Cit-Shakti (The Consciousness Aspect of the Universe)

[Guest guest]

> , " jagbir singh "

<adishakti_org> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear Semira,

> >

> > Definitely and without question the Divine Message will triumph

> > over the organization itself. In future more and more people

> > will embrace its central message of evolving into the eternal

> > spirit that all religions, holy scriptures and prophets have

> > since time immemorial upheld. The Divine Message is a spiritual

> > sanctuary, a beacon of hope, joy, peace of eternal life to all

> > humans. The Shakti/Holy Spirit/Ruh/Aykaa Mayee is the Divine

> > Feminine that gives Self-realization/Birth of Spirit/Baptism of

> > Allah/Opens Dasam Dwar for humanity to enter the Sahasrara/

> > Kingdom of God/Niche of lights/Inner Sanctuary within where

> > Brahman/God Almighty/Allah/ Waheguru resides as THE LIGHT.

> > Semira, not only the current Sahaja Yoga organisation but all

> > religious organizations as well have merely been intended as

> > temporary vehicles and starting points for the Divine Message.

> >

> > jagbir

> >

> >

> > , " jagbir singh "

<adishakti_org> wrote:

>

> By the way things are moving the Adi Shakti will eventually

> triumph. All we need to do as Her bhaktas is to stand our ground

> and not yield an inch because Truth always triumphs. Years of

> silence from religious regimes is the sure sign that the Devi and

> Her Divine Message to all humanity cannot be challenged, and will

> eventually be victorious in Her battle against the evil forces.

> All we need to do is to fearlessly announce the Truth. Shanti,

> Shanti, Shanti.

>

 

 

Cit-Shakti (The Consciousness Aspect of the Universe)

 

Cit-Shakti is Cit, as Shakti, that is as Power, or that aspect of

Cit in which it is, through its associated Maya-Shakti, operative to

create the universe. It is a commonly accepted doctrine that the

ultimate Reality is Samvid, Caitanya or Cit.

 

But what is Cit? There is no word in the English language which

adequately describes it. It is not mind: for mind is a limited

instrument through which Cit is manifested. It is that which is

behind the mind and by which the mind itself is thought, that is

created. The Brahman is mindless (Amanah). I f we exclude mind we

also exclude all forms of mental process, conception, perception,

thought, reason, will, memory, particular sensation and the like. We

are then left with three available words, namely, Consciousness,

Feeling, Experience. To the first term there are several objections.

For if we use an English word, we must understand it according to

its generally received meaning. Generally by " Consciousness " is

meant self-consciousness, or at least something particular, having

direction and form, which is concrete and conditioned; an evolved

product marking the higher stages of Evolution. According to some,

it is a mere function of experience, an epiphenomenon, a mere

accident of mental process. In this sense it belongs only to the

highly developed organism and involves a subject attending to an

object of' which, as of itself, it is conscious. We are thus said to

have most consciousness when we are awake (Jagrat avastha) and have

full experience of all objects presented to us; less so when

dreaming (Svapna avastha) and deep anesthesia in true dreamless

sleep (Sushupti). I may here observe that recent researches show

that this last state is not so common as is generally supposed. That

is complete dreamlessness is rare; there being generally some trace

of dream. In the last state it is commonly said that consciousness

has disappeared, and so of course it has, if we first define

consciousness in terms of the waking state and of knowledge of

objects. According to Indian notions there is a form of conscious

experience in the deepest sleep expressed in the well-known

phrase " Happily I slept, I knew nothing " . The sleeper recollects on

waking that his state has been one of happiness. And he cannot

recollect unless there has been a previous experience (Anubhava)

which is the subject-matter of memory. In ordinary parlance we do

not regard some low animal forms, plants or mineral as " conscious " .

It is true that now in the West there is (due to the spread of ideas

long current in India) growing up a wider use of the

term " consciousness " in connection not only with animal but

vegetable and mineral life, but it cannot be said the

term " consciousness " has yet generally acquired this wide

signification. If then we use (as for convenience we do) the

term " Consciousness " for Cit, we must give it a content different

from that which is attributed to the term in ordinary English

parlance. Nextly, it is to be remembered that what in either view we

understand by consciousness is something manifested, and therefore

limited, and derived from our finite experience. The Brahman as Cit

is the infinite substratum of that. Cit in itself (Svarupa) is not

particular nor conditioned and concrete. Particularity is that

aspect in which it manifests as, and through, Maya-Shakti. Cit

manifests as Jñana-Shakti which, when used otherwise than as a loose

synonym for Cit, means knowledge of objects. Cit-Svarupa is neither

knowledge of objects nor self-consciousness in the phenomenal sense.

Waking, dreaming and dreamless slumber are all phenomenal states in

which experience varies; such variance being due not to Cit but to

the operation or cessation of particular operation of the vehicles

of mind (Antahkarana) and sense (Indriya). But Cit never disappears

nor varies in either of the three states, but remains one and the

same through all. Though Cit-Svarupa is not a knowledge of objects

in the phenomenal sense, it is not, according to Shaiva-Shakta views

(I refer always to Advaita Shaiva-darshana), a mere abstract knowing

(Jñana) wholly devoid of content. It contains within itself the

Vimarsha-Shakti which is the cause of phenomenal objects, then

existing in the form of Cit (Cidrupini). The Self then knows the

Self. Still less can we speak of mere 'awareness " as the equivalent

of Cit. A worm or meaner form of animal may be said to be vaguely

aware. In fact mere " awareness " (as we understand that term) is a

state of Cit in which it is seemingly overwhelmed by obscuring Maya-

Shakti in the form of Tamoguna. Unless therefore we give

to " awareness, " as also to consciousness, a content, other than that

with which our experience furnishes us, both terms are unsuitable.

In some respects Cit can be more closely described by Feeling, which

seems to have been the most ancient meaning of the term Cit. Feeling

is more primary, in that it is only after we have been first

affected by something that we become conscious of it. Feeling has

thus been said to be the raw material of thought, the essential

element in the Self, what we call personality being a particular

form of feeling. Thus in Samkhya, the Gunas are said to be in the

nature of happiness (Sukha), sorrow (Dukha) and illusion (Moha) as

they are experienced by the Purusha-Consciousness. And in Vedanta,

Cit and Ananda or Bliss or Love are one. For Consciousness then is

not consciousness of being (Sat) but Being-Consciousness (Sat-Cit);

nor a Being which is conscious of Bliss (Ananda) but Being-

Consciousness-Bliss (Sacchidananda). Further, " feeling " has this

advantage that it is associated with all forms of organic existence

even according to popular usage, and may scientifically be aptly

applied to inorganic matter. Thus whilst most consider it to be an

unusual and strained use of language, to speak of the consciousness

of a plant or stone, we can and do speak of the feeling or sentiency

of a plant. Further the response which inorganic matter makes to

stimuli is evidence of the existence therein of that vital germ of

life and sentiency (and therefore Cit) which expands into the

sentiency of plants, and the feelings and emotions of animals and

men. It is possible for any form of unintelligent being to feel,

however obscurely. And it must do so, if its ultimate basis is Cit

and Ananda, however veiled by Maya-Shakti these may be. The response

which inorganic matter makes to stimuli is the manifestation of Cit

through the Sattvaguna of Maya-Shakti, or Shakti in its form as

Prakriti-Shakti. The manifestation is slight and apparently

mechanical because of the extreme predominance of the Tamoguna in

the same Prakriti-Shakti. Because of the limited and extremely

regulated character of the movement which seems to exclude all

volitional process as known to us, it is currently assumed that we

have merely to deal with what is an unconscious mechanical energy.

Because vitality is so circumscribed and seemingly identified with

the apparent mechanical process, we are apt to assume mere

unconscious mechanism. But as a fact this latter is but the form

assumed by the conscious Vital Power which is in and works in all

matter whatever it be. To the eye, however, unassisted by scientific

instruments, which extend our capacity for experience, establishing

artificial organs for the gaining thereof, the matter appears Jada

(or unconscious); and both in common English and Indian parlance we

call that alone living or Jiva which, as organized matter, is

endowed with body and senses. Philosophically, however, as well as

scientifically, all is Jivatma which is not Paramatma: everything in

fact with form, whether the form exists as the simple molecule of

matter, or as the combination of these simple forms into cells and

greater organisms. The response of metallic matter is a form of

sentiency -- its germinal form -- a manifestation of Cit intensely

obscured by the Tamoguna of Prakriti-Shakti.

 

In plants Cit is less obscured, and there is the sentient life which

gradually expands in animals and men, according as Cit gains freedom

of manifestation through the increased operation of Sattvaguna in

the vehicles of Cit; which vehicles are the mind and senses and the

more elaborate organization of the bodily particles. What is thus

mere incipient or germinal sentiency, simulating unconscious

mechanical movement in inorganic matter, expands by degrees into

feeling akin, though at first remotely, to our own, and into all the

other psychic functions of consciousness, perception, reasoning,

memory and will. The matter has been very clearly put in a Paper

on " The Four Cosmic Elements " by C. G. Sander which (subject to

certain reservations stated) aptly describes the Indian views on the

subject in hand. He rightly says that sentiency is an integrant

constituent of all existence, physical as well as metaphysical and

its manifestation can be traced throughout the mineral and chemical

as well as vegetable and animal worlds. It essentially comprises the

functions of relationship to environment, response to stimuli, and

atomic memory in the lower or inorganic plane; whilst in the higher

or organic planes it includes all the psychic functions such as

consciousness, perception, thought, reason, volition and individual

memory. Inorganic matter through the inherent element of sentiency

is endowed with aesthesia or capacity of feeling and response to

physical and chemical stimuli such as light, temperature, sound,

electricity, magnetism and the action of chemicals. All such

phenomena are examples of the faculty of perception and response to

outside stimuli of matter. We must here include chemical sentiency

and memory; that is the atom's and molecule's remembrance of its own

identity and behavior therewith. Atomic memory does not, of course,

imply self-consciousness, but only inherent group-spirit which

responds in a characteristic way to given outside stimuli. We may

call it atomic or physical consciousness. The consciousness of

plants is only trance-like (what the Hindu books call 'Comatose')

though some of the higher aspects of sentiency (and we may here use

the word 'consciousness') of the vegetable world are highly

interesting: such as the turning of flowers to the sun; the opening

and shutting of leaves and petals at certain times, sensitiveness to

the temperature and the obvious signs of consciousness shewn by the

sensitive and insectivorous plants, such as the Sundew, the Venus

Flytrap, and others. The micro-organisms which dwell on the

borderland between the vegetable and animal worlds have no sense

organs, but are only endowed with tactile irritability, yet they are

possessed of psychic life, sentiency, and inclination, whereby they

perceive their environment and position, approach, attack and devour

food, flee from harmful substances and reproduce by division. Their

movements appear to be positive, not reflex. Every cell, both

vegetable and animal, possesses a biological or vegetative

consciousness, which in health is polarized or subordinate to the

government of the total organism of which it forms an integral part;

but which is locally impaired in disease and ceases altogether at

the death of the organism. In plants, however, (unlike animals) the

cellular consciousness is diffused or distributed amongst the

tissues or fibers; there being apparently no special conducting or

centralizing organs of consciousness such as we find in higher

evolutionary forms. Animal consciousness in its highest modes

becomes self-consciousness. The psychology of the lower animals is

still the field of much controversy; some regarding these as

Cartesian machines and others ascribing to them a high degree of

psychic development. In the animals there is an endeavor at

centralization of consciousness which reaches its most complex stage

in man, the possessor of the most highly organized system of

consciousness, consisting of the nervous system and its centers and

functions, such as the brain and solar plexus, the site of Ajña and

upper centers, and of the Manipura Cakra. Sentiency or feeling is a

constituent of all existence. We may call it consciousness however,

if we understand (with the author cited) the term " consciousness " to

include atomic or physical consciousness, the trance consciousness

of plant life, animal consciousness and man's completed self-

consciousness.

 

The term Sentiency or Feeling, as the equivalent of manifested Cit,

has, however, this disadvantage: whereas intelligence and

consciousness are terms for the highest attributes of man's nature,

mere sentiency, though more inclusive and common to all, is that

which we share with the lowest manifestions. In the case of both

terms, however, it is necessary to remember that they do not

represent Cit-Svarupa or Cit as It is in itself. The term Svarupa

(own form) is employed to convey the notion of what constitutes

anything what it is, namely, its true nature as it is in itself.

Thus, though the Brahman or Shiva manifests in the form of the world

as Maya-Shakti, its Svarupa is pure Cit.

 

Neither sentiency nor consciousness, as known to us, is Cit-Svarupa.

They are only limited manifestations of Cit just as reason, will,

emotion and memory, their modes are. Cit is the background of all

forms of experience which are its modes, that is Cit veiled by Maya-

Shakti; Cit-Svarupa is never to be confounded with, or limited to,

its particular modes. Nor is it their totality, for whilst it

manifests in these modes It yet, in Its own nature, infinitely

transcends them. Neither sentiency, consciousness, nor any other

term borrowed from a limited and dual universe can adequately

describe what Cit is in Itself (Svarupa). Vitality, mind, matter are

its limited manifestations in form. These forms are ceaselessly

changing, but the undifferentiated substratum of which they are

particularized modes is changeless. That eternal, changeless,

substratum is Cit,, which may thus be defined as the changeless

principle of all our changing experience. All is Cit, clothing

itself in forms by its own Power of Cit-Shakti and Maya-Shakti: and

that Power is not different from Itself. Cit is not the subject of

knowledge or speech. For as the Varaha Upanishad (Chap. IV) says it

is " The Reality which remains after all thoughts are given up. " What

it is in Itself, is unknown but to those who become It. It is fully

realized only in the highest state of Ecstasy (Samadhi) and in

bodiless liberation (Videha Mukti) when Spirit is free of its

vehicles of mind and matter. A Modern Indian Philosopher has

(See " Approaches to Truth " and the " Patent Wonder " by Professor

Pramathanatha Mukhyopadhyaya) very admirably analyzed the notion of

the universal Ether of Consciousness (Cidakasha) and the particular

Stress formed in it by the action of Maya-Shakti. In the first

place, he points out that logical thought is inherently dualistic

and therefore pre-supposes a subject and object. Therefore to the

pragmatic eye of the western, viewing the only experience known to

him, consciousness is always particular having a particular form and

direction. Hence where no direction or form is discernible, they

have been apt to imagine that consciousness as such has also ceased.

