Maya-Shakti (The Psycho-Physical 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.

>

 

 

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

 

Spirit, Mind and Matter are ultimately one, the two latter being the

twin aspects of the Fundamental Substance or Brahman and Its Power

or Shakti. Spirit is the substance of mind-matter, the Reality (in

the sense of the lasting changelessness) out of which, by Its Power,

all Appearance is fashioned not by the individual mind and senses

but by the cosmic mind and senses of which they are but a part. What

It creates It perceives. In the last chapter I dealt with the Spirit

or Consciousness (Cit) aspect: in this I consider the mind-matter

aspect in which Consciousness veils itself in apparent

unconsciousness. These twin principles are called Purusha, Brahman,

Shiva on the one hand and Prakriti, Maya, and Maya-Shakti on the

other by the Samkhya Mayavada Vedanta and Shaktivada of the Shakta

Agama respectively. The latter Shastra, however, alone treats them

as aspects of the one Substance in the manner here described and

thus most aptly in this respect accommodates itself to the doctrine

of Western scientific monism. So, Professor Haeckel points out in

conformity with Shakta Advaitavada that Spirit and Matter are not

two distinct entities but two forms or aspects of one single Entity

or fundamental Substance. According to him, the One Entity with dual

aspect is the sole Reality which presents itself to view as the

infinitely varied and wondrous picture of the universe. Whatever be

the case transcendentally in what the Buddhist Tantra aptly

calls " The Void " (Shunyata. In Tibetan sTongpa-nyid) which is

not " nothing " as some have supposed, but That which is like nothing

known to us; the ultimate formless (Arupa) Reality as contrasted

with appearance (sNang-va-dang) or form (Rupa) of which the

Prajñaparamita-hridaya-garbha says only " neti neti " can be affirmed,-

- in this universe immaterial Spirit is just as unthinkable as

spiritless matter. The two are inseparately combined in every atom

which, itself and its forces, possess the elements of vitality,

growth and intelligence in all their developments. In the four Atmas

which are contemplated in the Citkunda in the Muladhara Cakra, Atma

pranarupi represents the vital aspect, Jñanatma the Intelligence

aspect, and Antaratma is that spark of the Paramatma which inheres

in all bodies, and which when spread (Vyapta) appears as the Bhuta

or five forms of sensible matter which go to the making of the gross

body. These are all aspects of the one Paramatma (Jñanarnava Tantra,

Ch. XXI, Vv. 1 -- 9).

 

The Vedanta recognizes four states of experience, Jagrat, Svapna,

Sushupti and Turiya. These, as my friend Professor Pramathanatha

Mukhyopadhyaya has, in his radical clear-thinking way, pointed out,

may be regarded from two stand-points. We may, with Shamkara, from

the standpoint of Siddhi alone, regard the last only, that is

transcendental or pure experience (Nirvishesha-jñana), as the real

Fact or Experience: or we may, with the Shakta Agama, looking at the

matter from the standpoint of both Sadhana (that is practical

experience) and Siddhi (or transcendental experience), regard not

only the supreme experience as alone real, but the whole of

experience without any reservation whatever -- the whole concrete

Fact of Being and Becoming -- and call it the Real. This is the view

of the Shaiva-Shakta who says that the world is Shiva's Experience

and Shiva's Experience can never be unreal. The question turns upon

the definition of " Real " . Shamkara's conception of that term is

that, That to which it is applied must be absolutely changeless in

all the " three times " . It is That which absolutely continues through

and underlies all the changes of experience; being that which is

given in all the four states, Jagrat and the rest. It is That which

can never be contradicted (Vadhita) in all the three tenses of time

and the four states of Experience. This is the Ether of

Consciousness (Cidakasha) and none of Its modes. Our ordinary

experience, it is claimed, as well as Supreme non-polar Nirvikalpa

Samadhi proves this unchanging aspect of the ultimate Substance, as

the changeless principle of all our modes of changing experience,

which according to this definition are unreal. Thus Shamkara's Real

= Being = Sat-Cit-Ananda: Unreal = Becoming = Vivartta = Jagat-

Prapañca or universe. According to this view, there are three levels

or planes of being (Satta), namely transcendental (Paramarthika),

empirical (Vyavaharika) and illusory (Pratibhasika). The Real

(Satya) is that which is given in all the three planes (Paramarthika

Satya): the empirical (Vyavaharika Satya) is that which is given in

the second and third planes but not in the first. It is worldly or

dual experience, and not undual experience of Samadhi or Videha-

Mukti which latter, however, underlies all states of experience,

being the Ether of Consciousness Itself. The last (Pratibhasika

Satya) is given or obtains only in the last plane, being only such

reality as can be attributed to illusion such as " the rope-snake " . A

higher plane contradicts a lower: the third is contradicted by the

second, the second by the first, and the first by nothing at all.

Thus there is a process of gradual elimination from changing to

changeless consciousness. Real change or Parinama is said by the

Vedanta Paribhasha to exist when the effect or phenomenon and its

ground (Upadana or material cause) belong to the same level or plane

of existence; as in the case of clay and pot, milk and curd, which

both belong to the Vyavaharika plane; milk being the Upadana and

curd the effect or change appertaining it (Parinamo hi upadana-sama-

sattaka-karya pattih). When, however, the effect's level of

existence is different from (Vishama) and therefore cannot be

equaled to that of its material cause or Upadana; when, for

instance, one belongs to the Vyavaharika experience and the other to

the Pratibhasika, there is Nivartta (Vivartto hi upadana-vishama-

sattaka-karyapattih). Thus, in the case of the " rope-snake, " the

Satta of the rope is Vyavaharika, whilst that of the Rajju-sarpa is

only Pratibhasika. For the same reason, the rope, and the whole

Jagat-prapañca (universe) for the matter of that, is a Vivartta in

relation to the Supreme Experience of pure Cit. On its own plane or

level of Satta, every phenomenon may be a Parinama, but in relation

to a higher level by which it becomes Vadhita, it is only a Vivartta.

 

The Shakta Agama differs in its presentment as follows. The Fact or

Concrete Experience presents two aspects -- what professor

Mukhyopadhyaya has aptly called in his work the " Patent Wonder " --

the Ether and the Stress -- the quiescent background of Cit and the

sprouting and evolving Shakti. Agama takes this whole (Shiva-Shakti)

embracing all the aspects as its real. If one aspect be taken apart

from the others, we are landed in the unreal. Therefore, in the

Shakta Agama, all is real; whether the transcendent real of'

Shamkara (Turiya), or the empirical real waking (Jagrat, dreaming

(Svapna) or dreamless sleep (Sushupti). If it is conceded that Real

= Changelessness, then the last three states are not real. But this

definition of Reality is not adopted. It is again conceded that the

Supreme Substance (Paravastu) is alone real, in the sense of

changeless, for the worlds come and go. But the Agama says with the

Samkhya, that a thing is not unreal because it changes. The

Substance has two aspects, in one of which It is changeless, and in

the other of which It changes. It is the same Substance in both its

Prakasha and Vimarsha aspects. Shamkara limits Reality to the

Prakasha aspect alone. Agama extends it to both Prakasha and

Vimarsha; for these are aspects of the one. As explained later, this

divergence of views turns upon the definition of Maya given by

Shamkara, and of Maya-Shakti given by the Agama. The Maya of

Shamkara is a mysterious Shakti of Ishvara, by which Vivartta is

sought to be explained and which has two manifestations, viz.,

Veiling (Avarana) and moving, changing and projecting (Vikshepa)

power. Ishvara is Brahman reflected in Maya; a mystery which is

separate, and yet not separate, from Brahman in Its Ishvara aspect.

The Shakta Maya-Shakti is an aspect of Shiva or Brahman Itself.

 

Starting from these premises we must assume a real nexus between the

universe and its ultimate cause. The creation is real, and not Maya

in Shamkara's sense of Maya, but is the operation of and is Shakti

Herself. The cause being thus real, the effect or universe is real

though it changes and passes away. Even when it is dissolved, it is

merged in Shakti who is real; withdrawn into Her as the Samkhyan

tortoise or Prakriti withdraws its limbs (Vikriti) into itself. The

universe either is as unmanifested Shakti, which is the perfect

formless universe of Bliss, or exists as manifested Shakti, the

limited and imperfect worlds of form. The assumption of such nexus

necessarily involves that what is in the effect is in the cause

potentially. Of course, the follower of Shamkara will say that if

creation is the becoming patent or actual of what is latent or

potential in Shiva, then Shiva is not really Nishkala. A truly

Nirañjana Brahman cannot admit potential differentiation within

Itself (Svagata-bheda.) Again, potentiality is unmeaning in relation

to the absolute and infinite Being, for it pertains to relation and

finite existence. If it is suggested that Brahman passes from one

condition in which Maya lies as a seed in it, to another in which

Maya manifests Herself, we are involved in the doctrine of an

Absolute in the making. It is illogical to affirm that whilst

Brahman in one aspect does not change, It in another aspect, that is

as Shakti, does truly change. All such objections have alogical

foundation and it is for this reason that Shamkara says that all

change (Srishti, Sthiti, Laya) are only apparent, being but a

Kalpana or imagination.

