Tantra: Belief System, Method, or Both?

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPrem ji:

 

Thanks for your post. You comment: "I do 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."

 

True enough. My point, however, was that the belief system upon which

any given form of Tantra rests is highly variable. Perhaps I should

have said that Tantra is not *confined to a particular* belief

system. In any event, please let me explain and clarify why I made

the statement as I did:

 

Last year, Princeton University's Readings in Religion Series

published a 700-page tome called "Tantra in Practice," edited by

Prof. David Gordon White. In it, a large array of experts offered

essays showing what "Tantra" means in the context of different

countries, cultures, religions, and various sub-sects within those

religions. Still, in trying to coax a single, universally applicable

definition of Tantra out of this wealth of information, White could

offer only this: "Tantra is an Asian body of beliefs and practices

that seeks to channel the divine energy that grounds the universe, in

creative and liberating ways."

 

Another knowledgeable scholar, the eminent Sanskritist Teun

Goudriaan, in his 1981 "Hindu Tantric Literature in Sanskrit" was

equally hesitant to offer a comprehensive definition. He wrote simply

that Tantrism is "a collection of practices and symbols of a

ritualistic, sometimes magical character." He added that these

practices and symbols were "predominantly, but by no means

exclusively, Shakta."

 

And since a discussion of Woodroffe occasioned your query, here is

his two cents on the subject: "If the word 'Tantric' be used as

meaning an adherent of the Tantra Shastra, then the word is without

definite meaning. A man to whom the application is given may be a

worshiper of Surya, Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti [etc., with each

individual school employing widely] varying doctrines and practice."

 

So Tantra is, broadly, a belief system -- but it is *always* employed

through another, more specific belief system -- be it Shaktism,

Shaivism, Buddhism, Taoism or what have you. The common thread seems

to be that Everything, both manifest and transcendent, is part of a

single, unified body of Energy. Because this energy is endlessly

creative, giving birth to all that is, it is usually conceived as

Feminine at at least as an Androgyne (Yin-Yang, Shiva-Shakti, etc.).

That energy, in microcosm, is contained in every being in Creation,

and can be accessed by "individual" beings through certain spiritual

practices.

 

You conclude that "one cannot separate easily a methodology from its

belief system. One entails the other." That is true -- and it was the

point of my last post. Kamakotikripa (in post #2530) had asserted

that Tantra cannot be properly understood without a study of the

Vedas, and my reply was in essence, "This is true -- but only for

modern Hindu forms of Tantra." In the same vein, Kamakotikripa seemed

to be complaining that Woodroffe did not preach Tantra as *he*

understood it -- my reply was that Woodroffe (who always stressed

that his analyses were limited to presenting North Indian forms of

Shakta Tantrism) might not have a *wrong* understanding, but simply a

different one.

 

Does that help at all, or just confuse the matter more? In any event,

thanks as always for your valuable contributions to our forum, OmPrem

ji.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

"an Asian body of beliefs and practices that seeks to channel

the divine energy that grounds the universe, in creative and

liberating ways."

 

"a collection of practices and symbols of a ritualistic, sometimes

magical character."

 

 

These attempts to characterize Tantra are so general as to apply

to all spiritual/religious practices, Asian or otherwise. They are

essentially meaningless.

 

But you make the more salient point that, "The common thread

seems to be that Everything, both manifest and transcendent, is

part of a single, unified body of Energy. Because this energy is

endlessly creative, giving birth to all that is, it is usually

conceived as Feminine at at least as an Androgyne (Yin-Yang,

Shiva-Shakti, etc.). That energy, in microcosm, is contained in

every being in Creation, and can be accessed by "individual"

beings through certain spiritual practices." This accords with my

limited understanding of Tantra and follows the two points that I

raised in my post - that Tantra entails a belief in a feminine

energy principle and that practice is focused on manipulating

that energy principle.

