Tantra -a technique or a belief system?

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Ompremji, thank you as always for providing the much

needed 'third' dimension to any discussion in this forum...

 

True, our devi bhakta makes an excellent defnce attorney - whether

defending shaktism or while INTERPREtING Sir john woodroffe's

treatiseS on tantra - he is always at his eloquent best! Smiles!!

 

I do not think anybody is questioning the 'integrity' or 'intentions'

of sir John woodroffe, After all , it WAS sir john woodroffe (also

known as arthur avalon) who undertook monumental work of bringng out

"worm-eaten palm-leaf manuscripts on the Tantras, and who was engaged

in painstaking research of translation culminating in publications of

great works on Tantras" for the benefit of NON-SANSKRIT SPEAKING

POPULATION... but, i do not think i committed any major 'error' in

bracketing sir john woodroffe along with other western scholars like

ThOmas coburn etc...THE WHOLE POINT WAS THAT WE ARE GRATEFUL TO

WESTERN SCHOLARS FOR ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF SANSKRIT LITERATURE OF

THE TANTRAS!! the fact that Sir john woodroofe is a initaited sadhaka

was never in question nor was his scholastic and academic

capabilities!!!i am a fan of woodroffe -his garland of letters takes

a pride of place on my bookshelf along with SRIMAD BHAGVAT GITA!

 

Ompremji, you write...

 

" 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."

 

A VERY GOOD POINT- you took my breath away with that statement! This

confusion occurs because generally 'tantra' is equated with

a 'technique' (or method) of achieving enlightenment - but Tantra ia

much more than a technique - it is a 'belief' system based on THIRTY-

SIX taatwas- Twenty four tattwas from the Samkhya system and twelve

more from the saiva system .... so 'belief ' is the SeED of a

spiritual tree called 'tantra.' and tantras are not 'avaidic'

either....they are based on the vedas also...

 

DEAR OMPREMJI, YOU ALSO WRITE...

 

". Perhaps only the kula marga would remain relatively

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

 

kUNDALINI YOGA IS COMMON TO all the paths (vamachara and

dakshinachara) as far as my limited knowledge goes...there are

doctrinal and ritual differences between these two paths - no doubt-

but 'kundalini' yoga is always the goal.

 

for the samayins (dakshinachara) the authoritative scriptures are the

samhitas of Sanaka, SANANDA, SANATKUMARA, SUKA AND VASISTA, KNOWN AS

SUBHAGAMA PANCAKA AND FOR THE KAULAS (VAMACHARIS) the authorities are

Parasurama sutras and the sixty four tantras...

 

The samayins perform external worship according to the kalpa sutras

of the vedic tradition and the kaulas base their worship on

independent tantric rites based on panca-makaras...

 

as our sankara kochu so eloquently points out time and again no

method is superior to another and that is the beauty of Tantric

worship! to each his /her own!! SWECCHARCHA OR SWANTATARA- MEANING

ACCORDING TO ONE'S OWN WILL OR INDEPENDENT THINKING!!! SO Wheher

internal worship as followed by the samayins or external worship as

followed by the kaulas or a combination of both methods as followed

by misra sadhakas -all are acceptable.... the ultimate goal is

always -BILSS -SAT-CHIT-ANANDA....

 

i do not think OUR DEAR WOODROFFE IS ON 'TRIAL' HERE - because He has

done a phenomenal job of translating tantric texts and placed them at

the fingertip of every aspiring tantrik sadhaka.... but as

kamkotipripaji points out there are certian 'intrepretations' of the

tantric texts as attempted by sir john woodroffe that are subject to

scrutiny ! and i would request kamakotikripaji to step in and clarify

this point further!

 

let me tell you folks, sanskrit language is very tricky and even for

people well versed in sanskrit it can be quite a challenge!!

sometimes while translating, not only the 'beauty' is lost but even

there is scope for misinterpretation... for example- 'VASUDAIVA'

MEANS THE 'WORLD 'AND 'VASUDEVA MEANS KRISHNA but to a krishna

bhaktin like me, KRISHNA IS MY WHO;E WORLD- VASUDEVA ITHI

VASUDAIVA..... SMILES....

 

on a final note- i like to thank devi_bhakta for making one profound

observation- TANTRA IS A SPIRITUAL TRADITION THAT TRANSCENDS ANY

SINGLE RELIGIOUS CULTURE- so one can be a sufi and be a tantric, one

can be a buddhist and be a tantric and one can be a taoist and be a

tantric ..... for tantra is synonymous with 'expanded'

conscipousness!!

 

love and regards,

[Guest guest]

Dear Adi:

 

It is nice to see you back! And thank you for your detailed posts on

this topic. I'll try to respond to a few points:

 

*** This confusion occurs because generally 'tantra' is equated with

a 'technique' (or method) of achieving enlightenment - but Tantra is

much more than a technique - it is a 'belief' system based on THIRTY-

SIX taatwas ****

 

I think I addressed this to some extent in my reply to OmPrem, so

forgive me if I am being repetitive. You are correct that both the

Shaiva and Shakta Tantra systems share the Tattva scheme; my point

was simply that not all Tantric systems are Hindu Tantra systems, and

not all Tantric systems employ the Tattvas, only the Hindu-based

systems.

 

That is why Tantra is, in fact, properly described as a methodology

or technique. While a few common threads of belief do cross all lines

of culture, country and religion, they are -- as OmPrem pointed out,

so general as to be meaningless in understanding the system. The

"confusion" you speak of occurs when it is thought of as a belief

system.

 

It is a fact that persons who could properly be described as

"Tantrics" rarely if ever identify themselves as such. Rather,

they'll say that they're Shaktas or Shaivas or Buddhists or whatever.

*That's* their belief system -- Tantra simply colors their approach,

understanding and movement toward realization under that belief

system: It is the *ritual* means toward a pre-existing philosophical

end.

 

*** no method is superior to another and that is the beauty of

Tantric worship! to each his /her own!!***

 

True enough. None is superior; but all schools are different.

 

*** the fact that Sir john woodroofe is a initaited sadhaka

was never in question nor was his scholastic and academic

capabilities!!***

 

Actually, I think they were. Kamakotikripa ji singled out Woodroffe

as a major culprit in causing people to misunderstand Tantra. I

quote: "He misunderstood many concepts of Tantra and without

hesitation propagated the same. I feel terrible when I glance at some

of his works like the translation on Kamakalavilasa and others."

 

I would say that his qualifications, then, are very much in question.

And perhaps justifiably -- but we do not know, because the statements

were made without any evidence to back them up. I could point to any

man on the street and say, "That guy is a liar and a thief!" -- but

you are free to disbelieve me until I demonstrate to your

satisfaction why I've reached that conclusion.

 

*** i do not think i committed any major 'error' in bracketing sir

john woodroffe along with other western scholars like ThOmas coburn

etc...THE WHOLE POINT WAS THAT WE ARE GRATEFUL TO WESTERN SCHOLARS

FOR ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF SANSKRIT LITERATURE OF THE TANTRAS!! ***

 

I apologize if I've offended you. As I explained in my post, I think

Woodroffe is in a totally different league than the modern academics

you named -- he was a very different sort of scholar, playing by

different rules in a different time and with a different goal in

mind. But if you wish simply to group persons who have given the

world English translations of the Tantras -- yes, I most certainly

agree with you.

 

Thank you as always for your thoughts!

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe