@Riktanandanath (kind attn. Saikat)

August 31, 2009

Saikat, this is in reply to your points/queries raised earlier last

week. I had posted it last night itself (by sunday, as I had promised)

but somehow it did not appear maybe due to my mistakenly sending it to

the wrong address as the moderator pointed out to me this evening.

<<<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....>>>

Saikat, firstly you are

confusing between entirely different things. Let's clear that out

first.

Firstly, it is not only historically true that samayachara is a smarta

take on tantra -- it is also true by the self-understanding, the

philosophies, the worldviews, the categories of being and their mutual

relations (ontology) of authentic tantra and of samayachara. That would

become obvious upon seeing the approach, mindset, attitude and

understanding of those who self-understand as " samayacharis " .

Secondly, dakshinachara is not samayachara. Samayachara is not

dakshinachara. And Sri Vidya is NOT = samayachara. The samayacharis often define

themselves

as dakshinacharis – but that is exactly what their attempt to

sabotage tantra and its self-understanding, and re-define and

restructure the framework of tantra with all its categories -- is all

about. Sometimes they define their " path " as dakshinachara because that's what

they have always heard and

learnt to repeat.

1. Dakshinachara

Dakshinachara, in the tantrik hierarchy of approaches, is not something

apart and independent as a path or approach by itself. It is not a

" substitute " , or a " parallel " path, or a different

" choice " .

Dakshinachara is not seen as, nor does it self-understand asthe " opposite " or

the " alternative

choice " vis-à-vis Vamachara.

Dakshinachara is but a stage – the primary or beginner's stage

of sadhana in Tantra which therefore

lies within the larger scheme of Vamachara – the stage of actual

tantrik sadhana. The stage of dakshinachara for the beginner or novice

is supervised by his preceptor, who is a Kaula.

The aim of Dakshinachara is to make the novice practitioner FIT for the

next stage, which is Vamachara, and not to provide him with an " alternative " .

The dakshinachari *aims* at the stage of Vamachara – his goal is not

to veer away from or be the anti-thesis of Vamachara.

The dakshinachari is on his way *towards* Vamachara, and not away from

it. Dakshinachara has a *hierarchical* relationship with Vamachara, and

not and antithetical or a fancied " equal-but-opposite " relation

with it. It is the first rung of the ladder which leads to Vamachara.

Dakshinachara understands itself, as the ground for *preparation*, from

which one is promoted or elevated to the higher level where actual

tantrik (kaula) sadhana begins.

2. " Samayachara "

Samayachara on the other hand sees itself as this " equal " and

" opposite " alternative to Kulachara.

Samayachara sees itself as the end in itself, and not the preparation

ground, or the means, to the end that is Kulachara.

While Dakshinachara is in the **same scheme of things** and the **same

framework of reference** as Vamachara / Kaulachara is, and **proceeds**

towards them, samayachara – as you know well – does not proceed

to anything higher in the hierarchy of sadhanas but remains samyachara.

The authentic dakshinacharai sadhaka, therefore does not and will not

identify himself as a " samayachari " . The guru/guide of a

dakshinachari is himself a Kaula. Who is leading him towards Kulachara,

insated of away from and against Kulachara.

The authentic, original self-understanding of Tantra is that of an

integrated framework comprising of different (seven) levels of sadhana

classified under three different levels of " bhava " or the

psychological/intellectual level/orientation of the practitioner. The

guru makes the sadhaka start from that level which he sees most fit for

that particular person after he examines his " adhara " and

" adhikara " . The Ultimate aim is – Kaulachara.

And the " samayacharai " interpretation and re-structuring of

Tantra is – " there are two different paths, one of which is

vamachara, and the other which is dakshinachara, which is samayachara,

and samayachara is (predicatably) the highest path and the sattvic path,

while others are rajasic and/or tamasic paths. "

3. Dakshinachara vis-à-vis Vamachara

The authentic Dakshinachari therefore does not " dispute " with,

or " challenge " Vamachara or Vamacharis. To him, Vamachara is

that higher stage to which he is aiming and to which his guru is guiding

him. And a vamachari to him is his senior, an advanced sadhaka to whom

he is junior and subordinate, and from who he has only to learn and

receive advice. To him a Vamachari is not someone whom he

" challenges " or " disputes " with. He is not under the notion that his

current path and status is an end by itself or is an

" independent " path by itself. He knows that it is a stage, a

level of sadhana.