 

Non-Tantra belief systems and practices could agree with the

first but add that the background from which that energy arises is

our true identity and identification with that background

(Brahman, Satchidananda) is the goal of the practices. The

energy is the means. The background is the goal. Both are

contained in each other. Both the energy and the background

exist 'in every being in Creation'.

 

Non-Tantra belief systems would change your first statement

and say that, "Everything, manifest and transcendent, is part of a

single, unified body of Energy but that the single, unified body of

Energy arises from an Unknowable Absolute that can only be

fully experienced when, to quote Georg Fuerstein, 'all

psychomental phenomena have been transcended'.

 

It seems to me that Tantra can be distinguished by its belief in a

feminine energy and a belief in accessing and celebrating that

energy. The reason for accessing that energy is where the

various modalities diverge. Celebration of the energy is another

area of divergence. How does this sound to you?

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPremji:

 

Regarding the scholarly definitions I cited in my last post, you

state that they "are so general as to apply to all

spiritual/religious practices, Asian or otherwise. They are

essentially meaningless."

 

I think that if you'll re-read my post closely, you'll see that this

is precisely why I offered these quotes: To show that even the most

knowledgeable experts on Tantra find it too broad to usefully define

as a "belief system." Rather, they say, it is an approach to many

belief systems.

 

*** But you make the more salient point ... that Tantra entails a

belief in a feminine energy principle and that practice is focused on

manipulating that energy principle. ***

 

Yes, my defition is more specific, but only because I do not have the

breadth of knowledge that the scholarly experts do. Everything I know

of Tantra is from a Shakta viewpoint. But again, Tantric methodology

has been applied to many non-Shakta belief systems. Tantra and

Shaktism are not the same thing.

 

*** Non-Tantra belief systems and practices [would say] ... the

energy [shakti] is the means. The background [shiva] is the goal.***

 

If you replaced the word "non-Tantra" above with "non-Shakta" then I

would agree with you. Would Shaiva Tantras not consider Shiva the

goal? I don't mean to sound flippant; I just believe that the

definition of Tantra is considerably more subtle that that --

certainly more subtle than I am capable of rendering; and apparently

too subtle for the scholars I cited as well.

 

This statement could also obscure the issue raised in my first post,

to wit, that the Vedas and Tantric forms of Hinduism are not opposed.

To again quote Woodroffe (expanding upon a quote contained in that

first post):

 

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

forth in the Tantras. ... The real meaning of 'Vedanta' is Upanishad

and nothing else. Many persons, however, speak of Vedanta as though

it meant the philosophy of Shankara (or whatever philosopher they

follow). This, of course, is incorrect. Vedanta is Sruti. Shankara's

philosophy is merely one interpretation of Sruti, just as Ramanuja's

is another and that of Shaiva-Agama is a third. There is no question

of competition between Vedanta as Sruti and Tantra Shastra. ...

 

"All systems of interpretation have some merits as they have defects,

that of Shankara included. .... The Agama [body of Tantric scripture]

interprets Sruti in its own way. Thus the Shaiva-Shakta doctrines are

specific solutions of the Vedantic theme which differ in several

respects from that of Shankara, -- though, as they agree with him on

the fundamental question of the uunity of Jiva-atma and Parama-atma,

they are therefore Advaita."

 

(Sorry for this long, difficult passage! But I think it's a relevant

point here!)

 

*** It seems to me that Tantra can be distinguished by its belief in

a feminine energy and a belief in accessing and celebrating that

energy. The reason for accessing that energy is where the various

modalities diverge. Celebration of the energy is another area of

divergence. How does this sound to you? ***

 

Again, I would agree with this definition completely if you were to

replace the word "Tantra" with "Shaktism." But it is too narrow for

the term "Tantra" -- for all of the reasons set out above and in my

other posts. Again, Shaktism and Tantra are not interchangeable

terms. Tantra can be applied to Shaktism, and Shaktism can be applied

to Tantra, but I believe that neither is in all cases indispensable

to the other.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Greetings ompremji,

 

Once again you have raised a thought-provoking question -

 

What distinguishes TANTRA from other belief systems?

