In Defense of Woodroffe

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Kamakotikripa ji!

 

I too have been rather consistently blown away by some of Harsha's

posts; but your endorsement -- coming from a Srividya Upasaka,

initiated at 15 and now 92 years old! -- is an astonishingly worthy

compliment! And allow me to take this opportunity to thank you for

gracing our Group with your learned presence.

 

For what it's worth, I agree with both you and Harsha in your

discussion of the Pranava (AUM) and the Devi Pranava (HRIM). But I'll

readily admit that I cannot engage either of you on the fine points of

Srividya; you're both *way* beyond my depth of understanding and

experience. I would, however, like to address a couple of your broader

observations.

 

For example, you note, "It is very sad to notice people straying away

from Vedas" in their understanding and application of Tantra. You add,

"My Guru explicitly warned against incomplete study of tantras. What

results, if otherwise, is half-baked knowledge, which apart

from leading nowhere, causes further damage."

 

You then explain that an "incomplete study" of the Tantras is one in

which the aspirant is "not aware of the underlying significance and

theoretical philosophy of most Tantric sayings." This sort of

"superficial understanding" -- as I read your post -- is one that does

not recognize the Vedic underpinnings of the philosophy.

 

Fair enough. I think any honest observer would agree that engaging in

any Tantric practice without a comprehensive understanding of what you

are doing and saying and what it all means at various levels is (at

best) useless and (at worst) potentially dangerous.

 

But I lose you when you say, "People like Woodroffe and others are

partly to be blamed for this. He misunderstood many concepts of Tantra

and without hesitation propagated the same. ... The result is that

most believe and ape what they think is real Tantra."

 

This is a very strong accusation indeed, and I want to be sure I

understand you thoroughly. So first I'd ask, who do you have in mind

when you say "people like Woodroffe"? Because it seems to me that

Woodroffe is in something of a class by himself. If you mean to group

him with other Raj-era "Orientalists," then I disagree -- Woodroffe

was, if anything, an antidote to their Eurocentric (not to say racist)

hackwork.

 

Now, I've acknowledged before that I'm an admirer of Woodroffe's work

-- but I am certainly not his blind defender or his apologist. I am

quite aware that his writings have their shortcomings. But it'd be a

miracle if they didn't, wouldn't it? Think about it: He translated

these works nearly 100 years ago, with no prior studies to compare his

work against. He was a true pioneer, and -- in that sense -- it is a

great tribute to him that his extremely esoteric books are still in

print, and in most aspects reliable.

 

On the other hand, I would not join Adi-Shakti16 in lumping Woodroffe

together with "other Western scholars like Coburn, Kinsley etc."

Thomas Coburn and David Kinsley -- and I would name C. M. Brown,

Douglas Brooks, and Wendy O'Flaherty as other standouts in this

category -- are modern scholars, working three generations after

Woodroffe. They approach Tantric and Shakta scriptures quite

clinically and objectively, providing carefully distanced "outsider"

analysis. They are not devotional writers, and their work is meant to

be purely informational; not for practical, ritual instruction.

 

Woodroffe, by contrast, was more of a gentleman scholar in the

classic mode of the "eccentric Englishman" -- retiring after dinner in

slippers and a smoking jacket to pore over ancient texts in his

private library. Although an Oxford law professor, he was not a

objective academic in the modern sense -- he freely loaded his books

with personal musings, private correspondence, editorializing and

grinding axes in the the grand style.

 

His closest modern successor would probably be a writer like David

Frawley, a highly trained non-academic and Western convert to

Hinduism, who does not even pretend to be objective -- openly

dedicating his words to his guru, Ganapati Muni. Like Frawley,

Woodroffe was also, although he did not publicly acknowledge it, an

initiated Shakta -- I don't know which lineage, but it was a Bengali

school. And so, like Frawley, Woodroffe eventually let *his* guru's

take on Tantra inform his interpretations and studies.

 

So when you say that Woodroffe "misunderstood many concepts of Tantra

and without hesitation propagated the same ... I feel terrible when I

glance at some of his works," you are probably engaging in a slightly

sectarian debate. Because Woodroffe wrote of Shaktism as it was

revealed to him by his gurus. In the same way, the Archbishop of

Canterbury probably "feels terrible" when he hears Pope John Paul II's

take on the Bible, though both men purport to preach that same book.

And in the same way, the Hassidic Jewish rabbi is always sure that the

the Reform Jewish rabbi "misunderstands many concepts" of their common

Judaism.

 

You state that, "Basically, a serious student of Tantra must have a

strong background of

Sankhya, Vedanta, agama and Tantra Shastras before he actually takes a

plunge into the ocean

of Tantra." You are right to call it an ocean: Shakta Tantrism is only

one of the forms in takes

within Hinduism. There is also Shaiva Tantrism, Krishnaiva Tantrism,

Tantas focusing on

Ganesh, and on and on. Outside Hinduism, there are, of course, Tantric

forms of Buddhism --

the Dalai Lama is a Tantric. And Tantra probably influenced Islam

(though Sufism) and

Christianity (through Gnosticism) as well. These non-Hindu forms of

Tantra do not rest on the

Vedas.