The authentic Dakshinachari's sole aim is to psycho-phisiologically,

intellectually, spiritually, transform himself, expand and strengthen

himself as an " adhara " , to cultivate and elevate his

consciousness to that level which is required for him to move on to the

next higher level from which he is going to begin his actual tantrik

practices.

The aim of samayachara is to see itself as an " option " to

tantra. The aim of dakshinachara is to proceed towards Vamachara –

with the transformation of one's consciousness.

The most common reason – which is your reason, too in this case

– for which people mistake samayachara for dakshinachara, is

superficial factor that both the dakshinachari and the

" samayachari " go through their practices without the use of the

five sacraments or pancha-makaras.

When the origin and context of the five m's is

understood properly, and when it is seen how the whole of

" samayachara " is just a reaction to that and why, and how the

whole of brahminical samaychara is in effect reacting against that very

thing which it had established in the collective understanding as a

" taboo " in the first place.

Now, of course, that has got largely to do with people not directly

being practitioners themselves, or not directly having and insider's

knowledge and understanding of the subject. That has also got largely to

do with the fact that most people do not delve into Tantra even as a

subject of study, except as superficial dabbling. Because of inadequate

information

and poor understanding based on that sparse information, people just

try to arrive at conclusions

based on the little bit they hear/read from second-hand sources.

The dakshinachari avoids the five m's, or the Vamachari rituals like

bhairavi sadhana or smashan sadhana – BECAUSE he aims at doing just

those things, when his guru instructs and guides him in those things

when time comes. The dakshinachari does not avoid the use of those

things because he has the typical wrong and superficial notions that

human beings live under. He is not avoiding because he is a damn

brahminical prude or is imprisoned by the shackles of Victorian

morality. He is avoiding it – EXACTLY to make himself fir for it.

That is the idea behind the " dakshinachara " stage of sadhana

– to see for yourself how much or how far the conventional

worldview, approach, methodology or the fragmented dichotomous worldview

and value system can take you. When he has seen that for himself, when

his guru has taken out from him all humane hang-ups, superstitions,

inhibitions, fears, the constrictions of his socio-cultural superego,

his mental and intellectual limitations, when through guidance and

self-training, by looking into himself he has overcome his normal way

opf looking at life, when he has transformed his cognitive process, then

he moves on to the actual tantra – Vamachara. In other words –

the dakshinachari does not avoid the five m's – he is aiming at

*embracing* the five m's. He does not fight against the five m's

or hold on to the world view and the temperament that causes that

avoidance and fear, he is aiming at *eradicating* that dichotomous and

superficial way of looking at things. He is not avoiding it, he is

*preparing* for it, he is *approaching* it.

4. Krama Diksha

Krama-diksha is a stage and a level of diksha that is given by a guru to

an adept who has completed upto a particular level of sadhana. After the

initial diksha (mantra diksha) comes Shaktabhisheka, then comes

Purnabhisheka, and then comes Krama-Diksha. Krama-diksha is what Kaula

adepts receive, after they complete Purnabhisheka , and after they start

pacticing all the actual rites and praqtcies that are commonly know as

Tantrik practices – shatkarma, paduka-japa, rahasya-purascharana,

vire-purascharan, dasharna-mantra, vira-sdahana, chita-sadhana,

yogini-sadhana, madhumati-sadhana, sundari-sadhana, Shiva-bali,

lata-sadhana, smashan-sadhana and chakra-sadhana.

THAT is what is done – Before a Kalu practitioner receives

Krama-Diksha.

After karma-diksha, comes samrajya-diksha, then mahasamrajyadiksha and

then purna-diksha.

<<<they follow the tantra but changing and extending it (yes, sometimes

seems like pretentiously from outside)>>>

If you have understood fully what I explained above, you will

(hopefully) no longer say that " they follow the tantra " . Because

they do not follow tantra.

<<<in places to conform to smriti>>>

Samayachara is not " conformation to smriti " . It IS smrit.

