@Riktanandanath

August 26, 2009

W/o any idea of your age,sex and background (in our laukik exchange these play

an important role) I want to convey a few more thoughts. In hindsight this may

be embarrassing - but I pose it nonetheless

1. It may be historically true (to an extent) that the so called samayachara or

(dakshina-samaya to be more precise, or krama-diksha path to more more precise)

is a smarta take on the kaula tantras...they follow the tantra but changing and

extending it (yes, sometimes seems like pretentiously from outside) in places to

conform to smriti (I don't know if it makes any diff from sruti p.o.v-is there a

sruti p.o.v?).

(Also this is not specific to south-india though it survives more in spirit in

the south, they are in north, east, west (in theory, in practice hardly) and

trace themselves back to gaudapada ... which puts them before the kaula-natha

guru's in terms of antiquity...but debatable topic, and not my main point here,

so ignore)

But just because somethings are adopted from another system doesn't invalidate

or make it superior or inferior or less true (as shakti upasana). Oldest hynms

to the mother are recorded in the vedic suktas and the vedic appendices. Mantra,

Yantra and Tantras were not invented by the Kaulas out of thin air - the roots

to these are seen in earliest shiva-agamas (which were very 'brahmanical' in

nature), which in turn seems to be rooted in the practice of the late vedic

period.

The argument you have used to say that south-indian dakshina-samaya path is

'phoney' can be turned against the kaula path as well to make it 'phoney'. There

are doubts in the very origin of the word 'kula' as some very well studied

buddhist scholars point out that the term was first noted in the buddhist

tantras w.r.t a family of buddhas and their emancipations and the defn is very

precise in bauddha tantras.

2. My point#1 is not to enter into any scholastic discussion about the origin

etc (fortunately I am no where close to a scholar by any stretch of

imagination), but just to point out the fallacy of historical analysis in

judging so called 'authenticity' of a lineage. If you feel that the

dakshina-samaya path (hardly anyone makes it clear what it is actually, I too

don't know much) is not genuinely shakta there must be better ways to make that

point outside historical analysis (the arguments you make seem to come out

directly from the study of some of the well know mleccha scholars of kaula

tantra - not doubting the genuineness or intent of these scholars in anyway).

The popular view one comes across in these e-forums cannot be the yard stick to

measure either the authenticity or the knowledge of the real followers of this

path.

So while your answer to the original query was razor sharp and correct (imho),

something we don't witness in e-forums...I think it stretched a bit far

into un-called for territory.

3. Sectarianism Vs Universalism: I have seen people oscillating between this 2

extreme ends, while reality imo as always lies in between somewhere. While

universalism is a fatalistic fantasy which I think comes from minds and ego's

self belief that it knows and comprehends the truth - and is thousand times more

destructive to civilization and culture than sectarianism, the later is also

problematic.

You dismiss sruti,smriti and an entire ancient body of thought because you

despise paurahivavada (priest ism-the trend to restrict the truth to the

previledged clan and exploit the others).

paurahitvavada and bhavavada (the type which makes one believe that calling devi

in the loo is all that is needed) are disturbing layers which cover our shastras

and our mind (more our mind, I believe).

Once these 2 layers are removed, all of sects and traditions within the fold of

bharat-dharma really have more to feel good about each other than otherwise.

I don't know if I have finished what I intended to say, but this seems like the

longest post I have made in an e-forum and I am feeling dizzy.

Hope this rant (which has also a lot of ignorance in it, as I may not be

factually correct in many cases) is not that unbearable.

Good day.

--- On Mon, 24/8/09, Saikat Maitra <singhi_kaya wrote:

Saikat Maitra <singhi_kaya

Re: Re: Am I a Jain or a Shakta?

Monday, 24 August, 2009, 5:17 PM

Thanks. All the aspects of puja from prana-prathista to bali-dana to homa aims

to make the worshipper aware of the vast presence of the iShTa (vyApaka Ishvara

vAda), in our small minds which cannot comprehend it as such.

When this limited mind pretends to comprehend this vyApakatA it comes out in

form of ill-digested theories and imaginary concepts of 'sameness' and

'oneness'.