Thus if it were conceded that in profounded sleep there were no

dreams, or if in perfect anesthesia it were granted that nothing

particular was felt, it was thereby considered to be conceded that

consciousness may sometimes cease to exist in us. What does in fact

cease is the consciousness of objects which we have in the waking

and dreaming states. Consciousness as such is neither subjective nor

objective and is not identical with intelligence or understanding --

that is with directed or informed consciousness. Any form of

unintelligent being which feels, however chaotically it may be, is

yet, though obscurely so (in the sense here meant) conscious. Pure

consciousness, that is consciousness as such, is the background of

every form of experience.

 

In practical life and in Science and Philosophy when swayed by

pragmatic ends, formless experience has no interest, but only

certain forms and tones of life and consciousness. Where these are

missed we are apt to fancy that we miss life and feeling-

consciousness also. Hence the essential basis of existence or Cit

has been commonly looked upon as a very much specialized and

peculiar manifestation in nature.

 

On the contrary, Cit is Being or Reality itself. Cit as such is

identical with Being as such. The Brahman is both Cit and Sat.

Though in ordinary experience Being and Feeling-Consciousness are

essentially bound up together, they still seem to diverge from each

other. Man by his very constitution inveterately believes in an

objective existence beyond and independent of his self. And this is

so, so long as he is subject to the veil (Maya-Shakti). But in that

ultimate basis of experience which is the Paramatma the divergence

has gone; for the same boundless substratum which is the continuous

mass of experience is also that which is experienced. The self is

its own object. To the exalted Yogin the whole universe is not

different from himself as Atma. This is the path of the " upward-

going " Kundali (Urddhva-Kundalini).

 

Further, there has been a tendency in fact to look upon

consciousness as a mere function of experience; and the philosophy

of unconscious ideas and mind-stuff would even go so far as to

regard it as a mere accident of mental process. This is to reverse

the actual facts.

 

Consciousness should rather be taken as an original datum than as a

later development and peculiar manifestation. We should begin with

it in its lowest forms, and explain its apparent pulse-life by

extending the principle of veiling (Maya-Shakti) which is

ceaselessly working in man, reducing his life to an apparent series

of pulses also. An explanation which does not start with this

primordial extensity of experience cannot expect to end with it. For

if it be not positive at the beginning, it cannot be derived at the

end.

 

But what, it may be asked, is the proof of such pure experience?

Psychology which only knows changing states does not tell us of it.

This is so. Yet from those states, some of which approach

indifferentiation, inferences may be drawn; and experience is not

limited to such states, for it may transcend them.

 

It is true that ordinarily we do not meet with a condition of

consciousness which is without a direction or form; but tests drawn

from the incidents of ordinary normal life are insufficient, it has

been argued, to prove that there is no consciousness at all when

this direction and form are supposed to have gone. Though a logical

intuition will not tell its own story, we can make reflection on

intuition render us some sort of account, so that the intuitive fact

appears in review, when it will appear that consciousness is the

basis of, indeed, existence itself, and not merely an attendant

circumstance. But the only proof of pure consciousness is an

instance of it. This cannot be established by mere reflection. The

bare consciousness of this or that, the experience of just going to

sleep and just waking, and even the consciousness of being as such,

are but approximations to the state of consciousness as such, that

is pure consciousness, but are not identical with it. Then, what

evidence, it may be asked, have we of the fact that pure

consciousness is an actual state of being? In normal life as well as

in abnormal pathological states, we have occasional stretches of

experience in which simplicity of feature or determination has

advanced near to indifferentiation, in which experience has become

almost structureless. But the limit of pure experience is not there

reached. On the other hand, there is no conclusive proof that we

have ever had a real lapse of consciousness in our life, and the

extinction of consciousness as such is inconceivable in any case.

The claim, however, that consciousness as such exists, rests not so

much on logical argument as on intuitive grounds, on revelation

(Shruti) and spiritual experience of the truth of that revelation.

 

According to Indian Monism, a Pure Principle of Experience not only

is, but is the one and only ultimate permanent being or reality. It

does not regard Cit as a mere function, accident, or epiphenomenon,

but holds it to be the ever existing plenum which sustains and

vitalizes all phenomenal existence, and is the very basis on which

all forms of multiple experience, whether of sensation, instinct,

will, understanding, or reason, rest. It is, in short, the unity and

unchanging Reality behind all these various changing forms which, by

the veil or Maya-Shakti, Jiva assumes.

 

The Cit-Svarupa, inadequately described as mere blissful awareness

of feeling, exists, as the basis and appears in the form of, that is

clothed with, mind; a term which in its general sense is not used

merely in the sense of the purely mental function of reason but in

the sense of all the forms in which consciousness is displayed, as

distinguished from Cit Itself, which is the unity behind all these

forms whether reason, sensation, emotion, instinct, or will. All

these are modes wherein the plastic unformed clay of life is

determined. For every conception or volition is essentially an

apparent circumscription or limitation of that Sat which is the

basis of phenomenal life.

 

Professor P. N. Mukhyopadhyaya has described pure consciousness to

be an infinitude of " awareness, " lacking name and form and every

kind of determination, which is a state of complete quiescence where

the potential is zero or infinity -- a condition without strain or

tension which is at once introduced when the slightest construction

is put upon it, resulting in a consciousness of bare " this "

and " that " . It is not a consciousness of anything. It is an

experience of nothing in particular. But this must not be confounded

with no experience. The former is taken to be the latter because

life is pragmatic, interest being shown in particular modes of

awareness. To man's life, which is little else than a system of

partialities, pure experience in which there is nothing particular

to observe or shun, love or hate seems practically to be no

experience at all. Pure Consciousness is impartial. There is no

difference (Bheda) so far as pure Awareness is concerned. Pure

Consciousness is a kind of experience which stands above all

antithesis of motion and rest. It does not know Itself either as

changing or statical, since it is consciousness as such without any

determinations or mode whatever. To know itself as changing or

permanent, it must conceal its illogical and unspeakable nature in a

veil (Maya). Every determination or form makes experience a

directive magnitude. Consciousness then assumes a direction or

special reference. It is not possible to direct and refer in a

special way without inducing such a feeling of strain or tension,

whether the conditions be physiological or psychological. Pure

consciousness has, thus, been compared to an equipotential surface

of electrical distribution. There is no difference of potentials

between any two points A and R over this surface. It is a stretch of

consciousness, in which there is, apparently, no sensible diversity

of features, no preference, no differential incidence of subjective

regard. Like the equipotential surface, such consciousness is also

quiescent. To secure a flow on it. there must be a difference of

potentials between any two points. Similarly, to have a reference, a

direction, a movement of attention, there must be a determination in

the total experience of the moment in the given mass of

consciousness. Absolute quiescence is a state of consciousness.

which is pure being with no special subjective direction and

reference; with no difference of level and potential between one

part of the experience and another. Experience will show special

subjective direction and reference if it assumes at least form or

determination, such as " this " or " that " ; to have no difference of

level or potential, experience must be strictly undifferentiated --

that is to say, must not involve the least ideal or representative

structure. Absolute quiescence exists only with that Consciousness

which is pure Being, or Paramatma.

 

With regard, however, to all descriptions of this state, it must be

borne in mind that they only negatively correspond with their

subject-matter by the elimination of characteristics which are

peculiar to, and constitute the human consciousness of, the Jiva,

and are therefore alien to the Supreme Consciousness. They give us

no positive information as to the nature of pure Cit, for this is

only known in Yoga by the removal of ignorance (Avidya) under which

all logical thinking and speaking is done. This " ignorance " is

nothing but a term for those limitations which make the creature

what he is. It is a commonplace in Indian religion and philosophy

that the Brahman as It exists in itself is beyond all thought and

words, and is known only by the Samadhi of Yoga. As the Mahanirvana

Tantra says (III. V. 6 et seq.): " The Brahman is known in two ways:

from His manifestations which are the object of Sadhana or as It is

in itself in Samadhiyoga " : for, as Ch. XIV, V. 135 Ibid., says,

Atmajñana is the one means of liberation in which Its nature is

realized. It is, perhaps in part at least, because the merely

negative and imperfect character of such description is not

sufficiently noted that pure consciousness, as the author cited

points out, has in general awakened no serious interest in the

practical West; though it has been the crown of glory for some of,

what have been said to be, the stateliest forms of Eastern thought,

which asserts itself to be in possession of an experimental method

by which the condition of pure consciousness may be realized. The

question is, thus, not one of mere speculation, but of

demonstration. This state, again, is believed by the East to be not

a dull and dreary condition, a dry abstraction or reductio ad

absurdum of all which imparts to our living its worth and

significance. Not at all; since it is the first Principle in which

as Power all existence is potential and from which it proceeds. It

is reasonable, therefore, it is contended, to assume that all which

life possesses of real worth exists in the Source of life itself.

Life is only a mode of infinite Supremacy with beatitude, which is

Being and Consciousness in all its metaphysical grandeur, an

absolutely understandable condition which no imagination can depict

and no categories can reach and possess.

 

Owing to the necessarily negative character of some of the

descriptions of the Supreme Brahman we find such questions " How can

it differ from a nullity? " (Dialogues on Hindu Philosophy, 259, by

Rev. K. M. Banerjee): and the statement of the English Orientalist

Colonel Jacob (whose views are akin to those of others)

that " Nirvana is an unconscious (sic) and stone-like (sic)

existence " . Such a misconception is the more extraordinary in that

it occurs in the work of an author who was engaged in the

translation of a Vedantic treatise. These and many similar

statements seem to establish that it is possible to make a special

study of Vedanta and yet to misunderstand its primary concepts. It

is true that the Brahman is unconscious in the sense that It is not

our consciousness; for, if so, It would be Jiva and not Paramatma.

But this is only to say that it has not our limitations. It is

unlimited Cit. A stone represents its most veiled existence. In its

Self it is all light and self-illumining (Svaprakasha). As Shruti

says (Katha Up. 5-15) " All things shed luster by His luster. All

things shine because He shines. " All things depend on It: but It has

not to depend on anything else for Its manifestation. It is

therefore better to say with the Hamsopanishad and the Christian

Gospel that It is the Peace beyond all understanding. It has been

dryly remarked that " The idea that Yoga means a dull state is due,

perhaps, to the misunderstanding of Patañjali's definition of it.

 

Man, however, ordinarily and by his nature craves for modes and

forms (Bhaumananda); and though all enjoyment comes from the pure

Supreme Consciousness, it is supposed that dualistic variety and

polarity are necessary for enjoyment. What, thus, in its plenitude

belongs to the sustaining spirit of all life is transferred to life

alone. All knowledge and existence are identified with variety,

change, polarity. Whilst skimming over the checkered surface of the

sea, we thus, it is said, ignore the unfathomed depths which are in

respose and which nothing stirs, wherein is the Supreme Peace

(Santa) and Bliss (Paramananda).

 

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says: " Other beings live on a fraction

of this great Bliss. " The Bliss of Shiva and Shakti are one, for

they are inseparate. Hence she is called (Trishati II. 32) Ekabhoga:

for Eka = Ishvara and Bhoga = Svasvarupananda.

 

Nyaya and Samkhya say that the chief end of man is the absolute

cessation of pain, but Vedantins, going beyond this negative

definition, say that, all pain having surceased on Unity with the

Supreme, the chief end is that positive Bliss which is of its

essence. The Devi Kalyani, the Mother of all, is Herself Bliss --

that is, all bliss from earthly bliss (Bhaumananda) to Brahman-Bliss

(Brahmananda). As the Commentator Shamkara in his commentary on the

Trishati says (citing Shruti): " Who else can make us breathe, who

else can make us live, if this blissful Ether were not? "

 

If, further, it be asked what is pure Experience which manifests

itself in all these diverse forms, it must be said that from Its

very definition pure Cit, or the Supreme Brahman (Parabrahman), is

that about which nothing in particular can be predicated: for

predication is possible only in relation to determinations or modes

in consciousness. And in this sense Yogatattva Upanishad says that

those who seek a knowledge of it in Shastras are deluded; " How can

that which is self-shining be illuminated by the Shastras? Not even

the Devas can describe that indescribable state. " The Mandukya

Upanishad, speaking of the fourth aspect (Pada) of Atma, says that

it is the non-dual Shiva which is not an object which can be sensed,

used, taken, determined (by any marks), or of which an account can

be given, but is unthinkable and knowable only by the realization of

Atma. Negative predication may, however, clear away improper

notions. It is really inscrutable Being upon which no category can

be fastened. This must always be borne in mind in any attempted

definition of this transcendent state. It is of a self-existent

(Niradhara), unending (Nitya), changeless (Avikari),

undifferentiated (Abhinna), spaceless (Purna), timeless (Shasvata),

all-pervading (Sarvatravastha), self-illumining (Svayamjyotih), pure

(Shuddha) experience. As the Kularnava Tantra says (I -- 6,

7): " Shiva is the impartite Supreme Brahman, the all-knowing Creator

of all. " He is the stainless One and the Lord of all. He is one

without a second (Advaya). He is light itself. He changes not, and

is without beginning or end. He is without attribute and above the

highest. He is Being (Sat), Consciousness (Cit), and Bliss (Ananda).

As Sat, It is unity of being beyond the opposites of " this "

and " that " . " here and there, " " then and now " . As Cit, It is an

experiencing beyond the opposites of worldly knowledge and

ignorance. As Supreme Ananda, It is the Bliss which is known upon

the dissolution of the dualistic state which fluctuates between, and

is composed of, happiness and sorrow; for created happiness is only

an impermanent change of state (Vikara) or Becoming, but the Supreme

Bliss (Paramananda) endures. Bliss is the very Nature (Svarupa) of

this Supreme Consciousness, and not, as with the creature, a mere

changing attribute of some form of Becoming. Supreme Being (Sat) is

a unity without parts (Nishkala). Supreme Feeling-Consciousness

(Cit) is immediacy of experience. In the Jiva, Consciousness of Self

is set over against the not-Self; for logical thought establishes a

polarity of subject. Thus the undifferentiated Supreme Consciousness

transcends, and the Supreme Bliss (Paramananda) is beyond, the

changing feelings of happiness and sorrow. It is the great Peace

(Santa) which, in the words of the Hamsopanishad (V. 12, Ed.