<<<(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)

Your above sentence contradicts itself. It ultimately concludes and

reinstates what I said in the first place – that it is unique and

peculiar to south Indian brahminical society.

<<<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)>>>

Sankara belongs to the period 788—820 CE. Gaudapada is a lil bit

before him, and his senior contemporary – traditionally said to be

the guru of the Sankara's guru Govindapada. That will place

Gaudapada firmly in the 7th century CE.

By that time in our history, Tantra was a very ancient way of sadhana,

way of life, philosophy, worldview and ethical system.

Hear also you are making a mistake that is very commonly made by people

– you are confusing between the tradition and system (tantra) and

its *written* accounts, commentaries and manuals (Tantrik texts) –

that came long after – but was started before Sankara or Gaudapada

were born, and went on for a long time till the present times.

If you were born in say, 1960, and the first written proofs or records

of your existence – say your passport, or PAN card, or highschool

marksheet come into existence (obviously) years later, when you are

grown up, would it be correct and proper to assume that you came into

existence in the same year in which your passport was issued or your

highschool certificate was issued? Will that not be a logical absurdity?

Will that not amount to thinking " upside-down " – since for a

proof of something to come about, that thing itself has to pre-exist?

And even if you leave out these things, should one not remember that the

Buddha (and his senior contemporary Mahavira) precedes Sankara and

Gaudapada by a long long time and in both Jaina and Bauddha literature

there are clear indications of the existence of tantra sadhana?

Tantra has the same foundation on which it developed as an integrated,

parallel tradition and way of life as that of Buddhism – Sankhya.

That is why Sankara himself rightly recognizes sankhya as

" tantra " , against the Vedas and against the smarta injunctions

of smarta " father-figures " such as Manu – kapilasya

tantrasya vedaviruddhatvam vedanusarimanuvachanaviruddhatvancha.

Samkhya is one of the oldest of the existing philosophies, probably the

oldest – with pre-vedic origins. Tantra is a direct development on

Samkhya, the 36 tattvas of tantra a development on the existing 24

tattvas of samkhya. By the time of Sankara – as his own observation

on Samkhya shows – tantra and its independent and unique, non-vedic

nature was clearly recognizable even by the time of the Buddha, and

certainly well established by the time of Sankara.

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

invalidate or make it superior or inferior or less true (as shakti

upasana).>>>

Whether it is true or false does not depend on whether or not it is

derived from something – after all everything needs something from

which it is developed – like Tantra is a development on Samkhya, or

Vajrayana Buddhism is a development from Mahayana, by adopting tantrik

mode of sadhana. But suppose today Vajrayana Buddhists turn the tantrik

framework of reference on its head, suppose they redefine and

restructure the mutual relationships of the tantrik categories to their

own liking, to fit their own limitations of mind and intellect, am I

supposed to accept that as legitimate??

It is the objective of that adoption, it is the self-understanding or

self-definition of that development, it is the relationship of that

" development " vis-à-vis the original, which determines

whether it is authentic or fake, valid or invalid, legitimate or

illegitimate.

<<<Oldest hymns 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>>>

" oldest hymns to the mother " are " recorded " in vedic

suktas, you say. And pray, from where do THOSE oldest hymns come from?

Mantra, yantra and tantra were not invented by kaulas out of thin air

– as if that was ever claimed by Kaulas that they make things out of

thin air.

But apparently, the mother goddesses are thought to have been invented

by the Vedas out of thin air!! What logic!!

Your vision seems to be stopping at the boundary of vedic suktas, but it

cannot go further beyond to the numerous mother goddess images found at

pre-vedic, non-aryan sites of the Indus civilization, or that of other

prehistoric sites like Bihimbetka, Mergarh, Lothal, kalibangan, etc! You

totally forget about the numerous seals, ritual items, aritfacts along

with the goddesses statuettes, stone lingams and yonis, that – in

solid tangible examplea dn proofs, point to the hoary antiquity of the

Mother-goddess tradition originating from the ancient fertility cults of

the agricultural communities. This is the great problem that I witness

all the time everywhere – everybody looks at the writing in ink, but

nobody looks at the writing of Time – in stone, metal or clay.

