PDA

View Full Version : A question about Shaktism



wcrow
09 February 2010, 11:43 AM
Hi,

I have a question about shaktism. As far as my understanding goes, Shaktas consider Shakti/Devi to be one and the same as brahman. Now, this is what I don't understand. Shakti is feminine energy, and yet brahman is supposed to be genderless, neuter. How can this be? In my understanding, in other sects such as shaivism and vaishnavism God is does not have gender and only appears as male - it does not seem to be the same in shaktism.

Thanks,

Wilfred.

MahaHrada
09 February 2010, 02:40 PM
Hi,

I have a question about shaktism. As far as my understanding goes, Shaktas consider Shakti/Devi to be one and the same as brahman. Now, this is what I don't understand. Shakti is feminine energy, and yet brahman is supposed to be genderless, neuter. How can this be? In my understanding, in other sects such as shaivism and vaishnavism God is does not have gender and only appears as male - it does not seem to be the same in shaktism.

Thanks,

Wilfred.

There are two distinct religious traditions in Hinduism the one is the vedantic and the other the agamic or tantric. Shaktas are generally tantrics.
Pure vedic tradition called shrauta is on the brink of extinction, and even todays classical vedanta is a mixture containing many practices derived from the tantras and agamas.
Only a relatively small group of people have the qualification to follow the tradition of the vedas and read the upanishads, originally only members of the brahmin community were allowed to study the vedas. Due to that restriction, practise and study of vedanta is still not as common or widespread as is the agamic or tantric tradition.
My estimation is that 90 % of Hindus follow a religion based on agamas and tantras against 10 % vedantic. Among the Hindus that are educated in the foreign style, this has now changed in post colonial times, partly due to the sponsoring of vedanta by the british raj, that had the impression that the vedantic tradition is more "civilised" and closer to the victorian moral values than agamic or tantric religion.

Study and practise of the agamic or tantric religion requires not birth in a special community or certain family. Though the concept of brahman is known and discussed in agamic or tantric philosophy it is considered as another term for the dynamic and active creative highest principle described in the agamas and tantras, which is consisting of the union and active interplay of the primordial male and female principles. In the tantric theory of human cognition they are depicting the symbolic union of pure internal awareness and creative objectivity. So there is a great practical and philosophical difference between the neuter inactive brahman of later advaita vedanta who is thought to be beyond any activity and the dynamic unity and interaction of Shiva and Shakti which is, despite its differences from the vedantic concept, definend by tantrics to imply the brahman of the vedas

But neither the impersonal concept nor the term brahman or Knowledge of brahman, is mentioned very frequently in the tantric or agamic Hinduism, which originally favoured other terms for the highest state or principle, like Mahasunya, (great void) Paramapada, (transcendent stage) Nirvana, (Extinction) Khechara, (the spacelike) Shiva Shakti samarasya (sameness of shiva shakti) etc.
For a correct understanding of Hinduism it is vital to know that there exist side by side, these two distinct traditions that, while they share many concepts and terms, have a different emphasis and definition of these shared terms.

There is no clear distinction between shaivas and shaktas, all shaktas will accept that the highest principle is eventually a union of shiva and shakti, as well as all shaivas will accept this same identity of shiva with shakti. One should keep in mind that shakti is the dynamic and shiva the quiescent aspect of one another.

The only question that may remain is whether the first cause of world origin was the activity (shakti) that subsequently gave rise to the self conciousness (shiva) or that the arising of self conciousness gave in turn rise to the myriad activities. I personally prefer the view that each of the primordial principles gave rise to the other and merge in the great void (Mahasunya) when introverted and not engaged in mutual self creation.

Since creation or awareness arises continously and has no beginning in time, one has the choice to be a shakta or shaiva or someone inbetween, there is no need for too much dissent and sectarianism between shakta and shaivaite tradition.

Shiva and Shakti being two interacting parts of one principle, or dynamic event, they have gender and are as well neuter, depending on the circumstances.

satay
09 February 2010, 07:29 PM
namaste Maha,
Interesting post.


Shiva and Shakti being two interacting parts of one principle, or dynamic event, they have gender and are as well neuter, depending on the circumstances.

sambya
09 February 2010, 09:21 PM
what a wonderfull post mahahrda . such deep insight !:)

after reading through it i have nothing more to write . put in a better way , im not qualified to write any better .

why dont you post more often ?

amith vikram
09 February 2010, 10:55 PM
@ maha,
you mean vedanta is different and tantra is diff?
also,are parvathi,lakshmi,saraswati same like hari,hara,brahma?
who is adi shakti?
was chanakya a tantric?
is soundarya lahari a work of tantra/shakti...
i would like 2 know more in detail about this please.
thanks

sambya
09 February 2010, 10:59 PM
Hi,

............and yet brahman is supposed to be genderless, neuter. How can this be?

technically brahman is not male , nor female nor a eunuch . its is beyond all such definitions .

Eastern Mind
10 February 2010, 07:14 AM
Vannakkamm wcrow: In my personal opinion, there is no gender. There might be gender in the representations, but not in God's true nature. It is more Siva is causal, Shakti is effect. Or unmanifest cause, manifested effect. It also represents pingala, and ida currents, which are also genderless. Perhaps the French language habit of sticking a gender on genderless objects may be an analogy.

Aum Namasivaya

wcrow
10 February 2010, 11:09 AM
Thankyou very much MahaHrada for your enlightening and thought provoking post. I had no idea that there was a difference in hinduism between Agamic and Vedic. Do you have any more sources, information or reccomendations so that I can learn more on this topic?
So, does the Agamic strain of hinduism reject the vedas or do they just prefer to use the agamas for information and guidance?

When googling I found this website:

http://www.siddha.com.my/religionoftheagamas/index.html

Is this a good source of information on the subject?

thanks,

Wilfred.

sambya
10 February 2010, 01:12 PM
So, does the Agamic strain of hinduism reject the vedas or do they just prefer to use the agamas for information and guidance?




though the question is meant for mahakrda , im providing my opinion in this respect .

agamas do not reject vedas . they only say that it is difficult to attain perfection through vedic procedures in the age of kali . vedic regulations of satya era are now invalid and tantra is the modern , easier and suitable way to liberation .

yajvan
10 February 2010, 01:57 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

If I may, here is one point of consideration...

To separate śiva from śakti is to separate heat from fire, wet from water, cool from snow. So, why would one consider śakti ? Vijñāna Bhairava tells us ( me ) succinctly:

… śaivī-mukhaṃ ichocyate || 20
śakti (which is śaivī) is the mouth (mukhaṃ) or entrance (ichocyate - it is explained , ucyate or explained)

This sūtra informs us śakti is the entrance, but to what? The 21st sūtra informs us completely.

yathālokena dīpasya kiraṇair-bhāskarasya ca|
jñāyate dig-vibhāgāadi tadvac chatyā śivaḥ priye||21

Just as parts of space are known by the light of a lamp
or the rays of the sun, in the same way O' Dear One
Śiva is known through Śakti.



