Academics and Tantric Shaktism (Review of KOY Posted)

[Guest guest]

Namaste DB and SS Members,

 

Thought it might be good to go ahead and post the review here.

I still say Kiss of the Yogini is worth reading. White is certainly

more respectful to the topic than many scholars have been. But, as

you mentioned in your post and per our conversation earlier, a sadhak

he ain't. ; )

 

I do appreciate the fact that he is so concerned and even passionate

about the mis-representations and distortions regarding Tantra that

abound.

 

~se101

 

Misrepresentation of the Tantras in David White's book:

 

A flawed methodology instantiated

 

by Sitansu Sekhar Chakravarti

 

(Presented at WAVES Conference 2004)

 

I remember having said to an American friend of mine who had taught

Hinduism at a North American University all his life, what of course

he knows of the religion, that I am not sexually promiscuous, not in

spite of the Tantra, but because of it. He was literally startled. He

could not accept my words with his academic training in the West, a

Harvard Ph.D. in Hinduism as he is, even though he could not produce

any academic argument against what a learned practitioner of the

religion said.

 

White[1] will address me thus: You are both right and wrong. Soft-

core Tantricism promotes sexual non-promiscuity, whereas the hard-

core variety is just the opposite. In fact, the latter kind is the

original (p. XII, Preface) Tantra according to him, dating far back

in history, which was later swallowed and subjugated to a modified

status by the mellowed variety of the soft-core Tantra. Thus, the

original variety is the most authentic, and is representative of

Tantra proper.

 

A few things need to be said here. Granted that the hard-core Tantra

is the original, does that prove that it is the most authentic?

Newtonian physics represents the original form of physics in recent

history. Is it also the most authentic on that count? Does it fare

more favorably in comparison with Einsteinian physics, or Quantum

Mechanics because of its prior origin? Again, what was science before

Newton? That must have been its more authentic form in comparison, by

reason of its prior origin? Thus modern science would be lost in the

most original primitive practices, which science seems to hate most.

Taking the same stride, there must be stages accepted even in the

hard-core Tantras, where questions of temporal priority arise.

Certainly these are important questions, and need to be addressed.

However, the results of this historical inquiry should not be taken

as answers to questions regarding the comparative authenticity of the

various stages in the development of the Tantras.

 

Perhaps there is a deeper issue involved here. Hinduism is not a

prophetic historical religion. Ideas are more important in it than

perhaps historical figures. Even the importance of a historical

figure is an idea or bhâva to the Hindu. Rama and Sri Krishna,

although considered by the Hindus as historical figures, are not

important as such (i.e., just as historical figures), but only as

embodiments of bhâvas, or ideas, or moods. They are considered as

embodiments of the Para-Brahman itself. If such is the fault of the

faith in not belonging the prophetic club, be liberal, Mr. Author, in

dumping all your objections on it on this count; however, please do

not impose on our faith the methodology of following the truths of

your system as tied to the truths of the historical events and

figures, the originals of what Moses did or said, or Jesus did or

said for that matter, the originals pertaining to what happened in

history, in other words, as a measure of the truth relating to any

system across the board, including the ones lying outside your fold.

The Hindu does not feel hesitant or shy in saying that Vivekananda

added a new dimension to the Gita, or Gandhi did one to the ideas of

Vivekananda. Saying this, the Hindu does not feel like belittling Sri

Krishna, or Vivekananda, for that matter. I wonder if a similar

suggestion of an add-on at a corresponding level would be

accommodated in the prophetic systems.