 

You state very eloquently...

 

" Tantra can be distinguished by its belief in a > feminine energy

and a belief in accessing and celebrating that > energy. The reason

for accessing that energy is where the > various modalities diverge.

Celebration of the energy is another > area of divergence. How does

this sound to you?"

 

THIS SOUNDS FANTASTIC- FABULOUS- MAGNIFICENT- MARVELLOUS- I AM

RUNNING OUT OF ADJECTIVES... but, i would even go one step further

and say- 'it is about celebrating - all of life . and its myriad

creation ... " period...

 

There is no FETTERS OF THE MIND IN TANTRA - THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS

WRONG-DOING OR SINFULNESS ...

 

a TRUE TANTRIK IS AN ENLIGHTENED BEING WHO ACTS ACCORDING TO HIS OR

HER OWN SWEET WILL=- a svecchachari - like our own kochu POINTS OUT

TIME AND AGAIN... beloved Eve has ALSO CAPTURED THIS SENTIMENT VERY

NICELY IN POST 2533.... eve, thnk you for that great post...

 

please read this....

 

 

"Bhairava said: Listen, Vira Chamunda, to the characteristics of

vessels and the way of acting. One may be like a child, a madman,

a king, like one in a swoon, like an independent spirit, like a

Lord Hero, a Gandharva, a naked person, a Tridandin or like one

teaching knowledge for gain. The way to be is to act however one

wills."

 

such an elightened being is always in a blissful state- this was the

mood of shri ramkrishna paramahamsa and the great avadhoota shri

dattatreya, a true avadhoota...

 

AS SIR JOHN WOODROFFE STATES ....

 

 

"It is very difficult for anyone to know his (AVADHOOTA) true nature.

When alone he is like one mad, dumb or paralysed and when

in the society of men he sometimes behaves like a good man,

sometimes like a wicked one, and on occasions he behaves like a

demon. But the Yogi is always pure whatever he may do and by

his touch everything becomes pure."

 

LORD DATTATREYA DEFINES AN AVADHOOTA THUS...

 

"The Avadhuta is so called as he has discarded worldly ties, and he

is the essence of the sentence 'Thou art That'. His worldly existence

consists in moving about freely, with or without clothes. For them

thereis nothing righteous or unrighteous, nothing holy or unholy."

 

To a true tantrik (no matter to which tantrik school he belongs-

shakta, shaiva, vaishnava, ganpatya or saurya) there is no such thing

as

 

1) sin or virtue

2) bad or good

3) pure or impure

4) holy or unholy

5) foul smell or fragrance

 

 

That is why i love this passage so much for it gives a great

definition of a true tantrik!!

 

AT HEARTT A SHAKTA, (A MOTHER HEART)

Outwardly a Shaiva, (RITUALISTIC-JAPA, TAPA ,MANTRA AND MEDITSATION)

in gatherings a Vaishnava--(LOVER OF KIRTANA AND MAINTAINING THE

DIFFERENCE OF A WORSHIPPER AND WORSHIPPPED) in various forms the

Kaulas wander on earth.

 

so, A TRUE TANTRIK IS AN AVADHOOTA FREE FROM ALL FETTERS OF THE

MIND...

 

 

 

love and regards...

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

I really am not able to follow this scholarly discussion, but since

the gentleman has commented on Arthur Avlon, let me tell you a few

things. First of all, I am myself an admirer of his superb writing

style. No doubt he was mainly responsible for removing a lot of

misconceptioons on Tantra. However, he has erronoeusly commented at

various places. Being a student of Srividya, it is but natural to

notice his flaws mainly in kamakalavilasa. This perhaps was due to

his theoritical-limited understang of this specialized branch. Also,

most Hindus have rigidly protected tantric secrets by techniques such

as sandhabasa, virodhalakshana etc. This explains his inaccessibility

to many traditioanlly guraded authentic stuff. Arthur Avalon is no

doubt a scholar, but his teachings certainly lack the quality that

would raise them to the position of a scripture. He has to be read,

studied and then one has to simply move over! One cannot really

continue to be awestruck with his writings and regard them as the

ultimate sources of scriptures. His imperfections, though natural in

a human being of limited consciousness and a clear exhibition of his

unawareness of the actual tantra, which lies mainly in practice,

indeed can cause a great deal of damage to a serious aspirant of

tantra, if followed without reason. Yes, his works are suitable for

preparing a ground-work, for an insight into tantra, and i feel one

may simply discard them later!