praṇām

MahaHrada
11 February 2010, 10:54 AM
Thanks to all for appreciating my posting. I will try to comment to all of your postings or questions without adressing each of the comments separetly.
In the tantras and agamas vedachara is the beginning or the lower rung of the ladder of spiritual conduct and their own respective achara be it Siddhanta, Yoga, Vama, Dakshina or Kaula is the most comprehenssive and therefore highest. The most comprehensive and advanced conduct amongst Shaktas is Kaulachara.
Since different people are qualified for different conducts or religious paths some of the advanced acharas can only be understood and practiced after having spent many lifetimes studying the other acharas that gradually can lead one to the supreme understanding.
Of course there has occurred a mixture of both veda and agama or tantra during history. There are maybe only 500 people left in Bharata that practise and study according to the ancient vedic shrauta tradition. Also people following a pure tantric path are rare nowadays. So most people today are following a mixed path.
A lot of agamic or tantric practices and ideas, those ideas and practices that do not contradict shruti and smriti have been accepted also into what is known as classical advaita vedanta, or smarta sampradaya to lesser or greater degree.
Shastras such as Saundaryalahari and Prapanchasara Tantra that are said to have been authored by Adi Shankaracharya, are a witness to the general acceptance of tantric methods even by adherents of orthodox classical vedanta.
Saundaryalahari belongs to this class of shastras that resulted form assimilation of tantra into vedanta, it is a shakta shastra with topics that are acceptable within advaita vedanta sampradaya.
Since it is not possibble to study and practice both, tantra or agama and vedanta to its full extent at the same time , because each path alone would need exclusive attention, that is why during the course of time tantra and vedanta became mixed.

I always try to remind in discussion that when different darshanas use the same word like brahman or advaita or moksha, it does not necessarily denote the same thing, the same word can have a very different meaning. Also buddhists or jains have terms in common with hindus but they can assume very different meanings according to the context of the religion.
The term Adishakti also can have many meanings, when Vira Shaiva Sampradaya will use the term it will have a different meaning as when it is used in Kaula Sampradaya. That what is in common is that since "adi" means primal or first, this term will always denote a form of shakti that is considered high ranking or even ultimate. The rest should be decided from the context in which the term is mentionend

In the tantric viewpoint, Vishnu and Lakshmi or Brahma and Sarasvati, Rudra and Kali and all other dual pairs are derived from the ultimate Para Bindu (transcendent seed-point) splitting into a male female duality and its point of junction or interaction, which is the original cause and the process by which the universe emanates after a mahapralaya. But not only these devata but everything else including our own body, which came ino existance by admixture of rajas and shukra (female egg and male semen, arises out of an interplay of two opposites and their union, the dynamic of laws of physic, like gravity, electricity, magnetism arise also out of the same interaction of opposites.

Per definition Shiva is never the cause, he is the eternally unmoved quiescent watcher, that never undergoes any change, he is pure awareness, whether this awareness is situated in a devata or a human or and animal, or exist as such it is the same undivided state , therefore he is called the akula, without family or cluster of finite relationsships, and Shakti is the reverse the Kula the family or cluster of finite relationships.
Thats why it is said that Shiva is Shava (corpse) without the Letter "I" symbol for the Shakti. Shakti is not an effect. Shakti is the cause, creative activity and energy, she only rests at the endpoints of the cycle either when all creation is achieved or when all worlds are dissolved into the Parabindu again. For instance in her activity of creative world mother, (Jagadamba) creating the material world, she assumes the form of Prakriti, an undivided mass of potential physical objects, all these different latent cognitions begin to form into objects in the moment conciousness (Shiva) starts cognising, then the undivided mass of elements, which is Prakriti changes into a huge mass of distinct objects, suited to the individual mass of cognisers (jivas), Shiva has seemingly split into many, by action of Maya Shakti and her limiting energies.

So whatever kind of jiva is in the process of cognising, whether it is a devata or an animal or a human being, the pure underlying awareness inside each unit is always the same, Shivas undivided self awareness. Also whatever a Jiva is cognising by using his six senses, whether considered good or bad by him, it is only one underlying Shakti that is the object seemingly split in myriad forms.
Shiva is the eternal subject and Shakti, the eternal object that impinges upon conciousness by the act of cognising or knowing, therefore Shiva is called Prakasha the light (of conciousness) and Shakti vimarsha the mirror of (of objects.)
Their union, the act of cognising or knowing causes an arising of an image in the mirror. In this example there is one difference to an actual mirror, in the case of the example there is no object outside the mirror that is reflected, we imagine that only the light, the reflection in the mirror and the act of reflecting exist.

Shakti is active in two modes, one is the creative impulse called sristhi, creation, or vikasa, expansion, which causes the conciousness to become outward directed towards the sense impressions and worldly activity and binds the jiva in this state, this Shakti is the fully expanded lower Shakti called different names for instance, Apara Shakti, or lower Kundalini (adho-kundalini) she that rests in the lower part of the body, the other mode of movement of the shakti is called the dissolving, samhara, or sankoca, contraction, which leads to introversion, rest from sense impressions, and the arising of self knowledge, and this is the Urdhva (upper) Shakti also known in the body as Urdhva Kundalini and other names.

While the lower Shakti, the expanding Kundalini, turning in the righthand direction, (dakshinamarga) the vishnumaya, deludes the jiva, and keeps him a bound subject (pashu) attached to sensual objects, by her limiting force, that way jiva is kept in the rounds of rebirth, in samsara, while under the influence of the Para sakti and the upper Shakti with her the lefthand turning (vamamarga) directed upwards, kundalini can rise and dissolve the karmas and samskaras, and free the sadhaka from samsara.
Tantra sadhana can use the forces of both movements, expanding and contracting for spiritual purposes. When this is done dualities such as dharma adharma pure or impure dissolve.
When the Vijnanabhairavatantra states that the the "mukham" the mouth or face of devi causes shiva to appear, this implies a complicated secret terminology loaded with diverse meanings which is not possible to state in plain words, so much i say that there are two "mukham" of devi corresponding to the expansion and contraction of Shakti the urdhva mukham, and the adho mukham, which can be found in the body and subtle nadis. If the kundalini or prana shakti is moved in a proper way, meditation or awareness of both mouths can be utilised to free the sadhaka from samsara.
But it is necessary that at first the power of grace, the Anugraha Shakti, the Para Shakti and the Urdhva Kundalini becomes active, this can only happen by grace, not by effort, the karma has to naturally ripen to the state that the sadhak can at least once get the impulse of the shaktipat (descent of power) that will free him from the Maya shakti, the resting, the lower Kundalini, (adho-kundalini ), which binds him to samsara and opposes the begin of the reverse the leftside (Vama) movement of Shakti, which is the outward worlds dissolution and the begining of an inward turning process.

Because of these peculiar practices, the higher tantric path requires that the jiva has already naturally exhausted the worldly outward movement, (Pravritti marga) and exhausted his karma, only than he will be able receive the required impulse from the higher shakti that makes him enter on the return path. (Nivritti marga)
In the normal case if the person is qualified the required downflow of shakti is iniitialised by a guru, since grace (Anugraha Shakti) requires that no concious egotistical effort is invested.
If no Shaktipat or Anugraha Shakti is present, the divine intuiton, Pratibha Shakti will not awaken in the jiva and the meaning of the tantric shastras will not unfold and other acharas have to be practised first.
Therefore much of the effort invested into the study of highly complex agamas and tantra like the Vijnanabhairava can go in vain without the spiritual impact of Anugraha Shakti through the medium of the Guru or in rare cases by the action of Shakti herself.

wcrow
11 February 2010, 11:12 AM
Thankyou for your interesting point Yajvan. I will get back to MahaHrada when I have read you post. It seems we posted at the same time!



agamas do not reject vedas . they only say that it is difficult to attain perfection through vedic procedures in the age of kali . vedic regulations of satya era are now invalid and tantra is the modern , easier and suitable way to liberation .

Is there anywhere I could get ahold of these Agamas, because I can't seem to find them online.

Thanks,

Wilfred.

sambya
11 February 2010, 11:16 AM
ahh ! what a refreshing post and such depth and clear understanding of the topics .

wonderfull .:bowdown:

amith vikram
12 February 2010, 01:56 AM
namaste mahahradaji,
wow.superb post.after going through your post i begin 2 undrstand how shiva is known by shakti as mentioned in this thread before.
thank you for explaining so deeply about shiva and shakti.i felt the lack of understanding about the female diety in our dharma was a big hurdle 2 me and your post clarifies my doubts.
but i still have some doubts which are silly due to my poor knowledge.please clarify it if it is worth it.
it is ofcourse difficult 2 study vedanta or tantra specifically.but the understanding about brahman is same to both advaita and tantra.am i right?so,in the long run,isnt vedanta and tantra same,except in practice?
also,every vedantin practices raja yoga(i may be wrong),which is about the chakras,nadis,kundalini awakening and finally nirvikalpa samadhi.
i dont know about adi shankara 'including' tantric works into vedanta,but i feel tantra and vedanta is not diff.coz,even before shankara,soundaryalahari was etched on mt.meru by lord ganesha(first part).all the sampradayas are part of the ultimate vedas.the reason i feel the identity b/n vedanta and tantra is the teaching and understanding.i may be wrong.but i await ur comments.
thanks

MahaHrada
12 February 2010, 10:40 AM
namaste mahahradaji,
wow.superb post.after going through your post i begin 2 undrstand how shiva is known by shakti as mentioned in this thread before.
thank you for explaining so deeply about shiva and shakti.i felt the lack of understanding about the female diety in our dharma was a big hurdle 2 me and your post clarifies my doubts.
but i still have some doubts which are silly due to my poor knowledge.please clarify it if it is worth it.
it is of course difficult 2 study vedanta or tantra specifically.but the understanding about brahman is same to both advaita and tantra.am i right?


We find all varieties of differences, dvaita and advaita and dvaitaadvaita described in the agamas and tantras, it is said in the tantra shastras that each head of the 5 heads of shiva speaks and teaches one group of agamas and tantras, containing crores of tantras, one dvaita, the other advaita etc. so that everybody can listen to a darshana according to each persons qualifications and the requirements of the Yugas.
This gave rise to the 5 different streams or groups of tantras called the Amnayas.
To understand the differences between kevala advaita of Adi Shankaracharya, which is what we usually talk about when mentioning vedanta or advaita, and the advaita of Agama and Tantra is immensly important when we want to understand the tantras properly.


so,in the long run, isnt vedanta and tantra same, except in practice?

Teachings and aims are both very different



also,every vedantin practices raja yoga(i may be wrong),which is about the chakras,nadis,kundalini awakening and finally nirvikalpa samadhi.

Like i said a lot is mixed today and differences are brushed aside, or explained away, which makes it more difficult to understand basic tantric concepts, thats why there are so few people around who can properly explain Yoga and Tantra.


i dont know about adi shankara 'including' tantric works into vedanta,

I didn´t mean to say that Adi Shankaracharya introduced tantra into vedanta, that was done maybe much later, i only said that some tantric shastras, that are accepted within the sampradaya, are attributed to him. His important philosophical works are vedantic and based on shruti, they contain not even one stray reference to chakras, kundalini or tantric devatas or any other of the tantric concepts. Therefore some have doubts that he really was the author of these tantric shastras.


but i feel tantra and vedanta is not diff.coz,even before shankara,soundaryalahari was etched on mt.meru by lord ganesha(first part).all the sampradayas are part of the ultimate vedas.the reason i feel the identity b/n vedanta and tantra is the teaching and understanding.i may be wrong.but i await ur comments.
thanks

That is the position that is propagated by the tantrics within the smarta sampradaya and what is accepted there. It is an extremist position, there are some tantrics that oppose the vedanta completly, which would be the other extremist viewpoint. I think a balanced view is the best. One should see both, the differences and the similarities. I think it is not very helpful for an intellectual understanding of tantric concept and history to strictly adhere to kevala advaita or the modern (indian middle ages) vedanta that was definend and developed after Shankaracharya. Modern neo vedanta is even worse as a starting point to understand tantric concepts.

Early vedic shrauta tradition is much closer to tantra for several reasons. For instance the shrauta tradition does accept the reality of the world and that the divine manifests primarily or fully through (ritual) action and mantric speech these are important shared concepts with the mantra marga, these are concepts which advaita vedanta vehemently denies instead it is extolling jnana as the highest mode of conduct, while ascribing an inferior position to ritual acts and mantra. In that sense Tantra is closer to the early vedic attitude than (kevala advaita) vedanta :)

Especially for the original poster it is not helpful to belive that tantra or shakta darshana and vedanta are similar he is free to study Hinduism without needing to belive in any extremist viewpoint. As a westerner he would not even be accepted by a smarta tantric of Shankaracharyas sampradaya as qualified to study the shastras, so why should he study Hinduism only from a limiting vedantic viewpoint excluding the agama?

amith vikram
12 February 2010, 10:33 PM
thanks again for the clarification.i always wanted 2 know things from a shakta perspective. well,now i want 2 know what smarthas have 2 say about this. if anyone in this forum know anything about this,pls tell me.
thanks

wcrow
14 February 2010, 06:13 AM
Thankyou MahaHrada for your interesting answers to my questions. I am now wondering where texts such as the Puranas/Epics fit into this. How are they viewed in the Agamic and Vedic strains on hinduims? They are obviously different to the vedas, yet (I don't think) are part of the Agamas.

Thanks,

Wilfred.

MahaHrada
14 February 2010, 06:54 AM
Thankyou MahaHrada for your interesting answers to my questions. I am now wondering where texts such as the Puranas/Epics fit into this. How are they viewed in the Agamic and Vedic strains on hinduims? They are obviously different to the vedas, yet (I don't think) are part of the Agamas.

Thanks,

Wilfred.

The Puranas developed over long periods of time and where compiled from assorted sources, many of the original source mss. are not available anymore.

A large part of what is presented in the Puranas is tantric or agamic, these parts of the puranas that treat the way of worship and sadhana is completly based on tantras and agamas. Of course there a vedic mantras incorporated into the agamas and one will find these also in the Puranas.

At the moment i am studying the Kalika Purana where the sections that are treating sadhana and karma (ritual) are sometimes even namend tantra for instance "Vaishnavi Tantra" and contain all the information that are typical for a shakta tantra.

So overall the Puranas are a mixture of vedanta and agama with the ritualistic part taken from the agamas.

In the case of the Kalika Purana there are even many extremist tantric practises recommended which are not sanctioned by shruti and smriti.

The amount of agamic thought in the epics, is certainly less than in the Puranas, but part of the Yoga taught by Krishna in the Bhagavadgita is not solely inspired by shruti alone but also by other traditions for instance Samkhya Darshana but also including elements of agamic Yoga.
Abhinavagupta a wellknown tantric acharya and Yogi, in many parts of his commentary to the Bhagavadgita clarified where exactly Sri Krishna included kaula shakta and agamic teachings in his discourse.

wcrow
14 February 2010, 09:27 AM
The Puranas developed over long periods of time and where compiled from assorted sources, many of the original source mss. are not available anymore.

A large part of what is presented in the Puranas is tantric or agamic, these parts of the puranas that treat the way of worship and sadhana is completly based on tantras and agamas. Of course there a vedic mantras incorporated into the agamas and one will find these also in the Puranas.

At the moment i am studying the Kalika Purana where the sections that are treating sadhana and karma (ritual) are sometimes even namend tantra for instance "Vaishnavi Tantra" and contain all the information that are typical for a shakta tantra.

So overall the Puranas are a mixture of vedanta and agama with the ritualistic part taken from the agamas.

In the case of the Kalika Purana there are even many extremist tantric practises recommended which are not sanctioned by shruti and smriti.

The amount of agamic thought in the epics, is certainly less than in the Puranas, but part of the Yoga taught by Krishna in the Bhagavadgita is not solely inspired by shruti alone but also by other traditions for instance Samkhya Darshana but also including elements of agamic Yoga.
Abhinavagupta a wellknown tantric acharya and Yogi, in many parts of his commentary to the Bhagavadgita clarified where exactly Sri Krishna included kaula shakta and agamic teachings in his discourse.

Thanks. I would really like to learn more about the Agamic philosophy and Shakta philosophy in general, but I cannot find any of the Tantras online (unlike other scriptures) and many of the tantric/shakta websites I have visited are very new agey. Any reccomendations as to what I can do to learn more?

MahaHrada
14 February 2010, 12:32 PM
Thanks. I would really like to learn more about the Agamic philosophy and Shakta philosophy in general, but I cannot find any of the Tantras online (unlike other scriptures) and many of the tantric/shakta websites I have visited are very new agey. Any reccomendations as to what I can do to learn more?

The Tantras and Agamas have been mostly brushed aside, misunderstood and neglected by the academics because of their allegdly inferior content, and still there is very little that is translated or published.

Reading the original agamas and tantras one is confronted with the problem that agamas and tantras are primarily concernend with cryptic descriptions of only some parts of the ritual practice (karma, kriya) or Yoga sadhana, which most of the time deliberately is written in a way that makes little sense without the guidance of a teacher. There is a lot of secrecy maintained.

Mahamahopadhyaya Gopinath Kaviraj was the greatest scholar of Agamas and Tantras in this century. This is a very good introduction into the subject containing some articles on matters related to Tantra.

Gopinath Kaviraj
Selected Writings of Mahamahopadhyaya Gopinath Kaviraj

http://www.mrmlonline.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=2095870&keyword=gopinath&searchby=author&offset=0&fs=1&CLSN_2864=12661693532864241fc34cf594a15dc7

Arthur Avalon is not as brillant as Gopinath Kaviraj but did some good pioneering books on authentic tantra.

His Introduction to Tantra shastra is online at scribd.com:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17563344/Introduction-to-Tantrasastra-Arthur-Avalon

also on scribd by Avalon:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17563395/Arthur-Avalon-Hymn-to-Kalikarpuradi-Stotra

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6911502/Shakti-and-Shakta-by-Sir-John-Woodroffe-Arthur-Avalon

So called Kashmir shaivaism is also an agamic tradition which in recent years has received some attention by academics mainly due to the personality of the brillant Swami Lakshman joo.

But not only Shaivas and Shaktas follow the Agamas also a lot of Vaishnava Sampradayas follow their own set of agamas the Pancharatra tradition especially is agamic.

There are a lot of articles in this blog that are good, also much concerning agama and tantra, (based on the books of Ramachandra Rao Agama Kosha) for instance this series:

http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/10/temple-worship-and-rituals-1-of-5.htm

wcrow
15 February 2010, 02:16 AM
Thankyou very much.

ranjeetmore
16 February 2010, 01:39 PM
technically brahman is not male , nor female nor a eunuch . its is beyond all such definitions .


but the upanishads always call Him 'HIM'.

He is definitely a Person Who has multitude of energies ( vedanta )

Or He is the Person Who is Ananda Himself (raso vai saha).The verse indicates a person.

That energy of The Supreme Person is Devi.Both are indifferent.

srivijaya
01 March 2010, 08:01 AM
The Tantras and Agamas have been mostly brushed aside, misunderstood and neglected by the academics because of their allegdly inferior content, and still there is very little that is translated or published.

Namaste MahaHrada,
Many thanks for the wonderful posts and links. I found them very helpful, as I'm currently reading the Spanda Karikas by Jaideva Singh. The information on Shaktism seems to help make complete the teachings of Shaivism.

MahaHrada
01 March 2010, 09:36 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,
Many thanks for the wonderful posts and links. I found them very helpful, as I'm currently reading the Spanda Karikas by Jaideva Singh. The information on Shaktism seems to help make complete the teachings of Shaivism.


Thanks for the appreciation.
Shaivaism is a misleading term since in the Kashmirachara the main schools are trika kaula and the Krama Tradition both are Kaula shakta Paramparas, only outwardly they appear as Shaivaism, but it is a graduated teaching beginning with Shaiva related practices but the krama in the end leads the sadhaka to pure shakta teachings and practices surrounding the Devis Malini, Para and Kalasamkarshini and the twelve forms of Kali. The concept of Spanda is an integral part of many shakta teachings especially important in the srikula tradition that centers around Mahatripurasundari.

It is a common practise for a kaula to keep his true affiliation a secret.

Keep your Kaula identity internally, outwardly behave like a Shaiva, but when in gatherings behave like a Vaishnava” (Kularnava Tantra11, 83).

srivijaya
02 March 2010, 10:37 AM
The concept of Spanda is an integral part of many shakta teachings

Namaste MahaHrada,
I can see how this would be the case. Shakti being the dynamic form of Shiva, Shiva being the repose of Shakti. It brings to mind a line from the Heart Sutra "Form is empty, emptiness is form", in other words they are indivisible.

Perhaps the gateway to the ultimate has to lie through the objects of our five senses and our consciousness - the dynamic aspect.

MahaHrada
03 March 2010, 02:55 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,
I can see how this would be the case. Shakti being the dynamic form of Shiva, Shiva being the repose of Shakti. It brings to mind a line from the Heart Sutra "Form is empty, emptiness is form", in other words they are indivisible.

Perhaps the gateway to the ultimate has to lie through the objects of our five senses and our consciousness - the dynamic aspect.

I do not see a similarity or analogy between the concept of the Prajnaparamita Sutra and the unity of shiva and shakti.

In the P.Sutra form is emptiness because the form has no inherent existance, it is momentary, So if we elaborate the Sutra says form has the characteristic that it has no inherent existance it is false because it is momentary and therefore it can be called void.
Emptiness is called form because the arising of the relative truth of the concept of being empty of inherent existance depends on the presence of self and objects that seem to us to have an inherent existance. So the Prajnaparamita elaborated says something such as : The concept of emptiness does not exist without the false concept of the inherent existance of form, therefore ultimately it is also only void of truth. So each of the pair Form and Emptiness give rise to each other because both are false concepts of reality. This is what the buddhist master belived, that Nirvana must be a state existing somehow without any intellectual concept involving traces of duality, that way they hope they can escape or avoid the process of creation which always involves dualities.

So the analogy doesn´t really hold ground both are a differnt kind of union, the union of form an emptiness is only that both are false concepts. Shiva and shakti are a union like that between fire and its heat, The similarity between the concepts holds no more ground when we compare doctrines and aims of Kaula Darshana and Buddhism.

Shiva and shakti are one because they are the inherently existing ultimate base of all that exists, even providing the raw material for conciousness and creation of the universe, because they transform into all variety during the expansion of the universe and return to a singular source during the absorption cycle. The result is always inherent in the cause like a tree in its seed there is no room for the concept of momentariness all is transformation of a single substance. There is no point where Buddhism and Hindu Tantra meet they have opposite aims and doctrines.

The Chakrasamvara tantra and mandala, it is said in Vajrayana sources, came into existance to counter and destroy the "evil" siddhas and yogis and their devatas, that worshipped the original creative force, inspired by bhairava and kalaratri. The Hindu Shaivas and Shaktas are these enemies of the buddhist tantrics, because that is exactly what they do worship, the very sprout or digit of desire, the so called kamakala, which depicts the blissful union of shiva shakti that gave rise to the universe.

There is a basic opposition or even enmity in the respective aims, since what the shaivas and shaktas worship is for the buddhists the evil of desire for the creation cycle or Samsara and their devata are symbols of the inherent existance of an ultimate indestructable base or ground of existance, which base is the parabindu or union of shiva shakti, from which transformation the world proceeds.

Therefore what the Kaulas aspire to become one with is exactly that concept of a creative principle that the buddhists want to root out to attain their version of enlightment.

For the Buddhist the state of pralaya, realisation of shunya is an aim to reach and the sole reality, for the Kaula it is just one of several stages in the cyclic transformation an universal indestructable principle periodically undergoes.

srivijaya
03 March 2010, 04:10 AM
Therefore what the Kaulas aspire to become one with is exactly that concept of a creative principle that the buddhists want to root out to attain their version of enlightment.

For the Buddhist the state of pralaya, realisation of shunya is an aim to reach and the sole reality, for the Kaula it is just one of several stage in the cyclic transformation an universal indestructable principle periodically undergoes.

Namaste MahaHrada,
Many thanks for a wonderful and informative reply. It is very good to get another angle on this topic. Regarding the aim of the Kaula (which is unclear to me) may I enquire if it is an attainment which somehow transcends the cyclic transformation?

MahaHrada
03 March 2010, 05:02 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,
Many thanks for a wonderful and informative reply. It is very good to get another angle on this topic. Regarding the aim of the Kaula (which is unclear to me) may I enquire if it is an attainment which somehow transcends the cyclic transformation?

The eternal cycle of transformations and its coming out and returning to its source is that constant pulsing, the eternal heartbeat of the spanda, it contains all that ever can exist, in the fullness of the universal principle of "full I consciousness" and it is constantly pulsing within the center of every cogniser a reflection of the universal process.

Whether he acknowledges it or not even buddha when in parinirvana is part of the cycle, the idea of an escape is only a false mental concept and this concept is not even needed in Kaula Darshana since the ultimate nature of all these transformations is bliss,and realisation of that bliss is within the reach of humans, buddha only needs the aim to transcend the cycle because he consideres that all is only suffering.

So the aim of the Kaula is to learn how to extract that divine juice of bliss out of the world by pressing the stalk of the somaplant which is the world.

The kaula would say that the budddha is just following a pipe dream what else could be there than the cycle of transformations and its undivided source? The moment when there is a cognition there is a cogniser, when there is a cogniser, it must be part of the universal cogniser which is shiva. When one is in a state of deep sleep , or cosmic pralaya, dissolution, the cogniser becomes unaware of his surrounding and looses self awareness, only to awake later and remember that he recently was unaware. Also this temporary state of non awareness of the cogniser of himself and his surroundings, is of course part of the whole and the cycle. It is the complete undivided union of shiva shakti that is the pralaya state, and out of it the transformations will start again when the sprout of desire begins to stir anew.

There is a refutation of Madhyamika and other darshanas following these line of arguments in the Spandakarika section 1 verse 12 onwards.

srivijaya
03 March 2010, 07:48 AM
So the aim of the Kaula is to learn how to extract that divine juice of bliss out of the world by pressing the stalk of the somaplant which is the world.
Namaste MahaHrada,
I can see the logic in your reply concerning Nirvana as part of the entirety. Some Buddhists also state that enlightenment is beyond both Samsara and Nirvana.

The Kaula enjoys the divine bliss, which I guess is the Kundalini, but I still don't understand what prevents him from sliding back into the condition of a normal worldling. If there is no transcendence, even in a nominal sense, then he will face dissolution at death and have no awareness of the rebirth process. This surely is not the case but I fail to see how.


The moment when there is a cognition there is a cogniser, when there is a cogniser, it must part of the universal cogniser which is shiva.
I agree that "The moment when there is a cognition there is a cogniser" I just don't regard it as permanent or consider it necessary to impute "a universal cogniser" for it to be part of. The very fact that it is undergoing constant transformation frees us from the obligation to impute anything inherent upon it. It's less a case of choosing to see it as empty, more a case of dropping any preconceptions one harbours - to permit oneself to be completely open to the experience. No preconditions or expectations.


There is a refutation of Madhyamika and other darshanas following these line of arguments in the Spandakarika section 1 verse 12 onwards.
Thanks, I've read that passage. It only went so far, in my opinion, but made some valid points nonetheless. Food for thought most certainly and a good refutation for those Buddhists who use their doctrine in a nihilistic way.

MahaHrada
03 March 2010, 09:02 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,
I can see the logic in your reply concerning Nirvana as part of the entirety. Some Buddhists also state that enlightenment is beyond both Samsara and Nirvana.

But they do it rather in the way i discussed the Prajnaparamita, since the idea of Nirvana is only used to refute that dualistic concept of samsara, if the second is ultimately non existing, also the remedy must be ultimately unreal. If they do it any other way they are heretics



The Kaula enjoys the divine bliss, which I guess is the Kundalini, but I still don't understand what prevents him from sliding back into the condition of a normal worldling. If there is no transcendence, even in a nominal sense, then he will face dissolution at death and have no awareness of the rebirth process. This surely is not the case but I fail to see how.


Kaula dharma is theistic, Shiva and Shakti are not philiosophical concepts like prajna and upaya in buddhism, liberation is not achieved by human effort or meditation or ritual, but by divine intervention, the anugraha (grace) shakti is actively granting the higher state to the Siddha. The bliss is not kundalini, awareness of kundalini is a method to understand the nature of the universe and the self, it is the inherent nature of every experience to be blissfull, it is only that we are limited and programmed by attachment and aversion and other Impurities, so that we are deluded about this.



I agree that "The moment when there is a cognition there is a cogniser" I just don't regard it as permanent or consider it necessary to impute "a universal cogniser" for it to be part of.

No it is not at all necessary, but Kaula darshana is not like Buddhism all about logical scrutiny and human effort, it is a theistic Darshana involving revealed shastras and belief in Shiva and Shakti and when you dont belive, you will only reach the state of of the pralayakala, because that is as far as a person can evolve purely by self effort.

States higher than that dissolution, can only be cognised by the impulse of shaktipat, the descent of the anugraha shakti. The first mild sign of the descent of that shakti is that you belive that there is a universal cogniser called shiva and his shakti.



The very fact that it is undergoing constant transformation frees us from the obligation to impute anything inherent upon it. It's less a case of choosing to see it as empty, more a case of dropping any preconceptions one harbours - to permit oneself to be completely open to the experience. No preconditions or expectations.

Yes i know that it is a core buddhist belief that momentariness and dependent origination is the real nature of phenomena when looking at them without preconceptions.
But this is not a fact it is just a different belief system, one that allows for the construction of an escape route, but it is is opposed to the doctrine that every resultant is already contained in its source in seed form and that ultimately everything is merely a transformation of shiva shakti, so that is why i say there is no point of agreement between Buddhism and Hindu Tantra possible. I am not saying that one is the truth and the other not, just that there is no compatibility.