 

Questions have been raised in the past regarding the authentic,

original portions of the Mahâbhârata, in relation to the ones added

on later. The Gîtâ has been suggested as an add-on, thereby

signifying its supposed inauthenticity to the critics. To the Hindu,

the prime question is not whether each and every word of the Gîtâ was

historically uttered by Sri Krishna, but whether it belongs to the

Vaiyasika tradition, ensuring that it relates to the rest of the

Mahâbhârata. It is the holistic standard of coherence that is

followed by the Hindu in such situations. He does not go by the book,

he goes by the ideas. In a very real sense the Hindu does not have

any book, as Vivekananda says (Is Vedanta the Future Religion?, pp. 7-

8), to compare with the Bible or the Quran, the original ones in

other words, offering the perfect yard stick for everything else to

follow. The Vedas are looked upon as a corpus of revealed truths by

the Hindus, and not the historical ones to guide our actions for all

time to come in their literal interpretations, thus to merit the

accusation of `fundamentalism' in the process. Philosophical system

building has been a part and parcel of the Indian mind, which the

Buddhists inherited from the Hindus. I wonder if White will consider

the early Buddhism more authentic in contrast with the later

varieties of it, including the ones with Tantric leanings. Since

Buddhism originated from Hinduism, will he consider the latter to be

more authentic? Even the Bauls, whom White refers to in his book,

have their system, though not in the form of treatises, but in the

form of understanding in their own minds, as expressed in their

songs. The relation between the Brahmins and the ones `below',

the `subaltern's (p. 3), `low caste, rural margins', the `grassroots'

(p. 261), in other words, is not as unbridgeable and way apart as is

advertised to be. At least, we can say this in view of the situation

in ancient times. We can refer to the story of the Dharma-vyâdha or

Tulâdhâra in the Mahâbhârata in this connection. The Shudras would

invariably profit by the systems Brahmins—the academicians—would

build, and would use them in their system of thoughts, as the systems

percolate down to them in course of time, which is true till today.

Similar situation prevailed between the elite Buddhists and the

commoners in their own faith, paralleling the situations holding in

the modern-day societies in the advanced world between scientists and

the common people. The shadows of the systems built would certainly

touch the lives of the common people in olden times. As the

Mahâbhârata shows, the common people also would have their share in

ensuring the authenticity of the systems built. This process of

system building per se does by no means have to be linked with the

concept of subjugation relating to the power structure. Following

White's methodology, we do not want to say that Catholicism is more

authentic than Protestantism, and that the latter was a ploy to

subjugate the former, or that similar considerations hold between

Judaism and Christianity.

 

Tantra, as happens with everything else in life, has undergone an

evolution in history, the process of which is not clear to us. The

steps of the evolutionary change are not well defined. Historical

research in the area is still at an early stage, as in many other

areas of Indian history. Questions have been raised regarding the

literal interpretation of the literature of the early Tantras. Since

the Hindus never accepted the Tantras as a prophetic system, they did

not have any problem building upon it, in the existential mood of

freedom grounded on the positive note of hope and deliverance, and

eventually brought about the corpus of the holistic system of Tantra

as we know it today. In course of the building process we did not pay

attention to the prophetic "original-authentic" parameter, and viewed

the Tantra from the point of view of creative development, as in

science. We were lucky we did not have to pay any heed in this

venture to Freud or Marx, the prophets who were yet to come.

 

We must emphasize that White's hard-core/soft-core distinction

between the two aspects of the Tantras, as spiritual disciplines,

cannot be taken as rigid, neither historically nor, more

significantly, from a philosophical perspective. If the hard-core

Tantras have a spiritual ingredient, they must be accessed in the

light of the spiritual goals contained in the soft-core ones.