And who told you that the few goddesses that you come across in the

Vedas are the Mother Goddess or Shakti of the Tantras? Can you not

observe that in symbolism, in spirit, in status, in personality traits,

in functions – those female deities in the Vedas (who have long

faded into oblivion) are not the same concept as the Adya-parashakti and

Mula-Prakriti and Brahmanishtha-Sanatani of the Tantras, but only minor

goddesses who were subordinate to and lesser in importance and status to

their male consorts? Can you show me please, where in India and to what

extent – by how many people – Goddesses like Usha, Aditi, Diti,

Aurora, Shinibali, Savitri, Sarama, Saranyu, Ushas, Gayatri, Ratri,

Nritti, Svaha etc. are worshipped? and in the Tantrik way?? Can you not

observe in those hymns that the vedic goddesses do not have much of

identities in their own rights, and the amount of verses and devoted to

them are far less then those given to the chief male gods?

Let us remember that we are not talking about Goddesses in general, but

about the tantrik conception of Shakti and Mother. Goddesses – are

innumerable and are there in every culture and civilization by the

dozens. But will you say that because the ancient Sumerians and ancient

Egyptians (whose religions and cults goes back to pre-vedic times) had

lots of goddesses, we should depend on their goddess literature and lore

to ascertain the origin and development of the Tantrik Mother Goddess?

Similarly, there are goddesses in the Vedas, of course – some of

whose names I have mentioned above. But the point here is that source of

inspiration that gave birth to the conception of the female deites in

the Vedas, is completely different (though not necessarily antithetical)

to that source which gave rise to the conception of the tantric Shakti

or Mahamaya.

<<<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.>>>

Shaiva agamas are very old, but like all literature in our society, they

came down through the oral tradition. In written form, they are not that

old.

And that is exactly why those agamas apparently are – as you put it

– brahminical in character.

Actually they are not at all brahminical in character as a whole (you

have to study the whole of the agamas to see that, instead of just

building your conclusion upon some selected verses found in secondary

sources) – it is just they had met the same fate which most of our

literature has not excaped in our history – the fate of being

edited, interpolated, added upon.

When these agamas – some of which are larger than the four Vedas put

together and much richer in scope and content – sarted to be

recorded in wirting, the Brahminists were the ones to do that, like most

of the literary traditions they could lay their hands on. Expectedly,

they interpolated and edited to their heart's content, and made many

of the agamas appear to be paying lip-service to and singing the praises

of the Vedas. By interpolating verses singing the supremacy

of the Vedas and of Brahmins, by liberally inserting verses that aim at

reinforcing and supporting the brahminical " jati/ varna "

hierarchy, these ancient agamas were disfigured and defaced – to a

considerable degree – when one of the most essential characteristics

of the agamic tradition was that it completely disowned the notion of

vedic supremacy, of brahmincla hegemony and status-quo, and above all

the jati-varna paradigm.

This, if you study the agamas in depth, is what you will find, that

makes you say that they are supposedly " brahminical " in

character. You see, in those days, there were no publishing houses, no

mass-printing technology, and no copyright laws. Anybody could

interpolate anything into a set of palm-leaf manuscripts.

<<<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'. >>>

Since we have just started discussing, I do not know right now whether

you say that to keep " both sides " happy. But such approaches do

not help very much as far as scholarly pursuit of a subject is

concerned, nor does it help anyone in imbibing new information and

knowledge. This kind of evasion of the issue at hand may spare someone

the need to cut down falsehoods and false notions with the right

knowledge and intellectual rigour, but it does not help one be any less

in the dark today than he was yeaterday. That is why you will see that you have

just left it

at that sentence itself – you finished it with just the statement,

the assertion – that it can also be turned against ….

But you have not ventured into the territory of demonstrating –

**how** exactly the argument that I have used can be turned against my

point. You have not even thought of showing how – because you

yourself do not know, you yourself are not in the least sure about

whether that is really the case or not. Because making assertions is one

thing, but substantiating that assertion, demonstrating how – is an

entirely different thing. If you really knew " how exactly " my

argument can be turned against the kaula tradition, you could have

demonstrated it briefly. Or it could be that you have said this because

your were yet to receive before this the kind of explanation that I gave

you (without getting into the " history " aspect at all, but with

just logic).