Regarding your disgust for srauta-smarta, I am no one to make a comment, but

perhaves you are putting too much weight on the pauranik-smriti element which

clouds the sruti.

Without the fire of sruti there is no abhay. And life which is fearful has

little hope for

truth, which is reserved for the warrior.

dhanvanA gA dhanvanAjiM jayema dhanvanA tIvrAH samado jayema |

dhanuH shatrorapakAmaM kRNoti dhanvanA sarvAH pradisho jayema ||

With Bow let us win cattle, with Bow the battle, with Bow be victors in our hot

encounters.

The Bow brings grief and sorrow to the enemy: armed with the Bow may we subdue

all regions.

~Rg Ved manNDla 6

See the Web & #39;s breaking stories, chosen by people like you. Check out

Buzz. http://in.buzz./

August 26, 2009

Hello Saikat,

Appreciate your inputs.

But at the moment I am not very clear on which points of yours to select

for dwelling on, and how, because you say that you are just expressing

some of your own thoughts. you also say that you do not want to enter

into any scholastic discussion. But the areas that you have touched upon

-- the oriins and foundations of the " samaya " culture and its extent of

authenticity, the origin of " kula " , the alleged " braminical " nature of

the Shaiva Agamas, the the origin of the mantras . yantras and the role

of the kaulas, the smarta attempts to reshape and reinvent and

recategorise the tantrik path, the bane of the priestcraft and the

hegemony of the clergy, the two extermes of sectarianism and universalism --

all these are very relevant

topics and are seperate and more or less vast topics to deal with.

I hope in future each of these areas will be discussed at lenght and

depth. The points that you have brough up, cannot be answered at lenght

in one single posts, and in that case nobody is likely to sit and go

thorugh that. But they do need to be clarified, and they can be

clarified. My approach is always to start from the basics -- that way

people get to understand the full thing step by step. the starting point

in my view is to make it clear first what is the scope and the subject

matter of tantra as a whole, and what is the and has been the place of

tantra in the Hinduism that has come down to us today, and what has

historically been the realtionship(s) between tantra/agama and other

parallel traditions. once this area is made clear, the rest will be made

clear.

But I do want to say that yours (other than Kulasundari's) is the only

post till now after my big post that has really something to say and has

some content. Irrespective of

how much you know or understand as an individual, I know for a fact that

you are someone genuinely interested in discussing, sharing thoughts,

asking and trying to understand -- like your long intelligent discussion

with Kaula Arjuna Taradasa in Hindudharmaforum long back. So, I will

look forward to discussing with you, or anybody else like that who wants

to discuss and clear things out. But I am not taking up your points in

this posts itself.

Thanks -- Jit.

, Saikat Maitra <singhi_kaya

wrote:

>

> W/o any idea of your age,sex and background (in our laukik exchange

these play an important role) I want to convey a few more thoughts. In

hindsight this may be embarrassing - but I pose it nonetheless

>

August 27, 2009

Dear Sir,

One thing I have not read much about (in 2ndary sources) is relationship between

earlier shaiva agamas (or even vaishnava) to the later kaula tantras. Does

Kamika or Kirna agama or Thirumantiram has any bearing on rudrayamala tantra,

for example? and such questions ...

I am weary of a discussion on these topics due to my utter ignorance on the

matters

beyond 2nd hand information. There is a desire to study since materials are now

easily

available to those who are interested and have time - I don't have the time for

now.

But surely I'll benefit from your view on the relationship between the shaiva

schools (of the non kaula variety) to later kaula schools. Someone said to me

the first reference to panchadasi is in Thirumantiram.

I do not have much doubt that smarta modification to kaula tantra came quite

later (though gaudapada and shankara both were quite before the kaula gurus -

the logic that these 2 personalities had originally nothing to do with tantra

seems somewhat convincing to the rational mind), only I feel that doesn't

invalidate the same.

Regards.

PS: Since you are in Kolkata it should be easily possible to meet you someday. I

am from Asansol, now in the south.

--- On Wed, 26/8/09, riktanandanath <jitmajumder212 wrote:

riktanandanath <jitmajumder212

Re: @Riktanandanath

Wednesday, 26 August, 2009, 9:09 PM