 

But an answer is given to these objections. The Shakta will say that

the one Brahman Shiva has two aspects in one of which, as Shakti, It

changes and in the other of which, as Shiva, It does not. Reality is

constituted of both these aspects. It is true that the doctrine of

aspects does not solve the problem. Creation is ultimately

inscrutable. It is, however, he urges, better to hold both the

reality of the Brahman and the world leaving spiritual experience to

synthesize them, than to neglect one at the cost of the other. For

this, it is argued, is what Shamkara does. His solution is obtained

at the cost of a denial of true reality to the world which all our

worldly experience affirms; and this solution is supported by the

illogical statement that Maya is not real and is yet not unreal, not

partly real and partly unreal. This also, flies in the face of the

logical principle of contradiction. Both theories, therefore, it may

be said in different ways, run counter to logic. All theories

ultimately do. The matter is admittedly alogical, that is beyond

logic, for it is beyond the mind and its logical forms of thinking.

Practically, therefore, it is said to be better to base our theory

on our experience of the reality of the world, frankly leaving it to

spiritual experience to solve a problem for which all logic, owing

to the very constitution of the mind, fails. The ultimate proof of

authority is Spiritual Experience either recorded in Veda or

realized in Samadhi.

 

As I have already said in my chapter on the spirit-aspect of the One

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

Western Hermetic maxim, " as above so below, " is stated in the

Visvasara Tantra in the form, " what is here is there. What is not

here is nowhere " (Yad ihasti tad anyatra yan nehasti na tat kvacit);

and in the northern Shaiva Scripture in the form, " that which

appears without only so appears because it exists

within " , " Vartamanava-bhasanam bhavanam avabhasanam antahsthitavatam

eva ghatate bahiratmana " . For these reasons man is rightly called a

microcosm (Kshudrabrahmanda; hominem quasi minorem quendam mundum.

Firm. Maternus Math. III init.) So Caraka says that the course of

production, growth, decay and destruction of the universe and of man

are the same. But these statements do not mean that what exists on

one plane exists in that form or way on another plane. It is obvious

that if it did, the planes would be the same and not different. It

means that the same thing exists on one plane and on all other

levels of being or planes, according either to the form of that

plane, if it be what is called an intermediate causal body

(Karanavantara-sharira) or ultimately as mere formless potentiality.

According to Shamkara all such argument is itself Maya. And it may

be so to those who have realized true consciousness (Citsvarupa)

which is beyond all causality. The Tantra Shastra is, however, a

practical and Sadhana Shastra. It takes the world to be real and

then applies, so far as it may, to the question of its origin, the

logic of the mind which forms a part of it. It says that it is true

that there is a Supreme or Perfect Experience which is beyond all

worlds (Shakti Vishvottirna), but there is also a worldly or

(relatively to the Supreme) imperfect (in the sense of limited) and

partly sorrowful experience. Because the one exists, it does not

follow that the other does not: though mere logic cannot construct

an unassailable monism. It is the one Shiva who is Bliss itself, and

who is in the form of the world (Vishvatmaka) which is Happiness-

Unhappiness. Shiva is both changeless as Shiva and changeful as

Shakti. How the One can be both is a mystery. To say, however, with

Shamkara that it is Maya, and in truth Brahman does not change, is

not to explain, in an ultimate sense, the problem but to eliminate

some other possible cause and to give to what remains a name. Maya

by itself does not explain the ultimate. What can? It is only a term

which is given to the wondrous power of the Creatrix by which what

seems impossible to us becomes possible to Her. This is recognized

as it must be, by Shamkara who says that Maya is unexplainable

(Anirvacaniya) as of course it is. To " explain " the Creator, one

would have to be Creator Himself and then in such case there would

be no need of any explanation. Looking, however, at the matter from

our own practical standpoint, which is that which concerns us, we

are drawn by the fore-going considerations to the conclusion that,

what we call " matter, " is, in some form, in the cause which

according to the doctrine here described, produces it. But matter as

experienced by us is not there; for the Supreme is Spirit only. And

yet in some sense it is there, or it would not be here at all. It is

there as the Supreme Shakti which is Being-Consciousness-Bliss

(Cidrupini, Anandamayi) who contains within Herself the potentiality

of all worlds to be projected by Her Shakti. It is there as

unmanifested Consciousness Power (Cidrupini Shakti). It here exists

as the mixed conscious-unconsciousness (in the sense of the limited

consciousness) of the psychical and material universe. If the

ultimate Reality be one, there is thus one Almighty Substance which

is both Spirit (Shiva-Shakti Svarupa) and force-mind-matter (Shiva-

Shakti-Vishvatmaka). Spirit and Mind-Matter are thus in the end one.