<<<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.>>>

That observation seems at first glance to be direct borrowing from

(after superficial reading) a class of secondary sources of the

scholars of the eatly 1900s. You seem to be borrowing second hand some

observances of authors like Nagendranath Basu, Haraprasad Shastri,

Dineshchandra Sen and specially Benoytosh Bhattacharya, who held this

view that tantra was a contribution from Buddhism. In their times, their

were some small factors that led them to this impression, but these

views are no longer seen as valid and have been negated by other

scholars with more historical facts and figures. In their generation, it

was an intellectual fashion to trace entire components or traditions of

Hinduism to non-hindu sources, and even to traditions that are like

Buddhism – the offsprings of Hinduism. But in present times –

with more availability of primary sources, more developmets in tantrik

studies, these erstwhile notions are rather outdated.

For example, even from that generation of scholars, Prof. Chintaharan

Chakraborty shows in his " tantras: studies on their religion and

literature " (1963) shows how Tantrika rites can be clearly traced to

be existing as a parallel even in the earliest vedic times. John

Marshall, Rakhaldas Bandopadhyay, Ramaprasad Chanda, Dayaram Sahni,

Nanigopal Majumdar, had established in their times with solid

archeological findings that Shiva-Shakti worship was well established in

the Indus civilization. These findings was further developed on and

established by D.C. Sarkar, Bhupendranath Dutta and Mihirchand Khanna.

Dr. J.N. Banerjee also in his " Pauranic and Tantric Religion "

says that " The worship of the Goddess conceived in various aspects,

specially as the divine and universal mother, appears to heve been in

existence in India from the pre-Vedic times " . The aforementioned

Chintaharan Chakraborty, in the same aforementioned book, also says

" according to Shyama Shastri, the tantra form of worship may be

traced back to India as early as the first millennium BC. "

Plus, the primary centres of the tantrik tradition, the 51

shakti-pithas, find mention in an ancient text like the Mbh, and in

subsequent texts like brahmapurana, padmapurana, matsyapurana,

kurmapurana, brahmandapurana, and kalika purana. Whreas in the Buddhist

text Sadhanmala, there are only four piths mentioned – Kamekhya,

Srihatta, Purnagiri and Uddiyana. Even in the relatively early Buddhist

Hevajra tantra, only four pithas are mentioned – jalandhar, uddiyan,

purnagiri and kamrupa. Several hindu tantrik texts on the other hand

provide the full list of the pithas. The Mbh. Also mentions non-vedic

traditions like Samkhya, Charvaka and Pasupata but not the later

so-called " classical philosophies " , which shows that these were

existing – and well established at a time when the other

philosophies and traditions were not even developed. Also since Samkhya

is the philosophical/ metaphysical basis for both tantra and Buddhism,

tantra therefore did not derive from buddhism. Besides, the fact that

tantra existed during the time of the Buddha himself, and before that,

can be found from Buddhist literature itself. The greatest of the

Buddhist tantrikas, Guru Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche) was from a Hindu

aristocratic family, who practiced in the tantrik way after being

initiated by the ruler of Uddiyan Indrabhuti who was a great tantrik

preceptor, and in turn gave birth to the foremost lineage/ tradition in

Tibet. Tantra in short was an ancient system and tradition by the time

vajrayana developed out of Mahayana Buddhism. This shows that Tantra

went from Hinduism to Buddhism, and not the other way round.

And anyways leaving facts aside, it is not a matter of common sense? Is

Hinduism the product of and development from Buddhims, or is it the

other way round? By the time of the Gupta Empire (beginning 280 CE),

Tantra was a well established and old tradition with its breanches and

sub-branches, and with many tantrik texts already written down, and with

still many tantrik texts already old by that time. And when did Shankara

and gaudapada come to this world? After the seventh century – almost

two centuries after the Gupta empire officially met its end. By the time

of the Guptas, the worship of the Mahavidyas, the use of yantras and

mandalas, the Kaula rituals and practices, the tradition of the nathas

– were already old and widespread.