Namo Parashaktyai!

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Harsha!

 

Thank you. I am in complete agreement with every point in your post.

 

*** he was mainly responsible for removing a lot of misconceptioons

on Tantra ***

 

Precisely. That is his clearly stated purpose, again and again

throughout his writings.

 

*** Being a student of Srividya, it is but natural to notice his

flaws mainly in kamakalavilasa. This perhaps was due to his

theoritical-limited understang of this specialized branch.***

 

Correct. He very often stated that he was necessarily -- by virtue of

the fact he was communicating through the printed page -- limited to

theoretical discussion, whereas the true realm of Tantra is action.

My knowledge of Srividya is also limited to theory (and here Douglas

Renfrew Brooks is vastly more informative than Woodroffe) and so I

defer to your superior knowledge as to any specific errors.

 

*** Also, most Hindus have rigidly protected tantric secrets by

techniques such as sandhabasa, virodhalakshana etc. This explains his

inaccessibility to many traditioanlly guarded authentic stuff. ***

 

True. Woodroffe repeatedly warns that true Tantra is a practice that

requires diksha -- initiation -- and fully qualified guidance (guru).

You can learn *about* it from books, but not the thing itself. As an

initiate himself, Woodroffe told what could be told, and withheld

what could not. But he did not mislead (or at least that's the point

I'm arguing in all my posts on this subject).

 

*** Arthur Avalon is no doubt a scholar, but his teachings certainly

lack the quality that would raise them to the position of a

scripture. He has to be read, studied and then one has to simply move

over! ***

 

This is definitely true.

 

*** His works are suitable for preparing a ground-work, for an

insight into tantra, and i feel one may simply discard them later! ***

 

Right. One has to begin somewhere -- and with so much garbage

circulating out there under the guise of "Tantra", it is a breath of

fresh air to come upon as a guide to the "real thing" who is as

reliable, down-to-earth and eloquent as Mr. Woodroffe.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

OM Devi Bhakta

 

You posed the question, "Would Shaiva Tantras not consider

Shiva the goal?"

 

I think they would NOT consider Shiva the final goal. Shiva as

the destroyer is there to remind the aspirant that all connnection

to the phenomenal world and all egoism must be severed, if one

is know and identify with their true essence, i.e. Brahman.

 

Shiva has form. As long as an aspirant knows form, considers

form real, he/she still has some way to go toward

Self-Realization.

 

OM Tryambhakam Yajamahe

Sugandhim Pushtivardhanam

Urvarukamiva Bandhanan

Mrityor Mukshiya Maamritat

 

OM. We worship the three-eyed One (Lord Shiva), who is fragrant

and who nourishes well all beings; may He liberate us from

death for the sake of Immortality even as a cucumber is severed

from its bondaga (to the creeper).

 

It is clear from the above that Shiva is the instrument of our

liberation (just as the Guru is the instrument and just as Shakti

is the instrument).

 

Shiva-Shakti is the process of enlightenment. It symbolizes the

union of male-female, the union of all. But the aspirant

eventually must move beyond that, must move beyond all names

and forms, including Cosmic Consciousness, if he/she is to

enter the final superconscious state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi or

Asamprajnata Samadhi or Nirbija Samadhi.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Namaskar OmPremji:

 

Thank you for a very powerful post. I especially liked your

observation that "Shiva is the instrument of our liberation (just as

the Guru is the instrument and just as Shakti is the instrument)." I

always come away from our discussions wiser than I entered into them.

Thank you once again for your excellent and learned contributions to

this forum.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe