Shaktism and Tantra

[Guest guest]

Pranams,

 

I have been reading with great interest the posts on Bagalamukhi, and I wonder

now as to whether the issue of secrecy regarding mantras is exclusive to

tantrism or whether it can, and perhaps should be, more generally addressed

among and between varying schools of Hindu thought wherein it does not seem to

be an issue at all.

 

How can one, for example, understand the necessity of secrecy from the

perspective of pure devotion? If we maintain that Shakti is Brahman--well, does

She not know the heart of those that love Her? Is She blind to the intentions of

Her little children? Does a mother seek to kill her children because they are

children? I come to my Mother without discipline, without sincerity, without

ability, and without anything of merit, but I am her child. And I trust Her

completely. Why ever would I not? Should the tiger cub be afraid of its mother's

fangs? On the other hand, were I to approach my Beloved as though She were a

monster bent on my utter destruction I would surely deserve to be swatted by Her

for mispronouncing Her name. But She is All. So what of it? What does the All

which is All care about puja if the tears of the heart are not honey to Her?

 

I mean, if you take mantra as being part and parcel of an entire ritual

structure wherein every element is scientifically geared towards generating a

very specific effect I can well understand why diksha would be important; and I

could see why the recitation of certain mantras would remain secret if such

practices are to remain fully embedded within an extremely complex and esoteric

understanding of reality and of our place within it--but outside of tantrism, I

see no point to it at all.

 

Given the fundamental universality of the Sanatana Dharma, where does the issue

of ritual secrecy come in outside of tantric traditions? For that matter, what

do the esoteric doctrines and practices of the various tantric traditions

contribute to that mighty river which is Indian philosophical thought? The way

Shaktism is presented disturbs me. But is Shaktism necessarily tantric? Is it

not far more than sectarian infighting and scholasticism? When I behold my

beloved Mother I see LIFE, not a rule-book of ritual pronunciations. What does

She who lives in the cremation grounds and who transgresses all boundaries and

rituals and superstitions upheld and cherished by the ego have to do with the

technicalities of arcane rituals bent on the acquisition of powers? Where is the

Mother's ecstasy? Where is Her wisdom and Her love? Would Kali have taken

Ramakrishna's head if in his ecstatic love for Her he had momentarily forgotten

the technical details of Her rituals and tossed Her a rotted mango instead?

 

In an age which has lost its spiritual heart, who really cares about seemingly

sectarian issues anyway? It is very easy to say that the Tradition needs to be

maintained as it has been handed down; that things need to be done in certain

ways, and according to certain meticulously elaborated precepts. But it is

quite something else to reach into the living, juicy, feminine heart of ritual

and to make it truly alive for the liberation of souls. Or of what use is it?

Anyone in any age can learn to toss about technical terms. But who reaches the

wild heart of Shakti? Who tastes of her freedom? Does not Kali, in the taking of

heads, embody the very antithesis of the aggressive intellectualism and

obscurantism upheld by certain occult teachings within the traditions who claim

to represent Her?

 

Now obviously, I am not a Hindu. Nor did I grow up within the matrix of India's

ancient cultural traditions. But Kali as Shakti as Brahman is not a Hindu

goddess, and I cannot worship her as a Hindu, nor do I have any desire to

appropriate the beauty of Her rituals, or to employ Hindu elements in my

devotions to Her. It would not make sense, and it would not be right. I was not

grown within the soil which gave those traditions of ritual feasting meaning and

power and birth. As a human being though,perhaps I can come to understand the

necessity of maintaining the seed elements of creation a secret--not

intellectually, because that does not interest me--but emotionally and

intuitively.

 

Please forgive any offense I have inadvertantly given. I speak in unknowing.

Blessings of Her peace upon all of your heads.

 

Oliver

[Guest guest]

Namaste Oliver -

 

And thank you for sharing your thoughts. I can really see where you're

coming from, and personally have many similar thoughts in my head.

 

When it comes to using mantras and the performance of puja there is no one

view among " Hindus " . I have spoken to shaktas in both India and Europe who

discourage devotees who are un-initiated from using *any* mantra; I have

also seen people pass on highly potent Tantric mantras over the Internet

(as on this list)!

 

Personally, I go for the middle path: I try to stick to simple forms of

ritual (basic puja) and japa ( " Om Sri Matre namah " ), in the hope of

receiving proper initiation one day. I find that the teaching of Swami

Satyananda Saraswati and Shree Maa from the Davi Mandir of Napa

(California) is of great help for those who like me wish to embark on the

journey but have little access to traditonal lore.

 

I wouldn't say that Tantrism and bhakti are in opposition to one another:

esoteric ritual, from what I understand, is primarily a tool to augment

devotion (i.e. to achieve wisdom of the heart). To put it in other words,

Tantrism (Sri Vidya) is a tool to awaken love for God and move faster

towards the Centre.