Anandashrama, XXIX, p. 593) as of the New Testament, passes all

worldly understanding. Sacchidananda, or Pure Being, persists in all

the states of Becoming which are its manifestation as Shakti. It may

be compared to a continuous, partless, undifferentiated Unity

universally pervading the manifested world like ether or space, as

opposed to the limited, discontinuous, discrete character of the

forms of " matter " which are the products of its power of Shakti. It

is a state of quiescence free of all motion (Nishpanda), and of that

vibration (Spandana) which operating as the Primordial Energy,

evolves the phenomenal world of names and forms. It is, in short,

said to be the innermost Self in every being -- a changeless Reality

of the nature of a purely experiencing principle (Caitanyam Atma) as

distinguished from whatever may assume the form of either the

experienced, or of the means of experience. This Cit in bodies

underlies as their innermost Self all beings. The Cit or Atma as the

underlying Reality in all is, according to Vedanta, one, and the

same in all: undivided and unlimited by any of them, however much

they may be separated in time and space. It is not only all-

pervading, but all-transcending. It has thus a two-fold aspect: an

immanent aspect as Shakti (Power), in which It pervades the

universes (Saguna Brahman); and a transcendental aspect, in which It

exists beyond all Its worldly manifestations (Nirguna Brahman). Cit,

as it is in itself, is spaceless and timeless, extending beyond all

limitations of time and space and all other categories of existence.

We live in the Infinite. All limits exist in Cit. But these limits

are also another aspect of It that is Shakti. It is a boundless

tranquil ocean on the surface of which countless varied modes, like

waves, are rising, tossing and sinking. Though It is the one Cause

of the universe of relations, in itself It is neither a relation nor

a totality of relations, but a completely relationless Self-identity

unknowable by any logical process whatever.

 

Cit is the boundless permanent plenum which sustains and vitalizes

everything. It is the universal Spirit, all-pervading like the

Ether, which is, sustains, and illumines all experience and all

process in the continuum of experience. In it the universe is born,

grows and dies. This plenum or continuum is as such all-pervading,

eternal, unproduced, and indestructible: for production and

destruction involve the existence and bringing together and

separation of parts which in an absolute partless continuum is

impossible. It is necessarily in itself, that is as Cit, motionless,

for no parts of an all-filling continuum can move from one place to

another. Nor can such a continuum have any other form of motion,

such as expansion, contraction or undulation, since all these

phenomena involve the existence of parts and their displacement. Cit

is one undifferentiated, partless, all-pervading, eternal, spiritual

substance. In Sanskrit, this plenum is called Cidakasha; that is,

just as all material things exist in the all-pervading physical

Ether, so do they and the latter exist in the infinitely extending

Spiritual " Ether " which is Cit. The Supreme Consciousness is thought

of as a kind of permanent spiritual " Space " (Cidakasha) which makes

room for and contains all varieties and forms appearing and

disappearing. Space itself is an aspect of spiritual substance. It

is a special posture of that stress in life which takes place in

unchanging consciousness (P. Mukhyopadhyaya " The Patent Wonder, " 21 -

- 24). In this Ocean of Being-Consciousness we live, move and have

our being. Consciousness as such (that is as distinguished from the

products of Its power or Shakti), is never finite. Like space, it

cannot be limited, though, through the operation of its power of

self-negation or Maya-Shakti, it may appear as determined. But such

apparent determinations do not ever for us express or exhaust the

whole consciousness, any more than space is exhausted by the objects

in it. Experience is taken to be limited because the Experiencer is

swayed by a pragmatic interest which draws his attention only to

particular features in the continuum. Though what is thus

experienced is a part of the whole experience, the latter is felt to

be an infinite expanse of consciousness or awareness in which is

distinguished a definite mass of especially determined feeling.

 

As Cit is the infinite plenum, all limited being exists in it, and

it is in all such beings as the Spirit or innermost Self and as Maya-

Shakti it is their mind and body. When the existence of anything is

affirmed, the Brahman is affirmed, for the Brahman is Being itself.

This pure Consciousness or Cit is the Paramatma Nirguna Shiva who is

Being-Consciousness-Bliss (Sacchidananda). Consciousness is Being.

Paramatma, according to Advaita Vedanta, is not a consciousness of

being, but Being-Consciousness. Nor is it a consciousness of Bliss,

but it is Bliss. All these are one in pure Consciousness. That which

is the nature of Paramatma never changes, notwithstanding the

creative ideation (Srishtikalpana) which is the manifestation of

Shakti as Cit-Shakti and Maya-Shakti. It is this latter Shakti

which, according to the Sakta Tantra, evolves. To adopt a European

analogy which is yet not complete, Nishkala Paramatma is Godhead

(Brahmatva), Sakala, or Saguna Atma, is God (Ishvara). Each of the

three systems Samkhya, Mayavada Vedanta, and Sakta monism agrees in

holding the reality of pure consciousness (Cit). The question upon

which they differ is as to whether unconsciousness is a second

independent reality, as Samkhya alleges; and, if not, how the

admitted appearance of unconsciousness as the Forms is to be

explained consistently with the unity of the Brahman.

 

Such then is Cit, truly known as it is in Itself only in completed

Yoga or Moksha; known only through Its manifestations in our

ordinary experience, just as to use the simile of the Kaivalya

Kalika Tantra, we realize the presence of Rahu or Bhucchaya (the

Eclipse) by his actions on the sun and moon. The Eclipse is seen but

not the cause of it. Cit-Shakti is a name for the same changeless

Cit when associated in creation with its operating Maya-Shakti. The

Supreme Cit is called Parasamvit in the scheme of the Thirty-six

Tattvas which is adopted by both the Shaiva and Shakta Agamas.

 

According to Shamkara, the Supreme Brahman is defined as pure Jñana

without the slightest trace of either actual or potential

objectivity. The Advaita Shaiva-Shaktas regard this matter

differently in accordance with an essential principle of the Agamic

School with which I now deal.

 

All occultism whether of East or West posits the principle that

there is nothing in any one state or plane which is not in some

other way, actual or potential, in another state or plane. The

Western Hermetic maxim runs " As above, so below " . This is not always

understood. The saying does not mean that what exists in one plane

exists in that form in another plane. Obviously if it did the planes

would be the same and not different. If Ishvara thought and felt and

saw objects, in the human way, and if he was loving and wrathful,

just as men are, He, would not be Ishvara but Jiva. The saying cited

means that a thing which exists on one plane exists on all other

planes, according either to the form of each plane, if it be an

intermediate causal body (Karanavantarasharira) or ultimately as the

mere potentiality of becoming which exists in Atma in its aspect as

Shakti. The Hermetic maxim is given in another form in the Visvasara

Tantra: " What is here is elsewhere. What is not here is nowhere "

(Yadihasti tad anyatra. Yannehasti na tat kvacit). Similarly the

northern Shaiva Shastra says that what appears without only so

appears because it exists within. One can only take out of a

receptacle what is first assumed to be within it. What is in us must

in some form be in our cause. If we are living, though finite forms,

it is because that cause is infinite Being. If we have knowledge,

though limited, it is because our essential substance is Cit the

Illuminator. If we have bliss, though united with sorrow, it is

because It is Supreme Bliss. In short, our experience must exist in

germ in it. This is because in the Sakta Agama, there is for the

worshipper a real creation and, therefore, a real nexus between the

Brahman as cause and the world as effect. According to the

transcendent method of Shamkara, there is not in the absolute sense

any such nexus. The notion of creation by Brahman is as much Maya as

the notion of the world created.

 

Applying these principles we find in our dual experience an " I "

(Aham) or subject which experiences an object a " This " (Idam): that

is the universe or any particular object of the collectively which

composes it. Now it is said that the duality of " I " and " This " comes

from the One which is in its essential nature (Svarupa) an unitary

experience without such conscious distinction. For Vedanta, whether

in its Mayavada or Sakta form, agrees in holding that in the Supreme

there is no consciousness of objects such as exists on this plane.

