Shaktaism, Shaivism and Vaishnavism

[TruthSeeker]

Why do we need three religions Shaktaism, Shaivism and Vaishnavism? Why not just one? Why these religions have apparently contradictory doctrines?

Are Shakti, Shiva and Vishnu just different names for God? If so, why scripture have to potray them differently, often shown as quarreling with each other? Why are their devotees often seen fighting each other?

I shall attempt a brief answer from a monistic perspective:

Brahman is Nirguna and beyond all attributes. Whatever attribute we can concieve of can only be denied of the Brahman(neti neti) or directly equated with Brahman.(sarvam khalvidam brahma). Upanishads describe Brahman as Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam, stated in English is Existance, Knowledge and Infiniteness. Note that infiniteness is not merely with respect to space and time, but the transcendendal infinite, which we cannot concieve of.

However, Brahman cannot be a trinity since Brahman is undivided. So all of Exsitance, knowledge and Infiniteness have to be identical. This is a contradiction by human logic. ( though it maybe no issue at the absolute reality).

Now think of these questions:

Is Brahman knowledge and existant because it is infinite?
Is Brahman infinite and existant due to knowledge( thought)?
Is Brahman knowledge and infinite becuase it exists?

If you say yes to the first one, you are a Vaishnavite.
If you say yes to the second one, you are a Shaivite.
If you say yes to the third one, you are a Shakta.

If Exsitance and Knowledge are subjugated to the infinite nature of Brahman, Vishnu becomes the supreme God, and Brahma and Shiva have to proceed from Vishnu. Note that Brahma is equivalent to Shakti.

If Infiniteness and Existance are subjected to knowledge ( thought or consciouness), Shiva becomes the supreme God, and Brahma and Vishnu have to proceed from Shiva.

If Infiniteness and Consciouness are subjected to Existance, Shakti becomes the supreme diety, and others are created by her.

Thus, all systems are just different ways of looking at the Brahman who is beyond speech and thought. Even the Christain trinity must be based on the same idea. It turns out that Shakti, Shiva and Vishnu are just not different names of Brahman, but distinct features conveyed by scripture, and the the very subjugation of two of them to the third yield three different methods of God realization. That is why, no system ever equates any of them directly and there is no need to do so.

Skaktas do have to beleive in the superiority of Shakti.
Shaivaites do have to beleive in the superiority of Shiva.
Vaishnavites do have to beleive in the superiority of Vishnu.

But just remember the bigger monistic picture and the world will be rid of all intolerance.

[Arjuna]

Namaste,

The main problem is not name used to call the God, but a darshana. For Monism (Paradvaita or other types of Advaita-vada) all other doctrines are "inferior teachings" not because they use a different name, but because their views are limited truth, while Monism encompasses all these as its partial aspects.

Any truely Monistic darshana is the same, be it Shaiva, Shakta or Vaishnava.

[TruthSeeker]

Namaste,

The main problem is not name used to call the God, but a darshana. For Monism (Paradvaita or other types of Advaita-vada) all other doctrines are "inferior teachings" not because they use a different name, but because their views are limited truth, while Monism encompasses all these as its partial aspects.

Any truely Monistic darshana is the same, be it Shaiva, Shakta or Vaishnava.

But before you can call something as "inferior" should'nt you have it verified yourself? As long as any one claims his teachings to be superior with just bookish knowledge or quotes from scripture, nothing is proved. Not even the words of the guru can be taken as absolute proof because the views of different gurus vary. There is no uniform view even amongst monists - why? There is no unform view amongst dualists? Why so? Because reality is not defined at all. How do you know which one is true?

Common man knows only the name of the God, and darshana is rarely the cause of conflict. Only edicated people well versed with philosophy will fight over darshana.

[atanu]

Now think of these questions:

Is Brahman knowledge and existant because it is infinite?
Is Brahman infinite and existant due to knowledge( thought)?
Is Brahman knowledge and infinite becuase it exists?

If you say yes to the first one, you are a Vaishnavite.
If you say yes to the second one, you are a Shaivite.
If you say yes to the third one, you are a Shakta.

Namaskar TS,

By your own admission, the above involves some thought/perception/belief. But He is That reality which brings up the thought. The thought cannot know Him. A report written by me will not understand me but I will understand the report.

It is the real infinite unchained I.

“Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; bountiful through the sacrifice; heavenly through the sacrificial fee; slayer of enemies through rage; supporter of the body through kindliness; wealth through food; through the earth he hath won; (thou art) eater of food with verses; increased by the Vasat cry; protector of the body through the Saman; full of light with the Viraj; drinker of Soma through the holy power; with cows he supporteth the sacrifice; with lordly power men; with horse and car bearer of the bolt; lord with the seasons; enclosing with the year; unassailable through penance; the sun with bodies.”


YV iv. 4. 9.