Otherwise, they become license toward hedonism and black magic,

bereft of any spiritual content. The Tantras, both the hard-core as

well as the other kind, have no taboo against sex, nor—we must pay a

special attention to this—do they promote indulgence in it. They

involve modes of deconstruction—not in the hetero-or-homo-sexual way,

but in the way of transcending sexuality. The soft-core Tantras

emphasize this. The mention of the eight bonds (pâzas) in this

respect is found interestingly missing in this context in White's

work, going beyond which one becomes a `hero', or a vîra, and is

ready for the kaula practices of the hard-core Tantras. There is a

built-in area of restrictions here, which to our mind justifies the

secrecy involved in the system, not of course for reasons of

subjugation, but for development of the individual, as well as the

society at large, in a truly existential way of freedom, guarding

people from unnecessary ills if they are not ready for the practices

yet. Hinduism has not neglected either public or private morality,

and the history of the Tantras is an illustrious attempt at boosting

both, while, at the same time, trying to handle aberrations

consisting in causing harm to oneself or to others, like through

practice of black magic or other licentious engagements. I would like

to draw the attention of the modern world to the thorough, lofty

deconstruction of the school in juxtaposition to that proposed by the

modern day stalwarts, as for example, Foucault. We must keep the

holism of Tantras intact in course of our analysis, and not be misled

by the Western paradigm of Cartesian dualism, while attempting to

interpret them.

 

I feel tempted to refer to some of the points mentioned in the

writings of Chintaharan Chakravarti in connection with the practice

of the Tantra rites. As regards the restrictions involved, he says:

 

Utmost care and proper precautions were taken to guard against the

possible degeneration that these rites might bring in. Religious use

of wine, meat and other things are prescribed with sufficient

reservation. Their use simply for the sake of pleasure and enjoyment

is condemned in very strong terms. It should not be supposed, says

the Kulârnava, that religion consists in a mere enjoyment of these

things, for then drunkards and meat-eaters would all be regarded as

highly religious personages (Kulârnava, II, 117-18). Subtle and, to

all appearances, absurd, may seem to be the distinction between the

religious and ordinary use of these things. Such a distinction was,

however, not only recognized, but strictly emphasized. It was also

realized that this hair-splitting distinction would be more than

impossible for ordinary people to comprehend and failures, which were

only natural, to observe the rules for their use and preserve a

perfect mental equilibrium at the time of their use, would be

frequent doing more harm than good. It was for this reason that

difficulties and pitfalls lying in the path of this form of worship

were often exaggerated to overawe people who might feel a fascination

for it. The Kaula form of worship that prescribes the use of the five

M's, … though regarded as highly efficacious—nay the best form of

worship has been stated in definite terms to be more difficult than

all difficult things of the world. The practice of the Kaula path,

says the Kulârnava, is even more difficult than lying on the blades

of swords, catching hold of the neck of a tiger and holding a snake

(in the hand) (ibid, II, 122) … Severe were the penances prescribed

for persons who took to these things only for the sake of enjoyment.

Heated wine was to be poured into the mouth of one who drank it for

pleasure in order that his mouth might be purified (ibid, II, 129).

Persons using these things for secular purposes were doomed to

eternal damnation (Tantrasâra, P. Sastri's edition, p. 649).

 

This peculiar form of worship was prescribed only at a very advanced

stage of spiritual development when the extreme type of self-control

had been achieved, when the things that normally cause distraction

could create no mental disturbance. The characteristics of a true

Kaula, fit to undertake these practices, as enumerated in different

Tantric texts clearly indicate this and these cannot but evoke

respect and admiration of a Kaula. This was the final and most

difficult test that a spiritual aspirant had to face. Persons who

dared to follow this extremely difficult path were quite

appropriately called Vîras or heroes. The objects that in the usual

course of things were known to bring in degeneration were expected to

secure salvation for them. The way of the Kaulas was therefore stated

to be extremely incomprehensible—beyond the power of comprehension of

even the yogins.[2] The real Kaula is he who is no in any way

affected by things that cause the affection of even the divine beings

(Parânanda-Sûtra, Gaekwad's Oriental Series, p. 16). Hence these

rites were to be performed under the guidance and supervision of

properly qualified teachers. For a novice, unaware of the secrets of

the worship, intending to perform it and attain success through it

would be as ridiculous as one who wishes to cross the ocean with bare

hands (Kulârnava, II, 47).

