schools of the Shakta tradition

[Guest guest]

There are two main streams of the Shakta Tantra, Srividya and Kalikula. Eighter

of these streams has different schools, branches, and sampradayas about which I

seek information.

If someone has some names and basic information, I would be grateful for letting

me know.

 

Kind regards,

Alexandra

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear ms.Alexandra,

 

Sree matre namah.

i have seen your mail about the main streams of shakta tradition which are

srividya and kalikula. also about the eight sampradayas and all that

paraphernalia and i would like to share few of my thoughts.

 

at first the entire gamut of shakta tradition or philosophy is called Sri Vidya

- which means " That which teaches or tells about SRI " , that Sri which comes in

the first 3 names of Lalitha Sahasra Namas and kalikula is only a subsect of

that great srividya. as you might be knowing about Dasa Mahavidyas and kali

happens to be the first first Vidya. ( All male female deities are added Vidya

at the end viz., kali vidya, srividya, etc) and the tradition of kali and her

form of worship is called as kalikula. there are many such subsects in that Sri

vidya.

 

you were also mentioning about Sampradayas which are eight in number. these

sampradayas are denoted by the last names which are given at the time of Final

Consecration or Purnabhisheka where the Guru will give the student a name

according to the students aptitude or the part touched by the student

blindfolded by the guru, or that which has been earned by the student by any

special deed. you have Natha, Giri, Puri, Maharaj, Saraswati, Bharati, Tirtha

and Saktha. this name comes in the end of the name given by the guru.

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa for eg., his original name is Gadadhar but his Diksha

name is Ramakrishnananda Natha Paramahamsa.Take the great Bhaskaracharya whose

diksha name is Bhasurananda natha. my original name is Saravana Kumar and my

diksha name is Samvidananda Saktha. similarly there are 8 such families or

sampradayas which are established by the old Rshis and Sankara. each

sampradayas have some dissimilarities, idiosyncracies and modusoperandii. one

has

to have a clear vision which is broad and cleaner in outlook while observing any

such things.

 

 

I remain

always at the feet of my guru,

Samvidananda Saktha

 

 

See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar

http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/spl\

ash.asp

[Guest guest]

Alexandra and other members

 

The saktha tradition has been divided into two main traditions

 

Kali Kula - worshippers of Kali, Chandi, Durga, Tara

 

Sri Kula - worshippers of Lalitha Tripurasundari, Bhuvaneshwari,

Kamalathmika

 

Generally it is seen that Kali Kula is predominant in North and

Eastern India and Sri Kula in South India.

 

This division into Kulas is done by some Tantrik practitioners and

not accepted by everyone.

 

About the Sampradhayas very little authoritative research has been

done on the different traditions. As there are hundreds of Mantras of

Sakthi there are also hundreds of traditions.

 

Kali Kula is definitely not a sub sect of SriVidya whatever anyone

might say. Dasa Maha Vidyas are supposed to be 10 forms of Kali.

Shodasi is the third vidya. If at all we can definitely call SriVidya

or Shodasi Vidya as a sect of Kali Kula.

 

Sri. Saravanakumar has presented the typical SriVidya point of view

that all other traditions are part of SriVidya. This is a sectarian

view and contrary to facts. In Bengal where I come from SriVidya is

almost unknown. Lalitha Sahashranama is a sectarian text of the South

Indian SriVidya school. The main text in Bengal is Devi Mahatmyam.

 

I have seen repeated efforts to portray SriVidya as the only school

of thought. Unfortunately Saktha tradition has existed and flourished

in Bengal and Assam. Sakthism was not known in South India, not at

least in recent times.

 

Now we will have people claiming Bagavan RamakrishnaDev to be an

SriVidya practitioner.

 

<Ramakrishna Paramahamsa for eg., his original name is Gadadhar but

his Diksha name is Ramakrishnananda Natha Paramahamsa.>

 

This statement is totally wrong. Maa Bhairavi Brahmani initiated

Bagavan Ramakrishnadev into the Tantrik tradition. Guru Thotha Puri

taught him the Advaidic traditions. There is no record of Bagavan

Ramakrishna taking Poorna Deeksha. In fact no one knows how he got

the name Ramakrishna.