The Supreme does not see objects outside Itself, for it is the whole

and the experience of the whole as Ishvara. It sees all that is as

Itself. It is Purna or the Whole. How then, it may be asked, can a

supreme, unchanging, partless, formless, Consciousness produce from

Itself something which is so different from Itself, something which

is changing, with parts, form and so forth. Shamkara's answer is

that transcendentally, it does not produce anything. The notion that

it does so is Maya. What then is his Maya? This I have more fully

explained in my papers on " Maya-Shakti " and on " Maya and Shakti " . I

will only here say that his Maya is an unexplainable (anirvacaniya)

principle of unconsciousness which is not real, not unreal, and

partly either; which is an eternal falsity (Mithyabhuta sanatani),

which, though not Brahman, is inseparably associated with It in Its

aspect as Ishvara; which Maya has Brahman for its support (Maya

Brahmashrita); from which support it draws appearance of separate

independent reality which in truth it does not possess. The

Parabrahman aspect of the One is not associated with Maya.

 

According to the Sakta exposition of Advaitavada, Maya is not an

unconscious (jada) principle but a particular Shakti of Brahman.

Being Shakti, it is at base consciousness, but as Maya-Shakti it is

Consciousness veiling Itself. Shakti and Shaktiman are one and the

same: that is, Power and its Possessor (Shaktiman). Therefore Maya-

Shakti is Shiva or Cit in that particular aspect which He assumes as

the material cause (Upadanakarana) in creation. Creation is real;

that is, there is a direct causal nexus between Shiva as Shakti (Cit-

Shakti and Maya-Shakti) and the universe. In short Shiva as Shakti

is the cause of the universe, and as Shakti, in the form of Jiva

(all manifested forms, He actually evolves. Comparing these two

views; -- Shamkara says that there is in absolute truth no creation

and therefore there can be no question how it arose. This is because

he views the problem from the transcendental (Paramarthika)

standpoint of self-realization or Siddhi. The Sakta Shastra, on the

other hand, being a practical Sadhana Shastra views the matter from

our, that is the Jiva, standpoint. To us the universe and ourselves

are real. And Ishvara the Creator is real. Therefore there is a

creation, and Shiva as Shakti creates by evolving into the Universe,

and then appearing as all Jivas. This is the old Upanishadic

doctrine of the spider actually evolving the web from itself, the

web being its substance in that form. A flower cannot be raised from

seed unless the flower was in some way already there. Therefore as

there is an " Aham " and " Idam " in our experience, in some way it is

in the supreme experience of Parashiva or Parasamvit. But the Idam

or Universe is not there as with us; otherwise It would be Jiva.

Therefore it is said that there are two principles or aspects in the

Brahman, namely, that Prakasha or Cit aspect, and Vimarsha Shakti,

the potential Idam, which in creation explicates into the Universe.

But in the supreme experience or Amarsha, Vimarsha Shakti (which has

two states) is in Its supreme form. The subtler state is in the form

of consciousness (Cidrupini); the gross state is in the form of the

Universe (Vishvarupini). The former is beyond the universe

(Vishvottirna). But if Vimarsha Shakti is there in the form of

consciousness (Cidrupini), it is one with Cit. Therefore it is said

that the Aham and Idam, without ceasing to be in the supreme

experience, are in supreme Shiva in undistinguishable union as Cit

and Cidrupini. This is the Nirguna state of Shivashakti. As She is

then in undistinguishable union with Shiva, She is then also simple

unmanifested Cit. She is then Caitanya-rupa or Cidrupini: a subtle

Sanskrit expression which denotes that She is the same as Cit and

yet suggests that though in a present sense She is one with Him, She

is yet in a sense (with reference to Her potentiality of future

manifestation) different from Him. She is Sacchidanandamayi and He

is Sacchidananda. She is then the unmanifested universe in the form

of undifferentiated Cit. The mutual relation, whether in

manifestation or beyond it, whether as the imperfect or Ideal

universe, is one of inseparable connection or inherence (Avinabhava-

sambandha, Samanvaya) such as that between " I-ness " (Ahanta) and " I "

(Aham), existence and that which exists (Bhava, Bhavat), an

attribute and that in which it inheres (Dharma, Dharmin), sunshine

and the sun and so forth. The Pañcaratra School of the Vaishnava

Agama or Tantra, speaking of the Mahashakti Lakshmi says, that in

Her supreme state She is undistinguishable from the " Windless

Atmosphere " (Vasudeva) existing only as it were in the form

of " darkness " and " emptiness " (that is of unmanifested

formlessness). So the Mahanirvana Tantra speaks of Her " dark

formlessness " . In the Kulacudamani Nigama, Devi says (I. 16-24) --

" I, though in the form of Prakriti, rest in consciousness-bliss'

(Aham prakritirupa cet cidanandaparayana). Raghava Bhatta in his

commentary on the Sharada Tilaka (Ch. I) says, " She who is eternal

existed in a subtle (that is unmanifested) state, as consciousness,

during the final dissolution " (Ya anadirupa caitanyadhyasena

mahapralaye sukshma sthita). It would be simpler to say that She is

then what She is (Svarupa) namely Consciousness, but in creation

that consciousness veils itself. These

terms " formless, " " subtle, " " dark, " " empty, " all denote the same

unmanifested state in which Shakti is in undistinguishable union

with Shiva, the formless consciousness. The Pañcaratra (Ahirbudhnya

Samhita, Ch. IV), in manner similar to that of the other Agamas,

describes the supreme state of Shakti in the dissolution of the

Universe as one in which manifested Shakti " returns to the condition

of Brahman " (Brahmabhavam brajate). " Owing to complete intensity of

embrace " (Atisankleshat) the two all-pervading ones, Narayana and

His Shakti, become as it were a single principle (Ekam tattvam iva).

This return to the Brahman condition is said to take place in the

same way as a conflagration, when there is no more combustible

matter, returns to the latent condition of fire (Vahni-bhava). There

is the same fire in both cases but in one case there is the activity

of combustion and in the other there is not. It follows from this

that the Supreme Brahman is not a mere knowing with out trace of

objectivity. In It the Aham is the Self as Cit and the Idam is

provided by Cidrupini-shakti. There is Atmarama or play of the Self

with the Self in which the Self knows and enjoys the Self, not in

the form of external objects, but as that aspect of consciousness

whose projection all objects are. Shakti is always the object of the

Self and one with it. For the object is always the Self, since there

is nothing but the Self. But in the supreme experience the object is

one in nature with Shiva being Caitanya-rupa; in the universe the

object seems to the Jiva, the creation of and subject to Maya, to be

different from the Self as mind and matter.

