
But a beginning has to be made somewhere. Let us attempt, therefore, to make out
a beginning in a way which may be above adverse criticism. The Buddhists
generally believe that the tantras were introduced into Buddhism by Asanga, the
elder brother of Vasubandhu, who flourished as we have shown elsewhere between
AD 280 360. But what he taught and what he introduced the history does not tell.
We may however hold that he introduced something very questionable into
Buddhism. The accounts of tArAnAtha point unmistakably to the fact that the tAntric
knowledge was handed down in secret in a period between Asanga and Dharmakirti;
but the material to construct the chronology of vajrayAna literature consists in some
important guru paramparAs or the succession lists of Gurus and disciples through
whom a particular Tantra has been handed down. Two such lists prove very valuable
in determining the chronology of vajrayAna: one given in the Tangyur Catelogue of P
Cordier and another in the Pag Sam Jon Zan quoted in the edition of the
chakrasamvara tantra by the late Kazi Dawasam Dup.
The first gives the succession as follows: Padmavajra, Anangavajra, Indrabhuti,
Lakshmi, Lilavajra, dArikapA, Sahajayogini ChintA, Dombi Heruka. The second
succession list on which we can rely for the present is the list of Gurus and disciples
through whom Chakrasamvara Tantra was handed down, namely: Saraha,
Nagarjuna, Shavaripa, Luipa, Vajraghanta, Kacchapa, Jalandhari, Krishnacharya,
Guhya, Vijayapa, Tailopa and Naropa.
It is natural to assume that the tAntric gurus were very particular about their
succession lists and each important Tantra may be believed to have a list of this
kind. When these Tantras were translated into Tibetan the translators occasionally
noted down the tradition of the Tantras as it was handed down through a succession
of Gurus and disciples. It is in this way some lists have been preserved and at
present constitute our only authentic material in determining the chronology of this
extensive literature. The two lists above stated are pretty long cover a considerably
long period, and seem to be fairly authentic. In these two lists, the point of contact
is represented by Jalandhari who in the second list was the first to profess the
Hevajra Tantra and to compose a work on the subject.
When we fix the time of Saraha we practically go to the root of the Buddhist Tantra
or tantrayAna, because Saraha is reputed to be one of the chief promulgators of
tantra. both tArAnAtha and the author of Pag Sam Jon Zan admit that Saraha was
one of the earliest writers and diffusers of tAntric doctrines and practices. While
mentioning the origin of some of the most important tantras, tArAnAtha gives us the
information that Saraha (633 AD) introduced the buddhakapAla tantra, luipA (669
AD) the yoginIsancharyA, kambala and padmavajra (693 AD) the hevajra tantra,
krShNAchArya (717 AD) the sampuTatilaka, lalitavajra (693 AD) the three divisions
of the krShNaymAritantra, gambhIravajra the vajrAmrta, kukkurI (693 AD) the
mahAmAyA and Pito the kAlachakra. It is interesting to note that the name of
Saraha has also been placed on the top of the succession list of a Tantra of no less
celebrity than the Chakrasamvara Tantra and that the names of at least four among
the Gurus in tArAnAthas list are in chronological order, namely, Saraha, Luipa,
Padmavajra and Krishnacharya in accordance with the proposed calculation.
Let us now see how the account of Saraha as given by tArAnAtha is corroborated by
the author of the Pag Sam Jon Zan. According to him, rAhulabhadra or Saraha was
the name of a Buddhist sage born of a Brahmin and a DAkinI, in the city of rAjnI. He
was an adept both in Brahminical and the Buddhist lores and flourished during the
reign of king chandanapAla of prAchya. He worked some miracles in the presence of
king ratnaphala and his Brahmin minister and thereby converted them to the
Buddhist faith. Afterwards he became the high priest of nAlanda. It is also related of
him that he visited Orissa where from one Covesa Kalpa he learnt the mantrayAna,
and from there proceeded to Maharashtra. There he united in Yoga with a female
ascetic who had approached him in the guise of an archers daughter. Having
performed the mahAmudrA ritual with her, he attained Siddhi. He was
thenceforward called Saraha. He used to sing Doha of mysticism and thereby
converted 5000 people and their king to Buddhism. He composed a large number of
works in Sanskrit and several among them are preserved in the Tibetan Tangyur. All
our authorities, namely, tArAnAtha, the author of Pag Sam Jon Zan and the
Chakrasamvara succession list are agreed on one point at least that SarahapAda,
also known as SarahapA, Sarahabhadra and rAhulabhadra, was one of the earliest
Buddhists responsible for diffusing the tAntric knowledge and popularizing it.
The next author of importance is nAgArjuna (AD 645) who is, of course, different
from the author of the same name who is regarded as the founder of the
mAdhyamika school of Buddhist philosophy. Absurd accounts are recorded about the
life of this nAgArjuna and wild stories are told of his stupendous magical feats. M
Wallester, after a thorough investigation of the accounts of nAgarjuna from Tibetan
and Chinese sources, has come to the conclusion that there was no such person as
nAgArjuna existent on the face of the earth. From his learned and scholarly
observations it can be easily seen that the Tibetan sources have hopelessly mixed
up together the accounts of the nAgArjuna the disciple of ashvaghoSha with the
nAgArjuna who was a disciple of Saraha. One flourished in the first and second
quarter of the second century and was the guru of Aryadeva, while the other
flourished somewhere in the middle of the seventh century, the two names thus
being separated by nearly five hundred years. But as these two are taken
erroneously to mean one and the same person a serious confusion has arisen. The
Chinese version which does not take into account the tAntric nAgArjuna is less
confusing though it also abounds in absurd stories about his life. We are not,
however, here concerned with the accounts of nagArjuna, the founder of the
mAdhyamika school, but we can easily prove the second ot the tAntric nAgArjuna to
be a historical person and a follower of vajrayAna. Two sAdhanas of his are recorded
in the sAdhanamAlA one for the worship of vajratArA while the other relates to the
worship of ekajaTA. It is distinctly said that nAgArjuna rescued this sAdhana from
the country of Bhota which may be identified with Tibet. The worship of ekajaTA
appears to have been current in Tibet, and the goddess probably belonged to the
primitive Bon religion of that country, and it was nAgArjuna who for the first time
introduced this goddess into Buddhism. We can thus see that ekajaTA, variously
known as ugratArA, mahAchInatArA etc. is comparatively a recent introduction in
Indian religions, and definitely say that any work, Buddhist or Hindu, which may
refer to this goddess must be later than the time in which nAgArjuna flourished.
nAgArjuna was quite famous and wrote a large number of tAntric works the
translations of many of which are still preserved in the Tibetan Tangyur.
ShavarIpA (657 AD) is our third author who is described in Pag Sam Jon Zan as
having belonged to the hill tribe called shabaras in Bengal where he met nAgArjuna
during the latters residence in that country, and embraced tantra. After being
initiated by him, along with his two wives Loki and Guni, he attained to sainthood.
This ShavarIpA was also a historical person and has composed a sAdhana of
kurukullA. He is also the author of a number of melodious songs in the vernacular of
his country which according to the authority of Pag Sam Jon Zan was Bangala.
LuipA is termed as the first siddhAcharya by the Tibetans. Leaving aside the next
two Gurus such as Vajraghanta and Kacchapa about whom we have practically very
little historical information, we pass on to another famous name in Tantric
Buddhism. This is Padmavajra (AD 693) the first name in the first succession list
above referred to and the author of a large number of works out of which only two
are extant in Sanskrit. According to tArAnatha, he was the first to introduce the
hevajra tantra in vajrayAna which he did along with his collaborator kambalapAda.
kukkurIpAda a contemporary of his is believed to have introduced into vajrayAna
the mahAmAyAtantra. Padmavajra was again a historical figure and we have
discovered a very interesting work of his called guhyasiddhi, which seems to have
been a work of great authority in Tibet even so late as 1747 AD when Pag Sam Jon
Zan was written. The whole work is written in what is called the twilight language
but still it can be easily seen that he advocates mystic and somewhat objectionable
rites and practices, which he terms secret rites. According to Padmavajra, such
practices and rites were first formulated by the Buddha and were first recorded in
the shrIsamAja which is only another name of the guhyasamAja. Beyond the
shrIsamAja, he says there is no better treasure in the three worlds. In line with
guhyasamAja, he follows the doctrine of the five dhyAni buddhas and says that by
these five forms alone Sambodhi can be attained in accordance with the
pronouncement of the tathAgatas. The five forms are: shAsvata/vairochana,
akShobhya, ratna, Ayus (amitAbha) and kulAdya (amoghasiddhi).
Dombi Heruka is recognized as one of the eighty-four siddhas and wrote several
works of vajrayAna and sahajayAna. He composed a sAdhana for goddess nairAtmA
and It appears that he followed the hevajra tantra. His other works include
dAsatattva, yogiyoginI nAma sAdhAraNArthopadesha, nairAtmayoginI sAdhana,
gaNachakravidhi, ekavIrAsAdhana, nAmasangItivrtti, guhyavajra tantrarAja vrtti etc.
DombI formulates that the worship of Kula is the most important in tAntric religion
and it appears this is the first connotation of the word kula in this context. Without it
no success can be achieved, but with it great success is possible of attainment.
While explaining the word kula, he says, they are five in number and they originate
from the dhyAni Buddhas: akShobhya, vairochana, amitAbha, ratnasambhava and
amoghasiddhi and this is the reason why they are called kuleshas. The thunderbolt
family originates from akShobhya, the Lotus family from amitAbha, the Jewel family
from Ratnasambhava, the Disc family from Vairochana and the Action family from
Amoghasiddhi. From this word kula the words kulAchAra, kaulika are derived. The
kaulas declare themselves to be Tantric Hindus. From the literature of the extant
Kaulism, the meaning of the word Kula is not consistent. Moreover, the large
number of interpretations shows definitely that the Hindu counterparts were not
certain about the meaning of the word. But the meaning in the Buddhist sense is
quite clear and unequivocal; they give not more than one interpretation of the word.
The kaulas according to them, mean the worshippers or the followers of the
originators of the five families, namely of the five dhyAni Buddhas. The question will
then arise as to whether the first set of Kaulas were Hindus or Buddhists. We are not
here to discuss this question in spite of the earlier hint. There is indeed very little
difference between the kaulAchara and the tAntric bauddhAchAra, because in both
the desire to do prohibited things in the fullest extent is present.
Buddhist Tantra - 3
Conception of Guru
In ancient India for all kinds of religious and secular knowledge the necessity of a
Guru or preceptor was always felt, but nowhere is reverence to the Guru so much in
evidence as in vajrayAna. Nothing, they affirm, can be achieved without a preceptor.
It is impossible to follow mystic doctrines and practices without a preceptor. What

particular Mantra or mystic practice is suitable to a person who is already initiated
must be told by the preceptor whose duty it is also to inform him of the way in
which it should be repeated and the number of times it should be muttered in order
to obtain the different kinds of siddhis. The Buddhists always had preceptors
practically since the time of Buddha, but the more Buddhism became mystified in
its later stages, the greater was the necessity of preceptors that was felt, and, in
vajrayAna, we find the position of the Guru altogether paramount. He is idolized as
the Buddha, he is the sugata, he is dharmakAya, and the bestowal of emancipation
lies in his power; he is omniscient and without his kindness nothing can be
achieved. In every tAntric work there is an evidence of the high esteem in which the
Gurus were held and, in many works, the characteristics of the Guru and the
disciple are enumerated. Simply because a mantra is known it does not necessarily
follow that by muttering it one can attain perfection. It is impossible, and it is
against the principles of vajrayAna. The worshipper is first to be initiated by a Guru,
and he just obtain the different kinds of abhiSheka from the Guru, and then, if all his
instructions are followed in the most precise manner possible, then and then alone
siddhi or perfection is possible of attainment. Guruship is a position which is very
difficult to attain; and unless one answers to the characteristics laid down in
vajrayAna literature, he is no Guru.
Regulations
In view of the conflicting statements regarding the restrictions imposed on the
worshippers in sAdhanamAlA, it becomes difficult to say as to how the lives of the
worshippers were regulated in those times, and what mandates of the Church they
had to follow. We find, for instance, that the worshippers must abstain from taking
non-vegetarian and other objectionable items of food, such as onions, oil, salt etc.,
and must not violate the rules of strict celibacy. In other places it is said that the
offerings should consist of flesh, wine and other objectionable articles. In one place
it is said that worship should be done after purifying the body by bath and by
observing the rules of celibacy. In other places, again, contrary to the above, no
restriction is laid down either of place or of any particular food. Again, we also meet
with a general rule that the worshipper obtains perfection by the muttering of the
mantras only, even without drawing the maNDala or purifying himself by fasting.
The reason for this contradiction seems to be that the vajrayAnists recognized the
existence of different grades among the worshippers, and legislated for different
classes beginning from a strict observance of vinaya rules in the lowest ranks to the
stage of no restriction in the highest ranks. indrabhUti recognized three classes of
disciples, as mRdu, Madhya and adhimAtra, who had different degrees of mental
development, and prescribed for them according to their mental capacities different
regulations for their spiritual uplift. Advayavajra classified Buddhists as Shaikashas
and Ashaikashas and prescribed the strictest rules for the former who were less
advanced. The latter being much more advanced in the matter of spiritual progress
were allowed to follow such advanced practices as are prescribed in the
anuttarayoga tantras.
Our late lamented friend Kazi Dawasam Dup has given us also a classification of the
vajrayAna; he divides it into six stages, though, of course, he regarded the different
divisions as pertaining to mantrayAna. The aforesaid divisions are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
kriyA tantrayAna
charyA/upAya tantrayAna
yoga tantrayAna
mahAyoga tantrayAna
anuttarayoga tantrayAna
atiyoga tantrayAna
We do not know on what authority this classification is based as there is little hope
of knowing it as the revered Kazi is now no more. It is to be pointed out in this
connection that this elaborate classification was unknown in India where only the
following were known:
1.
2.
3.
4.
kriya tantra
charyA tantra
yoga tantra
anuttarayoga tantra
These four terms are more or less frequently met with in Buddhist tAntric literature
and as such they make their appearance in the sAdhanamAlA also. Beginners and
initiates into the mysteries of vajrayAna were, of course, admitted in the lowest
ranks, for instance, in the kriyAtantra where strict rules, discipline and celibacy were
enjoined on them until they were considered fit to be raised to the higher class. The
yogatantra appears to have been reserved for those who were considered fit to
come in contact with the shaktis, while the anuttarayogins belonged to the highest
class and were immune from all laws, human or divine. They were called Siddhas
and were believed, to be inpossession of extraordinary powers of working miracles
and performing prodigious feats. The traditional number of the siddhas is
recognized as eighty-four and they mostly belonged to the pAla period of Bengal
History. The Tibetans are supposed to have preserved a history of these eighty four
Siddhas and this has been translated into German by A Grunwedel and published as
Die Geschichten der Vierundachtzig Zauberer (Mahasiddhas).
Buddhist Tantra - 4
The mantras or mystic syllables constitute the backbone of tAntric worship and of
vajrayAna; they are of innumerable varieties such as bIja, hrdaya, upahrdaya, pUjA,
arghya, puShpa, dhUpa, dIpa, naivedya, netra, shikhA, astra, rakShA and so forth.
These mantras are mostly unmeaning words but they sometimes disclose distinctly
the influence of a language now unknown. It is however impossible to say how
these mantras were introduced in ancient India; the Vedic hymns were indeed called
mantras but they had their meaning. But these tAntric mantras are in most cases
meaningless strings of words. The vajrayAnists of course, in several instances,
attempted to trace the origin of certain mantras to Buddha himself as their
originator. The mantras of vajrayAna seem to be a development of the dhAraNis
contained in the vidyAdharapITaka to which a reference has been given by Hiuen