It is generally believed that the monks of the Ramakrishna order are

of the order Puri since Thotha Puri was the guru of Bagavan

Ramakrishna. Bagavan Ramakrishnadev never took Sannyasa and remained

a Grahastha.

 

 

Again Sampradhayas are not schools of Advaidic monks. Sankaracharya's

division is only for renunciates. Since most of the Saktha

practitioners are Grahasthas this division has no meaning in Saktha

religion. I do not understand when Sankaracharya became an authority

on Sakthism. May be in the south.

 

All of us are entitled to view our tradition as the greatest. But we

should not try to belittle others. Saying Kalikula is a sub sect of

SriVidya is like saying Sakthism is part of Saivism. The Saivites

always claim that. But Sakthas do not accept that.

 

I have seen repeated efforts on the Internet to portray SriVidya as

the greatest school of Sakthism and to run down other schools. In

this group we have seen Sangaranarayanan and Harshanand doing this.

You can claim SriVidya to be the greatest, but do not run down other

traditions. This does not in any way further the Saktha religion. I

request senior members like Saravana Kumar to keep themselves above

sectarian politics.

I have always read his postings for improving my knowledge of Saktha

religion. I am happy that he is back after a long time. But I am

shocked at his last post.

 

Jai Maa Durga

 

Bibhuthi Bhushan

[Guest guest]

I am a recent member of this club, which I joined after meeting its

founder sankarukku, whom I respect very much. I am also absolutely

and totally ignorant about the technicalities of the tantric

tradition, though I am very aware of the its needs, texts, and

essense. My personal sadhna is meditation and yoga, and I call myself

more of a advaitin if I have to categorize myself. However my knowing

is that all have to ultimately travel all paths to be able to

complete the journey.

 

I thank you for this latest post. I am reponding only to make a small

general point about this field, which all are welcome to

agree/disagree with.

 

This field is shrouded in secrecy for various reasons that I have

been learning lately. I also understand the need for that, because of

the level of power it deals with. A shakta once said to me, that the

Upanishads are also " dangerous " and needed to be taught as it was

originaly intended - " learnt by sitting near a guru " . It is

extremely dangerous for an individual to take " Aham Brahmasmi " to

mean " i " (lower self) is GOD rather than the " I " (the True SELF).

Depending on the level of consciouness, the individual is apt to take

it so. However, I have also learnt that spiritual arrogance is a trap

anyone, including bhaktas, can fall into, and is not a monopoly of

misguided advaitins.

 

This secrecy on the other hand has led to a different problem, if we

can call it a problem at all. The average public loves secrets, it is

attracts people like bees are to honey. While texts etc have been

translated by a variety of poeple in the field, because most of the

deepest information is not publicly shared, the knowledge has

remained, sparse, inadequate and confusing with a lack of

continuity. " A little learning is a dangerous thing " , takes on a new

meaning here, and the internet has been a great tool is promoting

this inadequate information about this field. Typically, the

microphone ends up with those who do speak up, and if the true

intiaties of all schools don't speak up, they thier views don't get

heard.

 

I am a bengali. I understand the sentiments of one who believes in

idealistic values against proselatizing, or preaching, or self-

aggrandizement. The few tantrics I have personaly met and spent time

with, have resisted all my attempts to get them to speak out and

present different points of view. With a paucity of original

authoratative information in this field, an incredible curiosity,

titillating tit-bits thrown around on the net, it is not a wonder

that more confusion, is being created.

 

I again urge those who consider themselves to be true carriers of the

tantric lineages, to make information available, as much as possible,

using the modern media of the internet etc. Do present all

perspectives, with due respect to all, knowing that each

person/reader is only drawn to that which their consciouness is ready

for.

 

_/\_ Tat twam asi

 

Uma

 

 

*******************************************

This is a reply to post 338 by " dhoot19 "

*******************************************