 

The next point is the nature of creation or rather emanation

(Abhasa) for the former term is associated with dualistic notions of

an extra-Cosmic God, who produces a world which is as separate from

Himself as is the pot from the potter. According to this doctrine

there is an Evolution of Consciousness or Cit-Shakti (associated

with Maya-Shakti) into certain forms. This is not to say that the

Brahman is wholly transformed into its emanations, that is exhausted

by them. The Brahman is infinite and can never, therefore, be wholly

held in this sense in any form, or in the universe as a whole. It

always transcends the universe. Therefore when Consciousness

evolves, it nevertheless does not cease to be what it was, is, and

will be. The Supreme Cit becomes as Shakti the universe but still

remains supreme Cit. In the same way every stage of the emanation-

process prior to the real evolution (Parinama of Prakriti) remains

what it is, whilst giving birth to a new Evolution. In Parinama or

Evolution as known to us on this plane, when one thing is evolved

into another, it ceases to be what it was. Thus when milk is changed

into curd, it ceases to be milk. The Evolution from Shiva-Shakti of

the Pure Tattvas is not of this kind. It is an Abhasa or " shining

forth, " adopting the simile of the sun which shines without (it was

supposed) change in, or diminution of, its light. This

unaffectedness in spite of its being the material cause is called in

the Pañcaratra by the term Virya, a condition which, the Vaishnava

Lakshmi Tantra says, is not found in the world " where milk quickly

loses its nature when curds appear. " It is a process in which one

flame springs from another flame. Hence it is called " Flame to

Flame " . There is a second Flame but the first from which it comes is

unexhausted and still there. The cause remains what it was and yet

appears differently in the effect. God is never " emptied " as it is

said wholly into the world. Brahman is ever changeless in one

aspect; in another It changes, such change being as it were a mere

point of stress in the infinite Ether of Cit. This Abhasa,

therefore, is a form of Vivartta, distinguishable however from the

Vivartta of Mayavada, because in the Agama, whether Vaishnava, or

Shakta, the effect is regarded as real, whereas according to

Shamkara, it is only empirically so. Hence the latter system is

called Sat-karanavada or the doctrine of the reality of the original

source or basis of things, and not also of the apparent effects of

the cause. This Abhasa has been called Sadrisha Parinama (See

Introduction to Principles of Tantra, Part II), a term borrowed from

the Samkhya but which is not altogether appropriate. In the latter

Philosophy, the term is used in connection with the state of the

Gunas of Prakriti in dissolution when nothing is produced. Here on

the contrary we are dealing with creation and an evolving Power-

Consciousness. It is only appropriate to this extent that, as in

Shadrisa Parinama there is no real evolution or objectivity, so also

there is none in the evolution of the Tattvas until Maya intervenes

and Prakriti really evolves the objective universe.

 

This being the nature of the Supreme Shiva and of the evolution of

consciousness, this doctrine assumes, with all others,. a

transcendent and a creative or immanent aspect of Brahman. The first

is Nishkala Shiva; the second Sakala Shiva; or Nirguna Saguna;

Parama, Apara (in Shamkara's parlance); Paramatma, Ishvara; and

Paramabrahman, Shabdabrahman. From the second or changing aspect the

universe is born. Birth means 'manifestation'. Manifestation to

what'? The answer is to consciousness. But there is nothing but Cit.

Creation is then the evolution whereby the changeless Cit through

the power of its Maya-Shakti appears to Itself in the form of

limited objects. All is Shiva whether as subject or object.

 

This evolution of consciousness is described in the scheme of the

Thirty-six Tattvas.

 

Shamkara and Samkhya speak of the 24 Tattvas from Prakriti to

Prithivi. Both Shaivas and Shaktas speak of the Thirty-six Tattvas,

showing, by the extra number of Tattvas, how Purusha and Prakriti

themselves originated. The northern or Advaita Shaiva Agama and the

Sakta Agama are allied, though all Shaiva Scriptures adopt the same

Tattvas. In all the Agamas whether Vaishnava, Shaiva, or Shakta,

there are points of doctrine which are the same or similar. The

Vaishnava Pañcaratra, however, moves in a different sphere of

thought. It speaks in lieu of the Abhasa here described of four

Vyuha or forms of Narayana, viz., Vasudeva, Samkarshana, Pradyumna

and Aniruddha. The Thirty-six Tattvas are the 24 from Prithivi to

Prakriti together with (proceeding upwards) Purusha, Maya and the

five Kañcukas (Kala, Kala, Niyati, Vidya, Raga), Shuddhavidya (or

Sad-vidya), Shakti, Shiva. These are divided into three groups named

Shiva Tattva, Vidya Tattva, Atma Tattva, and Shuddha,

Shuddhashuddha, Ashuddha Tattvas. The Shuddha or Pure Tattvas are

all the Tattvas from Shiva-Shakti Tattvas to and including Sadvidya

Tattva. The Pure-Impure or Mixed (Shuddha-ashuddha) Tattvas are

those between the first and third group which are the Impure Tattvas

(Ashuddha Tattva) of the world of duality, namely, the 24 Tattvas

from Prakriti to Prithivi. The other group of three is as follows:

Shiva Tattva includes Shiva Tattva and Shakti Tattva, Vidya Tattva

includes all Tattvas from Sadashiva to Sadvidya, and Atma Tattva

includes all Tattvas from Maya and the Kañcukas to Prithivi. The

particular description here of the 36 Tattvas, held by both Shaivas

and Shaktas, is taken from the northern Shaiva Kashmir philosophical

school, itself based on the older Agamas such as Malinivijaya Tantra

and others.

 

It is common doctrine of Advaitavada that the One is of dual aspect;

the first static (Shiva) and the other kinetic (Shakti). This

doctrine of aspects is a device whereby it is sought to reconcile

the fact that there is changelessness and change. Philosophically it

is an evasion of the problem and not a solution. The solution is to

be found in revelation (Veda) and in direct Spiritual Experience

(Samadhi). These states vary in different men and in different races

and creeds. But in support of Advaitavada, reliance may be placed on

the fact that Samadhi or ecstasy, in all parts of the world and in

all faiths, tends towards some kind of unity, more or less complete.

All seek union with God. But the dispute is as to the nature of that

union. Pure Advaitavada is complete identity. The scheme now

outlined shows how that unitary experience, without ceasing to be

what it is, assumes limited forms.

 

[The reader is referred to the Diagram on the following page]

 

Parasamvit shown on top of the Diagram is Nishkala Shiva or the

changeless Brahman aspect; and Shiva-Shakti below is the aspect of

the supreme Brahman from which change comes and which appears as its

products or changing forms. Both are Shiva-Shakti. When, however,

Shiva is kinetic, He is called Shakti. Regarding the matter from the

Shakti aspect both are Shakti. Neither ever exists without the

other, though Shakti is in one aspect Cidrupini, and in the other in

the form of the Universe (Vishvarupini). In themselves and

throughout they are one. The divergence takes place in

consciousness, after it has been subjected to the operation of Maya,

the effect of which is to polarize consciousness into an apparently

separate " I " and " This " . Parasamvit is not accounted a Tattva, for

It is beyond all Tattvas (Tattvatita). Shiva Tattva and Shakti

Tattva are counted separately, though Shakti Tattva is merely the

negative aspect of Shiva Tattva. Shiva Tattva and Shakti Tattva are

not produced. They thus are, even in dissolution. They are Saguna-

Brahman; and Parasamvit is the Nirguna-Brahman. The first evolved

Tattva is Sadashiva of Sadakhya Tattva of which the meaning is Sat

akhya yatah, or that state in which there is the first notion of

Being; for here is the first incipiency of the world-experience as

the notion " I am this " which ultimately becomes a separate " I "

and " This " . In my Garland of Letters I have with more technical

detail described the evolution of Jiva-consciousness. Here I will

only shortly summarize the process.

 

As already stated, the Aham and Idam exist in an unitary state which

is indescribable in Parasamvit. Shakti Tattva is called negative

because negation is the function of Shakti (Nishedha-vyapara-rupa

Shaktih). Negation of what P The answer is negation of

consciousness. The universe is thus a product of negation. Where

there is pure experience there is no manifested universe. Shakti

negates the pure experience or consciousness to the extent, that it

appears to itself limited. Shakti disengages the unified elements

(Aham and Idam) which are latent in the Supreme Experience as an

undistinguishable unity. How? The answer is one of great subtlety.