Thsang. These dhAraNais existed in Buddhism from very ancient times and seemed
to have been introduced for the benefit of the less advanced followers who did not
care so much for their nirvana as they did for their material prosperity in this world.
Such recruits to Buddhism were enjoined to read some of the sUtras which however
proved to be beyond their intelligence. For their benefit, these had to be shortened
into dhAraNis and they had to commit them to memory. This seems to be the
process in which the sUtras underwent a change in very ancient times, and
ultimately when they were further reduced they gave rise to Mantra. For example,
aShTasAhasrikA prajnApAramitA is too stupendous for any tolerably learned
Buddhist to read through and understand, not to speak of the illiterate mass which
were mostly responsible for the great popularity of mahAyAna. They cannot indeed
read this vast literature for acquiring merit; for them something shorter was
necessary. prajnApAramitA with its eight thousand stanzas was therefore reduced to
a hundred, and, ultimately, to a very few stanzas which became known as the
prajnApAramitA hrdaya sUtra which was further reduced to make room for the
prajnApAramitA dhAraNI. The next step in this chain of evolution is in the formation
of a prajnApAramitA mantra which makes its appearance in the sAdhanamAlA, and
this again led to the conception of her bIja in one syllable pram in response to which
the shUnya may transform itself in the form of the goddess prajnApAramitA, a
veritable metamorphosis of the prajnApAramitA literature. The origin of tAntric
mantras thus can be traced through the successive stages of the Buddhist
literature; when, however, we turn our attention to Hindu literature, we are
surprised to find that the tAntric mantras suddenly make their entry without
showing many traces of the earlier and crude stages of development. To our mind,
this seems to be a sufficient reason for believing the Hindu mAntric system to be
later than the Buddhist vajrayAna and for holding that they were incorporated into
Hinduism bodily from Buddhism.
The sAdhana for jAngulI which is in the form of a sangIti is said to have been
delivered by Buddha himself. In the sAdhana of vajrasarasvatI it is said that this
sAdhana has been composed in accordance with the instructions of the sugata. With
reference to the mantra, om picu picu prajnAvivardhini jvala jvala medhAvardhani
dhiri dhiri buddhivardhini svAhA, the sAdhana says that this mantra was delivered
by Buddha himself. The famous logician shAntarakShita and his erudite disciple
kamalashIla both of whom belonged to the eighth century are of opinion that the
Buddha instructed the people in the mantras, maNDalas, etc. so that they might
obtain prosperity in this world (tattvasamgraha). From these facts we can easily
maintain that Buddha introduced some sort of mysticism into his religion which, in
later times owing to a variety of influences, developed into a full-fledged mystic
system in the form of vajrayAna.
The vajrayAnists maintain that the mantras are endowed with great powers. The
passages showing this faith on their part are too frequent and eloquent. In one
place it is said: What is there impossible for the mantras to perform if they are
applied according to rules? In another place, it is said that through the repeated
mutterings of the mantra, so much power is generated that it can astonish the
whole world. The mantras by their power can even confer the Buddhahood; the
merits that accrue from the mutterings of the mantra of mahAkAla are so numerous
that all the Buddhas taken together cannot count them even if they were to count
without cessation for a number of days and nights. The five greatest sins according
to Buddhism are the five Anantaryas but these can be easily washed away and
perfection can be gained if the mantra of lokanAtha is repeated. By the repition of
the mantra of khasarpaNa, the Buddhahood becomes as easy of access as the
badaraka fruit on the palm of the hand. By the dhAraNI of avalokiteshvara, even an
ass can keep three hundred stanzas in memory. The mantra of ekajaTA is said to be
so powerful that the moment it is muttered a man becomes free from his danger, he
is always followed by good fortune and his enemies are all destroyed and without
doubt he becomes as pious as the Buddha. Examples of this kind can be easily
multiplied from the sAdhanamAlA. Lest the people prove doubting, which they are
always apt to do, the sAdhanamAlA gives from time to time the assurance that the
power of the mind is extraordinary and one should not doubt what is said about the
efficacy of the mantras.
It is said that the mantras are only effective when they are applied strictly in
accordance with the rules. The rules are strict and minute, and so numerous that it
is extremely improbable that any mantra is capable of being applied in strict
conformity to rules, and this is a factor which is apt to discourage enthusiasts and
new recruits. But whether the mantras which are not recited according to the letter
of the rules, but in conformity with them as far as possible, can give any results, is
answered probably in token of encouragement to new-comers and enthusiasts. You
should not be sorry, says kumudAkaramati, because you are not able to apply the
mantra in accordance with the rules stated before. At least you should perform the
rite of self-protection and thinking of the closure of the boundary (sImAbandhana)
and of worship, you should repeat the mantras as long as you can and aim at
perfection. In accordance with your powers and actions, you will certainly obtain
results. The repetition of the mantras, however, has to be done with the greatest
care, and, in several instances, the texts give directions for proper repetition. For
instance, they should not be recited too quickly, nor too slowly. The mind at the
time of recitation should be free from all bad thoughts and completely concentrated
on the letters of the mantra which should be repeated so long as there is no feeling
of tiredness.
The mantras are considered most sacred by the vajrayAnists and the accuracy of
these mantras were zealously guarded by them, in much the same way as the vedic
mantras, by means of several devices. These mantras are composed usually in
ordinary prose but occasionally in an enigmatic language the meaning of which
sometimes becomes difficult to understand. The mantras are done into prose as
well into mnemonic verses for the obvious purpose of memorizing. These verses are
extremely curious and give practically no meaning to the ordinary readers.
A peculiar feature of vajrayAna worship lies in its doctrine of ahamkAra or
identification of the bodhichitta with the deity worshipped. This doctrine is explained
thus: I am the goddess and the goddess is in me. After ahamkAra the worshipper
should conceive himself as the deity with the same complexion, form and limbs as
described in the sAdhana and should instead of worshipping any external object,
contemplate worship of himself. It was suggested elsewhere that this identification
of the worshipper with the deity worshipped was a new feature introduced by the
Buddhists into tantra. This has met with a general criticism from a number of
noteworthy scholars including A C Coomaraswami and O C Ganguli. It has been
urged that in view of the great antiquity of the yoga philosophy the view that the
doctrine of ahamkAra is a new introduction is untenable. To this it may be said here
that the theory of the absorption of the individual Self with the Primordial Matter or
union of the Self with a Personal God by the practice of yoga, and thereby the
attainment of perfect knowledge and the consequential freedom from the bondage
of transmigration, was started in India from ancient times, and traces of it can be
found in the upaniShads of very great antiquity, even greater than that of the yoga
system. Nothing therefore can be said to be a new introduction. But still we say, for
instance, that the vedAnta doctrines originated with shankara though previous to
that there was a school of aupaniShada philosophers; that shankara systematized
the doctrine of mAyA though Buddhists from nAgarjunas time all acknowledged and
wrote about the same doctrine in their works. When it is said that this element of
ahamkAra was introduced by vajrayAna for the first time it was said with reference
to the identification of the worshipper with the deity who is a transformation of the
great Reality known as shUnya not only for the purpose of obtaining emancipation
as is found in yoga but also for bewitching women, destroying foes and their
dwelling, and even for the extraction of snake poison or for relieving a woman of the
pains of labor. The ahamkAra is in fact imperative in the vajrayAna form of worship
and this introduction is considered to be new in view of the multifarious purposes it
was called upon to serve.
In some of the Hindu tantras the doctrine of identification or ahamkAra is indeed to
be met with, and this fact gives rise to the controversy as to which Tantras, those of
Hinduism or Buddhism, are older. We have sufficient reasons to hold that the Hindu
tantras were introduced on the model of the Buddhist Tantras and the Hindus
borrowed many customs, practices, deities, and mantras. The very kulAchAra seems
to have been originally conceived by the Buddhists and probably the forefathers of
a large number of kaulas today were direct disciples of Buddhists in the tAntric age.
Buddhist Tantra - 5
The deities of the vajrayAna are all manifestations of shUnya. Advayavajra says in a
very characteristic verse that the deities are nothing but manifestations of shUnya
and are by nature non-existent, and whenever there is manifestation it must be
shUnya in essence. The process of evolution of deities from shUnya has four stages:
the first is the right perception of the shUnyatA or voidness, the second is its
connection with the germ syllable, the third is the conception of an icon and the
fourth is the external representation of the deity. This statement which occurs both
in the sAdhanamAlA and in advayavajra is a very strong argument against the
theory that later Buddhism was nothing but gross idolatry. This shows on the other
hand that their conception of godhead was philosophically most profound, a parallel
to which is scarcely to be met with in any other Indian religion.
Occasionally the sAdhanamAlA gives us information as to the residence of the
vajrayAna deities and as far as it can be gathered from some stray references we
can definitely say that the abode of these gods was in the akaniShTha heaven which
is the topmost of the rUpa heavens. As has been pointed out before, the deities of
the vajrayAna system represent the shUnya and they are shUnya in essence with
the three elements shUnya, vijnAna and mahAsukha. They are rather the voluntary
manifestations of the shUnya in accordance with the bIjamantras uttered by the

worshippers, with an appearance suitable for the function he has to discharge. In
the SadhanamAlA in one instance while characterizing manjushrI it gives us a piece
of very important information and calls him as equal to all tathAgatas who are none
but the five dhyAni Buddhas. This implies that each deity is an embodiment of the
five skandhas over each of which one dhyAni Buddha presides, such as akShobhya
for vijnAna, vairochana for rUpa, ratnasambhava for vedanA, amitAbha for samjnA
and amoghasiddhi for samskAra. When one element among the five predominates
the deity is considered to be an emanation of that dhyAni Buddha who presides
over the element in question. When such deity is represented in art, he bears on his
head the same dhyAni Buddha and is considered as his offspring and as belonging
to his family. The five dhyAni Buddhas are generally represented on the aureole
over the head of the principal deity.
It may be noted that texts are very particular in having a color applied to all the
deities. This color has a deep significance and is a thing which should not be passed
over unnoticed. The dhyAni Buddhas, it may be remembered, have each a different
color and they preside over one or the other of the skandas, also five in number.
The deities emanating from each of these five dhyAni Buddhas constitute the family
of each. Ordinarily, the whole family of a particular dhyAni Buddha should have the
same color as that of their spiritual father. Thus the family of akShobhya, the
embodiment of vijnAna skandha, should have the blue color because it is the color
of the dhyAni Buddha akShobhya. This is, of course, the general rule but numerous
exceptions are also met with. Take, for instance, a deity who is very popular and has
the power to grant success in a variety of protective and destructive rites. The deity
cannot have the same color in all the rites because the difference in rite demands a
difference in form and color, posture, and so forth. In the sAdhanamAlA it is said
that the color of the deities vary in accordance with the functions they have to
discharge.
It may be frequently seen that the deities sometimes present a very fierce
appearance and are invoked in terrible rites such as for the destruction of men
(maraNa) and their houses (ucchATana). This, perhaps, the authors of sAdhanas
considered incompatible with the theory of compassion and a few indirect
explanations to clear up this point are not wanting in the sAdhanamAlA. Two
characteristic passages are quoted below, one with reference to the fierce form of
yamAri and the other in respect of ucchuShma jambhala.
shrImantam antaHkaruNAmayam tam |
sattvArthahetoH bahirugrarUpam ||
nAtham yamArim praNipatya mUrdhnA
likhAmi tatsAdhanamiShTahetoH ||
After making my obeisance by my head to Lord yamAri who is of dignified
appearance, internally compassionate but externally terrific for the good of all
beings, I write this procedure of worship for the benefit of all.
dAridryaduHkhAhatamAnasAnAm
kA chittavrttiH sugatasya kRîtteH |
atashcha kopAdiva jambhalo.asau
ucchuShmarUpam bhayadam chakAra ||

People who are stricken down with the misery of poverty what desire can they
have for the rites laid down by sugata? It is for this reason it seems that jambhala in
his anger assumed the terrific form of ucchuShma.
mahAkAla is another very terrible deity with terrible appearance and is invoked to
discharge terrible functions. Neither his appearance nor his functions are in keeping
with the doctrine of karuNA or compassion. Nut an excellent explanation to clear up
the point has been offered by the author of the sAdhana. He says:
AchArye yaH sadA dveShI kupito ratnatraye.api yaH |
anekasattvavidhvamsI mahAkAlena khAdyate ||
One who is persistently a hater of the preceptor and is adversely disposed towards
the three jewels (Buddha, Dharma and Sangha) and immolates many animals is
eaten up raw by mahAkAla.
Now in a case like this we can easily understand that the conception of the fierce of
mahAkAla is quite in keeping with the doctrine of compassion because such a man
is incorrigible and he alone and unaccompanied does harm to many beings, and a
mischievous man like ought to be removed by a fierce deity like mahAkAla for the
good of the many. We do not however see the necessity of eating the poor offender
raw unless it is assumed that his mental condition will change in the next birth by
undergoing a transformation in the compassionate stomach of mahAkAla!
Tags: advayavajra, akanishtha, akshobhya, amitabha, amoghasiddhi, buddhist
tantra, dhyani buddha, mahakala, mahasukha, manjushri, ratnasambhava,
sadhanamala, shunya, shunyata, skandha, tathagata, ucchushma jambhala,
vairochana, vajrayana, vijnana, voidness, yamari
Buddhist Tantra - 6
By admin on Jul 13, 2009 | In Oriental/New Age
Hindus worship idols and believe that the mantras can infuse the image with life
thus making it verily the representation of the deity. The Jainas regard the images
as remembrances (smArakas). By seeing the images of the tIrthankaras they call to
mind their noble lives, good deeds, preachings and high ideals, and to their memory
they offer various articles of worship, in token of reverence. Their idol worship is not
exactly what is known as idolatry like in the case of Hindus in so far as these
tIrthankaras are concerned, but the moment they leave this sphere and offer
objects of worship to beings such as the yakShas and yakShiNis, they are relegated
to the sphere of idolatry.
But the Buddhist mode of worship is entirely different from that of the Hindus or of
the Jains. To the Buddhist the external world has no existence, the body with the
sense organs are unreal; the real noumenon is only shUnya which together with
karuNA constitute the bodhichitta. The Bodhi Mind then is also a reality; in fact it
has the same reality as that of shUnya, and beyond the mind there is nothing in the
external world. The body as such being external does not exist and it has no reality.
This is the conception about the mind and the external world in the vajrayAna. To
the followers of vajrayAna, therefore, how can there be reality in an image, a grossly
external object, to which worship may be offered. The vajrayAna theory of godhead
is so peculiar and had such successive stages of development traceable through
Buddhist literature for several centuries that whenever similar conceptions or
theories are met with in the literature of other sects we can easily put our finger on
them and characterize them as borrowed from vajrayAna.
Bodhisattva after following the prescribed procedure according to the instructions of
the Guru or according to the sAdhana should restrain himself as nothing but as a
chain of momentary consciousness full of compassion for suffering humanity, and
invoke the aid of shUnya the ultimate reality with the three elements, shUnya,
vijnAna and mahAsukha. This aid can only be invoked when the Bodhi Mind of the
Bodhisatva is also identified with the shUnya; and only when this is done, the
shUnya responds. In accordance with the bIja mantra or in accordance with the
purpose for which the aid of the shUnya has been invoked, the shUnya transforms
itself in the form of a divinity with which the Bodhi Mind is identified. When the
commingling of the Bodhi Mind with the deity takes place, the former develops
great power, and is able to do the work for which the deity has been invoked until
he is dismissed from the mind with the proper formula. A glance at the list of deities
and the aims and objects of the vajrayAnist will show how many multifarious duties
the shUnya had to perform and into how many forms it had to transform itself.
It can indeed be pointed out that because a large number of images of gods and
goddesses of the vajrayAna Pantheon were made and subsequently discovered from
under the earth, therefore the Buddhists must be considered as idolaters. Against
this we can point out that it is not an easy task to conceive the outward
appearances of gods and goddesses of an extensive Pantheon for the purpose of
meditation, without the help of images or pictures, and it is in order to supply this
most important aid to the numerous worshippers that innumerable images had to
be carved out of stone. We also have evidence that pictures were painted for th
same purpose and even now in Nepal and the vajrAchAryas keep a large stock of
paintings and pictures of numerous deities for their numerous clients. It must be
definitely understood that an attempt is here made to represent the case of the
Buddhist with regard to the change of idolatry occasionally leveled at them.
The vajrayAnists however displayed a great hatred towards the gods of the Hindu
religion and a large number of remarks made by a number of vajrayAna authors on
the Hindu gods in the sAdhanamAlA fully bears us out. They were not only hostile to
the Hindu gods but their hostility towards the Hindu gods prove further that they
had a great hatred towards the members of other religions also. This fact was for
the first time pointed out in the Indian Buddhist Iconography but it met with violent
criticism from eminent scholars especially from the famous art critic, Dr. A
Coomarswami of the Boston Museum who did not relish the idea mainly on the
ground of sentiment. This has necessitated further comment on the point and we
shall here enumerate a number of passages from which it will be possible to judge
whether we were not justified in saying that the vajrayAnists displayed great hatred
towards the gods of the Hindu faith.
Dr. Coomarswami maintains that the brahmashiras which is carried by a number of