 

In fact, as you know, Tantra is not a belief system as much as it is a

methodology -- a practical

means through which to realize whatever path it is that you are

following. Although modern

Tantric Hinduism emerged in the first millenium CE, its roots -- in

all likelihood -- stretch back

long before the Vedas. Archeological excavations within the last

50-100 years have revealed

that Tantra shares a profound continuity with Paleolithic, Neolithic

and early Bronze Age spiritual

belief systems. Because these belief systems tended to be

Goddess-focused, Hindu Shaktism

proved to be especially fertile ground (no pun intended) for its

development.

 

Having said all that, however, I agree with you 100 percent that

modern Hindu forms of Tantrism are thoroughly grounded in the Vedas --

if they were not, they would not be Hinduism! BUT, if it is your

contention that Woodroffe teaches otherwise, you are mistaken. I will

close by letting Mr. Woodroffe speak for himself:

 

"The Vedanta is the final authority and basis for the doctrines set

forth in the Tantras, though the latter interpret the Vedenta in

various ways."

-- Sir John Woodroffe, "The Tantras and Their Significance"

 

"Let it be as you will regarding [theories on the non-Vedic] origin of

the Shakta Agama; but at present, Shakta worship is an integral part

of Hinduism, and as such admits the authority of the Vedas."

-- Sir John Woodroffe, "Tantra Shastra and Veda"

 

"Whatever may have been its origin -- as to which nothing is of a

certainty known; Mother Goddess Worship is as old as the World --

Shakta doctrine is now a form of Vedanta which may be called

Shakti-Vada of Shakta Vedanta."

-- Sir John Woodroffe, "Shakti and Shakta: Conclusions"

 

"The Tantra Shastra recognizes and claims not to be in conflict with

Veda or any other recognized Shastra. ... "

-- Sir John Woodroffe, "Tantra Shastra and Veda"

NOTE: Woodroffe here adds that "most of the commonly accepted ritual

of the day [in Hinduism] is Tantrik," and provides a detailed appendix

prepared by one "Sj. Braja Lal Mukherji, M.A.," who offers evidence

that each of the Panchamakara rituals (sex, wine, meat, etc.) --

"which have been assumed to be non-Vaidik" -- can in fact be traced to

the Vedas.

 

I could go on and on citing such passages, but I trust this sampling

is sufficient to acquit Sir John of the charges levelled against him?

;-) In any event, I'd look forward to your further observations, and

thank you once again for joining us.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

As always, you have presented an excellent and thorough case,

which, I'm sure, will serve to acquit your client of any

wrong-doing.

 

I do, however, have one quibble. You say, "Tantra is not a belief

system as much as it is a methodology." Must not a

methodology be based on a belief system. The methodology

must have a basis from which it arises and toward which it

inspires. That belief system is usually integral to the

methodology.

 

Is not this so for Tantra?

 

If the belief in a feminine cosmic principle were to be abandoned

or radically down-graded, what would happen to Tantra? If the

human body and bodily existence were to be revaluated so that

an ascetic, Maya-based viewpoint were to be reinstated, what

would happen to Tantra? In both cases, there would be

profound changes in store for the dakshina marga and the vama

marga, would there not? They would cease to exist as you know

them. Perhaps only the kula marga would remain relatively

unscathed (if it is truly an equivalent of kundalini yoga). So, it

seems that one cannot separate easily a methodology from its

belief system. One entails the other.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Namaste Devi bhakta and everyone.

 

Two appreciations of Woodroffe:

 

"Through the English works and translations of the Tantrika Texts of Sir

John Woodroffe and through the Life and Teachings of Sri Ramakrishna the

doctrine of God as Mother has spread throughout the religious world."

 

-- Swami Jagadisvarananda, in the preface to his translation of the _Devi

Mahatmya_.

 

"Even in modern times, Tantra has claimed a number of adherents in foreign

countries. Among them, Sir John Woodroffe stands head and shoulders above

all."

 

-- S.C.Banerji, in his book, _A Brief History of Tantra Literature_.

 

Om Shantih,

Colin.

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Colin!

 

Thank you for sharing these two lovely tributes. I'd not seen either

of them before. It's great to hear from a fellow admirer of Sir John.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

yes db! our colin always has the unique distinction of coming up with

the right 'quotations' at the right time on any subject be it sir

john woodroofe, shri ramakrishna or on mother kali! that is one

reason why colin has my utmost regard!

 

YES, our woodroffe had an 'hindu'soul in an Englishman's body... the

other day i was shopping in amazon.com and was happy to note that

most of sir john woodroffe's books have received five star rating ;

not only that all his books have hit the 'maximum number of copies '

sold list and are out of print... also, the book reviews are full of

appreciation for his fine works on tantra...

 

 

DID YOU KNOW that the famous psycho-therapist CARL JUNG himself

turned to Arthur Avalon's (sir john woodroffe's) most famous

book "the serpent power" to understand the 'dreams' of a female

patient - 'many of her symptoms resulted from the awakening of

kundalini' - Karl jung was able to treat this patient's symptoms

better as he understood that these symptoms were not meaningless but

meaningful symbolism - this european woman patient was brought up in

the east and was practicing yoga.

 

 

BUT ON ANOTHER NOTE, i can also relate to what shri harshanananda and

shri kamakotikripaji are saying to sir john woddroffe's translation

of specific tantric texts...

 

i would again request shri harshananda to substantiate the criticism

levelled against sir john woodroffe specially his translation of

Kamakalavilasa... is it because sir john woodroffe does not recognize

the unity of shiva-shakti unity in the sahasara chakra? or something

else?

 

love