 

Of the Shiva-Shakti Tattvas, Shiva represents the Prakasha and

Shakti the Vimarsha aspect, which contains potentially within it,

the seed of the Universe to be. The result is that the Prakasha

aspect is left standing alone. The Shiva Tattva is Prakasha-matra,

that is, to use the imagery of our plane, an " I " without a " This " .

This is a state in which the unitary consciousness is broken up to

this extent, that it is no longer a Perfect Experience in which the

Aham and Idam exist in undistinguishable union, but there is one

Supreme Aham Consciousness only, which is the root of all limited

subjectivity To this Aham or Shiva Tattva, Shakti gradually unveils

Herself as the Idam or Vimarsha aspect of consciousness. The result

is that from Shiva and Shakti (in which the latter takes the playful

part) there is evolved the first produced consciousness called

Sadakhya Tattva. There is then an Aham and Idam aspect of

experience. But that experience is not like the Jiva's, which arises

at a later stage after the intervention of Maya-Shakti. In the Jiva

consciousness (Jivatma) the object (Idam) is seen as something

outside and different from itself. In Sadakhya Tattva and all the

subsequent pure Tattvas, that is Ishvara Tattva and Shuddhavidya

Tattva, the " This " is experienced as part of the Self and not as

separate from it. There is (as will appear from the Diagram) no

outer and inner. The circle which represents the one Consciousness

is. divided into " I " and " This " which are yet parts of the same

figure. The " This " is at first only by degree and hazily (Dhyamala

prayam) presented to the Aham like a picture just forming itself

(Unmilitamatra-citrakalpam). For this reason it is said that there

is emphasis on the Aham which is indicated in the Diagram by the

arrow-head. This is called the " Nimesha " or " closing of the eyes " of

Shakti. It is so called because it is the last stage in dissolution

before all effects are withdrawn into their first cause. Being the

last stage in dissolution it is the first in creation. Then the Idam

side becomes clear in the next evolved Ishvara Tattva in which the

emphasis is therefore said to be on the " This " which the Aham

subjectifies. This is the " Unmesha " or " opening of the eyes " state

of Shakti; for this is the state of consciousness when it is first

fully equipped to create and does so. The result again of this is

the evolved consciousness called Shuddhavidya Tattva in which the

emphasis is equal on the " I " and " This " . Consciousness is now in the

state in which the two halves of experience are ready to be broken

up and experienced separately. It is at this state that Maya-Shakti

intervenes and does so through its power and the Kañcukas which are

forms of it. Maya-Shakti is thus defined as the sense of difference

(Bhedabuddhi); that is the power by which things are seen as

different from the Self in the dual manifested world. The Kañcukas

which are evolved from, and are particular forms of, the operation

of Maya are limitations of the natural perfections of the Supreme

Consciousness. These are Kala which produces division (Pariccheda)

in the partless and unlimited; Niyati which affects independence

(Svatantrata); Raga which produces interest in, and then attachment

to, objects in that which wanted nothing (Purna); Vidya which makes

the Purusha a " little knower " in lieu of being all-knower (Sarva-

jñata) and Kala which makes Purusha a " little doer, " whereas the

Supreme was in its Kartrittva or power action of almighty. The

result of Maya and its offshoots which are the Kañcukas is the

production of the Purusha and Prakriti Tattvas. At this stage the

Aham and Idam are completely severed. Each consciousness regards

itself as a separate 'I' looking upon the " This " whether its own

body or that of others as outside its consciousness. Each Purusha

(and they are numberless) is mutually exclusive the one of the

other. Prakriti is the collectivity of all Shaktis in contracted

(Sankucadrupa) undifferentiated form. She is Feeling in the form of

the undifferentiated mass of Buddhi and the rest and of the three

Gunas in equilibrium. The Purusha or Self experiences Her as object.

Then on the disturbance of the Gunas in Prakriti the latter evolves

the Vikritis of mind and matter. The Purusha at this stage has

experience of the multiple world of the twenty-four impure Tattvas.

 

Thus from the supreme " I " (Parahanta) which is the creative Shiva-

Shakti aspect of Parasamvit which changelessly endures as

Sacchidananda, Consciousness experiences Itself as object (Sadakhya,

Ishvara, Sadvidya Tattvas) and then through Maya and the limitations

or contractions which are the Kañcukas or Samkocas it loses the

knowledge that it is itself its own object. It sees the

separate " other " ; and the one Consciousness becomes the limited

experiencers which are the multiple selves and their objects of the

dual universe. Shakti who in Herself (Svarupa) is Feeling-

Consciousness (Cidrupini) becomes more and more gross until physical

energy assumes the form and becomes embedded in the " crust " of

matter vitalized by Herself as the Life-Principle of all things.

Throughout all forms it is the same Shakti who works and appears as

Cit-Shakti and Maya-Shakti, the Spirit and Matter aspect of the

Power of the Self-Illumining Pure Super-Consciousness or Cit.

 

Cit-Shakti (The Consciousness Aspect of the Universe)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas14.htm

 

 

 

SHAKTI AND SHAKTA

by Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodroffe), [1918]

Chapter 1: Indian Religion As Bharata Dharma

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas01.htm

Chapter 2: Shakti: The World as Power

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas02.htm

 

Chapter 3: What Are the Tantras and Their Significance?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas03.htm

 

Chapter 4: Tantra Shastra and Veda

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas04.htm

 

Chapter 5: The Tantras and Religion of the Shaktas

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas05.htm

 

Chapter 6: Shakti and Shakta

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas06.htm

 

Chapter 7: Is Shakti Force?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas07.htm

Chapter 8: Cinacara (Vashishtha and Buddha)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas08.htm

 

Chapter 9: The Tantra Shastras in China

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas09.htm

 

Chapter 10: A Tibetan Tantra

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas10.htm

 

Chapter 11: Shakti in Taoism

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas11.htm

 

Chapter 12: Alleged Conflict of Shastras

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas12.htm

 

Chapter 13: Sarvanandanatha

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas13.htm

 

Chapter 14: Cit-Shakti (The Consciousness Aspect of the Universe)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas14.htm

 

Chapter 15: Maya-Shakti (The Psycho-Physical Aspect of the Universe)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas15.htm

 

Chapter 16: Matter and Consciousness

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas16.htm

 

Chapter 17: Shakti and Maya

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas17.htm

 

Chapter 18: Shakta Advaitavada

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas18.htm

 

Chapter 19: Creation as Explained in the Non-dualist Tantras

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas19.htm

 

Chapter 20: The Indian Magna Mater

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas20.htm

 

Chapter 21: Hindu Ritual

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas21.htm

 

Chapter 22: Vedanta and Tantra Shastra

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas22.htm

 

Chapter 23: The Psychology of Hindu Religious Ritual

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas23.htm

 

Chapter 24: Shakti as Mantra (Mantramayi Shakti)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas24.htm

 

Chapter 25: Varnamala (The Garland of Letters)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas25.htm

 

Chapter 26: Shakta Sadhana (The Ordinary Ritual)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas26.htm

 

Chapter 27: The Pañcatattva (The Secret Ritual)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas27.htm

 

Chapter 28: Matam Rutra (The Right and Wrong Interpretation)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas28.htm

 

Chapter 29: Kundalini Shakta (Yoga)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas29.htm

 

Chapter 30: Conclusions

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tantra/sas/sas30.htm