(Thou art) Prajapati in mind when Soma moves;
the creator in the consecration; Savitr in the bearing;
Pusan in the cow for the purchase of the Soma;
Varuna when bound (in the cloth); Asura in the being bought;
Mitra when purchased; Çipivista (Aditi) when put in place;
delighter of men when being drawn forward; the overlord on arrival;
Prajapati being led on; Agni at the Agnidh’s altar;
Brhaspati on being led from the Agnidh’s altar;
Indra at the oblation-holder; Aditi when put in place;
Visnu when being taken down; Atharvan when made wet;
Yama when pressed out; drinker of unpurified (Soma) when being cleansed;
Vayu when purifying; Mitra as mixed with milk;
the Manthin when mixed with groats; that of the All-gods when taken out;
Rudra when offered;
Vayu when covered up; the gazer on men when revealed;
the food when it comes; the famed of the fathers;
life when taken; the river when going to the final bath;
the ocean when gone; the water when dipped;
the heaven when arrived at completion.




The only pratyaksha truth is that I exist in all states of consciosness. The I is covered up with thoughts. In silence only is He known.

[Arjuna]

Namaskar TS,
By your own admission, the above involves some thought/perception/belief. But He is That reality which brings up the thought. The thought cannot know Him. A report written by me will not understand me but I will understand the report.

The only pratyaksha truth is that I exist in all states of consciosness. The I is covered up with thoughts. In silence only is He known.

Yes, and this is the essence of Monism. And this is why Monism IS the essential Truth, while all other darshanas are intepretations of mind.

Tantric Monism is named Pratyakshadvaita (alone with Paradvaita and Svatantrya-vada), for a Yogi sees everything as this I-Consciousness.

[Arjuna]

Namaste TS,

But before you can call something as "inferior" should'nt you have it verified yourself?

The whole of my experience (and anyone's) can be fully and perfectly explained only in the context of Monistic metaphysics.
That is why it is "superior."

But the Truth itself is beyong any words and explanations, it is the Consciousness, Parasamvit.

Common man knows only the name of the God, and darshana is rarely the cause of conflict. Only edicated people well versed with philosophy will fight over darshana.

Darshanas were not created by "common man," but exactly by "educated people" only. Educated people induce conflicts due to attachment to ego and unwillingness to investigate the Truth sinserely.
And true mystics come to the same ground and raise above the conflict, even if their ideas are different. For Consciousness and Love is the same for all.

However, darshanas as explanations of the Truth vary: some are superior and other inferior.

[sarabhanga]

Tantric Monism is named Pratyakshadvaita (alone with Paradvaita and Svatantrya-vada), for a Yogi sees everything as this I-Consciousness.

Pratyaksha-vada is Nyaya (Logic); and “Tantric Monism” is only an English name for Naiyayika Vedanta!

How is Pratyakshadvaita any different from the Logic of Advaita Vedanta?

Paradvaita and Pratyakshadvaita are only Vedantanyaya ~ i.e. the Vedanta of the Naiyayikas, the Nyaya of the Vaidantikas, or simply Vedantic Logic.

“Paradvaita” may be Para-Advaita or Para-Dvaita; and in this case, Para means “having as the chief object, given up to, occupied with, engrossed in, intent upon, resting on, consisting of, serving for, or synonymous with”, rather than “highest or supreme”.

This logical method as applied to a particular philosophy is the Tantra of the Vada ~ i.e. the science of Advaita follows the scientific method or logical approach of Paradvaita.

And so, it would appear that “Tantric Monism” is absolutely identical with the standard term “Advaita Vedanta”.

[atanu]

Yes, and this is the essence of Monism. And this is why Monism IS the essential Truth, while all other darshanas are intepretations of mind.

Tantric Monism is named Pratyakshadvaita (alone with Paradvaita and Svatantrya-vada), for a Yogi sees everything as this I-Consciousness.

I am not an intellectual. What you say is correct. But what you say also indicates that the apparent differences you wish to demonstrate between Advaita and Tantrik Monism are in the mind only.


In fact my Guru teaches no philosophy; He instructs to just find out the I who is seeking to create the differences. He also instructs that except from the perspective of seekers (who are as if situated in different parts of a mountain but seek to attain the same summit ), there is no difference in the goal of any path.


Philosophies are names but He is nameless. Depending on suitability of the seeker, a path may be exposed to a one seeker while another path may be exposed to another seeker. The goal is always the same. In tantrism, possibly (my knowledge is limited), the method to transcend the sense of body is approached in a different way compared to jnana perspective of advaita. This is the only difference I see. Anyway, the final goal is to see/be ONE INDIVISIBLE Brahman.

So, I have no difference with any one, since I believe that the paths and their allocations to so-called individuals are scripted by the Self only and not by individual ego personalities.