And you are saying – after seeing some secondary sources – that

kaulas came after the Buddhists. Who told you that the definition of

" kaula " is not clear spefiic and precise in Hindu Tantra??

Saikat, chhele ki baba-r theke uttaradhikar pay, naki baba chhele-r

theke uttaradhikar pay? Konta?

<<<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).>>>

It is exactly because you have asked for an explanation " outside

historical analysis " that I have given you the logical explanation

above – explanation that only takes into account and compares the

self-understanding of the two paths – as they themselves understand.

I have not needed to bring any history into my explanation – I did

not need to, since my concept is clear.

But, it is a mistake for anyone to dismiss history – don't do

that. Because that is also an escapism. History is history –

objective history – what was **real**, what **happened** in time. If

history is not to somebody's liking because it negates his/her

preheld conceptions, and if that leads one to dismiss history, what does

that amount to?

And lastly, could you please explain to me a bit – what is meant by

" mlechha scholars of tantra " ? I am really not clear on what you

mean, and I am waiting for you explanation.

<<<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).>>>

A very good point. But the matter of sruti-smriti and brahminical

hegemony, and also that of sentimentalism (bhava-vada) are

separate topics. Let's save them for another time.

<<<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 ...>>>

<<<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.>>>

Interrelationship between the different classes of Agamas is another

pretty vast and technical subject and the the question you have asked

calls for another lengthy explanation. Let's save discussion about

tantrik texts for another time.

<<<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.>>>

That is good rational thinking. No, something does not becime invalid

just because Shankara or Gaudapada had nothing to do with Tantra,

neither does something become invalid just because it is a later

modification. " later modification " per se does not mean invalid

and illegitimate.

But " samayachara " is not illegitimate because of

being a smarta modification and a later modification. That is not the

contingent factor, and you will see that I have not presented that as

the deciding or contingent factor.

-- Jit.

September 1, 2009

Dear Jit,

Â

I appreciate your detailed reply to my points. Can you please refer me sources

where I can find more about krama diksha? Is it mentioned in kali kula tantras

at all, or spl to srividya?

Â

I have some serious objections on some of your points but will take some time to

post a reply as it demands some thought. Below is a more subjective reply to

what I think about the matter in hand. Your more technical and far-fetched

claims about anitquity of non-vedic shakti worship is not delt with technically.

Â

Few clarifications to be elaborated later.

Â

1. When I say dakshina-samaya I was only referring to Dakshina->Samaya, which

seems to be the scheme for samayacharis (same as the 7 fold acharas of kularnava

is the scheme followed by kaulas).

So I am very much aware of

vedachara->vaishnavachara->shaivachara->dakshinachara->vamachara->etc.

Â

Although practicing any of vedachara, or vaishanavachara or shaivachara might

take several lifetimes, so this scheme of clubbing the 3 other major non-shakta

sects under pashu bhava to me seems like a typical sectarian overtone which

exist in our culture - I don't find anything wrong in it. As I know, kaula

tantra achara in terms of practicality starts with dakshinachara and ends in

kaulachara.

Â

2. Krama diksha: As I requested, pointing me to the source will help me a lot. I

had not heard about krama diksha from any so called kaulas before. I heard about

this scheme from two different lineages which both do not sanction the left-hand

practices.

Â

3. People who don't sanction the left-hand practices (the 'real' tantra as you

have put it) may not be solely because of brahminical predujices (which might be

a factor), but because they found that it was unnecessary for them to attain

their goals...and this might not be a whim of one person but a long line of

practitioners who found the same. As you yourself say, dakshinachara rituals

have the great power to open the centers in our nervous systems and bring about

transformation in conciousness. The kaula uses this as a premliminary to move

into what he considers 'higher' rituals, the other group uses this in another

way.

Â

For example the krama disksha krama I know of is to make the adept move from

acharas and rituals in to yoga. During karma diksha some vamachara sadhana may

be adopted to test if the person is still very much under the shackles of the

bondages.

Â

What I find most interesting at this point is that, this seems to be the exact

scheme of the various shaiva agamas (like siddhanta) as well. In siddhanta the

the practioners move from charya to kriya to yoga which leads to jnana.

Â

When reading one of these agamas the shakta samanya rituals (dakshinachara)

seemed to be molded on the kriya pada of these earlier agamas (as you say these

are one of the earliest scriptures in this land after vedas, brahminical

interpolation is not a stong excuse).

Â

Siddhantins do admit that their's are an ancient system of yoga much like and

parallel to pantanjali's the theoritical treatise.

Â

This makes me think the non-kaula shaktas are practicing something which is very

meaningful in this ancient scheme of things. They disassociate from the 'higher'

kaula rituals and associate themselves with a very ancient system of

self-knowledge after the basic purification and transformation has been

achieved. Some people object to this mix-match, but as you have admitted it

cannot be a basis of objection as something must be their for something else to

be developed.

Â

But none of this makes one superior to the other and so on and so forth. I don't

intend to sit on the fence in defence of the brahminical hagemony, but I don't

find any evidence for most of your claims. What you is very true from Kaula

perspective, but I have not found any reason for why the other is wrong. As I

said going by proof of real attainment (which is felt when one approaches a true

upasak), I found it more convincing to be with the puritans.

Â

And when I look back, most of the scheme of self-knowledges has been

puritinical. The earliest hynms to any God or Goddess has been puritinical. Your

argument against this evidence has been non-vedic nature of harappa culture!

When pointed that shaiva agamas are brahminical, you argument is they were

interpolated by brahmins!

Â

As if shaiva and non vedic culture was some kind of atlantis whose ruins

brahmins suddenly discoverd and immediately engaged in a interpolating exercise.

You refuse to see the obvious that brahmins were there all along, that what you

label as non-vedic and what you lebel as vedic has been the part of the same

cultural matrix for all the time. It is convinient for us to label and

disassociate to preserve our small sectarian notions, but it is not the truth.

September 1, 2009

To put in a nut-shell, I understand the kaula tantra and the non-kaula to be 2

separate streams. As far as shakta upasana is concerned it is based on kaula

samanya rituals but not true to kaula goals. But as I have said repeatedly and

you agree this in itself means nothing.

Â

Further, I (and most scholars including mark) seem to think that kaula is not as

ancient as the purinitical stream, none the less it is a spiritual revolution in

our culture. I did not claim it came from buddhism (was only referring to the

confusion around the work kula). I personally despise buddhist dogma and their

superiority complex.

Â

Further, kaula at least in terms of its rituals and its goals is not independent

from the purinitical stream but a development (a revolutionary development) over

it. Infact I have no problem in accepting vamachara and the 'real' tantra may

indeed be superior both in terms of path and result ~ yet personally I haven't

seen much proof to that.

Â

The problem with your view is that you denouce this dependence, make out kaula

to be something which as if existed in an atlantis and brahmins just got hold of

it and polluted it to spread their hagemony, when all of shastric evidence seem

to say otherwise. One of the more extreme shaiva's like pAshupata who along with

kApalikas may be taken as proto-kaula were also brahminical in approach, where

the pAshupata vrata was something in addition to vedic brahminical duties. To

claim is this is just interpolation is just a dogmatic standpoint which is

unable to come with grip with its ancestory, much like the bauddha and jina

syndromes...who invented fantastic myths about many buddhas because they could

not tolerate that they were doing something based on already existing. This

root-denying phenominan can do little good to society and it did little.

Â

Another more practical problem with an independent tantra-vAda is that tantras

have little insight into society and the science behind it. It does attempt it,

but it is not at all robust. Something like kaula cannot sustain a society

(hence they take shelter in the brahmanic society, internally claiming to be

superior than the norms of the society they live in). History suggest that a

pure tantric society has little defence against the catastrophic mleccha

attacks, because it needs a lot of fearlessness to declare that it is just to

kill one's own kin when the cause is just. I don't see this tejah in tantras

(but then again this might be a perception).

Â

Other dogmas either claim one should not kill at all, or kill whosoever does not

believe in you.

--- On Tue, 1/9/09, Saikat Maitra <singhi_kaya wrote:

Saikat Maitra <singhi_kaya

Re: Re: @Riktanandanath (kind attn. Saikat)

Tuesday, 1 September, 2009, 10:57 AM