shakta thought, some doubts.

[pratardana]

hello, i have recently become a student of hinduism and have started reading up on hinduism, its practices, and ideas.
in this study as of now i have focussed on shakta philosophy.

two concepts that i came across were samayachar and kaula schools of thought in sakta philosophy.

the essential points of difference between the 2 being, that i kinda interpreted were that in samayachar 1 tries to reach moksha by giving up things, i.e in the samachar practice you ascend from the mundane to the great by giving up your characteristics (is this equal to praqruthi) of emotion desires among others and ultimately realise god.

but in kaulachar you go from top to bottom that is from the supreme to the mudane. so you start acquiring the characteristics and start living within the characteristics and attain god.

so can it be said that in samayachar you attain god through efforts, while in kaulachar you retain god through efforts.

also i would like to know the difference between tatwa, tanmatra, bhota (as in panch bhota).
also with regard to tatwas, why is it that shakta and shaivism have 36 tatwas, while vaishnavism has only 24 tatwas, also is the total number of tatwas ever 96.

thanks.

[Sudarshan]

also i would like to know the difference between tatwa, tanmatra, bhota (as in panch bhota).


tattvam = real, truth, reality,principle
panca bhuta is the fundamental building block of the material universe, starting from denser to rarified forms.
tanmatra is the building block of panca bhuta.( subtle panca bhuta)



also with regard to tatwas, why is it that shakta and shaivism have 36 tatwas, while vaishnavism has only 24 tatwas, also is the total number of tatwas ever 96.


Higher numbers refer to more elaborate description of the same topic. Let us say you enrol for a 4 year course. It could be based on semester system of eight semesters or an yearly affair. In either case the syllabus does not change.

The 24 tattvas are that of Sankhya system, and they fall under Prakriti. Shakta and Vaishnava Philosophy are not the same - the former is usually monistic, and the latter is usually not. So an exact matching may not be possible with regards to the tattvas. Vaishnavites accept a Purusha(individual soul) beyond the twenty four, and a Purushottama(Brahman) beyond that. But not all Vaishnavite schools have the same theory - ISKCON for eg, has a different idea, making out distinctions between Atman, Brahman and Purushottama.

[Arjuna]

Namaste,


two concepts that i came across were samayachar and kaula schools of thought in sakta philosophy.

To begin with, let us examine what is meant by samaya & kaula "schools." In fact, these two originally were NOT separate schools, but merely stages of the same path. Samaya was a level of rules and prescriptions, conventional practice, while Kaula was an advanced, esoteric stage.
In early sources we see a designation of "sAmayin" as a lower level upasaka, "yet not a Kaula," who is not allowed into Kaula-chakra.
Samayachara originally meant a set of prescriptions to be followed by upasakas of lower level. In some cases it was used broadly in a sense of "right path" — and applied to Kaulas.

However, with Lakshmidhara, a known commentator of Saundarya-lahari, the meaning got perverted. Since the majority of Shrividya brahmanas felt uneasy with their own tradition which contradicted social caste prescriptions of that time, they accepted Lakshmidhara's innovation, and it got spread. However, Lakshmidhara's view is not based upon either tradition or scriptures. He started down-grading Kaula doctrine, as if it was a lower school separate from "pure" samaya. So it is Lakshmidhara who changed the original idea and invented a virtual two schools. Consequently the major part of Shrividya stuck into samaya, thus not providing a way further.
However several lineages preserved the authentic Tradition. For instance, I can name Sri Bhaskararaya, the most renown Shrividya theologian and commentator, and Rameshvara Suri, the author of the commentary upon Parashurama-kalpasutras.

Besides, this virtual division is peculiar to Shrividya. In Bengali tantrism this misconception didn't develop.


the essential points of difference between the 2 being, that i kinda interpreted were that in samayachar 1 tries to reach moksha by giving up things, i.e in the samachar practice you ascend from the mundane to the great by giving up your characteristics (is this equal to praqruthi) of emotion desires among others and ultimately realise god.
but in kaulachar you go from top to bottom that is from the supreme to the mudane. so you start acquiring the characteristics and start living within the characteristics and attain god.

This is generally correct, but has to be seen as two stages. At first one dissociates and gives up, and after that he starts enjoying everything as completely free being.


so can it be said that in samayachar you attain god through efforts, while in kaulachar you retain god through efforts.

In Kaulachara proper no efforts are present. Kaulachara is spontaneity, as Vatulanatha-sutra puts it: "mahAsAhasavRittyA svarUpalAbhaH."


also with regard to tatwas, why is it that shakta and shaivism have 36 tatwas, while vaishnavism has only 24 tatwas, also is the total number of tatwas ever 96.
thanks.

23 or 24 Tattvas are acknowledged by Sankhya & Yoga, which are limited to the sphere of Maya. While Shaivism describes 36 Tattvas starting from Anuttara, the Absolute Godhead.