Om Nama Shivayya

[Arjuna]

Pratyaksha-vada is Nyaya (Logic); and “Tantric Monism” is only an English name for Naiyayika Vedanta!
How is Pratyakshadvaita any different from the Logic of Advaita Vedanta?
Paradvaita and Pratyakshadvaita are only Vedantanyaya ~ i.e. the Vedanta of the Naiyayikas, the Nyaya of the Vaidantikas, or simply Vedantic Logic.
“Paradvaita” may be Para-Advaita or Para-Dvaita; and in this case, Para means “having as the chief object, given up to, occupied with, engrossed in, intent upon, resting on, consisting of, serving for, or synonymous with”, rather than “highest or supreme”.
This logical method as applied to a particular philosophy is the Tantra of the Vada ~ i.e. the science of Advaita follows the scientific method or logical approach of Paradvaita.
And so, it would appear that “Tantric Monism” is absolutely identical with the standard term “Advaita Vedanta”.

Namaste Sarabhanga,

Paradvaita is, of course, parAdvaita, para+advaita. Another term used is paramAdvaya. Preference depends on metrical reasons .
This definitely stands for "supreme Advaita," and this is supported both by its own texts and by opinions of scholars.

Pratyakshadvaita (pratyakShAdvaita) refers to direct experience of the Unity in the world itself, or rather seeing the world as Consciousness alone.
World is essentially real, for it exists in the Supreme Consciousness, and this is a second reason for the use of "pratyaksha" designition.

Nyaya as one of 6 systems, though a Shaiva one, has nothing to do with Tantric Monism. However, the whole of Tantric Doctrine is based upon logic, which is technically called "sattarka." There are three adharas of the true knowledge: Sattarka, Sadguru and Sadagama, according to Tantric Shaivism.

Of course, we may use a name of "Advaita-vedanta" for Tantric Doctrine also, if we use it in specifically selected meaning. But that isn't a general practice and such usage will lead to inevitable confusion.
Usually all Shaiva and Tantric traditions refer to themselves as "Siddhanta" and not "Vedanta."

[TruthSeeker]

The whole of my experience (and anyone's) can be fully and perfectly explained only in the context of Monistic metaphysics.
That is why it is "superior."

How is it so? No advaitin can ever understand how Brahman is associated with Maya until it is really experienced. Perfect explanations are not found in any system of philosophy or religion, else there wont be any atheists in the world. If you think you know the truth, then you do not know it -- stated clearly in the vedas.

But the Truth itself is beyong any words and explanations, it is the Consciousness, Parasamvit.

If you have read my post carefully, this view is called Shaivism, where consciousness is said to be the origin of everything. That is why Shaivism holds the world to be a product of consciousness( and hence illusory) and Vaishnavism upholds the reality of the world, because infiniteness is the origin of everything. Have you read about Vallabha's Vaishnavism? It is monistic and yet does not accept the world to be a mitya. That is exactly what I am talking about here.

In theory, in Shaivism, Shiva who is consciouness is the origin of everything, and hence from this point of view, the world is illusory.

In Shaktaism, Existance is the root cause of jagat, and hence it usually upholds realism.( yet due to its connection with Shaivism it may not be as realistic as in Vaishnavism)

In Vaishnavism, infiniteness which is also of a spatial entity, is the cause of the world, and hence from this point of view, the world is real. Even monistic Vaishnavites do not accept Mayavada.

It is these fundamental differences that I was addressing - not just different names like Shakti, Shiva or Vishnu.

Darshanas were not created by "common man," but exactly by "educated people" only. Educated people induce conflicts due to attachment to ego and unwillingness to investigate the Truth sinserely.
And true mystics come to the same ground and raise above the conflict, even if their ideas are different. For Consciousness and Love is the same for all.

Darshanas are not created by educated people, but by mystics. Do you really think anyone who is not divine in origin can come up with a system of vedanta? Though they apparently clash with each other, their divinity is manifest solely by their ability to charm and command other people, their vast scholarship and other achievements. Can you find a single scholar nowadays who matches the legendary Acharyas in any respect?

It is not right that all mystics share the same view, that is the whole issue about. No two Yogis appear to have the same experience.

However, darshanas as explanations of the Truth vary: some are superior and other inferior.

Superior or Inferior truth are probably decided from personal experience isn't it? I have heard some Buddhists claiming that Shunyavada is the highest truth, and the vedantin will finally switch over from the illusionary Brahman to his Shunyata finally. So there is no way to firmly beleive in anything unless you experience it. As a rough guide, your temperaments, your knowledge and the method of interpretation of scripture, along with the conviction and enlightenment of the guruji is a paramount factor. If you dont have a guru, it is unlikely you will have not a fixed beleif pattern and might continue to learn and investigate all the time.

People belonging to sampradayas have very fixed and rigid beleifs and wont be in a position to accept other systems and in case they do so, they will call their own beleifs as superior. No idea why the word superior is used. If two religions lead to God, how could one be considered inferior to the other irrespective of what they teach?