 

A second important question you raise is that of " Hinduism " and what it

means to worship the Devi in the West. I feel it is very important for us

Westerners to ponder this question in depth. I also feel that it is

impossible for Europeans to love the Devi without realising that She is

also the same Mother whom our pagan ancestors worshipped under many names

and whom our Christian forefathers surrendered to as Mary, Queen of

Heaven. A beautiful devotional site that focuses on Her in all these (and

many other) aspects is www.mother-god.com.

 

Why the teaching of Sanatana Dharma - with its rites and seemingly exotic

customs - is so important for Westerners today is because it is one of the

few traditions on Earth to have preserved the worship of the Mother

intact. Practicing " Hinduism " requires a lot of effort, study and

determination, but if this is necessary to grow closer to Her then so be

it. I do not wish to become Indian, but turn to India as the place where

the flame of devotion to Her is still burning bright. I hope that through

the generosity of our Indian brothers the torch will be passed on to us so

that worship of the Mother may be reinstated in our lands.

 

Yours in Devi,

 

Sergio

 

 

 

> Pranams,

>

> I have been reading with great interest the posts on Bagalamukhi, and I

> wonder now as to whether the issue of secrecy regarding mantras is

> exclusive to tantrism or whether it can, and perhaps should be, more

> generally addressed among and between varying schools of Hindu thought

> wherein it does not seem to be an issue at all.

>

> How can one, for example, understand the necessity of secrecy from the

> perspective of pure devotion? If we maintain that Shakti is Brahman--well,

> does She not know the heart of those that love Her? Is She blind to the

> intentions of Her little children? Does a mother seek to kill her children

> because they are children? I come to my Mother without discipline, without

> sincerity, without ability, and without anything of merit, but I am her

> child. And I trust Her completely. Why ever would I not? Should the tiger

> cub be afraid of its mother's fangs? On the other hand, were I to approach

> my Beloved as though She were a monster bent on my utter destruction I

> would surely deserve to be swatted by Her for mispronouncing Her name. But

> She is All. So what of it? What does the All which is All care about puja

> if the tears of the heart are not honey to Her?

>

> I mean, if you take mantra as being part and parcel of an entire ritual

> structure wherein every element is scientifically geared towards

> generating a very specific effect I can well understand why diksha would

> be important; and I could see why the recitation of certain mantras would

> remain secret if such practices are to remain fully embedded within an

> extremely complex and esoteric understanding of reality and of our place

> within it--but outside of tantrism, I see no point to it at all.

>

> Given the fundamental universality of the Sanatana Dharma, where does the

> issue of ritual secrecy come in outside of tantric traditions? For that

> matter, what do the esoteric doctrines and practices of the various

> tantric traditions contribute to that mighty river which is Indian

> philosophical thought? The way Shaktism is presented disturbs me. But is

> Shaktism necessarily tantric? Is it not far more than sectarian infighting

> and scholasticism? When I behold my beloved Mother I see LIFE, not a

> rule-book of ritual pronunciations. What does She who lives in the

> cremation grounds and who transgresses all boundaries and rituals and

> superstitions upheld and cherished by the ego have to do with the

> technicalities of arcane rituals bent on the acquisition of powers? Where

> is the Mother's ecstasy? Where is Her wisdom and Her love? Would Kali have

> taken Ramakrishna's head if in his ecstatic love for Her he had

> momentarily forgotten the technical details of Her rituals and tossed Her

> a rotted mango instead?

>

> In an age which has lost its spiritual heart, who really cares about

> seemingly sectarian issues anyway? It is very easy to say that the

> Tradition needs to be maintained as it has been handed down; that things

> need to be done in certain ways, and according to certain meticulously

> elaborated precepts. But it is quite something else to reach into the

> living, juicy, feminine heart of ritual and to make it truly alive for the

> liberation of souls. Or of what use is it? Anyone in any age can learn to

> toss about technical terms. But who reaches the wild heart of Shakti? Who

> tastes of her freedom? Does not Kali, in the taking of heads, embody the

> very antithesis of the aggressive intellectualism and obscurantism upheld

> by certain occult teachings within the traditions who claim to represent

> Her?

>

> Now obviously, I am not a Hindu. Nor did I grow up within the matrix of

> India's ancient cultural traditions. But Kali as Shakti as Brahman is not

> a Hindu goddess, and I cannot worship her as a Hindu, nor do I have any

> desire to appropriate the beauty of Her rituals, or to employ Hindu

> elements in my devotions to Her. It would not make sense, and it would

> not be right. I was not grown within the soil which gave those traditions

> of ritual feasting meaning and power and birth. As a human being

> though,perhaps I can come to understand the necessity of maintaining the

> seed elements of creation a secret--not intellectually, because that does

> not interest me--but emotionally and intuitively.

>

> Please forgive any offense I have inadvertantly given. I speak in

> unknowing. Blessings of Her peace upon all of your heads.

>

> Oliver

>

>