Thanks, I've read that passage. It only went so far, in my opinion, but made some valid points nonetheless. Food for thought most certainly and a good refutation for those Buddhists who use their doctrine in a nihilistic way.

Not really, it refutes both views and adresses Nagarjuna and his use of an evasive "non-dual" terminology where the void is neither being nor not being, as just a rhetorical move to avoid refutation of his doctrine. I have read Madhyamika philosophers that even admit that this indeterminability is a wonderful rhetoric weapon to remain in a postion of being non refutable in debates.

I am not debating whether the one or the other doctrine is correct, Buddhas or Matsyendranaths just pointing out that the doctrines of Kaula Darshana and Hindu Tantra are incompatible with Buddhism, one can either be a buddhist or a shaiva/shakta it is a matter of personal belief.

In Nepal many Hindus think that the tantric 5 dhyani buddhas, the Vajrayana tantras and the deities they produced are only a partial manifestation of the 5 headed shiva that he assumend when he was tracked down and pestered by buddhist masters, in that form of the Adibuddha with the 5 kulas engaged in buddhist nirvana state while in union with shakti, they could not harm him anymore.

There could be some truth in that because the early shaiva siddhanta practises and Agamas where the role model for buddhist tantras and can be traced back to a much earlier period, at least 500 years before the earliest buddhist tantras.

There is not a single tantric budhist deity of the anuttara yoga tantra that does not outwardly resemble earlier indian deities in symbology and often they have names where only the term "vajra" is added to the names of hindu deities. Like Vajra bhairava or Vajra kumara (Vajrakila) Vajra Varahi etc.

There is a memorial ceremony of the time when Shiva in this way deluded the Buddhists by speaking the tantras, and forced them to worship him as a realised buddha by showing all the signs, that is done regularly in Nepal when the crown of 5 dhyani buddhas is arranged on the famous pashupati linga and Shiva is worshipped in that form.

srivijaya
03 March 2010, 10:36 AM
liberation is not achieved by human effort or meditation or ritual, but by divine intervention
Namaste MahaHrada,
This has made it clear - hence the worship in order to gain divine grace.


it is only that we are limited and programmed by attachment and aversion and other Impurities, so that we are deluded about this.
That is interesting. Are we held in limitation by divine will?


it is a theistic Darshana involving belief in Shiva and Shakti and when you dont belive, you will only reach the state of of the pralayakala, because that is as far as a person can evolve purely by self effort.
Very clear again.


it is is opposed to the doctrine that every resultant is already contained in its source in seed form and that ultimately everything is merely a transformation of shiva shakti,
Yes, that is correct, as Buddhists believe karma can be altered by one's own efforts.

so that is why i say there is no point of agreement between Buddhism and Hindu Tantra possible. I am not saying that one is the truth and the other not, just that there is no compatibility.
I agree, they are completely different. One emphasizes liberation through right effort, the other liberation through divine grace.


Not really, it refutes both views and adresses Nagarjuna and his use of an evasive "non-dual" terminology where the void is neither being nor not being, as just a rhetorical move to avoid refutation of his doctrine. I have read Madhyamika philosophers that even admit that this indeterminability is a wonderful rhetoric weapon to remain in a postion of being non refutable in debates.
I think this has two aspects. Yes, it can be a great "weapon" in debates but ultimately, that alone is of little value, unless one is content to remain a mere scholar. It's actual value lies within meditation, as a resultant experience. Some Buddhists forget that emptiness is actually a realization, not a debating stick to bash people with.


In Nepal many Hindus think that the tantric 5 dhyani buddhas, the Vajrayana tantras and the deities they produced are only a partial manifestation of the 5 headed shiva that he assumend when he was tracked down and pestered by buddhist masters, in that form of the Adibuddha with the 5 kulas engaged in buddhist nirvana state while in union with shakti, they could not harm him anymore.

There could be some truth in that because the early shaiva siddhanta practises and Agamas where the role model for buddhist tantras and can be traced back to a much earlier period, at least 500 years before the earliest buddhist tantras.

There is not a single tantric budhist deity of the anuttara yoga tantra that does not outwardly resemble earlier indian deities in symbology and often they have names where only the term "vajra" is added to the names of hindu deities. Like Vajra bhairava or Vajra kumara (Vajrakila) Vajra Varahi etc.

There is a memorial ceremony of the time when Shiva in this way deluded the Buddhists by speaking the tantras, and forced to worship him as a realised buddha, that is done in Nepal when the crown of 5 dhyani buddhas is regularly arranged on the famous pashupati linga and Shiva is worshipped in that form.
Fascinating account and one I've not heard before. I would love to travel to Nepal one day myself.

MahaHrada
03 March 2010, 12:34 PM
That is interesting. Are we held in limitation by divine will?

Yes Shiva has 5 primary activities, one is tirodhana, (veilling) the others anugraha (grace) sristi (creation), sthiti (sustenance), laya (dissolution) these are symbolised for instance by the attributes the well known dancing shiva is holding in his hands, the veiling power is expressed by the activity of the Apara and ParApara Shaktis (in Trika Kaula) and the sleeping lower kundalini is the fully expanded veiling power. I quote my own posting:

Like i said just before the action of shakti is essential twofold shristi (projection of the universe) and samhara (dissolving the universe) During the shristi movement, she creates then she is Maya shakti or adho kundalini.

When we begin the return movement by meditation and Yoga there is still the pravritti curent and movement of the adho kundalini or maya shakti active, in the form of karmas and samskaras and malas, kanchukas, or kleshas or whatever you call these impurities, they are to be dissolved, but when the Nivritti current starts the past samskaras and karmas appear in the form of illusions, if one is not attached to them they dissolve and you reach calm. If one becomes attached to them they (the apara and parApara shaktis or their effects) mislead and delude the Yogi. Thats why we need tarka, Judgement or Discernment, as the most important anga of Yoga in Kaula marga. Please look that up at my posting in the "third eye thread"

In his introduction to the Malinivijayaottaratantra Madhusudhan Kaul writes:

Although the Sakti of Siva possesses infinite forms, she is chiefly known through her three aspects--(a) apara or ghoratari, (b) parapara or ghora, and (c) para or aghora. The apara keeps always surrounding the Rudra souls and pushes the Jivas on the downward march by attaching them to sense objects. Parapara, like the former, hinders the progress of the jivas towards their goal of life and brings about their attachment to the mixed fruit of pain and pleasure. Lastly, para occupies herself in conducting the creatures to the highest end of life, the attainment of Siva stage.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=40026&postcount=10



I agree, they are completely different. One emphasizes liberation through right effort, the other liberation through divine grace.


Not entirely by grace but the stage reached by by individual effort is limited to the wiping out of karma, one can therefore only reach the last stage of the impure principles (ashudda tattvas), the cognisers of this stage are called pralayakalas, those that cognise the dissolution (of their individualised ego) they have achieved a partial extinction of the impurity of karma but not so completly. All the possible levels of cognisers are explained in the Malinivijayaottaratantra. Buddhist, Vedantins and followers of Samkhya and Pancaratra are grouped in that category.



I think this has two aspects. Yes, it can be a great "weapon" in debates but ultimately, that alone is of little value, unless one is content to remain a mere scholar. It's actual value lies within meditation, as a resultant experience. Some Buddhists forget that emptiness is actually a realization, not a debating stick to bash people with.