gods of the Buddhist Pantheon has a very deep spiritual significance. This of course
sounds very ingenious but is a little out of point, and uncorroborated by facts. It
shows nothing but that the Buddhist gods are so powerful that they destroy the
Hindu gods and carry their heads in their hands thereby displaying wonderful hatred
towards the Hindu gods in particular and Hinduism in general. Take for instance, the
description of harihariharivAhanodbhava, a form of avalokiteshvara, the all
compassionate Bodhisattva, and it will be found that his vAhana or favorite animal
is viShNu, the second God of the Hindu Trinity. The latter cannot be mistaken for any
other god or thing, because here his own favorite animal, the mythical bird, garuDa,
is also present. In another place while describing chaNDaroShaNa, the author of the
sAdhana says that the god carries the noose in order to bind the enemies who
cause sufferings to humanity, such as viShNu, shiva, brahmA who are terrified by
the raised index finger of the god. Further on, in the same sAdhana, the author says
that chaNDaroShaNa should be conceived as looking towards the miserable people
who are subjected to constant revolution in the cycle of existence by the wicked
gods such as viShNu, brahmA, shiva and kandarpa, the god of love. By
chaNDaroShaNas intervention, the hosts of mAras who are terrified, weeping, nude,
with disheveled hair, hopeless and in despair, are hacked to pieces with the sword.
chaNDaroShaNa gives their life back and places them near his feet so that they may
perform pious duties in future. Further on, while enumerating the benefits that
accrue from the worship of mRîtyuvanchana tArA, the author says that the
worshipper conquers death as though emancipated, and even the ends of his hair
cannot be destroyed by Hindu gods like brahmA, indra, viShNu, Moon, the Sun,
shiva, deities of the quarters, yama and manmatha. Again, while describing mArIchI,
the principal Hindu gods are brought to the humiliating position of making
obeisance to mArIchI. Some of them are actually trampled under her feet while
others obey her orders like her servants. In another place, it is said that the ascetic
who pleases the goddess kurukullA, to him brahmA, rudra, indra, nArAyaNa and
others come and meet his wants whatever they may be, like servants. While
describing vajrajvAlAnalArka, he is characterized as trampling under his foot not
only viShNu but also his consort lakShmI. bhUtaDAmara is described as one who is
an expert in destroying the pride of indra, brahmA, kubera and others. ucchuShma
jambhala is described in one place as pressing kubera under his feet so that he
vomits blood. The severed head of brahmA is carried by mArIchI, vajrasarasvatI,
prasannatArA and several others. Trailokyavijaya tramples upon the head of shiva
and the bosom of gaurI who lie on the ground in opposite directions. prasannatArA
is described as trampling upon indra and upendra and pressing rudra and brahmA
between the two. Paramashiva is described as four-legged and as trampling with the
first right leg on indrANI and lakShmI, with the second rati and prIti, with the first
left indra and madhukara and with the second jayakara vasanta. While describing
the merits and advantages to be gained by worshipping hayagrIva the author of a
sAdhana holds before us an exceedingly attractive prospect but not without
calumniating Hindu gods. It says, when perfection is attained in this sAdhana the
ascetic goes to the vidyAdhara land and enjoys all sorts of pleasures; devendra
becomes his parasol bearer, brahmA his minister, vemachitri (kArtikeya) his
general, and hari his gate-keeper. All the gods flock together; shankara, the nude
preceptor, lectures on the different virtues, and so forth. aparAjitA is described as a
goddess whose parasol is raised over her head by wicked and mischievous gods,
like brahmA and others.
Now the above are a few among many instances where Hindu gods are insulted and
made subservient to Buddhist gods. But these are instances met with in writing; in
practice also they did the same. A large number of images were carved by the
followers of vajrayAna where the Hindu gods were represented in stone and in
pictures as humiliated by Buddhist gods. No matter what attitude earlier Buddhists
may have shown to the hindu faith, the later Buddhists maintained an aggressively
hostile attitude against Hinduism and the Hindu pet theories of emancipation and
this is conclusively proved by a very interesting passage in the
chittashodhanaprakarana of aryadeva.
Buddhist Tantra - 7
By admin on Jul 20, 2009 | In Oriental/New Age
The passage in question contains a scathing indictment of the Hindu belief that
bathing in holy places can confer merit and proves its futility in forcible but
unequivocal language:
pratarannapi ga~NgAyAm naiva shvA shuddhimarhati |
tasmAddharmadhiyAM pumsAM tIrthasnAnam tu niShphalam ||
dharmo yadi bhavet snAnAt kaivartAnAm kRîtArthatA |
naktandivam praviShTAnAM matsyAdInAm tu kA kathA ||
pApakShayo.api snAnena naiva syAditi nishchayaH |
yato rAgAdibuddhistu dRîshyate tIrthasevinAm ||
A dog swimming in the Ganges is not considered pure, therefore bathing in holy
places is futile for pious men. If bathing can confer merit, the fishermen must be
most meritorious, not to speak of fish and other aquatic animals that are always in
water day and night. It is certain that by bathing even sin is not dissipated, because
people who are in the habit of making pilgrimages are full of passion, hatred and
other vices.
The study of iconography has revealed certain important facts of primary
importance, especially how Tantric Buddhism influenced other religions of India,
especially Hinduism. It is well-known that the paurANic pantheon of the Hindus
influenced tAntric Buddhism, which was led to accept such gods as gaNesha,
sarasvatI, etc., as gods in their own pantheon, but the point we want to emphasize
here is that in purely tAntric matters, it was Buddhism which took the lead. From the
discussion below, it will be clear that the weight of evidence is in favor of Buddhism,
and that tAntric Hinduism drew its inspiration almost wholly from tAntric Buddhism.
It is well-known that the Hindus recognize a set of ten siddha mantras with ten
deities presiding over them. One of the goddesses is known as tArA whose mantra
consists of five syllables. The Hindus claim this deity as their own and in the
tArArahasya of brahmAnanda who flourished in the middle of the 16th century and
in the tantrasAra, a still later authority, we meet with the following dhyAna in which
the form of tArA is given in detail:
pratyAlIDhapadAM ghorAM muNDamAlAvibhUShitAm |
kharvAM lambodarIM bhImAM vyaghracharmAvRîtAM kaTau ||
navayauvanasampannAM pa~nchamudrAvibhUShitAm |
chaturbhujAM lolajihvAM mahabhImAM varapradAm ||
khaDgakartrisamAyukta-savyetarabhujadvayAm |
kapAlotpalasaMyukta-savyapANiyugAnvitAm ||
pi~NgograikajaTAM dhyAyenmaulAvakShobhyabhUShitAm |
bAlArkamaNDalAkAra-lochanatrayabhUShitAm||
jvalacchitAmadhyagatAM ghoradaMShTrAM karAlinIm |
sAveshasmeravadanAM sarvAla~NkArabhUShitAm |
vishvavyApakatoyAntaH shvetapadmoparisthitAm ||
From this it would appear that tArA is a fairly awe-inspiring divinity standing in
pratyAlIDha attitude with a garland of skulls round her neck, having a fierce face,
protruding tongue and bare fangs. She is four-armed and carries in the two principal
hands the kartri and the kapAla while in two others she carries the sword in the
right and the blue lotus in the left. She is decked in five mudrAs, has one tuft of hair
on her head which is ornamented with akShobhya.
Now for the purpose of comparison three points are of special value: tArA is ekajaTA
(one tuft of hair), is decked in five mudrAs and has akShobhya on her crown. Why is
she called ekajaTA, what the five mudrAs are, and who is akShobhya? These are
three questions which cannot be explained in accordance with Hindu traditions.
The Hindus have no deity known as ekajaTA, but they have a tArA who is regarded
as a different form of ekajaTA. They have a variety of mudrAs but no mudrA can be
employed as an ornament, much less the five mudrAs which are unknown to them.
The deities recognized by the Hindus are divided into two great divisions: shaiva
and vaiShNava. Even as early as Megastheness time the Hindus of india were
divided into two mighty sections, vaiShNavas and shaivas. Hindu deities thus
divided were never to have any other deity on their heads. This is not in the least
necessary for Hindu representation of deities, but why should this tArA we are
discussing have akShobhya on her crown? None of the points raised, therefore, is
explained according to Hindu traditions.
The Buddhists have a deity called ekajaTA and various sAdhanas in sAdhanamAlA
relate to the worship which is offered to this deity who is conceived in a variety of
different forms. This deity is variously known as ugratArA, mahAchInatArA, ekajaTA,
vidyujjihvAlakarAlI etc. Out of these the form known as mahAchInatArA agrees in all
details with the description of tArA quoted previously. As regards the second point
concerning the ornament of five mudrAs, the sAdhanamAlA offers a solution.
According to a shloka, the Buddhists recognized six mudrAs or ornaments all made
of human remains representing the six pAramitAs well-known in early Buddhism:
kaNThikAruchakaM ratnamekhalaM bhasmasUtrakam |
ShaT vai pAramitA etA mudrarUpeNa yojitA ||
The Torque, the bracelets, a bejeweled girdle, ashes and the sacred thread
represent the six pAramitAs and are applied in the form of mudrAs.
It might therefore be inferred that the adjective panchamudrAvibhUShitA stands for
a goddess decked in five ornaments made of human bones. This explanation is
quite in keeping with the form and nature of the deity under discussion. The third
point about the goddess having akShobhya on her head can easily be explained by
a reference to Buddhist iconography. The Buddhists recognize five dhyAnI Buddhas
as presiding over the five skandhas which are responsible for creation. The names
of the five are given in the following couplet:
jino vairochano khyAto ratnasambha eva cha |
amitAbhAmoghasiddhirakShobhyashcha prakIrtitaH ||
The Bodhisattvas emanate from the five dhyAnI Buddhas: vairochana,
ratnasambhava, amitAbha, amoghasiddhi and akShobhya, and do the work of
creation, protection and destruction. All Bodhisattvas and Buddha-shakti-s
emanating from a particular dhyAnI Buddha are required to bear a small figure of
the parental dhyAni Buddha on their heads. In a large number of sAdhanas the
deities are described as akShobhyamukuTinI, amitAbhavirAjitashiraska,
vairochanabhUShitA etc., and those who have carefully examined the sculptures of
Buddhist deities preserved in different museums must have noticed the very
interesting miniature of the parental dhyAni Buddha appearing on the heads of most
of the sculptures. An absurd explanation of this phenomenon of keeping the figure
of akShobhya on the crown is given in the toDala tantra and it does not take much
to identify its absurdity.
Thus, we can explain all the three points raised in connection with the Hindu deity
tArA by means of Buddhist traditions. Let us now try to find out whether the
identical deity can be found in the Buddhist tAntric literature. In a sAdhana
composed by shAsvatavajra, we find the description of a deity identical in form and
nature as our Hindu deity tArA.
pratyAlIDhapadAM ghorAM muNDamAlApralambitAm |
kharvalambodarAM bhImAm nIlanIrajara~njitAm ||
tryambakaikamukhAM divyAM ghorATTahAsabhAsurAm |
suprahRîShTAM shavarUDhAM vyAghracharmAvRîtAm kaTau ||
navayauvanasampannAm pa~nchamudrAvibhUShitAm |
lalajjihvAm mahAbhImAm daMShTrotkaTavibhIShaNAm ||
khaDgakartrikarAm savye vamotpalakapAladhAm |
pi~NgograikajaTAm dhyAyet maulAvakShobhyabhUShitAm ||
This mahAchInatArA also, like the Hindu deity tArA, presents a fearful appearance
with legs arranged in the pratyAlIDha attitude; she wears a garland of skulls, and
her face is rendered fierce with protruding tongue and fangs. She carries in the two
principal hands the kartari and kapAla, while in two others she carries the sword in
the right and the blue lotus in the left. She is decked in five mudrAs and bears the
figure of akShobhya on her crown. Thus the resemblance between the two is clear
and complete. It is a pity the time of shAsvatavajra is not known except that he
must be earlier than A.D. 1100, as his sAdhana dates back to 1165. But fortunately,
there is, however, another way of finding out when the deity ekajaTA entered the
Buddhist pantheon. In the colophon of the sAdhana 127 of ekajaTA in sAdhanamAlA,
we meet with a remarkable sentence:
AryanAgArjunapAdairbhoTeShu uddhRîtam |
Restored by Arya nAgArjunapAda from the country of bhoTa.

This fact points to nAgArjuna as the pioneer to bring to India the worship of ekajaTA
from the country of bhoTa, also known as mahAchIna, which accounts for the name
of the deity mahAchInatArA. We may be pretty certain, therefore, that before the
time of nAgArjuna, India knew of no deity as ekajaTA. The accurate time of
nAgArjuna for the present remains an open question but from what has been said
about him, we can place him around A.D. 645.
In this connection another fact is to be noticed namely the mention of the tradition
in connection with the origin of mahAchInatArA according to purely Hindu traditions.
In the tArA tantra, bhairavI asks bhairava the nature of the mantra by which Buddha
and vasisTha obtained siddhi and bhairava in reply have out the secret tantra to her
a tantra belonging to the yogatantra class prescribing revolting practices. In the
rudrayAmaLa again we read of vasisTha being asked to go to chInabhUmi where the
Buddha was residing, vasisTha went there and saw the Buddha surrounded by a
large number of women drinking wine and engaged in obscene rites. At this
vasisTha had great fears and asked the Buddha to clear up his doubts. He
eventually got his doubts cleared up and ultimately obtained perfection by
muttering the mantra and by the free use of the five makAras.
In the brahmayAmaLa also the same story is repeated with some modification.
vasisTha went to mahAchIna and witnessed the same scene as described in the
rudrayAmaLa. vasisTha as a true follower of the vedic rites got horrified and was on
the point of leaving the job, when there was a mysterious voice from the heaven
which explained these strange rites as chInAchAra and asked him to follow the
same for the attainment of perfection. vasisTha was pleased and eventually came
to the Buddha when he was in a deeply drunken state. The latter after hearing him
gave vasisTha all he desired.
In Hinduism, the rudrayAmaLa and brahmayAmaLa are regarded as tantras of great
authority. The evidence of these two tantras as well as of the tArA tantra leads us to
suppose that this tArA was worshipped in mahAchIna by the native inhabitants, who
professed probably the primitive Bon religion of Tibet and that the Hindus got the
vidyA from the Buddha or in other words from the Buddhists. It is very probable that
nAgArjuna who flourished in the middle of the seventh century was the pioneer to
introduce the worship of mahAchInatArA in India. The Mantra was first invented by
the Buddhists and the Hindus quietly took it and found it to be a powerful charm
invariably awarding siddhi, and that is probably the reason why the mantra was
designated as one of the siddha mantras.
In this connection it should be borne in mind that the ancients looked upon the
mantras with awe and believed that if the mantra were changed or distorted, it
would give no result or produce great harm. Thus, though ekajaTAs name was
changed to tArA, her dhyAna was changed from the ungrammatical Buddhist
language to grammatical, the Hindus did not change the mantra, which remained
the same. This is a very important factor for all who will take up this line of
investigation, because by comparing the mantras alone it will be possible to detect
the common deities in different religions, to trace their origin and to know how they
entered into the different pantheons.
nirvANa
brahmANDabudbudakadambakasa~Nkulo.ayam
mAyodadhirvividhaduHkhatara~NgamAlaH |
Ashcharyamamba jhaTiti pralayaM prayAti
tvaddhyAnasantatimahAbaDabAmukhAgnau ||
nAgArjuna, the propounder of the Middle Path of Buddhism, characterizes nirvana
thus in the twenty-fifth paricCheda of mAdhyamika-kArikA:
aprahINamasaMprAptamanucChinnamashAshvatam |
aniruddhamanutpannametannirvANamuchyate ||
The commentary of chandrakIrti is immensely useful in understanding the purport
of this verse.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Like rAga (passion), nirvana cannot be abandoned or given up.

Like the fruits of a sAttvika life, nirvana cannot be acquired or attained.
nirvana is not something that can be cut-off, lost or destroyed.
Nirvana is also not eternal as conceived in the hInayAna.
It cannot be held back, removed, restrained or rejected.
By very nature, it is without origin or destruction.
Thus, nirvana is indescribable in words anirvachanIya. mahAyAna sUtrakAras

assert the lack of difference between samsAra and nirvana. kalpanA jAla kShaya or
the removal of the illusionary web is described popularly as nirvana. nAgArjuna
describes nirvana as anirvachanIya owing to its nature of being neither a bhAva nor
an abhAva padArtha, it is what is described as bhUtakoTi or dharma-dhatu.
The following aspects of nirvana are common to both hInayAna and mahAyAna:
1. It cannot be expressed or manifested through words niShprapancha. As it is
asamskrta dharma, utpatti (origin), vinAsha (destruction) and parivartana
(transformation) of nirvana are ruled out.
2. The anubhUti of nirvana is real and evident through experience. The yogAchArins
thus describe it as pratyAtmavedya.
3. The nature and experience of nirvana is common to the buddhas of the past,
present and future.
4. Nirodha of vyaktitva or individual personality is another aspect of nirvana.
It is also pointed out that there is total non-difference between jnAtA-jneya, viShayIviShaya and nirvANa-bhikShu. nirvana is also free from the duality of vidhiniShedha. The two AvaraNas which prevent nirvana are the kleshAvaraNa and
jneyAvaraNa. Thus, in general, a being is the collation or samghAta of the various
dharmas that result due to prAchIna karma. He is under the great illusion that there
is a soul or Atman within him. When this clinging to the self is abandoned and the
anityatA of everything is realized, he is said to attain nirvana. In the state of

nirvana, the bhikShu has no vibheda between himself and any other objects of the
world. This is primarily the position of the hInayAna.
In contrast, the dualistic sAmkhya sees ajnAna as resulting out of viewing prakrti as
puruSha; vedAnta, on the other hand, sees ajnAna in viewing eka as aneka. The
concept of asmitA of the sAmkhyas is a mixture of viShayI and viShaya i.e.
prakRîti and puruSha and samAdhi is the path to its attainment. From this point,
the next goal is vivekakhyAti, which is nothing but the jnAna of the prthaktva of
prakrti and puruSha. The seven bhUmis therein are discussed in the yogasUtra.
Thus, there is no annihilation of prakrti at mukti but there is no association of Her
with puruSha either. In the case of vedAnta however, there is no place for prakrti or
mAyA in mokSha as brahma is the sole paramArtha. Also, mokSha here is not
Ananda-rahita as conceived by the naiyAyika-s or the sAmkhya-s as brahma
svarUpa is sacchidAnandAtmaka. In Buddhist terms, if one were to come up with a
rough mapping, kleShAvaraNa kShaya is accomplished in sAmkhya whereas
vedAnta deals with jneyAvaraNa as well. It may thus not be colossally incorrect to
compare the mokSha of sAmkhya with the nirvana of the hInayAna and that of
vedAnta with the mahAyAna.
Shankara as ShaNmatasthApanAchArya
[An Excerpt from the Biography of the Acharya by Govinda Chandra Pande]
The tradition which associates shankara with religious reform and monastic
reorganization needs to be examined because that by itself has important
implications. That shankara not merely established the advaita in its purity but also
established the Six Sects, for which he came to be known as the ShaNmata
sthApanAchArya, is asserted in several legendary biographies of shankara such as
anantAnandagiris shankara digvijaya, and guruvamsha kAvya. The tradition also
finds support in mArkaNDeya samhitA and the lost prAchIna shankara vijaya quoted
in dhanapati sUris commentary on the mAdhavIya. Shankara is said to have
debated with the votaries of the different sects, persuaded them to abandon their
defective philosophies and exaggerations in ritual and conduct but allowed them to
continue with their characterisitic and divergent modes of worship. The basic truth
is spiritual non-dualism as upheld by the upaniShads. Brahman is the only reality
and is identical with the Atman. However, the one reality manifests itself in diverse
names and forms and worshippers may choose different deities for the sake of
convenience if they realize that the differences are merely super-imposed for the
convenience of worship, not real. The diversity of Gods, images and modes of
worship was thus admitted as consistent with strict philosophical monism. The gItA
had already prepared ground for this and the upaniShads and the brahmasUtras
admit a variety of meditative symbols for the same Ultimate Reality. Shankaras
doctrine of upAdhi bheda constituted its explicit philosophical justification.
The Six Sects mentioned in this context are vaiShNava, shaiva, shAkta, saura,
gANapatya, and kaumAra or kApAlika. It has been pointed out that in shankaras
commentaries there are several indications of his personal preference for the
worship of God as viShNu and this finds corroboration in the biographical tradition
which makes out govinda or kRîShNa to have been his family deity. Some of the
more authentic of his stotras like the charpaTa-panjarikA, viShNu ShaTpadI, and
harimIDe give expression to his devotion for viShNu. govindAShTaka,
kRîShNAShTaka and achyutAShTaka also lay claim to authenticity and give
expression to vaiShNava devotion. While recalling vaiShNava mythology, most of
these hymns are clearly advaitic and adore krîShNa as the sole God or Self. In his
commentary on the brahmasUtras too, shankara accepts the truth of bhAgavata
insofar as it is consistent with the authority of the veda and the authenticity of the
vedAnta.
Shankara makes hardly any reference to shiva worship in his commentaries except
that he criticizes the dualistic theism of the pAshupatas or mAheshvaras in the
sUtra bhAShya. Among the stotras ascribed to shankara and having a shaiva
affiliation the only one which lays undoubted claim to authenticity is the famous
dakShiNAmUrti stotra with many ancient commentaries. The stotra, however, is
essentially advaitic rather than sectarian shaiva. That is even true of dashashlokI
which is acknowledged as a masterpiece of advaitic thought and sentiment. The
fact is that shaivism in shankaras times in South India was generally dualistic but
non-dualistic shaivism was also known especially in Kashmir. Shankaras knowledge
on this system and his influence on its subsequent development cannot be ruled
out. in fact the dakShiNAmUrti stotra has echoes close to this system and it cannot
be denied that the remarkable development of Kashmir Shaivism dates from the
age of shankara.
The traditional interpretation of shankara insists that Brahman, the sole reality, is
nirguNa while the world is totally false. The reality of Ishvara too is relative to that
of the world, and as for the explanation of the world it is due to avidyA or mAyA
which in turn is inexplicable and indefinable. Nevertheless, shankara assigns a
central place to Ishvara in his sUtra bhAShya and regards avidyA or mAyA as shakti
or power of Brahman. He likens Brahman with His mysterious power of creation to a
magician. Here his philosophy is totally akin to the non-dualistic schools of
pratyabhijnA or tripurA jnAna khaNDa, or even yoga-vAsisTha. There is, thus, no
basic difficulty in supposing that shankara was willing to extend support to nondualistic shAkta schools. Against this it has been argued that in the non-dualism of
shankara, reality is wholly transcendent while phenomena are simply illusory and
the two are connected only by the inexplicable force of Nescience which defies
definition or location. In non-dualistic theistic schools on the other hand, reality has
the inherent power of creatively manifesting itself in the phenomenal world.
However it cannot be justly denied that for shankara too real being or
consciousness has the power of self-manifestation as phenomena. Reality is not
merely transcendent but also immanent in phenomena. Whatever is, is Brahman. To
see it as otherwise is Nescience. Shankara never abrogates the creativity or divinity
of Brahman, though from the non-dualistic point of view there is no distinction
between Lord and creature. It is only in this sense that the concept of God is relative
to the apparent reality of the world. It is not a denial of divinity of dualism from the
ultimate point of view. The situation is similar in non-dualistic theistic systems,
shaiva and shAkta, for which too there is ultimately nothing except consciousness
conceived as shiva or shakti. It is true that medieval advaitic polemic tended to
emphasize the unreality of the world in the sense that the knowledge of the world
was held to be logically false because it was sublated, and was inevitably led into
subtle and ingenious speculations about the nature of avidyA and jIva, from which
shankara was free. However, despite its subtlety, this attempt remains essentially
scholastic and leaves enough room for an empirical reality which serves a practical
purpose. At the same time the empirical and pragmatic relevance of theistic
worship was never denied. The world and religion are practical realities. The
transcendence of reality is an ideal of philosophical understanding, not a denial of
practical religion or of practical life in general.
Thus the essential kinship of shankaras advaita to shAkta advaita cannot be denied
even though at the level of the polemic there is considerable difference. In any case
it needs no effort to reconcile shAkta worship with advaita. Among the stotras
devoted to devI and making strong claims for authenticity one may mention
AnandalaharI and saundaryalaharI. The former is a simple expression of devotion
set in a mythological context but notable for its poetic effectiveness. The latter, on
the other hand, is not only sublime poetry and surcharged with devotion but also
full of esoteric and mystical meanings. There are various stories about its origin.
There are various commentaries on the stotra. The very exquisiteness and
perfection of the work makes it difficult to doubt its authenticity. It breathes the
spirit of non-dualism but is untouched with any illusionism.
The fact is that illusionism is relevant only as an antidote to philosophical or
common-sense realism. In the context of tAntrik upAsanA, reliance on the supreme
creative power of consciousness linking individual with universal being is itself the
prime supposition. Mind and matter are but phenomenal manifestations of the same
universal consciousness which in its real nature transcends them. Like the twentyfive tattvas of sAmkhya, the thirty-six tattvas of shaiva and shAkta Agamas found
wide acceptance and need to be understood not so much as speculative
constructions or theological dogmas as practical landmarks in tantric upAsanA. It
will then not be correct to say that the status of the world in shankaras advaita is
inconsistent with that in shAkta advaita. In both consciousness is the essential
ground of all phenomena which have no independent reality. The world-illusion is for
shankara comparable to the show put up by a magician or the creation projected by
a yogi, that is, the creation of the world by the God is simply the projection of an
appearance by Him by His miraculous power. It may be said that in shAkta advaita,
consciousness is a dynamic reality while in shAnkara, it is wholly actionless and
passive. This, however, would be a misunderstanding. The power, freedom or
dynamism of consciousness in shAkta advaita is the spontaneity of self-affirmation,
it does not necessarily mean external or causal creativity. What distinguishes
consciousness from unconsciousness is its innate power of self-consciousness, Atma
parAmarsha, vimarsha. Shankara cannot be said to deny this of consciousness or
the self, though he is always mindful of the yAjnavalkyan query. In his
commentaries, shankara stops short of the categorical affirmation of pure selfconsciousness or bliss though he denies their negation. In his hymns his devotional
fervor overcomes his epistemological caution with respect to Brahman and he sings
of the freedom and majesty, glory and beauty of divine reality, and there is no hymn
in the whole range of Sanskrit literature which could match the saundaryalaharI. If
we keep in mind the place of Ishvara in shankaras thought, we can see his contact
with monistic theism.
Shankaras approval of tantra comes out more clearly in the authorship of