 

(Chakravarti, Chintaharan, `Ideals of Tantra Rites',

 

The Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. X, 1934, pp. 487-91;

 

Tantras: Study on their Religion and Literature, Punthi Pustak,

Calcutta, 1963, pp. 40-3.)

 

One interesting point is worth mentioning here regarding White's

analysis. If opposition to the Vedas is a mark of the hard-core

Tantra in as much as the opposite soft-core variety is a ploy of the

Brahmins in order to diffuse the subaltern values in favor of the

values of the Vedas, Kulârnava Tantra should be considered as hard-

core, for it considers the Vedas, Smritis and Puranas like

prostitutes in comparison with the Tantras that resemble housewives

(XI.85). However, if we have II.122 and II.129 in mind it would fall

to the category of soft-core Tantras for not going all the way for

sexuality, promotion of which seems to be a criterion of the hard-

core variety for White. In fact, White gives up on the Kulârnava

Tantra, which is one of the most prominent texts that finds its way

in his list of titles of Sanskrit works. "… in spite of the

rhetorical glorification of the Kaula in the original chapter," he

says, "[the book] shows itself to be an altogether conventionalist

work …," i.e., one belonging to the soft-core variety (p. 254). In

the Preface to his book White expresses his unequivocal disapproval

of the distortion he sees of Tantra in the New Age variety of its

copy of the hard-core kind. However, we are interested to know how

his own depiction of the hard core Tantra of his understanding as the

genuine one differs essentially from his perception of the New Age

variety. White's dedication of his book, apparently in his spirit of

understanding of the hardcore Tantra, is amenable to English

translation from his original Sanskrit the following way:

 

To my parents, without whose body fluids this book would not have

been possible.

 

I wonder if the New Age aspirants would after all aspire to catch up

with the taste of spirituality expressed here, even when we grant

them the status accorded by White.

 

The practice of putting in restrictions to control licentious

activities has often been interpreted as leaning away from sex as a

taboo, a practice, it is claimed, is against the spirit of Tantra.

Agehananda Bharati was quite vocal in his criticisms of such

restrictions in the Hindu system. White is simply following the

tradition. He criticizes the soft-core Tantra of willful distortion

with a view to subjugation of the people below. However, we would

like him to mention the restrictions the books he refers to have put

in place, and the rationale given therein for them. It is of real

significance to note that the writings of Chintaharan Chakravarti,

who has been referred to extensively in this essay, have not been

mentioned in the Bibliography White has provided, even though they

are well known in the field, and Chakravarti's book Tantras: Studies

on Their Religion and Literature received a lengthy review in the

Journal of the American Oriental Society in 1964. Last, but not the

least, some of the translations of Sanskrit words in White's book are

significantly suspect, like `fluid' for `dravya (thing)' p. 7 onward

[`without clan-generated fluids' for `kulodbhavair-dravyair-vinâ' p.

74—(the splitting of the constituent words are mine)], `swallow'

for `grihna (accept)' p. 228, `ritual copulation' for `mithuna

(couple)' p. 77, `actively engaged in drinking' for `pânodyatah'

(ready to drink) p. 76. The Western interest in the Tantra sex often

stems from a larking spirit of indulgence in the area of sex that

violates the precondition of the Tantric deconstruction, which

results in misrepresentation of the Tantras. White's book seems to

have ended up as yet another `hard-core' misrepresentation of

Hinduism, having followed a methodology which is flawed, as we have

attempted to show.

 

 

 

 

 

----

----------

 

[1] White, David Gordon, Kiss of the Yogini: "Tantric Sex" in its

South Asian Contexts, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2003.

The author thanks his son Ananda Roop for getting the book available

to him in order for him to be able to write this essay. This paper

was delivered at the WAVES Conference, 2004 at The University of

Maryland.

 

[2] Last verse of the seventh chapter of the Acarasara, or

Mahacinacara Tantra, as found in some MSS of the work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> Thanks for that, JaiMaa1008 ...