Kaula Darshana is not denying the experience but merely as a stage in the path, still under influence of the maya impurity they do not agree to the absolute nature of it because the two other impurities remain, those of maya and anava, only karmamala is wiped but also not completly.

When it is an experience there is a cogniser, so it cannot be called void of self or shunya, and when it is a state of non awareness of a self with no cognition, one can only remember it after the state is over, like awakening after deep sleep, but a memory is no experience so in that case it is simply stupefaction.

That it is neither a memory nor an experience involving a cogniser, neither being nor not being, but nonetheless different from the pure state of awareness of Parabhairava, is considered merely rhetoric. If Nirvana is the Parabhairava state why call it shunya ? then Nagarjuna should bow to the feet of the trika masters because of their more clear explanations, that is what the author of the spandakarika suggest.


The comparison between Hindu Tantra, Kaula and Buddhist Tantra is certainly fascinating but maybe it is not appropriate for this thread, thats why i stick to the explanation of the Shakta and Shaivas and their outlook on Buddhism and other Darshanas.

srivijaya
03 March 2010, 02:50 PM
Yes Shiva has 5 primary activities, one is tirodhana, (veilling) the others anugraha (grace) sristi (creation), sthiti (sustenance), laya (dissolution)
Namaste MahaHrada,
Many thanks for the explanation and link to the posting. That explains the process in a very clear way.


If Nirvana is the Parabhairava state why call it shunya?
What are the characteristics of the Parabhairava state? Is it considered to be beyond time and space or within it, yet unbound?

Nirvana is considered unconditioned, but I don't know how this would compare with Parabhairava.

MahaHrada
04 March 2010, 05:25 AM
What are the characteristics of the Parabhairava state? Is it considered to be beyond time and space or within it, yet unbound?

Nirvana is considered unconditioned, but I don't know how this would compare with Parabhairava.

We are confronted with several huge problems when discussing the concepts of ultimate states of different darshanas.

Especially Buddhism is complicated since it exists in very diverse forms. Some are very syncretic and have assimilated many ideas that are foreign and oppossed to the original concepts and intent of Gautama Budhha. Buddhism during its history has gone through so many changes and developments and also the definition of Nirvana or shunya underwent many changes, Alone the task to find the elements that are universally accepted amongst all schools of Buddhism is huge.

But generally we can say that the starting points are opositte:

Buddhism highest state is related to the dawning of the experiential knowledge that there is in truth no one existing that is experiencing the world and that it is only due to beginningless karma that this illusion of an experiencer and objects of experience persists. So the logic is if the karma stops self vanishes.

So nothing really changes, the world was ugly and suffering before i knew that i do not exist and after i learned that i do not exist, it is still pain and suffering only that there is no one left who suffers anymore, the only thing worthwhile that is left to do for me, is ruining the day for other beings by telling them the news.

Buddhism says: I have two messages for you both are bad, but one is not as bad as the other, which one do you want to hear first?


Kaulas highest State is related to the dawning of the experiential knowledge that inside of you there is a constant perceiver that is indestructable, full of bliss, that never changes and that pervades past present and future, and is always present like an unbroken string piercing through all 3 states of waking dream state and deep sleep as the fourth that can never be experienced and known as an object because it is the eternal subject. Realising this eternal perceiver or watcher can therefore be never an experience, because he is the one who experiences. So both the experiencer and the objects are divine and blissful.

Kaula says: i have two messages both are good but one is even better than the other which one do you want to hear first?

So whatever the details of the differences are, the general outlook on life is oppositte, the great difference is that the ultimate state of Kaula is active and dynamic realising and expressing the human beings full potential also after moksha, while buddhisms highest state is static, after the release from pain, there is nothing else to do but preach a passive release to others, and it allows only one primary motive or reason to live remain, which is karuna, compassion. So it is a reduction of the full human potential and lifestyle.

srivijaya
04 March 2010, 06:53 AM
the only thing worthwhile that is left to do for me, is ruining the day for other beings by telling them the news.
Mamaste MahaHrada,
Thanks for the reply. At least I've now discovered why I'm always so miserable. :)


Kaulas highest State is related to the dawning of the experiential knowledge that inside of you there is a constant perceiver that is indestructable, full of bliss, that never changes and that pervades past present and future, and is always present like an unbroken string piercing through all 3 states of waking dream state and deep sleep as the fourth that can never be experienced and known as an object because it is the eternal subject. Realising this eternal perceiver or watcher can therefore be never an experience, because he is the one who experiences. So both the experiencer and the objects are divine and blissful.
This is very good and perfectly corresponds with what I've read in Singh's book.

It did raise an issue for me though. In a similar manner to how you questioned the Buddhist presentation of Nirvana, I question how something which can never be experienced can be said to be known at all? It appears that Kaulas are saying that there is a "subject" but no object. How can there be "divine and blissful objects" without experience?

You said previously "When it is an experience there is a cogniser". So I assume, the opposite must also be true - when there is no experience, there is no cogniser?

MahaHrada
05 March 2010, 07:29 AM
Mamaste MahaHrada,
Thanks for the reply. At least I've now discovered why I'm always so miserable. :)


Whether the budhist doctrine is true or not, i cannot decide but it certainly isn´t pleasing. ;) What i wanted to hint at with my remark is that there is more to a philosophy or religion than the rational decision whether one belives the doctrine is true or false but also it is necessary that one should be able to feel comfortable with it and also one should feel that the impact of it on society and ones own lifestyle is for the good.



It did raise an issue for me though. In a similar manner to how you questioned the Buddhist presentation of Nirvana, I question how something which can never be experienced can be said to be known at all? It appears that Kaulas are saying that there is a "subject" but no object. How can there be "divine and blissful objects" without experience?
You said previously "When it is an experience there is a cogniser". So I assume, the opposite must also be true - when there is no experience, there is no cogniser?

All the pre buddhist Yoga and Sadhana in India whatever the differences are, or may have been, where considering the experience of the Self or Cogniser when in a state without being in contact with phenomenal objects or other internal cognition, at rest within itself, as the state of Moksha or close to it. For some darshanas like Samkhya, this isolation is already the ultimate state of liberation, for other like the Kaula Darshana it is a state that is very close to the ultimate state.
It is the basic premise of all Hindu Darshanas that there is a Self experience without cognition. This is Nirvikalpa samadhi, the same as awareness in deep sleep state. The advanced Yogi is self aware also in the deep sleep state. Therefore all the Sadhana in almost all Darshanas try to show the way how to achieve that Isolation. Thats why there is no simple answer to your question as to how one should know the knower.

Even in waking state we are either in the waking state of the waking state, where the objects appear clearly distinct from the cogniser, at times we are entering the dream state in the waking state, when objects or ideas appear before our inner eyes, and also we experience the deep sleep and turya states while awake. We just do not realise these conciously, we loose self conciousness during these small units of time, only the advanced Yogi can discern deep sleep and turya stages that hapen while he is awake, due to his advanced powers of awareness, sometimes these states revolve in extremely fast cycles of short periods of blacking out, and cognising again, during the transition periods, when one perception disappears and another arises. Many practices in the Vijnanabhairvatantra are designed to freeze or stretch time or they use situations where time naturally stretches or freezes and allows the aspirant easier to slip from waking state into the short deep sleep states that are sprinkled in the normal waking state, in a moment when they are not that fast revolving,which makes the awareness easier, and then by that awareness transform them into samadhi.

However, to return to the subject, the deep sleep state is also differentiated into waking state in deep sleep, dream state in deep sleep, deep sleep in deep sleep and turya in deep sleep.

The last two are of great importance since in deep sleep of deep sleep objects of cognition have contracted so much that a peaceful state is reached, where the self or cogniser rest introverted, the next step turya in deeps sleep is the blissful awareness that the self is experiencing the peaceful introversion.

But these states, even turya the fourth in deep sleep are all still within the 12 fold cycle of cognising, the ultimate is the 17 the turyatita which is independt and transcending description. But once the Yogi has awareness through all the 12 cycles (all 4 states in the 3 states) the objects that appear during dream and waking states are experienced as divine and blissful since then self awareness will be established within all the modifications of the 4 States. Awareness of self during this complete cycle is the 4th state, turya, after that is realised the four states within turya can also be experienced and therefore the full cycle of 16 modifications of the cogniser are assembled.

Belief in this eternal cogniser is what Buddha tried to refute because following the instructions of several Gurus he looked for it but was unsuccessful, instead of that he developed his doctrine of the nonself.

Interestingly according to some early tales about his enligthenment the form of how the evil demon Mara, opponent of Buddha, (probably the personification of the "evil" belief in a self), among other forms appeared to him in one that exactly resembles that of Shiva and Kali. The tale described him as a naked female wearing a necklage of skulls and a sword and skull bowl engaged with a another "demon" clad in ashes carrying a trishula and snakes. If i remember it correctly this was the worst and most powerful form of Mara, after he resisted that influence, he had his final breakthrough and declared his doctrine that everything is suffering and the way of release from that by means of annihilation of belief in the self, that self everybody else was trying to realise.

In the creation process (shristi) shiva contracts and shakti (kundalini) expands, when she is fully expanded there is predominance of objective reality, during the Dissolution process (samhara) Shakti (kundalini) contracts and Shiva expands, than eventuall there is a predominance of the Subjectivity of the singular knower when shakti has contracted to her maximum, than the cogniser exists in the introverted, peaceful and blissful state. This process of expansion and contraction is the Spanda or constant divine Pulsation.

The couple(yamala) is conciousness itself, the unifying emisson and the stable abode, It is the absolute the noble cosmic bliss consisting of both.(Shiva and Shakti) It is the supreme secret of Kula, neither quiescent nor emergent, it is the flowing fount of both, quiescence and emergence.
Tantraloka 29/116.7

In another recent thread ( http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=39767#post39767) Saidevo posted a link to an article which is quite informative for the beginner, and contains some references as to how Meditation in Hinduism relates to the 4 states in the context of vedantic Shakta mata. One has to scroll down some time to eventually find it.

http://www.swamij.com/index.html

srivijaya
05 March 2010, 09:12 AM
Belief in this eternal cogniser is what Buddha tried to refute because following the instructions of several Gurus he looked for it but was unsuccessful, instead of that he developed his doctrine of the nonself.

Namaste MahaHrada,
Thank you for a wonderful and insightful reply. The reason I investigate Spanda and Shaivism, in the way I do, is to understand these doctrines from their own side, without any Buddhist filter between my mind and them. I've heard what the Buddhist's have to say but I always like to check things for myself. This is immensely helpful.

Your quote above addresses a problem I find in Buddhism nowadays. Just about any Buddhist you ask will tell you that Buddha taught 'no-self' and that nirvana means complete and absolute extinction. These two ideas are endemic and problematic. I have tried, unsuccessfully, on many occasions to discuss this with other Buddhists but I don't get very far.

If we look at the Pali word anatta, it means not-self, rather than no-self and there is a world of difference. With no-self, we just refute any experient, which is ridiculous and self-defeating. With not-self we do not make such a judgement, merely allow ourselves to not take ownership of any objects of knowledge. Buddha, himself, did not engage in nihilism and refuted those who said "after death the Tatagata exists/no longer exists".

He was beyond these categories.

Surprisingly, there is a description of Nirvana and it runs like this:

Consciousness without feature,
without end,
luminous all around

Shocking to see the inclusion of the word "consciousness". This puts a spanner in the works for any Buddhists who claim that nirvana is incognizant and the majority of them do.

My own feeling with Buddha's doctrine was that it was originally not a statement of 'no-self', rather it was a means to avoid getting hooked on an artificial notion of self, fabricated by the intellect, which would mean the 'release' would be incomplete or hindered by some kind of expectation.

If we roll with not-self, then there's no reason to grasp. Less a statement of belief, more an excellent path of release, if you see what I mean.

I agree that understanding the supreme state, with words which rely upon dualistic frameworks will always be a poor state of affairs but by chipping away around the edges we kind of get a little closer to the truth (I hope).

In any case, you have given me plenty to think about and read over. I will re-read what you have written and let it sink in. There is much truth in this in my opinion.

Danke

MahaHrada
05 March 2010, 11:12 AM
Namaste MahaHrada,
Thank you for a wonderful and insightful reply.

He was beyond these categories.

My own feeling with Buddha's doctrine was that it was originally not a statement of 'no-self', rather it was a means to avoid getting hooked on an artificial notion of self, fabricated by the intellect, which would mean the 'release' would be incomplete or hindered by some kind of expectation.

If we roll with not-self, then there's no reason to grasp. Less a statement of belief, more an excellent path of release, if you see what I mean.


Danke

Thanks for you appreciation of my postings,
Regarding Buddhism I am perfectly aware of the more subtle position the Buddha assumend, and that he tried to point towards an entirely different dimension , beyond the beyond, and I take that fully into account when commenting and even not only with regard to an intellectual but instead mainly because of an experiential knowledge of Buddhism.

What i said was not to doubt what the Buddha experienced but to draw the demarcation between the two philosophies.

The doctrine of Not self shurely, as all of Buddhas doctrines was for him merely a remedy of a mistaken notion, without containing any intrinsic truth as such.

The Tathagatagarbha, seen as collective remnant of a personal identity is therefore only a potential for buddhahood, though theoretically also existing since eternity(like the Atman), it remains an artifical product of human striving for Nirvana, or of the general activity of Buddhas of all times, not an inborn part of human nature like the atman, and like i said before the only motivation that is allowed for a buddha as a reason to emerge as an individual out of this entity/ nonentity is one emotion: karuna. So as soon as he emerges from entity / non-entity he is already, holding a sermon about Dharma :) Because that is what a Buddha considers as most helpful, boring or not. What i mean is that a Buddha is very limited to a few expressions and a single static transcendent experience, no pulsing between poles.

srivijaya
05 March 2010, 11:45 AM
I take that fully into account when commenting and even not only with regard to an intellectual but instead mainly because of an experiential knowledge of Buddhism.

Namaste MahaHrada,
I appreciate that. There are very few people willing to be as open minded as that.


What i said was not to doubt what the Buddha experienced but to draw the demarcation between the two philosophies.
Which you have done very well.


The doctrine of Not self shurely, as all of Buddhas doctrines was for him merely a remedy of a mistaken notion, without containing any intrinsic truth as such.
I agree on that, which gets me into trouble from time to time, as you may imagine.


he is already, holding a sermon about Dharma :) Because that is what a Buddha considers as most helpful, boring or not.
That's what my wife thinks when I give her a 'sermon' on this or that :)

I guess we'd better give HDF this thread back.

Ich bedanke mich nochmals.