prapanchasAra which has been attributed to him traditionally, and the attribution
has been ably supported by Baldev Upadhyaya. There is a commentary on it named
vivaraNa which has been ascribed to padmapAda. According to this commentary,
shankara composed prapanchasAra as a summary of an older and vaster
compendium of tantra called prapanchAgama (samastAgama samgraha,
prapanchAgama-sAra-samgararUpam). It is also stated by the author of the subcommentary prayoga kramadIpikA that the work was compiled by shankara while
residing in Kashmir which is why he begins by an obeisance to the goddess
shAradA. The commentators account of the nature of the work and the
circumstances of its origin appears convincing enough, and receives support from
rAghava bhaTTA, the commentator of shAradAtilaka, and kAlIcharaNa, the
commentator of shaTchakranirUpaNam. Even amalAnanda, the famous advaitin,
refers to prapanchasAra as a work of shankara.
It is, of course, possible to doubt the ascription of the vivaraNa to padmapAda as
much as that of the prapanchasAra to shankara, but the skepticism too must be
reasoned. Belvalkar summarily dismisses all tracts on yoga and tantra as
inauthentic without further ado. Still more modern scholars doubt the authenticity of
all works ascribed to shankara except the brahmasUtra bhAShya and the
brhadAraNyaka upaniShad bhAShya. The fact, however, remains that ascription to
shankara bhagavatpAda supported by traditional commentaries and references to
the work of shankara, do constitute a prima facie reason for accepting the ascription
unless there are stronger reasons for doubting it. Now it seems that shankara was
interested in yoga from the beginning while his interest in tantra appears to date at
least from his visit to Kashmir or, on the other hand, from his reconstruction at
kAnchI. There is no convincing reason to suppose that he could not have compiled a
compendium of tAntric lore which need not as such represent his own philosophy.
Shankaras intimate connection with tAntric worship is also clear from the monastic
traditions of both Sringeri and kAnchI. Both the traditions are agreed that shankara
established the worship of the goddess shAradA at Sringeri and of kAmAkShI at
kAnchI, and that he constructed and consecrated the shrIchakra which is the
symbolic representation of shrIvidyA which belongs to non-dualistic shAkta tantra.
Thus, while shankara seems to have been connected with viShNu worship by family
tradition, he appears to have accepted shiva as another name of the Supreme Spirit
following the shvetAsgvatAra tradition. He also actively supported the worship of
shakti as shAradA and kAmAkShI or tripurasundarI especially as presiding over the
shrIchakra in accordance with non-dualistic tantras. To these three great deities, the
smArta tradition of pancha devatopAsanA adds sUrya and gaNesha. Their worship
normally is a necessary but preliminary constituent in all worship. As principal gods,
their cults were relatively minor. Nor did their cults inspire any original or major
philosophies of salvation. In visiting temples and tIrthas, and looking upon diverse
modes of religious worship as reconcilable within the umbrella of advaita, shankara
could have looked upon the cults of sUrya and gaNesha also with a favorable eye.
As for the sun, it had an honored place in vedic religion and was an accepted
symbol of Brahman in vedAnta. The purANic cult of the sun however, was
essentially a form of saguNopAsanA which sought to ensure health, freedom from
diseases especially of the skin and the eyes, longevity, fame etc. The original vedic
cult of the sun appears to have been merged partly in the post-vedic cult of viShNu
and partly with anthropomorphization in the purANic cult of the sun in the
development of which Iranian priests also appear to have been at least marginally
significant.
The cult of gaNesha grew up out of the elemental religious necessity of having a
form of God on which one could rely for saving one from impediments to success.
The peculiar form in which the deity was envisaged has yet to be satisfactorily
explained. In opposition to the brAhminical tradition the Buddhists interpreted
gaNesha as the Lord of Impediments, an essentially evil spirit. Like the Fire in the
vedic religion, gaNesha is the first of the deities in purANic worship but his worship
is generally a part of the worship of some principal deity. The numerous gANapatya
cults mentioned in works like the AnandagirIya are distinguished only by their
strange customs and rites for which shankara could have had no sympathy.
As for the kaumAras or kApAlikas, there is even less evidence of any positive
attitude of shankara towards them. The cult of skanda acquired undoubted
popularity in the Gupta Age and also in the south and the skanda purANa is a
monument to it beginning from post-Gupta times. For shankara it could have only
been a philosophically minor cult. It is worth noting that shankara describes skanda
as an incarnation of the sage sanatkumAra. The kApAlikas were a fierce sub-sect of
the shaivas who have been immortalized by bANa and bhavabhUti, and their cult
was certainly widespread in the 7 and 8th centuries. They figure in the biography of
shankara, seeking to secure the sacrifice of the Master himself as part of their
gruesome rites. It is quite possible that in the course of his travels shankara should
have met them and sought to reform them and that in some of these encounters his
disciples might have had to oppose the kApAlika reliance on violence, but to say
that he encouraged the spread of a purer form of the kApAlika cult can only be a
baseless speculation.
To sum up, while shankara certainly assumed the role of advaita sthApanAchArya,
there is no reason to suppose that he deliberately set out to be shaNmata
sthApanAchArya also, though his religious outlook was one of sectarian tolerance,
liberal reform and philosophical sublimity. He accepted the diversity of ways of
worship and the multiplication of gods, images and temples consistently with the
doctrine of one Brahman and many names and forms. His pilgrimages to diverse
tIrthas doubtless included not only debates with sectaries but also reforming advice.
The Greatness of Hamsa mantra
By admin on Jul 13, 2009 | In Srividya
haMsarUpA kAmakalA tatsvarUpaM nigadyate |
hakAreNa bahiryAti sakAreNa vishet punaH ||
hakArasya sakArasya lope kAmakalA bhavet |
pakShadvayena rahito haMsaH kAmakalA bhavet ||
so.ahametasya deveshi rUpaM kAmakalAbhidham |
so.ahamityatra deveshi praNavaH pariniShThitaH ||
jIvaH pakShadvayatyAgAt praNavaH parikIrtitaH |
parAprAsAdavidyAyAM evameva prakIrtitam ||
pakShadvayaM sakAre cha gagane.api dvayaM bhavet |
rakAradvayayoge tu sakArotpattirIritA ||
IkAraikArayoge tu hakAraH kIrtito mayA ||
ata eva maheshAni chatuHpakShasvarUpiNI |
chatushcharaNarUpA cha parAprAsAdadevatA ||
Parashurama Kalpasutra - 6
By admin on Aug 30, 2013 | In Srividya, Oriental/New Age
Instead of ecstasy and frenzy, in the PKS we find excess
control by aesthetic and gnostifying cognitive attracters,
cultivated behavior and most of all strict ritual and rule
governance. But the difference from the Kularnava is only
one of degree (alcohol consumption etc., yes of course, but
only in highly rule-governed fashion), or may possibly be
explained by increased secrecy (since the Kularnava
stresses rule-governance too, while even the PKS 10.68
acknowledges freedom from rules in the higher state of
god-immersion). Revolting passages like those of the
Kularnava would sound to outsiders like wild drinking
parties and libertinist group sex. Even taken as mere
literary topoi they must have been particularly shocking
and revolting in a society with exceptionally rigid social
codes and grids. It is easy to conceive why circles like
Shankaracharyas did not approve of Kaula practice. So much
physical god-consciousness that the Kaula hero is
expected to embody would not fit, even as a literary topos,
with the propriety codes of celibate monks, nor even meet
the taste of the ordinary Smarta and Shaiva householder.
But orthodoxy and heterodoxy are always dependent on the
perspectives and group interests. The Kularnava presents

transgressive behavior as performance of the extraordinary
and as sign of high spiritual grades. The otherworldly
character of divine experience is physically staged by
means of an extreme break with the normal conduct of daily
social life. But the scene of transgression is embedded in
a graded system of Tantric adepts, and a package of
stipulated rules pertaining to initiation, strict secrecy,
moral and ritual duties, and not least dispassion,
spiritual codings, kundalini yoga and non-dual cosmology.
This set of rules, and ultimately the whole cluster, make
up the Samayachara, the rule-governed orthodox conduct of
the Kaula practitioner. Rule-governance and ethics are
substantial. The term samayachara is used quite
frequently in the Kularnava Tantra and occurs in the PKS in
the context of the mystic grades (ullasa) (PKS 10.68).
The more ancient Bhairava Tantras such as the Brahmayamala
Tantra which know extremely antinomian and macabre
(mortuary) rites that no longer exist in the Kaula, already
used the term samayachara for their initiatory pledges. To
break the pledges means becoming food for the Yoginis
(i.e., becoming their tortured prey and having a dreadful
end). Remarkably, bad conduct involves not only taking up
the mantras on ones own and violating the essence of the
Tantras, but also being critical of the Vedas!
These discourses are present and refined in the PKS. There

are no more flying witches, but in Varahis names there
still appear all those dreadful things that the Yoginis do
with the evildoers. Varahi is the fierce protector of the
Samaya. There are no wild drinking parties, but the general
structure is retained. In the PKS the same type of package
inclusive of ritually and ethically controlled usage of the
Panchamakara, Kundalini Yoga and non-dual world orientation
is called samayachara. This is noteworthy because the PKS
was probably contemporary with the sixteenth century
Lakshmidhara, for whom Samaya is a completely different
thing. He rejects Kaula and prescribes a Samaya based on
pure interiority and caste. The different processes mirror
interesting negotiation processes. Lakshmidhara considers
Kaula to be un-Vedic, unworthy and despicable and
definitely not applicable to twice-born. He does not only
scorn the consumption of wine and physical worship, but
positions his Kaula critique within a critique of improper
kundalini yoga that does not rise from the Muladhara
Chakra to the upper body centers. Samaya is to him interior
worship of the Srichakra and the Shiva-Shakti union in the
Brahmarandhra (thousand petalled lotus) above the head and
the only method for the twice-born. In contrast, there is
no caste restriction in the PKS. The Varahi cycle involves
kundalini yoga in the Muladhara Chakra (PKS 7.6). Even the
(merely interior!) Para worship follows a very different

procedure than the one proposed by Lakshmidhara. Instead of
leading Kundalini up into the highest Chakra, the worship
starts with the intensely visualized raining down of
immortality water from the highest chakra and proceeds
concentrating on the body-centers at navel, muladhara and
heart. These are the body places where the 36 cosmic
principles are absorbed and melted into one like heated
metal by breath-control, mantra repetition and active
imagination. The cosmos becomes Paras yogic seat and
diagram and after she is visualized as cosmic unity and
great illumination and reflection (Maha-prakasha-vimarsharupini), the cosmos is mentally sacrificed into the supreme
goddess form that is supreme non-dual blazing light. The
clear vision of light (prakasha) as the true form of the
deity is stated to be the highest objective.
Compared with earlier left-hand sources, the PKS may be
regarded as a document of increasing domestication and
internalization, but compared with Lakshmidhara, it mirrors
with older Kaula left-hand ritual. The ritual described in
the PKS is first of all a highly rule-governed activity.
Unlike in the Kularnava, it is not much a cult of bliss
that is propagated. It is primarily ritual absorption, the
ecstasy of which lies in the synaesthetics of sensual,
verbal and mental performance. But no dubt, the
panchamakara are used and play a significant role. Umananda

made the implicit Kularnava connection of the PKS explicit
by re-organizing the ten chapters into seven, according to
the seven mystical grades.
The typical Kaula view of regarding the panchamakaras as
major ritual elements alongside the mantras has been
faithfully kept by the 19th century commentators. Whereas
the PKS defended this view by the remarkable statement that
nobody who acknowledged other countries and customs would
censure the panchamakara, this liberal standpoint would no
longer do in the 19th century when the British firmly
established their rule in India and when the first
translation of the Bhagavad Gita (1785) and the first
edition of the Rg-Veda (1849-73) were published, while
other expressions of Hindu culture were regarded as
debased and Tantra was greatly despised. The
Maharashtrian Brahmin and Veda-Mimamsa scholar Rameshvara
obviously sees a new need to argue for Veda and Tantra as
continua. As already mentioned, he started his PKS
commentary in 1832 with a long defense of Tantra.
Rameshvara apparently defines Tantra with reference to
Kaula, and defends combined Vedic and Tantric worship
against common reproaches that Tantrics have left the Vedic
path, they are greedy and self-indulgent and that Tantra is
only for women and Shudras. He expressly argues that all
the panchamakara substances must be included and

substitutes may only be allowed in daily worship if the
physical substances are not available, whereas in special
rites (naimittika and kamya) they are always needed because
they are the most important (mukhya) substances. It is of
special interest that Rameshvara does not argue against
Lakshmidhara or Srvidya-Samayins but against and with the
the Vedist Kumarila Bhatta of the 7th century! Remarkably,
he does not only attribute to Kumarila a censure of the
Tantra (which was in fact more of a censure of the
irrationality of the Puranic creator god and the superhuman
knowledge associated with yoga), but also cites Kumarila as
confirmation of his PKS interpretation and as proof that
Umananda was wrong adding new bija mantras. Just as there
can be no change in the mantra material of the Veda, there
cannot be any change in the mantra material of the PKS. I
think Rameshvaras markedly Vedist apology of the Tantra
was more than a school quarrel. It also had to do with
colonial India, i.e. with the new prominence that the Veda
gained under the British orientalists and their Brahmin
informants. Another point of interest to be underlined is
Rameshvaras emic identification of Kaula and Tantra. His
Kaula is of course defined by the whole package of the
panchamakara, not only by sexual rites. In contrast to the
Kularnava, (and its ecstatic Kaula) and the PKS (and its
ritual Kaula), however, Rameshvara strongly emphasizes the

need for bhakti and faith. He argues that otherwise it
would be hard to keep the senses and the mind under control
while consuming meat and alcohol, getting drunk and seeing
a beautifully decorated young woman. It is also of interest
that he is critical about the custom of adding additional
alcohol to the ritual vessel after the puja (which the
earlier Nityotsava allows), i.e. at the point in ritual
when the panchamakara are actually consumed, and he seems
to restrict sexual intercourse to the spouse(s) (svayoshit) of the practitioner. This rule is not known in the
PKS nor in the Nityotsava (1745) or Lakshmana Ranades
commentary of 1889. They use the common terms Shakti,
Suvasini and Duti, but not Yoshit. None, however, mentions
the low caste of the female partner in contrast to the
earlier Kularnava. The term duti is used in the Buddhist
Tantras to denote untouchable or low caste female partners.
Lakshmana Ranade distinguishes two forms of physical Shakti
worship, one being part of the puja, and the other being
the Duti yaga which provides the sexual fluids or the
fifth substance that is needed for Lalitas offering. The
female partners during puja are called Shakti (in the
goddesses kramas) and Suvasini (in the Ganapati
chalper). The Duti-yaga is also known to Rameshvara, but he
seems to reserve this term to a supernatural attendant.
So a slow domestication within a Kaula continuum may be

traced and a remarkable closeness of Rameshvaras Kaula to
one of Avalon regarding sexual practice. He defends the
Tantra some decades before Avalon in a similar apologetic
fashion. I am not sure, however, whether Rameshvaras
restriction to matrimonial intercourse (he also considers
imagined intercourse as valid substitution) can be
interpreted as puritanical, reactionary or bourgeois.
Rather, he is simply pragmatic, considering that he argues
that intercourse actually does belong to the daily ritual
duties of the Lalita cycle and can only be left out if no
woman is available or when she shows signs of disinterest.
Since he considers all panchamakaras to be daily duties if
they are available, intercourse with ones own wife is the
easiest way to achieve this goal.
It is noteworthy that even the late 19th century
commentator Lakshmana Ranade still stresses very much the
real-world things. According to him, alcohol is a metonym
of Shakti and meat a metonym of Shiva, the satisfaction
arising from their union is what is meant by the formula
tat tvam asi. He equates the supreme blissful state of
sense gratification with the state of deep sleep as
described in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. There it is said
that in deep sleep, the father is no longer a father, the
Brahmin is no longer a Brahmin, the thief no longer a
thief, and the dog-eater no longer a dog-eater. All are

immersed in their innate nature of pure existence and
bliss. This extreme recoding of the Veda by blending
sensuous body-practice and religious imagination is typical
of the PKS tradition.
From the PKS-elaboration Nityotsava (1745) up to Lakshmana
Ranades commentary (1889), we find a PKS tradition
insisting on the real things. This changed in the second
half of the 20th century. In the 1950s Swami Karpatri
compiled a new PKS-elaboration, the Srividya Ratnakara.
Karpatris aim was to bring life to a lost tradition, and
indeed his ritual manual follows the PKS closely. However
it does not mention left-hand practices. Instead we find
enriched verbal material (nyasas and stotras) and
approximation to the right hand Srividya of the
Shankaracharyas. A casual look, however, will reveal hardly
any difference, since the verbal material is already
present in the PKS in such abundance that the panchamakara
(particularly sexual rites) are almost invisible.
By admin on Jul 18, 2013 | In Srividya, Darshana,
Oriental/New Age
Veda and Tantra, respectively Vedic and Tantric
(vaidika and tantrika), have often been cast as opposite
ends of the spectrum of Hinduism in etic and emic sources,
and there are reasons for this. But the relationship is

much more complex and depends on the perspective taken.
Within the Tantric traditions the relationship to the Veda
ranged from disinterest (probably the most common case), or
simple acceptance and even verbal respect although a ritual
course of extreme impurity was followed (e.g. in the
Brahmayamala), to heavy censure (some later Kaula texts),
or the other way round to the claim to be the true original
Veda (Pancharatra) or the better revelation, more powerful
soteriology and final source of the Veda itself (partly
Shaiva Agama). More confirmist adaptations see themselves
as Veda-congruent and even declare themselves to be
upasana khanda, the third, esoteric Veda section devoted
to meditation (right-hand Srividya). Among Brahmins, for
instance in Nepal and South India, combined Vedic and
Tantric ritual practice is quite common, while impure
substances are are treated differently.
The PKS fits more or less into all these categories, except
for the first. It shows anything but disinterest. On the
contrary, its interest in the Veda is extraordinary and the
deliberate merger by recoding the Veda in a Tantric way is
one of its most defining features. For instance, in the
PKS, all deities except for Varahi who is worshiped at
midnight, are associated with the Brahmanic sunrise ritual,
the most Vedic one which persists in daily Hindu worship.
The Vedic-Brahmanic worship of the sun, the water offerings

and the repetition of the Gayatri mantra are blended with
Tantric features, such as invoking the Guru and the Goddess
in the Brahmarandhra chakra and visualizing a stream of
nectarine water of immortality and bliss bathing and
cleaning the interior body. We find repetition of the root
mantra of the goddess, visualization of the goddess in the
rising sun and Tantric Gayatri mantras for Ganesha and
Lalita.
This merger is no smooth Veda-Tantra continuum as in the
well known South Indian Srividya, although the PKS draws
heavily on the Vedic tradition. It is rather a complete
transformation of the Veda. Some of the features of
Tantricizing Vedic elements are widespread in the Tantric
literature, such as adaptations of the Gayatri mantra and
the sunrise ritual (sandhya), and particularly of the fire
sacrifice (homa). The PKS both includes Vedic mantras (from
the Rgveda, the Aranyakas and the Upanishads) and mimics
Vedic/Upanishadic imagery. The important Tantric Arghya
rite (the alcoholic special arghya) makes use of Rgvedic
mantras combined with Tantric ones. The Arghya ritual,
known in right and left-hand Tantra, is particularly
informative about recoding the natural with cosmic
symbolism, and performed with perfumed water in the righthand ritual. It is a fixed element in the Agama culture and
the same ritual pattern will be found in many Tantric

sources. Some, such as the Shyama Rahasya, include the same
mantras from the Rgveda like PKS (representing the five
cosmic gods Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Ishana, Sadashiva),
whereas others, such as the Subhagodaya (being the oldest
Srividya source which informed the PKS), do not include the
Vedic mantras. In the PKS there are two arghyas, the
ordinary one performed with water and the special one
performed with alcohol. Both the vessels filled with liquid
are worshiped as representations of the cosmos and its
divine source, but the alcoholic arghya involves highly
symbolic extra features such as the letter I (in the
center of the arghya diagram) representative of the
goddess sexual parts (kamakala), the letters of the
alphabet in the order of the a-ka-tha triangle, and a large
set of mantras, including the Rgvedic ones and other Vedic
imagery. The special arghya is closely related to the
worship of the feet/sandals of the Guru and of the divine
pair Shiva and Shakti, which have been mentally established
on the head of the disciple by the Guru during initiation.
This is most impressive in Lalitas special arghya, i.e.
the ever wet goddess Lalita herself who is thereafter
offered into the kundalini (by sipping a drop of the
liquid goddess in the form of alcohol). More important than
direct adaptations of the Vedic mantras are, however, the
implicit adaptations in the form of rhetoric and

Upanishad-like formulas. These are spread throughout the
text and found most markedly in the programmatic first
chapter, which relates to the rules of initiation.
It is striking that the deliberate Veda-Tantra merger
becomes obvious from the first Sutra onwards: Hence we
unfold initiation (athAto dIkShAM vyAkhyAsyAmaH). This
formula imitates verbatim the famous Mimamsa Sutras.
However, the Veda is clearly subordinated. Whereas the
Veda-orthodox Brahmins regard the Veda as having no
beginning and no author, PKS 1.2 postulates that the Veda
originated from the supreme godhead Shiva who revealed the
Tantric lineages that alone grant liberation. The cosmology
and ritual practice is clearly Shaiva Tantric: 36
principles make up the world and there is essential nonduality between the supreme godhead and the individual (PKS
1.3-6). The mantras and panchamakaras are marked out as
most important practices for attaining Shivahood. The power
of mantras is said to be unfathomable. The major mantras
are of course Tantric seed syllables (bijas, generally
given in encoded form) or bijas combined with revealingly
Tantric goddess names and epithets. But there is also
inclusion of Vedic mantras at those critical points where
liquor, the first M, plays the chief role in ritual and
where the highly erotic, ever wet goddess Lalita is
visualized. Already in the initiation chapter, the five

Ms, (i) liquor (madya), (ii) meat (mamsa), (iii) fish
(matsya), (iv) roasted and spiced chickpeas, beans or
grains (mudra), and (v) sexual intercourse (maithuna), are
declared to be in conformity with the Vedic system. They
make the bliss of Brahman an embodied experience (PKS
1.12). This postulate differs greatly from the abstract
bliss of Shankaras Advaita Vedanta and it differs
substantially from the Srividya of the Shankaracharyas,
whose highly Vedanticized version is found in the
Lalitatrishati Bhashya, a commentary on the three hundred
names of Lalita Devi, who is also the chief goddess of the
PKS. In the PKS we find a lot of Vedanta, too. Consider PKS
1.28: There is nothing higher than reaching the Atman.
Such Upanishad-like statements, occurring throughout the
text, will always be combined with physical activities and
visualizing practices. The final aim is embodied perfection
and divine power; or in the words of PKS 10.50 to become
Shiva in all ones limbs, i.e. to attain corporal
emancipation while living.
This embodiment is not least guaranteed by the
panchamakara, of which alcohol is the major substance. In
this aspect and many others the PKS follows the Kularnava
Tantra, one of the most important Kaula texts and composed
around the 13th century. In fact, the Kularnava was the
source of the most daring assertions found in PKS 1.12 and

1.30. Both are almost verbatim quotations. While PKS 1.12
postulates that the bliss of Brahman resides in the body
and is made manifest by the panchamakara, the Kularnava
(5.80) states that liquor makes the Brahman bliss manifest.
PKS 1.30 equates the Veda with a prostitute, while praising
its own tradition as higher secret knowledge, just as
Kularnava (11.85) did. Both Tantric sources are not really
criticisms or opposites of the Veda. They regard
prostitutes as highly venerable. There is a rule in the PKS
that prostitutes, vessels for alcohol, cremation grounds,
elephants in the rut, etc. should be given respect (PKS
10.66), and this rule again comes from the Kularnava
(11.57-58). The PKS inherits a number of core ideas from
this Tantra, or a common stock of ideas inspired by this
Tantra. It shares the centrality of the Para Bija and its
interpretation as the merger of the female and male godhead
and the underlying unity of the cosmos, the credit given to
the Veda while calling it a prostitute, the predilection
for pleasant wines, the interiorized sacrifice of the Kaula
Tantric yogi, Tantric ethics, etc. But in many ways the
Kularnava Tantra is more extreme, while the PKS is more
inclusive regarding the Vedic tradition.
Calling the Veda a prostitute is an interesting twist. Here
prostitute apparently means something exterior and
publicly available. The Veda is seen as the exterior,

outermost layer of the more esoteric Tantric tradition that
is regarded as more powerful soteriology than the Vedadetermined values. There is great stress on strict secrecy
that belongs to the ethical code of Tantric behavior, just
as on a positive attitude towards the panchamakara and the
requirement to eventually give up caste affiliations. All
of this correlates with the Kularnava, but the PKS shows
much greater interest in deliberately associating and
merging with the Veda. Correspondingly, there is greater
secrecy and discretion regarding the panchamakara. They are
never mentioned by name, but instead by relational terms
(the first, the middle one, etc.) There is much stronger
ritual control and Kaula practice becomes almost invisible.
Although the PKS borrows extensively from the famous 13th
century source by quoting it at least 27 times more or less
verbatim, the following daring verses of the Kularnava are
conspicuously missing:
Only by ecstatic delight is the goddess satisfied. By his
(alcohol) delirium he (i.e the Tantric hero satisfies or
becomes) (Shiva-)Bhairava, and by his vomiting all the
gods. (Kularnava 7.101)
AnandAt.h tRîpyate devI mUrChayA bhairavaH svayam.h |
vamanAt.h sarvadevAshcha tasmAt.h trividhamarchayet.h ||
Excited by passion, treating other men as their own
beloved, the ladies act wantonly. Men also, exhilarated in

extreme ecstasy (praudhAntollAsa), behave likewise.
Intoxicated men embrace men. Yogis take food from each
others vessels and, putting the drinking pots on their
heads, dance around. Filling wine in their mouths, they
make ladies drink it from their lips. Putting pungent
things in their mouths they transfer them to the mouth of
their beloved. Exhilarated Yogis fall on the ladies, and
intoxicated ladies fall upon men. (Kularnava 8.67-74).
For the Kuarnava, these agents indulging in heavy drinking
and sexual liberty are higher yogis, the post-mature
heroes, who have lost their normal state of mind and are
intoxicated with the wine of god Bhairava. Here we
encounter a very powerful example of imagination as a
creative machine to recode the real and animate the
imaginary. Excessive drinking is considered as a form of
possession trance. It invariably belongs to the higher
mystical grades. The Tantric hero, who has reached post
maturity, is in an exalted state of mind beyond ordinary
consciousness. Engrossed in ecstatic god-consciousness,
rapture and divine madness he has lost all fear of hell.
The PKS mentions these grades but does not describe them
(PKS 10.68). The commentators are a bit more explicit. They
quote Tantric passages about holy frenzy and explain them
with great empathy. They have particularly long glosses on
alcohol and how it is produced. They also regard alcohol

consumption as necessary for Brahmins. The consumption
apparently increases with the stages of maturity and
heroic post-maturity. Umanandas Nityotsava allows extra
portions of alcohol to be added after the puja when
consuming the food and drink as holy rest of sacrifice.
But Rameshvara censures this custom because it is not
prescribed in the PKS. Concerning the notorious fifth,
sexual intercourse, they are largely in agreement. It is a
must like the othe rpanchamakara and substitution is
allowed only when the real thing is not available. The PKS
is extremely short and cryptic about this part of the
ritual, and even the commentators disagree on whether all
the cycles involve sexual intercourse or only the cycle of
Lalita. In any case, the woman or girl must agree (PKS
10.69). Sexual rites belong to the ritual obligations
amongst other ritual duties, i.e. they are not particularly
stressed, and alcoholic beverages seem to be at least as
important. They have been seen in Kaula cults as selfrevelation of the deity. Their consumption meant literally
absorbing the essence of the godhead in the body. The
intoxication was a state of divine possession and divine
bliss. Sexual union apparently had a similar function, the
immediate participation in the godhead. It may be an
obsession of Western recipients to emphasize so much the
sexual elements only, because alcohol is socially accepted

and even part of the Christian mass. Sexual rites may be
less provocative in the Indian tradition than other
transgressions, and there are reasons to suppose that for
the Kaula Tantrics themselves, alcoholic liquor may have
been a more important and equally exciting means of
stimulating bliss in the body and making divine autonomy,
creativity and non-dual rapture a sensuous and corporal
experience.
contd ...
By admin on Jul 6, 2013 | In Srividya, Darshana,
Oriental/New Age
The Parashurama Kalpasutra unfolds a detailed ritual
process in ten chapters, starting with initiation (ch. 1)
and followd by the daily ritual sequences of the kula
clans major (mantra) deities: the lord of obstacles
Ganapati (ch. 2), the chief goddess Lalita, the queen of
the jewel island (ch. 3-5), her minister Shyama (secretly
called Matangi), the goddess of music and dnce (ch. 6), her
fierce commander-in-chief Varahi (ch. 7), and Para who is
qualified as Lalitas auspicious heart, i.e. her
supreme nature and inner essence (ch. 8). The final
chapters are on Tantric fire sacrifice (ch. 9) and an
integrated view of the mantra deities (ch. 10). The hybrid
character of the PKS can already be inferred from its
self-identification: it refers to its legendary author

Parashurama as great Kaula master (colophons) and calls
itself proudly the great Upanishad (PKS 10.83). The
worship of all the deities comprises extensive mantra
practices, visualizations and Kundalini Yoga, and also
exoteric worship including wine, meat, and intercourse,
except for Para, whose exoteric rites are restricted to
alcohol or pieces of meat soaked in alcohol. While Lalita
is undoubtedly the chief deity (having three chapters
devoted to her), Para seems to be the secret, esoteric core
of the whole PKS. Lalita is particularly associated with
eroticism and language/alphabet rites (the symbolic idea is
that both are world-creating), and Para with the principles
of the universe (tattvas), the yogic body centers and the
seed-sound of liberation. Para is most related to kundalini
yoga, gnostic knowledge and cosmic awareness. Her rites are
almost exclusively associated with internal worship. She
does not even have a ritual diagram, because the cosmos
itself, i.e. the 36 cosmic principles (tattvas) constitute
her yantra. In her worship the tattvas are absorbed and
purified by visualizing practices in the yogic chakras. The
(typically Trika) goddess Para mirrors most the Kashmirian
backgrounds of non-dual philosophy. She is associated with
Prakasha and Vimarsha, illumination and reflection, i.e.
the supreme light and the dynamic consciousness, energetic
power and bliss of the supreme I. The PKS clearly

presupposes the merger of Kaula, Trika and Krama strands of
Tantra with Pratyabhijna philosophy and linguist/sonic
metaphysics that are typical of the non-dualist Kashmir
Shaivism of Abhinavagupta. We find not only the Trikas
seed-syllable, but also Kramas seed-syllable. In
consonance with Abhinavaguptas designation of the Trikas
supreme goddess we find the name Parabhattarika in the most
crucial place of the Para cycle (PKS 8.21) where threefold
immersion is described: the non-conceptual, immersion
through conceptual thought, and immersion through
meditational and ritual activity.
The PKS is highly ritual-oriented, but clearly presupposes
Abhinavaguptas gnostic version of Kashmir Shaivism with
which it shares major philosophical tenets and terminology.
However, in contrast to Abhinavagupta (early 11th century),
who was more interested in wild deities and metaphorically
coded Kaula than in the Veda (which in fact was unimportant
to him), the PKS is eagerly interested in attaching tiself
to the Veda and to Vedantic terminology, combining non-dual
Upanishadic language with Kashmir Shaiva and Shakta
expressions of non-duality. Instead of the terrifying
Bhairava and the dangerous, spooky Yoginis of the
Vidyapitha and the early Kaula, there is much more elegant
female-dominated pantheon of mantra deities. The PKS is
clearly a Srividya text whose center is the beautiful,

benign Lalita worshipped in the Srichakra diagram. Only
Varahi kept some terrifying and bloodthirsty traits that
recall the former Yogini cults. Unlike the rest of the PKS
deities, she is worshipped at midnight and receives blood
offerings during bali sacrifice (PKS 7.34). Her very dark
features are expressed in names and mantras that call on
Varahi and her attendants to strike and kill, to drink the
enemies blood and sperm, and bring the practitioner
success. Varahi is seen as the judge and protector of the
schools samaya (secret teachings, rules and moral codes).
Her protective function, autonomy and uninhibited
commanding power to punish evildoers, to bind, conceal, and
control, and to bestow favors, grace and enlightenment to
the initiated peer-group members, are absorbed by the
ritual agent after strict mantra practice (cf. PKS 7.1,
7.38 and Rameshvaras comments). While the objective of the
Varahi ritual seems to be more profane than spiritual, the
other ritual cycles aim more at spiritual effects than
profane ones.
The PKS shares the Veda-Tantra merger and its major goddess
Lalita worshipped in the Srichakra with the South Indian
Srividya common among Shaiva-Smarta Brahmins and the
monastic Shankaracharyas. It is, however, a completely
different hybrid. The agents and transmitters have
apparently been Brahmins, but not monastics until recently.

They were rather cosmopolitan free-thinkers, educated
town-dwellers and members of the royal court, particularly
the court of Tanjore. The PKS urges a reflected use of the
Panchamakara; in order to enjoy them without disturbance
one should consider the situation, social conventions,
different countries customs, and ones well-being, health
and age (PKS 10.56). Alcoholic beverages should be prepared
according to the custom of the region (10.62). Caste
identities are to be surmounted, and purity codes become
irrelevant for those rooted in the Kula familys own duties
that lead to emancipation while living (Jivanmukti) and
final liberation when dying (10.70, 10.82). There is an
ideology free of castes which has been always typical of
Kaula (at least within the ritual context). But the wealth
of ritual paraphernalia needed (perfumes, beautiful
garments etc.), the preciousness of the materials suggested
for the production of the ritual diagrams, the Sanskrit
knowledge and the free time presupposed, hint at the welloff higher classes. Even the goddess pantheon and its
partially military language seem to reflect a courtly
milieu. The chief deity Lalita is the queen of the
universe, residing on the jewel island in a palace made of
precious stones. The royal Laita is far away from the wild
deities and bloodthirsty flying Yoginis whom even the Kaula
reformers of Kashmir were crazy about. But she is equally

far away from the Lalita of the Shankaracharyas. Her erotic
features are more than metaphors. She is the deity whose
Shakti worship involves all panchamakara. Regarding sexual
intercourse, the only inhibiting rule is that the woman
must show signs of agreement. If she signals sexual
arousal, she must be satisfied; if she signals
disinterest, she must be left alone (PKS 10.69). Strict
secrecy is stipulated. Most of these ethical codes are more
or less directly borrowed from the Kularnava Tantra, with
which the PKS also shares a number of other features.
The deliberate Kaula confession stands out when compared
with the more common form of South Indian Srividya. The PKS
regards its won worldview and ritual practice as the true
interpretation of the Veda and ultimately superior to it.
In contrast to the Srividya of the Shankaracharyas, which
extinguished ritual substances and procedures that were
offensive to the system of purity, the PKS may be
characterized as a left-hand Srividya, in which the Veda
becomes completely overlaid and absorbed by the Tantra. The
Panchamakara are declared as conforming to the Vedic
system. And this continued and intensified in Umanandas
ritual elaboration Nityotsava (1745) and the learned
commentaries of Rameshvara (1832) and Lakshmana Ranade
(1889) in the early and late 19th century. All these
authors were Maharashtra Brahmins, and at least Umananda

had close connections with the Tanjore court where he spent
part of his life.
The combination of Lalita and Para, as well as the pair
Shyama and Varahi subordinated to Lalita, point to South
India as the place of origin, and more specifically to
Kanchi, Tamilnadu. The early exchange between South India
and Kashmir regarding the Srividya and the Trika goddess
Para was variously noted in scholarship, and even today,
(right-hand) Srividya is very popular in Tamil Nadu, where
Lalita has her seat in Kanchi. The conceptualization of
Shyama and Varahi as Lalitas minister or commander-inchief is also known to the Lalita Sahasranama that mirrors
right-hand and left-hand Srividya conceptions.
But in fact, it is hard to discern with certainty where the
PKS actually comes from because of the highly composite
nature of the text. The major sources appear to be the
Subhagodaya, Kularnava Tantra and may be the Paramananda
Tantra which are quoted or glossed extensively, but there
are many parallels or even verbatim correspondences with
many other earlier and later Tantric sources, such as the
Srividyarnava Tantra (very frequent), Gandharva Tantra,
Prapanchasara Tantra, Sharada Tilaka, Kali Tantra,
Tantraraja Tantra, Shyama Rahasya, Mantramahodadhi etc. The
largest number of parallels is apparently found in those
sources which are in all likelihood of Southern Indian

origin, but altogether the parallels go far beyond South
India and the Srividya school. The PKS incorporates and
mirrors verses and ideas from Tantras from all parts of
India. With some caution, I would call it a late Kaula
summa. In the sixteenth century (the time when the PKS was
most probably composed - first mention is found in
Krishnanandas Tantrasara, 1582), such a summa may have
been particularly necessary to preserve Kaula knowledge,
due to the criticism of Lakshmidhara, who regarded even
Kaula interiorized body practice as un-Vedic and nonspiritual. In contrast, the PKS shows how Vedic and
spiritual Kaula body-practice actually is. It projects a
similarly idealized timeless and placeless Kaula like
Avalons apology for Tantra some centuries later. I will
come back to these issues when discussing the Veda-Tantra
merger and creative imagination, since the PKS not only
differs from Lakshmidhara, but also from Avalons
presentation of the yogic chakras and kundalini yoga. But
my major point is that there was obviously a common stock
of Tantric ideas and practices in nearly all parts of India
at least since the 16th century, which are assembled in the
PKS and cast into a new, highly sophisticated integrated
whole. The widespread dissemination of common Tantric ideas
and practices and even of individual lineages seems to have
a much older history - at least on the conceptual level.

Remarkably, the Brahmayamala (probably composed between the
7th and the early 9th centuries) already claims a pan-South
Asian genealogy. Cf. Hatley, Brahmayamalatantra, 228, 231236 - considers this claim not totally implausible. He
suspects a rural social milieu in Orissa to be the most
probable place of origin. The conceptual framework was
apparently a topographic mandala that encompassed central
India and the Deccan, the North-Indian heartland, and
Orissa and Bengal. Possibly such a topographic mandalic
scheme is also the secret superstructure of the four
goddesses of the PKS (whose major cults go back to
different regions).
So, it remains striking that the PKS mirrors a sort of
cosmopolitan, universal Tantra in pre-colonial times, which
resembles Avalons unified Tantrism that was charged with
heavy Orientalism and essentialism. Avalon apparently did
not know the PKS, but used partly the same, partly
analogous texts for his representation. Avalons pretended
congruence with the Veda is very much there in the PKS.
I consider the PKS to be of particular interest both for
theorizing about Tantra and for considering its historical
development. The PKs defines linear developments and
reveals that Tantric history remained confusingly complex
and opaque even during an epoch when the heyday of Tantra
(lasting from the 5th to the 13th century) was actually

over. By this time Tantra had largely merged with Hindu
mainstream culture, and vernacular Bhakti traditions gained
prominence in defning Hindu identities. On the one hand the
PKS reveals continuities within the older Tantra strand,
while on the other it indeed mirrors transfers and
transformations within the Kaula Tantra and Tantric history
in general. What stands out the most is its keen interest
in the Veda combined with a pronounced Kaula confession and
the interface of exterior and interior visionary ritual.
The inspiration was probably the Kularnava that identifies
the Kaula scriptures and the Veda. The PKS apparently holds
the middle ground between the Kashmirian Kaula and the
South Indian vedicization and vedantization. Its step
ahead towards domestication will become clear when
compared with the Kularnava Tantra that itself already
continued the Kaula reform that started in Kashmir. When it
comes to theorizing about Tantra, the PKS is revealing for
its virtuoso blending together of exterior and interior
ritual and the real and virtual body.
The PKS was the script for many ritual elaborations,
including rather recent ones such as Chidanandanathas
Srividya Saparya Paddhati (Srichakrarchana Dipika) and
Swami Karpatris Srividya Ratnakara composed in the 1940s
and 1950s. Whereas the Srividya Ratnakara is quiet about
the panchamakara and sexual practices, earlier commentators

defended the real thing. But in fact, this substantial
difference is not easy to discern, since the panchamakara
and particularly intercourse are communicated in a rather
hidden and cryptic way and remain almost invisible to a
casual glance, because the verbal material and techniques
of imagination are much more dominant.
There can be no doubt, however, that the PKS makes use of
the panchamakara, and does so in a highly rule-governed
manner. All the sequences of worship have strictly parallel
structures that contain some permutations and inversions
increasing with each successive chapter. The structural
pattern is well known from other Tantric rituals, too. I
mention only the rough structural outlines of each deity
cycle, part of which will be discussed more elaborately
below:
(1) Tantricized sunrise-worship including the visionary
showering of the body with the water of immortality flowing
from the thousand-petalled lotus on the top of the head
(the seat of the Gurus sandals and the divine pair
Kameshvara and Kameshvari, denoting the merger of
Paramashiva and Para in ones consciousness) and japa of
the root mantra
(2) Preliminary rites to sanctify the place (worship of
door, seat, and lamps, ritual diagram, and mantra) and
deify the body (bhutashuddhi and nyasas)

(3) Ordinary water-arghya and special alcoholic-arghya
(associated with kamakala symbolism and the A-Ka-Tha
triangle)
(4) Worship of the physically and/or mentally created image
(exoteric upacharas or mental upacharas in Lalitas case
and chakra/kundalini yoga in Paras case)
(5) Worship of the ritual diagram (avarana puja of each
deity-yantra, except for Para, whose yantra is the cosmos,
i.e. the 32 cosmic principles that are mentally absorbed,
melted and purified in the Muladhara, navel and heart,
and sacrificed into the supreme light)
(6) Image worship continued (tarpana, upacharas with cooked
food) and in Lalitas case also kamakala meditation and
visualization of her auspicious heart (Paras bija
mantra)
(7) Concluding rites comprising Shakti-worship, fire
sacrifice, and meal
(8) Dismissal rites (withdrawing the deities into the
heart; in Shyamas case special rules of social behavior;
in Paras case no dismissal rites)
contd ...
By admin on Jun 12, 2013 | In Srividya, Darshana,
Oriental/New Age
Fifth, the identification of Tantra and Kaula (associated

with ritualized sexuality, which has been a major factor
defining Tantra in Western approaches), rather than Tantra
and Agama (terms that are used interchangeably in the Agama
lore) or Tantra and mantra practice (which has been a major
defining moment in Tantric insider discourses). Mantras
have been outstandingly important since the time of early
Shaiva and Siddha cultures, particularly in the Mantrapitha
and Vidyapitha (distinguished by male and female mantras,
i.e. mantra deities). In later Tantra the terms Tantra and
Mantrashastra became practically synonyms. The
identification of Kaula and Tantra barred our understanding
of Tantra as a manifold and polyvalent phenomenon that has
to a large extent Shaiva, Agamic and mantric roots and yet
plural expressions since ancient times, and most of all a
history of many processes of fusion, transformation and
bifurcation. The focus on Kaula probably has many different
reasons, or more precisely a melange of them. I suppose a
not insignificant one was Kaula as the fascinating and
exotic other par excellence - particularly if narrowed
down to sexual issues. Another reason lies in the history
of Western studies, which have been largely confined to
Kaula or to Srividya as the latest Kaula evolute, whereas
Agama studies have emerged only in the last three decades.
And finally, the actual history of Tantra in India: if the
historical model above is correct, Kaula was one of the few

remaining deviant systems that offended Smarta social codes
and remained visible as Tantra. This would explain Teun
Goudriaans observation that most literatures bearing the
title Tantra belong to the Shakta literatures of the
Kaula type, and corroborate his proposition that the Kaula
movement is the most important and most characteristic
within Tantra. A Kaula work of great formative influence
was, according to Goudriaan, the Kularnava Tantra, which is
also often glossed by Avalon and heavily quoted by the PKS
(no less than 27 times). However, the Kularnava (13th
century) already belongs to a more domesticated Kaula
compared with older Kaula sources (and their wild Yoginis)
that probably developed within the Shaiva Vidyapitha
(centered on female mantra-deities and the potency of
impure ritual). The latter leads us to a pre-Kaula lefthand Tantra which is male-dominated and found in the
Bhairava Tantras or Bhairava Agamas. These works contain
some radical, antinomian practices that apparently
intensified when shifting to female dominance in Vidyapitha
sources (around ninth century or earlier), such as the
Brahmayamala Tantra (one of the rare Bhairava Agamas which
did survive). Here we find Kapalika vows that involve
things like drinking liquor from skull-caps, making fire
sacrifice in the mouths of corpses to revive the dead,
offering human flesh, faeces, semen and blood from ones

own body, and also some instances of sexual ritual, because
sexual fluids and menstrual blood were among the most
precious power-substances for achieving supernatural powers
and embodied divinity.
It is typical that the Bhairava Agamas were excluded from
the classical Shaiva Agama lore, while their traditional
number of sixty-four led to the indigenous tradition of
speaking of sixty-four Tantras. It was this radical lefthand section of the Shaiva Agamas that played an important
role in giving Tantra a bad name in India. Compared with
it, Kaula will seem more decent. Instead of ascetic
mortuary and exorcist practice in lonely places, the Kaula
ritual involves external and internal consorts
(intoxication, bliss, kundalini shakti) and is practiced
behind closed doors by liberation seeking householders. The
cremation gorund shifts to the body and consciousness, and
we find increasingly interiorized conceptions of divine
agencies, emphasis on ecstatic experience in erotic ritual
and yogic conceptions of the presence of the Shaktis - that
is there is greater concern with internal yogic nectars
than with impure liquids like sexual fluids and menstrual
discharge. However, exoteric manifestations did not die
out, nor was the former ritual devoid of the virtual and
visionary (the Brahmayamala even knows the kundalini shakti
as inner consort, who would later simply attain much more

importance).
As far as I can see, there was only one late, indigenous
critique to do with Kaula ritualized sexuality. It is found
with the sixteenth century Srividya purist Lakshmidhara who
defined mere interior worship as samaya and accused the
Kaulas of keeping the kundalini shakti in the lowest body
center. It is noteworthy that Lakshmidhara thereby launched
not only an explicit Kaula critique, but also a new
definition of samaya and in fact a new Samaya school. In
the Agamic lore, the term simply refers to general rules
for the initiates, i.e. initiatory pledges and postinitiatory stipulations of conduct (achara). In
Lakshmidhara, the term samaya attained the normative
connotation of proper, orderly and orthodox - everything
that in his eyes the Kaula was not. Viewed through the
sources I am going to discuss, Lakshmidhara was not only
the founder of a new Samaya school that favored particular
forms of interior worship, but also created a split between
Kaula and Samaya that did not exist before and is
conspicuously absent in the PKS. There is a consistency
from the Brahmayamala to the Kularnava to the PKS that
left-hand body-practice is itself the established norm and
proper conduct, if performed according to the schools own
pledges, rules and regulations. Both Lakshmidharas
redefinition of Samaya and his attack of certain

meditational practices of the Kaulas are of particular
interest for my discussion. His construction was greatly
influential in the Srividya of Southern India where it is
combined easily with the moral norms and religious
sentiments of the Shankaracharyas and Smarta Brahmins, so
that Samaya and right-hand worship became largely
synonymous. Samaya-Kaula distinction constitutes the major
issue of factionalism among contemporary Srividya
practitioners in Tamil Nadu. At the heart of the issue are
the panchamakara and their dissociation from the Srividya.
Tantric history reveals that it was not mere Orientalism
which led scholars to select the Kaula, but it also shows
that left-hand Tantra had many more facets and witnessed
more than one transformation. Maybe the most important one
was brought about by Abhinavaguptas discovery of interior
sense in body-ritual, which was formative for classical
Kaula as well. Remarkably, even Lakshmidharas critique
started at the level of sacred symbolism and visualizing
practice of the yogic body and the kundalini energyconsciousness. In fact, real-world intercourse was not even
the primary focus of attack. Kaula practices of interiority
have incited controversy, right up to contemporary SamayaKaula debates. For my argument of the reality-creating
power of imagination this will be of particular interest.
It is equally noteworthy that Lakshmidharas sole concern

with interior ritual was not even followed by the righthand Srividya, in which there is clear shift of attention
from the body to the mind. Most practitioners see
themselves as Samayins, but of course they will worship the
physical Srichakra diagram and the image of the Goddess.
Sixth, a further fundamental problematic area is the
inherent difficulty of studying Tantra. Scholars have to
tackle a vast body of anonymous works and traditions.
Besides numerous literatures that are called Tantra, or
alternatively Agama (like all the Siddhanta Tantras), there
are literatures bearing other names, like the Yamalas, and
finally, there is a large number of hybrid texts such as
certain Puranas like the Devi Bhagavata. Most of these
texts are of uncertain date and many practices they speak
about have not survived. Many unedited manuscripts await
publication. Furthermore, there are translation problems
and difficulties in understanding and accessing the texts:
early Tantric sources are often written in a hybrid
Sanskrit and are cryptic, and later sources use a difficult
twilight language and deliberate encodings, stipulate
secrecy etc. Scholars who are generally not initiates have
to deal with initiatory traditions, i.e. often several
increasingly complex initiations that establish the
competence to use certain sacred formulas and perform
certain rites. Much of it is available only through oral

communication, and moreover, the oral lore is much more
extensive than the written tradition and often different
from it. If commentaries exist that give better access to
the secret practices and help decode the mantras etc., they
are generally extremely bulky, do not clarify their
references etc. All Tantric texts require a lot of training
in Tantric terminology. Many are compilations and much
knowledge is needed to understand the hidden citations and
glosses. The PKS and its commentaries mirror all these
difficulties. This is one of the reasons why my paper is
exploratory rather than a completed examination of the
field.
contd ...
By admin on May 19, 2013 | In Srividya, Darshana,
Oriental/New Age
While trying to pave the way to real-world Tantra, each
scholar has his/her own share in constructing it. I do not
think there is a way out of this, although there may be
more adequate or less adequate constructions, and more or
less biased interpretations. While writing about Tantra, we
are necessarily part of the image-making process, because
there is no way out of positioning and selective reading
considering the huge number and great variety of sources.
Third, Tantra is more of a hyperonym than a homogenous
category. Except for Avalon and Bharati, Tantra did not

attract much academic scholarship until recently. The past
thirty years, however, have witnessed dramatic developments
in the study of Agamic Shaivism and Vaishnava Pancharatra
and a growing interest in early heterodox Shaiva cults. The
collection and edition of the hitherto largely unknown
Shaiva and Vaishnava Agamas gave access to better knowledge
of Tantra, but also raised new questions. A number of
agamas, for instance, are alternatively called Tantra, but
there is no trace of the Panchamakara. We have learned that
almost all Shaiva traditions are more or less Tantric, or
that South Indian temple culture encompasses many Tantric
elements such as visualizations, sacred diagrams and
repetitions of monosyllabic mantra formulas - the kind of
issues Avalon was talking about. But by acknowledging this,
the question of definition, history and origin came to a
head, and not only the subject of Tantra, but also the
perspectives on it multiplied. Some trace the roots of
Tantra, for instance in the Vedic tradition, others in the
agama culture or in more heterodox early Shaiva movements
more or less removed from the Vedic pale, such as the
Kapalika, and an increasing feminization of early Shaivism.
Some see Tantra as a phenomenon of an elite Sanskritic
culture, others detect folk or even tribal origins, while
still others propose a mixture of both. Hindu-Buddhist
interactions and transfers were also a matter of dispute,

and in particular the relationship between Tantric Shaivism
and Tantric Buddhism needs further investigation. Alexis
Sanderson noted a general trend of domestication and two
major transmutations: a shift from Shaiva ascetic
cremation ground mysticism to the Tantric householder,
and a turn from self-operative ritual (held by the dualist
Shaiva-Siddhanta) to an intense concern with meaning and
interiority within the circles of non-dualist Kashmir
Shaivism championed by Abhinavagupta, which was
historically greatly effective even in the ShaivaSiddhanta. Another shift and mutual transfer can be seen in
devotionalizing Tantra and Tantricizing devotion.
Tirumulars Tirumantiram (whose early dating into the 7th
century has been disputed), the famous goddess hymn
Saundaryalahari (some time after 1000 CE and before the
16th century), and the ecstatic Vaishnava Sahajiya (16th
century) are typical examples. Late Puranic sources such as
the Devi Bhagavatam are full of devotional Tantra, and even
the fiercest of the Tantric Dashamahavidya goddesses
receive Bhakti-worship just like any other Puranic deity.
A post-colonial critical approach may be to resist a
definition altogether. Similar to Hinduism, Tantraism has
been seen as a modern construction, born of a crosscultural interplay between Eastern and Western imaginations
that misrepresent the great plurality of traditions. A

sound antidote would be to call each tradition by its own
name, instead of labeling it under the common heading of
Tantrism, to confine oneself to the proper names of the
diverse early and later Shaiva traditions, the Vaishnava
Pancharatra, the Sahajiya, the manifold Shakta traditions
such as Trika, Kaula, Kalikula, Srividya, the Smarta
Tantra, and not to forget the non-Hindu lore like the
Tibetan Buddhist Vajrayana, Jain traditions etc. This is a
solid solution, but it may not be the best one. Just as in
the case of Hinduism, the Tantric traditions in question
share certain common ritual elements besides differences in
negotiating, for instance, the plurality of traditions and
their historical transformations on the other, have to be
accounted for.
Fourth, Tantra as a melting pot. Tantra is a movement
that cuts across various traditions and is not confined to
a specific religion. It was a predominant religious
paradigm or Zeltgeist phenomenon from around the middle
of the first millennium AD to the 13th century. This
necessitates a contact-zone perspective which views
Tantric history as one of constant interaction, and a
highly complex negotiation, blending and recording process
within India and Greater India. The PKS is only one late
version of osmosis, wherein hybridity of Hindu Tantra is
certainly speculative, hypothetical and too simple (leaving

out, for instance, Buddhism), but some kind of model will
be needed to explain both the plurality and the instances
of osmosis which actually exist. My model is based on the
written tradition, which is no doubt a serious deficiency,
but for historical (re)constructions, it is unfortunately
not possible to undertake fieldwork in the oral lore. Some
of the early power-based magic Tantras are written in
defective and very rustic Sanskrit which seems to point to
the world of village Shamans or other subaltern groups who
had little training in Sanskrit grammar. On the other hand,
even the Kapalikas of classical Sanskrit drama, who are
invariably pictured as villain, power-seeking human
monsters, speak polished Sanskrit, and are presented as an
educated elite. We must assume that at all times the
contemporary Tantra cut through all social classes, and
that written and oral lores existed side by side, including
different strands of so-called right and left-hand Tantra.
Both forms of Tantra were deviant initially. I understand
deviant pertaining to alternative ritual systems rather
than pertaining to social stratification.
As a working definition, I suggest Hindu Tantra to refer to
a great number of ritual systems that were derived neither
from the Vedic ritual culture nor the Smarta tradition
(dharma literature, epics and Puranas). Initially, Tantra
and agama were synonymous and referred to soteriological

ritual systems of strong sectarian movements that developed
new non-Vedic mantras and centered around the universal
Lord gods Shiva and Vishnu who had appeared in the Veda as
outsider-gods - but whose profiles included worldtranscending or panentheistic potential (three strides of
Vishnu and Shatarudriya). Eventually the concept of Shakti,
the creative power of the god, and personified as his
spouse, grew even stronger and more independent,
superseding the male. Within India and the expanding region
of Greater India, a number of transfers and transformations
happened, the most important one being a growing blending
of traditions and at the same time an increasing
bifurcation of so-called right and left-handers. Some
Tantric rites have been judged heterodox by orthodox
Brahmins, while the majority of them was wholeheartedly
added to the traditional Smarta rites. The early Shaiva
sects already included ascetic radicals whose liberation
and divine power-seeking mantra practices included
antinomian rites, and heterodoxy increased in the general
process of globalizing Sanskrit culture in all parts of
India. The left-hand Tantrics, many of them belonging to
the upper, highly educated stratum of society, were ready
to integrate all kinds of folk and tribal customs judged
impure by the Smarta mainstream. Some of them developed a
real craze for the deviant and impure (such as necrophilia,

or menstrual blood, sexual fluids, faeces regarded as
particularly strong power-substances), resulting in
deliberate inclusion of radical non-conformist behavior and
wild females from folk cultures and popular Hinduism. Later
Bhairava Agamas (including the Yamala Tantras) and early
Kaula appear to be a result of this process, but the Kaula
soon transformed itself into the more domesticated
Panchamakara ritual and highly interiorized forms of divine
female agency. Side by side with growing and transformed
heterodoxy, there was increasing inclusion in and fusion
with Smarta Hinduism, due to the expanding temple culture,
royal sponsorship, and not least the popularity of the
non-Vedic mantras as instruments of empowerment and direct
communication with superhuman forces. This Tantra-Smarta
merger resulted, for instance, in a shift to pragmatic
religion and non-clan-based everyday Tantra (e.g. in the
development of Tantric digests with mantras for any deity
and every situation), and in mutual influence and
interaction between Tantric, Puranic and Vedic traditions.
Another result was a stronger bifurcation of right and
left-hand Tantra because Tantra entered the space of Vedabased Smarta orthodoxy. In fact, the right-hand Tantra
(starting with the Agama-based temple worship) merged so
much with mainstream culture that it is no longer
recognized as Tantra today. The term Tantra was left to

designate deviant left-hand Tantra. The connotation was one
with low castes, danger, dirty things etc., while clanbased Tantric insiders of all times saw themselves more as
a spiritual elite and their rites and revelations as
autonomous authority. My major point is that Tantra
witnessed a highly interactional history and that various
processes of negotiation took place between Tantra and
normative Brahmanism which eventually transformed both.
Tantra shaped Hinduism and was itself reshaped. Most of
the early radical so-called left-handers disappeared from
the scene, while clan-based left-hand Kaulas among higher
classes would heighten their codes of secrecy and be more
self-assured and assertive about their Veda-superior
authority. I would place Kaula works like the Kularnava
Tantra and the PKS within this trend.
contd ...
By admin on Apr 13, 2013 | In Srividya, Darshana,
Oriental/New Age
- Annette Wilke
The ritual tradition which I am going to discuss - namely
the Paraurma Kalpastra (PKS), a ritual handbook which
was probably composed in the 16th century or somewhat
earlier in South India, and subsequent elaborations up to
the late 19th century - contains everything that

contemporary educated Indian and Western readers will
expect of Tantra: mantras, yantras, hand gestures (mudrs),
yogic body-centers, Kualin Yoga, ritualized alphabet,
non-dual aiva-kta philosophy, and of course the
pacamakra, the famous five Ms. While the former ritual
elements are pretty universal in all forms of Tantra, the
pacamakra have been specific to Kaula Tantra, the
tradition which made use of natural symbols, such as song
and dance, wine, meat, sexual fluids and intercourse
preferably with women of untouchable castes, to bring about
ecstatic god-consciousness and deified existence, and to
share in the powers of their godhead iva-akti. However,
the PKS belongs to the rvidy, the cult of the beautiful
goddess Lalit Tripurasundar worshiped in her rcakra
diagram, which is generally not identified with left-hand
Kaula Tantra. On the contrary, common expectancies would be
more likely to consider a left-hand rvidy a
contradiction in terms. The rvidy constitutes the most
widespread Tantric tradition in contemporary India.
Scholarship has described it as the culmination of a
general trend within Tantric history towards domestication,
semanticization and internalization. There is wide
agreement that the spread of the Tantric cults in Indian
religion is largely a history of domestication. Alexis
Sanderson attributes to the non-dual Kashmir aivas, whose

heir is the rvidy, a major share in this. Particularly
the South Indian rvidy, common among a large community
of Smrta Brahmins and the akarcryas, was so
exhaustively purged of Kaula traits and merged so much with
Vedic orthodoxy and the Vednta that some scholars would
not accept calling it Tantra any more. Sanderson
acknowledges a Southern rvidy which carried on the older
trends of Kaula-Trika merger: In purely Tantric circles,
it was propagated within the theological system of the
Pratyabhij-based Trika; but, as much as in Kashmir, it
came to pervade the wider community of aiva Brahmins known
as Smrtas. In contrast to Sanderson, however, Douglas R
Brooks sees the rvidy as a genuinely South Indian
product whose roots lie in the Tamil Siddha and Bhakti
traditions. The PKS, however, is concerned with a different
Veda-Tantra merger and a rvidy brand wherein we find
transfer in the opposite direction. Remarkably, it presents
the pacamakra as Veda-orthodox and as most vital for
embodying the bliss of Brahman and making it a corporeal
experience (PKS I.12), i.e. bringing about the emancipatory
goal of becoming iva in all ones limbs and achieving
liberation while living (10.50; 10.82). It designates
itself as Kaula and as a great Upanishad (colophons and
10.83). There is particular emphasis on the mantras
unfathomable power and the pacamakra (I.8l I.12; I.24).

Even up to the late 19th century the Brahmin commentators
stress the padrthas, i.e. Real liquor, meat and
intercourse, and regard the five Ms as most important
(mukhya) ritual means. We have to wait for the 20th century
to find an evaporation of the body, which in other
lineages of rvidy has already been happening since the
12th century.
There has been a widespread tendency to view Tantra via the
lens of Kaula defined by sexual activities. I do not share
this view. Tantra is a vastly complex and many-stranded
issue and more of a generic name for many different
traditions, some of which predate, and some postdate the
Kaula. Most traditions that may be called Tantric did not
include sexual contact. Probably the most widespread
Tantric custom of both past and present is to view mantras
as means of empowerment and self-transformation. This view
became widespread far beyond the clan-based Tantric
traditions. Speaking of Kaula introduces a blurred
perspective, a focus on the deviant and the extraordinary
rather than the normal and the ordinary. The first part of
this paper seeks to pin down the cluster of reasons why the
Kaula gained so much prominence. It is about representation
problems and the challenges in dealing with Tantra. I see
the PKS as part of the large scale interactive blending and
bifurcation processes that I regard as being just typical

of Hindu Tantric History as the general trend towards
domestication and gnostification that has been discerned
by many scholars. Regarding the Kaula-Tantra, this trend
can be re-formulated as shifting attention from body to
mind. The PKS may be characterized as an intermediary. It
both confirms and inverts such transformations. It blends
together what has often been seen as clearly distinct or
even opposing, such as Tantra and Veda, Kaula and Samaya,
super-ritualism and gnostification, language and action,
exoteric and mental ritual practice, real and virtual body.
I consider such kinds of blending (in different variations
and degrees) to be typical of Tantra in general. Regarding
the PKS my focus will be the Veda-Tantra merger and the
continuity of real and virtual body-practices which are
characteristic of this source. The technologies of recoding
the natural and animating the virtual, and the Kaula
program of placing the body in the mind and the mind in the
body have been powerful devices for creating extraordinary
realities. I believe active imagination to be an important
key to Tantra and suggest that it also played a decisive
role in interiorizing processes. In a constructive
approach, I understand imagination to be a third space that
produces something new by connecting conceptual entities
and real-world entities, for instance by connecting the
concept of immortality and bliss and real-world alcoholic

liquor. Likewise, I understand representation as production
and creation rather than simple depiction, description or
presentation of something.
In 1832, the Maharashtrian Brahmin and Veda-Mmms scholar
Rmevara presented his voluminous commentary on the PKS to
the public. This commentary started with a long defense of
Tantra against common reproaches that tntrikas had left
the Vedic path, and were greedy, self-indulgent etc. A
highly elite Tantric insider speaks as a Vedist in favor of
Tantra and does not agree with a widespread opinion in emic
and etic discourse that Veda and Tantra exclude each other.
It is one of the many examples of the fat that Tantra is a
messy field with fuzzy boundaries. Not least, it is a
highly contested issue. Its very definition is part of
negotiation processes within and between scholarly and
popular discourses in past and present times. This pertains
to etic as well as emic debates. There is a whole cluster
of problematic areas to be considered.
First, the popular image of Tantra as the dangerous,
debased or exotic other and the varying othering
discourses in India and the West. Notably, the common
outsider perspective has been vacillating between sex and
crime. It is the crime aspect that was most prevalent in
India. The indigenous negative cliche of a Tantric being a
black magician if not bloodthirsty, orgiastic monster has

been extremely powerful and widespread. There is a long
history at least since the tenth century from classical
literature, plays and hagiographies (e.g. Bhavabhti,
Kamira, akara Digvijayas) to modern Bollywood cinema
and popular culture. In contrast, the prevalent image of
Tantra in the West is the construct of a hedonistic
religion. A search for the word Tantra on the world wide
web generates thousands of hits almost exclusively
concerned with sexuality, offering techniques for better
sex etc. This modern Western cliche is basically nothing
other than the reversal and positive re-interpretation of
negative images brought by missionaries and British
administrators for whom Tantra was the peak of a postUpanishadic degenerate Hinduism judged to be obscene,
perverse and debased. The sexual perspective was
popularized and amplified by Rajneesh who transformed a
religious tradition into a form of sexual psychotherapy.
Both representations, the Indian and the Western one,
actually contain more self-description than an account of
reality.
Second, the history of academic Tantra studies with the
construction of Tantra by scholarly representations,
starting with Sir John Woodroffe, also known by his penname Arthur Avalon, in the 1910s and 1920s. Avalon had the
courage not to follow the usual Vedic studies, but to

counter the negative colonial Tantra cliche by editing a
number of pieces of literature called Tantra, and by
showing great sophistication and metaphoric imagination of
the Tantras, their deep philosophical content, and their
non-dual world-orientation. The problem was that he
presented an ahistorical, essentialized and unified Tantra
shaped by Brahmanic informants and his selective use of
later Tantric works. In the 1960s, Agehananda Bharati
confronted Avalons Tantra with a new approach: in the
spirit of the 1960s free sex and drugs came to the
forefront. Whereas Avalon minimized the distinction of socalled right-hand and left-hand Tantra, and restricted
sexual ritual to matrimonial intercourse or to the
widespread metaphoric and symbolic use and the interior
processes of Kualin Yoga, for Bharati, Tantra was
primarily defined by the fifth pacamakra. He stressed the
use of hemp (cannabis) as a disinhibiting factor and
interpreted as the five Ms as aphrodisiacs and
intoxicants. For Avalon, Tantra and Veda were not
opponents, whereas Bharati emphasized an anti-Vedic and
anti-Brahmanic tendency. Later, David White went a step
further. Whereas Avalon discovered a high-class civilized
Tantra in colonial times, White postulates a subaltern
Tantra in the post-colonial age of deconstruction. He
traces the original Kaula and the core of Tantra

(predating the pacamakra ritual) in sexual fluid exchange
and violent Yogin cults among non-elite, subaltern groups
(which he regards as including the Kpalikas). His wild
Yogins who crave for human blood and sexual fluids are
worlds away from avalons spiritual sexuality, and even
from Bharatis non-confirmist yogi circles. For a
substantial critique of this suggestive thesis, one may
look at Shaman Hatleys doctoral thesis - The
Brahmayamalatantra and the early aiva Cult of the Yogins.
Another critical point of Whites construction ( Kiss of
the Yogin ) is the thin textual basis on which he builds
his argument. Even Geoffrey Samuel, who otherwise follows
White, notes the problem that no direct textual material
exists on what White pins down as early Kaula-period.
Similarly, there are no original works left by Matsyendra
whom White traces as the initiator of the succeeding
Kaula-period. Both Whites and Samuels historical
reconstructions make Kaula the defining factor of Tantra,
while giving astonishingly little consideration to the
gamas (especially the aiva Siddhnta Tantras and Vaiava
Pcartra).
Each of the scholars produced a different Kaula, partly due
to different textual sources, different questions and
perspectives (philosophy, ritual, different historical and
social settings), and partly due to developments in expert

knowledge and the history of science, and also dependent on
personal predilections and Zeitgeist phenomena (e.g.
Victorian prudery etc.). There, for instance, no real
reason why Bharati interprets Kualin Yoga as a
substitute for sex, although it is a vitally integrative
part of the ritual he is describing. His ritual shares this
and a number of other features with the PKS, while other
elements do largely differ. Kaula itself pluralist.
contd ...
Mantras from GauDapAda's ShrIvidyAratnasUtra
By admin on Aug 4, 2012 | In Srividya
1. - The vidyA is composed of twenty-eight
letters. The reference here is to mahAShoDashI mahAmantra.
This is the mantra which is represented in gauDapAdIya
shrIvidyA ratnasUtra as the chief of all vidyA-s. The rest
of the mantras emanate from this supreme mahAvidyA.
The version of shrIvidyA ratnasUtra prepared by Mike Magee
that is to be found on the internet has many mistakes, and
the important one is right here with his sUtra. His version
reads: . His translation is also completely
off the mark, and faulty at most places.
2. - The kAdi panchadashI shrIvidyA mantra is
composed of fifteen letters.
3. - Here, pashchimAdividyA refers to hAdi
lopAmudrA vidyA, who is the first among the mantras of
pashchimAmnAya. Her vidyA is also composed of fifteen

letters (like the kAdi vidyA discussed in the previous
sUtra).
4. - The mantra of rAjashyAmalA or rAjamAtangI is
composed of one-hundred letters. We have discussed
elsewhere the technicalities of this sUtra.
5. - The mantra of shArikA shyAmalA is
composed of twenty-eight letters.
6. - The mantra of hasantI shyAmalA is
composed of thirty-five letters. ParashurAma kalpasUtra
describes a slightly different mantra composed of thirtyone letters.
7. - The shuddhavidyA is composed of three
letters.
8. - The mantra of kumArI or shuddha-bAlA is
composed of three letters.
9. - The mantra of dvAdashArdhA is composed of
eighteen letters. Again, Magees version of this sUtra
incorrectly reads - . Though the mantra of
dvAdashArdhA, which is a derivative of bAlA, lopAmudrA and
navanAtha mantras, appears to be tryakSharI or
trikUTAtmikA, in essence there are eighteen letters within
the mantra.
10. - The mantra of bagalAmukhI is composed
of thirty-six letters. This vidyA is described as
saubhAgyA-sannihitA as the vidyA is listed right after

saubhAgya-vidyA in the dakShiNAmnAya:
|
11. - Though the reference here is to
heramba, it should be inferred as simply a name for
gaNapati or not specifically referring to the tantric form
Heramba. Thus, the reference here is to the mantra of
mahAgaNapati which is composed of twenty-eight letters.
There is a near absolute consensus among all tantras on the
structure of mahAgaNapati mantra.
12. - The mantra of vaTuka bhairava is
composed of twenty-four letters.
13. - The mantra of mahAvArAhI is composed
of nighty-eight letters. This is a lesser known mantra
attributed to dharaNI-varAha. BhagavAn durvAsA states in
his lalitA-stavaratna - - the mantra as
being composed of 110 letters. ParashurAma kalpasUtra
describes this mantra as composed of 112 letters .
14. - The mantra of tiraskariNI is
composed of fifty-six letters. ParashurAma kalpasUtra
describes an alternate form of this mantra composed of
thirty-seven letters.
15. - The mantra of bhuvaneshvarI is composed of a
single letter.
16. - The mantra of annapUrNA is composed of

twenty-seven letters. The ParashurAma KalpasUtra describes
a slightly different mantra composed of twenty-five
(twenty-six) letters.
17. - The mantra
of
kAmakalA is composed of sixty-three letters. Again, Magee
messes up this sUtra badly, splitting into two and
providing a corrupted version. The first khaNDa of this
mantra is composed of the letters of the sanksrit alphabet,
aM to kShaM. That the letters are to be used with bindu is
evident from sampradAya. Also, though the letters amount to
51, the logical count is 50 so to say due to the rule . The next khaNDa is composed of the first two kUTas
of hAdi panchadashI mantra, which amount to 5+6 = 11
letters. The final component is the chaturtha svara, which
is a single letter. Thus, the mantra is composed of 51 + 11
+ 1 = 63 letters. ShankarAraNya confirms the same thus -
. It can be observed here that the shruti,
comes to materialize this way even for hAdi vidyA.
18. - The main mantra of kAmakalA is composed of a
single letter. By using the word mukhyA here, AchArya
gauDapAda clarifies that this is the mantra of mahAkAmakalA
(the previous one being kAmakalA).
19. - The mantra of turIyA is composed of
thirteen letters. ParashurAma kalpasUtra refers to this

mantra as shrIpUrtividyA. While the sUtra of parashurAma
has been interpreted by votaries as applicable to both kAdi
and hAdi vidyA-s, turiyA vidyA strictly refers to the
thirteen lettered mantra derived from hAdi vidyA alone.
Apart from parashurAma kalpasUtra (or umAnandanAthas
nityotsava to be specific), there seems to be no practical
use of kAdi shrIpUrtividyA. On the other hand, turIyA vidyA
derived from hAdi lopAmudrA mantra is extremely popular and
is a prominent part of gurupAdukA mantras of most lineages,
be it hAdi or kAdi.
20. - The mantra of mahArdhA is composed of
eighty-nine letters. ParashurAma kalpasUtra discusses a
similar mantra called kAlasankarShiNI but the popular
mahArdhA mantra is longer and employs kAdi vidyA within its
structure.
21. - The mantra of ashvArUDhA is composed of
twelve letters. ParashurAma kalpasUtra formulates a similar
mantra but composed of thirteen letters, by adding a
praNava at the beginning of the mantra.
22. - The mantra of mishrAmbA is composed of a
single letter, vAgbhava bIja.
23. - The mantra of vAgvAdinI is composed of
thirteen letters. ParashurAma kalpasUtra concurs here and
lists the same mantra.
24. - The mantra of parA is composed of a single

letter. ParashurAma kalpasUtra accords great importance to
this mantra and devotes an entire chapter to it, for in the
current form of tripurA does one find remains of the triad,
parA, aparA and parAparA.
25. - The great mantra of parAprAsAda is
composed of two consonants and a single vowel. Also, it
includes three bindus (two from a visarga and one from a
bindu).
26. - Similar is the case of prAsAdaparA mahAmantra
(as with parAprAsAda discussed in the previous sUtra).
27. - The mantra of
parAshambhu
is composed of eleven letters.
28. - Similar to the manu of
parAshambhu, the vidyA of parAshAmbhavI is composed of
eleven letters.
29. - The mantra of anuttarAmnAya
samayavidyeshvarI is composed of seventeen letters. This
mantra of great glory is famous in the tantras as
anuttaravimarshinI, which facilitates the contemplation on
that which is without a beyond.
MahAShoDashI
By admin on Aug 2, 2012 | In Srividya
Last night, a gentleman asked me a question about ShoDashI
vidyA. He was referring me to a bhAShya on shrI lalitA
sahasranAma in Kannada by one Yedathore Subraya Sharma. Sri

Sharma, said to have no knowledge of Sanskrit, composed a
commentary on lalitA sahasranAma in Kannada, supposedly
through the grace of shrIdevI. It is even said that ambA
herself dictated the commentary to him. Smt. Rama of our
Mandali had personally seen him during his last days (in
1970s) and he had seemed to be mentally imbalanced and most
of his time was spent in drawing pictures of shrImAtA on
walls and floor of his house using a piece of charcoal.
Incidentally, Sri Sharma's commentary has been re-published
by Ganapati Sacchidananda Swami of Mysore.
We are completely unqualified to judge the level of
attainment of this gentleman for a great Jnani can appear
as a crazy fool to the ignorant eye. However, there are
some things in his BhAshya which seem a little strange. The
specific thing our friend pointed to was the commentary on
the name shrIShoDashAkSharIvidyA. Sri Sharma writes that
there is nothing called ShoDashI vidyA, there is simply
only panchadashI. He states there is no shAstra-pramANa for
ShoDashI and more so for mahAShoDashI. He dismisses
mahAShoDashI mantra as some perversion practiced by the
tAntrikas. His bhAShya chiefly aims at criticizing the
saubhAgyabhAskara of bhAskararAya, which is ashuddha
according to him, as it is tAntrika in nature. Well, what
else can it be considering shrIvidyA is all about tantra!
Of course, elements of shrIvidyA have been absorbed into

the purANas but the original source of the mahAvidyA is
tantra. That being the case, it seems highly illogical that
one rejects tAntrika pramANa for a vidyA that is revealed
by the Tantra. Rejecting the existence of a tAntrikI vidyA
because of lack of pramANa in the veda (or even purANa) is
hardly sensible, even if one were to apply the vedAviruddha
logic of devIbhAgavata mahApurANa. By the same argument,
then one should discard ShaDanganyAsa, dasha mudrAs and
most other aspects of shrIvidyA as none of them are
described in the Veda.
What then is ShoDashI vidyA according to Sri Sharma? He
illustrates this vidyA as composed of the sixteen vowels
(along with bindu). His version of ShoDashAkSharI seems
rather dubious for there seems to be no such vidyA revealed
in the tantra. And he provides no pramANa from the shruti
either for such formulation.
While commenting on the same name, bhAskararAya says:
|
Here, the nirdesha of is laghu-ShoDashI, which AchArya
lakShmIDhara also reveals in his commentary on
saundaryalaharI. BhAskararAya talks of the gauDapAdIya
sUtra (or shrIvidyA ratnasUtra) next - clarifying that though this vidyA is composed of twentyeight letters, by considering the three kUTas of
panchadashI as three letters, the mantra still obeys the

structure of ShoDashI. This is the mantra popularly known
as mahAShoDashI and BhAskararAyas approval of the mantra
is clearly seen here.
Further, his prashiShya rAmeshvara, while commenting on the
parashurAma kalpasUtra ( ) - clarifies
that iShTamanu here can be panchadashI or shoDashI and
concludes thus:
|
Then we have dozens of tantras such as tripurArNava,
jnAnArNava, gandharva, rudrayAmala, paramAnanda etc. which
deal with mahAShoDashI in great detail.
Many sampradAyas follow the method of thirty-two dIkShas
where panchadashI and ShoDashI are two specific and
distinct dIkShAs. We have listed the thirty-two dIkShas
elsewhere. The prAshastya of ShoDashI is described thus:
|
||
Here, it is indicated that in tretAyuga, panchadashI is
most suited, panchamI vidyA in dvApara and ShaTkUta-vidyA,
which is mahAShoDashI, is most suited in kaliyuga. While
panchadashI is trikUTAtmikA, panchamI is panchakUTAtmikA.
In the increasing order of kUTa samkhyA, mahAShoDashI is
ShaTkUTAtmikA.
Elsewhere, the abheda between these mantras is also
indicated:
|
||
|
|
||
Even in the charyA khaNDa which details the nityakrtya of
an upAsaka after pUrNadIkShA, ShoDashI (which is clearly
clarified as kAdi ShoDashI here) finds a prominent
position:
|
||
Apart from laghu-ShoDashI and mahAShoDashI, Tantras discuss
various other forms too. It is said that laghu-ShoDashI
formed as explained by lakShmIdhara and bhAskararAya
pertains to keralAchAra. In kAshmIrAchAra, the same is
formed by adding bhuvaneshvarI bIja at the beginning of
panchadashI.
|
|
||
lakShmIdharAchArya seems to hold the notion that the
popular form of laghu-ShoDashI is aptly called shrIvidyA
because of the presence of ramAbIja. However, bhAskararaya
entertains no such restriction as he comments on the name
shrIvidyA thus: |
Another form of ShoDashI called kAmarajaShoDashI is formed
by adding kAmabIja before the second kUTa of panchadashI:
|
||
While some tantras state that mahAShoDashI can be formed
using kAdi vidyA only, there are some others who allow the
use of kAdi or hAdi within the mahAShoDashI, based on
sampradAya:
|
||
|
||
|
||
Here, it is said, kAmena samsevitAm lopAm vA, indicating
either kAdi or hAdi can be used within the mahAShoDashI
mantra.
Elsewhere, it is said that in the place of kAdi, one can
also form the vidyA by using the other forms revealed by
Lord dakShiNAmUrti, such as nandividyA, sAdividyA, kuberavidyA etc. |
|
||
The lalitA sahasranAma states - shrIShoDashAkSharIvidyA,
which, due to the presence of shrI, is to be interpreted as
laghu-ShoDashI (discussed by lakShmIdharAchArya) or as
ramAdi mahAShoDashI (discussed by AchArya gauDapAda in his
shrIvidyA ratnasUtra). Again, BhAskararAya specifically
illustrates these two vidyAs in his commentary on this
name. In any case, the ' ' statement holds
good for mahAShoDashI as well.
To summarize, there is enough pramANa for ShoDashI vidyA

and there needs to be no doubt on the validity of this
mahAmantra. If there are any errors in our understanding
here, may shrImAtA pardon us in her infinite compassion.
MahAvidyA
By admin on May 17, 2012 | In Srividya
Works dealing with upAsanA of kAlI
mahAkAla saMhitA, kAlajnAna, kAlottara (mentioned by
kShemarAja in his TIkA on sAmbapanchAshikA),
kAlIkulakramArchana (of vimalabodha), bhadrakAlI
chintAmaNi, vyomakesha saMhitA, kAlIyAmala, kAlIkalpa,
kalIsaparyAkramakalpavallI, shyAmArahasya (of pUrNAnanda),
kAlIvilAsa tantra, kAlIkulasarvasva, kAlI tantra, kAlI
parA, kAlikArNava, vishvasAra tantra, kAmeshvarI tantra,
kulachUDAmaNi, kaulAvalI, kulamUlAvatAra, shyAmAsaparyA (of
kAshInAtha tarkAlankAra bhaTTAchArya), kulamuktikallolinI
(of AdyAnandana or navamIsiMha), karpUrastava (of
mahAkAla), kAlImAhAtmya (from bhairavI tantra),
kaulikArchanadIpikA, kumArI tantra, kubjikA tantra,
kAlitattva (of rAghavabhaTTa, the author of shAradAtilaka),
muNDamAlA tantra, shaktisangama tantra etc.
Works dealing with upAsanA of tArA
tArA tantra, tArAsUkta, toDala tantra, tArArNava,
nIlatantra, mahAnIlatantra, nIlasarasvatI tantra,
chInAchAra tantra, tantraratna, tArAshAbara tantra, ekajaTI
tantra, ekajaTA kalpa, mahAchInAchArakrama (from

brahmayAmala), ekavIrA tantra, tAriNI nirNaya, tArApradIpa
(of lakShmaNa bhaTTa), tArAbhaktisudhArNava (of narasiMha
Thakkura), tArArahasya (of AgamAchArya shankara),
tArAbhaktitarangiNI (of prakAshAnanda), tArAbhaktitarangiNI
(of vimalAnanda), tArAkalpalatA paddhati (of nityAnanda or
nArAyaNa bhaTTa), tAriNIpArijAta (of shrIvidvadupAdhyAya),
mahogratArA kalpa, commentary on tArA sahasranAma by
lakShmIdhara (son of vishveshvara paNDita) etc.
A few Works dealing with shrIvidyA
parashurAma kalpasUtra (with nine commentaries including a
vrtti by rAmeshvara), tripuropaniShat, bhAvanopaniShat,
kaulopaniShat, lalitA stavaratna, svayamvarA pArvatI stava
and tripurAmahimna stotra (with a commentary by nityAnanda)
of the great sage durvAsA, the four basic works of kAdi or
madhumatI krama - tantrarAja (with the commentary manoramA
by subhagAnandanAtha or prapanchasArasimharAjaprakAsha or
shrIkaNThesha, sudarshana authored by premanidhi panta or
his wife prANamanjarI), mAtrikArNava, yoginIhridaya and
tripurArNava, or an alternate list of nine tantras of kAdi
mata - chandrajnAna, sundarIhridaya, nityAShoDashikArNava,
mAtrikAhridaya, sammohana tantra, vAmakeshvara tantra,
bahurUpAShTaka, prastAva chintAmaNi and meruprastAra
tantra, tantrarAjottara (an appendix to tantrarAja),
paramAnanda tantra (with the commentary
saubhAgyAnandasandoha), saubhAgyakalpadruma (of

mAdhavAnandanAtha), saubhAgyakalpalatikA (of kShemAnanda),
jnAnArNava, shrIkrama saMhitA, brihatshrIkrama saMhitA,
dakShiNAmUrti saMhitA, svacChandasangraha, shrIparA krama,
lalitArchanachandrikA (of sacchidAnandanAtha),
saubhAgyatantrottara, kAlottaravAsanA, saubhAgyaratnAkara
(of vidyAnandanAtha), saubhAgyasubhagodaya (of
amritAnandanAtha), shaktisangama tantra, tripurArahasya,
shrIkramottama (an amazing work by mallikArjuna yogIndra or
prakAshAnandanAtha), subhagArchanapArijAta, AjnAvatAra,
sanketapAdukA, chandrapITha, sundarImahodaya (of
kavimaNDana shambhu bhaTTA or shankarAnanda, quoted in
mantrarAjasamucchaya of kAshinATha bhaTTa), hridayAmrita
and nityotsava by umAnandanAtha, tripurAsArasamucchaya with
commentary sampradAyadIpikA, lalitopAkhyAna,
shrItattvachintAmaNi (of pUrNAnanda paramahamsa).
virUpAkShapanchAshikA, kAmakalAvilAsa (of puNyAnanda) with
commentary chidvallI (of naTanAnanda), tripurAsAra,
sarvollAsa tantra, sanketapaddhati, parA tantra,
shrIvidyArNava tantra, saundaryalaharI of shankara
bhagavatpAda, shrIvidyArantasUtra of AchArya gauDapAda
(with commentary by shankarAraNya), and finally the
encyclopedic works of shrI bhAskararAya.
Works dealing with upAsanA of bhuvaneshvarI
bhuvaneshvarIrahasya (of prithvIdharAchArya, said to be the
direct disciple of shankara bhagavatpAda), bhuvaneshvarI

tantra, bhuvaneshvarI pArijAta, prapanchasAra tantra,
shAradAtilaka etc.
ChidrashmimAlA
By admin on Feb 17, 2012 | In Srividya
The practice of rashmimAlA mantra is considered
indispensable for every shrIvidyA upAsaka by most living
traditions today. This mAlA, which is an emanation of
rashmis from the panchadashAkSharI mahAmantra of
mahAtripurasundarI is revealed by bhagavAn parashurAma in
the kalpasUtra. A longer version of the same can be seen in
dattAtreya samhitA and an even longer version in
dakShiNAmUrti samhitA.
There is a corresponding shiva-mAlA termed as
chidrashmimAlA, which is praised as the essence of all
shaivAgamas. Many dAkShiNAtya upAsakas of shrIvidyA, myself
included, use this mAlA everyday, like traipura rashmimAlA.
While the rashmimAlA of tripurasundarI is recited in the
morning, this mAlA is recited last thing in the night,
generally with rajata, svarNa, ratna and chitpAdukAs of
Urdhva-pAshupata stream. Several versions of this mAlA can
be found in works such as chidambara tantra, vAmadeva
samhitA, dakShiNAmUrti samhitA, shaivasarvasva, prAsAdapaddhati, naTeshvara rahasya etc. The mantras that
constitute the mAlA are listed below:
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
vedamt bhagavat pratham parikrtit |
dvity dakimrticaturvikar par ||
tty smbadaivaty caturth vaakhina |
vidy tu pancam prokt hasayukchkar mat |
prathama pancaka proktamittha aivgamtmakam ||
mahpupato mantra prathama parikrtita |
aghorstramanu pact dvitya samudrita ||

vaukkara pact ttya parikrtita |
caturtho manurkhytacaaya maheitu ||
svarkaraasajnastu pancamo manurucyate |
dvitya pancakamida prokta brahmaikyasiddhidam ||
ummahevar vidy pratham samudht |
dvity rudrasryr mtasanjvan tata ||
mtyunjayacatucatvriadar tata smt |
mahmtyunjayamanu pancamo.atha tata smta |
ttyapancakamida prokta ptakananam ||
prvatyca aardy dvity oakar |
svayavaramahvidy tty samudrit ||
sundar ivakmkhy tripur pancam smt |
caturthapancakamiti jneya aivgamtmakam ||
cintmaimanusatadvat parprsdanmaka |
praavo hasavidy ca ivapanckar tata |
pancama pancakamiti jneya ptakananam ||
aakar aivavidy aiv mhevar tata |
prsdkhya mahvidy cidambaramahmanu |
gyatr ivadaivaty pancaka ahamucyate ||
ivasapuagyatr prijtevar tata |
hasaaivamahvidy cvahantyuta iva |
ciccidambaravidy ca saptama pancaka smtam ||
vivevarbhidhnuup nlakahamanustata |
anuubho nlakahamanurmtyunjaybhidha ||
anuubha tata prokto bhavnuup manustata |
gaurvallabhavidy ca pancabrahmamanustata ||
tvaritkhy mahvidy sarvnte samudrit |
arabhasslduvamanuritya samudhta ||

Jivotpatti Adv Brahman

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Jivotpatti Adv Brahman

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Jivotpatti

utpatti back to advaita brahman

The Pncartram is a product of human intelligence while the Veda is not so

Full text of "Panchapadika Vivaranam of Prakasatma Yati"

Sri Guru Tattva: PRAMANA-TATTVA

pramanera madhye sruti-pramana pradhana

- Brahma vidya rahasyam part 2(a scintific expotion

Sri Tantralokah - Volume II (Sanskrit Text with English

Sisyaprajneva bodhasya karanam guruvakyatah', by such blessings from scriptures,

differ, could not be reconciled. No other manuscripts were however procurable in

awareness of one's true nature. This is named Atmasamvit in Pratyabhijna

5-Translations of Mndkya Upanishad Verse 7 - Advaita .

ektma - one self

supreme consciousness. It is neither outer nor inner consciousness, neither

vaiShNava bhakti mArga - 1 - Sri Kamakoti Mandali

hare krShNa hare krShNa hare krShNa hare hare |

According to pAncharAtra siddhAnta, parabrahma is advitIya, anAdi, ananta,

of antaryAmI svarUpa seems to be based on the concept of antaryAmI puruSha

was to separate nyAya from darshana and dharma and establish it as an

use of word rAdhita in bhAgavata to mean rAdhayA yuktaH. He envisions the

mysticism, would hardly be able to withstand popular oppositions. A clever

It is impossible to follow mystic doctrines and practices without a preceptor. What

contained in the vidyAdharapITaka to which a reference has been given by Hiuen

manifestations of the shUnya in accordance with the bIjamantras uttered by the

ucchuShmarUpam bhayadam chakAra ||

Dr. Coomarswami maintains that the brahmashiras which is carried by a number of

Restored by Arya nAgArjunapAda from the country of bhoTa.

Like rAga (passion), nirvana cannot be abandoned or given up.

Thus, nirvana is indescribable in words anirvachanIya. mahAyAna sUtrakAras

anityatA of everything is realized, he is said to attain nirvana. In the state of

Shankaras approval of tantra comes out more clearly in the authorship of

perspectives and group interests. The Kularnava presents

These discourses are present and refined in the PKS. There

(merely interior!) Para worship follows a very different

panchamakara are used and play a significant role. Umananda

the panchamakara substances must be included and

ritual Kaula), however, Rameshvara strongly emphasizes the

So a slow domestication within a Kaula continuum may be

thief, and the dog-eater no longer a dog-eater. All are

and there are reasons for this. But the relationship is

The Vedic-Brahmanic worship of the sun, the water offerings

the same ritual pattern will be found in many Tantric

implicit adaptations in the form of rhetoric and

visualized. Already in the initiation chapter, the five

source of the most daring assertions found in PKS 1.12 and

publicly available. The Veda is seen as the exterior,

beloved, the ladies act wantonly. Men also, exhilarated in

alcohol and how it is produced. They also regard alcohol

sexual elements only, because alcohol is socially accepted

self-identification: it refers to its legendary author

power and bliss of the supreme I. The PKS clearly

clearly a Srividya text whose center is the beautiful,

apparently been Brahmins, but not monastics until recently.

reformers of Kashmir were crazy about. But she is equally

authors were Maharashtra Brahmins, and at least Umananda

sources which are in all likelihood of Southern Indian

a much older history - at least on the conceptual level.

(lasting from the 5th to the 13th century) was actually

the panchamakara and sexual practices, earlier commentators

deify the body (bhutashuddhi and nyasas)

Fifth, the identification of Tantra and Kaula (associated

historical model above is correct, Kaula was one of the few

offering human flesh, faeces, semen and blood from ones