>

> Very interesting indeed! Kind of a devastating critique, really.

> Chakravorty basically says White has all of his facts straight, but

> that his entire analytical model is wrong, and therefore his

> conclusions are nonsensical to the learned practitioner. It's a

> pretty clear illustration of the problem Kochu always pointing out

> between the scholar's and the initiate's viewpoint.

>

> Basically (for those of you who haven't read the review),

> Chakravorty says White's analysis works only if you use the "older-

> is-more-authentic" model of the monotheistic faiths like Judaism,

> Christianity and Islam. But when you use the Hindu "every-

generation-

> adds-something" model, White's analysis becomes somewhat irrelevant

> to actual practice -- a kind of academic masturbation: self-

> contained analysis with no connection to the living tradition under

> discussion.

>

> White definitely has a formidable grasp of the texts and traditions

> of Tantra -- Chakravorty doesn't dispute it. But he is a bit too

> narrow; as SE101 put it when we spoke about this article

> today, "Hinduism/ Tantra are much more fluid than his way of

> thinking allows. He is very either/or, black & white, linear. And

> you and I both know Tantra is NOT that way."

>

> The whole thing reminds me of an old story about the famous author,

> Mark Twain. It's said that Twain was a most creative user of

> obscenity. He'd get mad and come up with brilliant and hilarious

> (but utterly vulgar) original expressions, and this habit

> embarrassed his poor wife to no end.

>

> So one day, after a particularly choice rant, she walked up to

> Twain, looked him in the eye and repeated everything he had just

> said, verbatim, without the slightest inflection. And when she

> finished, she said, "Now, how did that sound to you?"

>

> Twain looked at her for a long time ... then finally replied, "You

> got the words right, my dear, but you still haven't learned the

> tune!"

>

> This statement is also very true of academics writing about Tantra,

> and it is maybe what happened with White. In a way it's amazing to

> behold -- it almost illustrates Tantra's legendary inscrutibility

to

> outside analysis.

>

> The best academic writing on Tantra that I've seen would probably

be

> Brook's monograph on Sri Vidya in South India. But I'm absolutely

> sure that Brooks is an initiate. You can just feel it in the way

> that he writes. He uses all the ridiculous and verbose academic

> language like the rest of them, but still there is a tangible

> difference. His books are definitely academic -- they're not among

> the New Agey translations and testimonials by devotees that we

often

> see on the market. But nonetheless, reading Brooks, one can tell he

> has been initiated -- and practices too.

>

> Again, as SE101 noted above, it's his WAY of thinking about the

> subject matter that comes through. It's not so rigid or linear; at

> least not all the time. To understand a lot of this stuff, one has

> to shed a lot of Western thinking patterns -- and, perhaps just as

> important, you've got to apply some Western thought constructs in

> new ways -- like scientific method to spiritual examination.

>

> SE101: "Fluid seems to be the operative word. The Western paradigms

> are only a spring board -- you have to be flexible enough mentally

> to go in directions where they dont necessarily point."

>

> White, Brooks, Brown, Coburn, Hawley, Doniger, Kinsley etc etc --

> all scholars who write well and very knowledgeably on Shaktism and

> Tantra -- are still very much worth reading. They are invaluable

> resources, especially for people approaching the tradition from the

> outside. But you've got to read engage them one-on-one;

> hypercritically and take your own experience into account as well.

> You can't be a passive reader.

>

> Aum MAtangyai NamaH

>

> , "jaimaa1008"

> <jaimaa1008> wrote:

> >

> > hi DB,

> > Here's a very interesting review of Kiss of the yogini, saying

> that

> > its a gross misrepesentation of tantra. Tis is from the Svabinava

> > site of Sunthar Visuavalingam(he has published great articles)

> >

> >

> >

>

http://www.svabhinava.org/HinduCivilization/SitansuChakravarti/Tantra

> M

> > isrepresentedDavidWhite-frame.html