 

This ultimate Supreme Substance (Paravastu) is Power or Shakti,

which is again, of dual aspect as Cit-Shakti which represents the

spiritual, and Maya-Shakti which represents the material and mental

aspects. The two, however, exist in inseparable connection

(Avinabhava-sambandha); as inseparable to use a simile of the

Shastra as the winds of heaven from the Ether in which they blow.

Shakti, who is in Herself (Svarupa) Consciousness, appears as the

Life-force, as subtle Mind, and as gross Matter. See sections in my

World as Power dealing in detail with Life (Prana-Shakti), Mind

(Manasi-Shakti) and Matter (Bhuta-Shakti). As all is Shakti and as

Shakti-svarupa is Being-Consciousness-Bliss, there is, and can be,

nothing absolutely unconscious. For Shakti-svarupa is unchanging

Being-Consciousness beyond all worlds (Cidrupini Vishvottirna), the

unchanging principle of experience in such worlds; and appears as

the limited psychical universe and as the apparently unconscious

material forms which are the content of man's Experience

(Vishvatmika). The whole universe is Shakti under various forms.

Therefore it is seen as commingled Spirit-Mind-Matter.

 

According to Shaiva-Shakta doctrine, Shiva and Shakti are one. Shiva

represents the static aspect of the Supreme substance, and Shakti

its kinetic aspect: the term being derived from the root " Sak " which

denotes capacity of action or power. According to Shamkara, Brahman

has two aspects, in one of which as Ishvara, it is associated with

Maya and seems to change, and in the other dissociated from Maya

(Parabrahman). In the Agama, the one Shiva is both the changeless

Parashiva and Parashakti and really changing Shiva-Shakti or

universe. As Shiva is one with Himself, He is never associated with

anything but Himself. As, however, the Supreme He is undisplayed

(Shiva-Shakti Svarupa) and as Shiva-Shakti He is manifest in the

form of the universe of mind and matter (Vishvarupa).

 

Before the manifestation of the universe there was Mahasatta or

Grand-being. Then also there was Shiva-Shakti, for there is no time

when Shakti is not; though She is sometimes manifest and sometimes

not. Power is Power both to Be and to Become. But then Shakti is not

manifest and is in its own true nature (Svarupa); that is, Being,

Feeling-Consciousness-Bliss (Cinmayi, Anandamayi). As Shiva is

consciousness (Cit) and Bliss or Love (Ananda), She is then simply

Bliss and Love. Then when moved to create, the Great Power or Megale

Dunamis of the Gnostics issues from the depths of Being and becomes

Mind and Matter whilst remaining what She ever was: the Being (Sat)

which is the foundation of manifested life and the Spirit which

sustains and enlightens it. This primal Power (Adya Shakti), as

object of worship, is the Great Mother (Magna-Mater) of all natural

things (Natura Naturans) and nature itself (Natura Naturata). In

herself (Svarupa) She is not a person in man's sense of the term,

but She is ever and incessantly personalizing; assuming the multiple

masks (Persona) which are the varied forms of mind-matter. As

therefore manifest, She is all Personalities and as the collectivity

thereof the Supreme Person (Parahanta). But in Her own ground from

which, clad in form, She emerges and personalizes, She is beyond all

form, and therefore beyond all personality known to us. She works in

and as all things; now greatly veiling Her consciousness-bliss in

gross matter, now by gradual stages more fully revealing Herself in

the forms of the one universal Life which She is.

 

Let us now first examine Her most gross manifestation, that is,

sensible matter (Bhuta), then Her more subtle aspect as the Life-

force and Mind, and lastly Her Supreme Shakti aspect as

Consciousness. I here deal with the subject in a general way having

treated of it in greater detail in the book just now cited (World as

Power).

 

The physical human body is composed of certain compounds of which

the chief are water, gelatin, fat, phosphate of lime, albumen and

fibrin, and, of these, water constitutes some two-thirds of the

total weight. These compounds, again, are composed of simpler non-

metallic elements of which the chief are oxygen (to the extent of

about two-thirds), hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, calcium and

phosphorus. So about two-thirds of the body is water and this is

H2O. Substantially then our gross body is water. But when we get to

these simpler elements, have we got to the root of the matter P No.

It was formerly thought that matter was composed of certain elements

beyond which it was not possible to go, and that these elements and

their atoms were indestructible. These notions have been reversed by

modern science. Though the alleged indestructibility of the elements

and their atoms is still said by some to present the character of

a " practical truth, " well-known recent discoveries and experiments

go to re-establish the ancient doctrine of a single primordial

substance to which these various forms of matter may be reduced,

with the resultant of the possible and hitherto derided

transmutation of one element into another; since each is but one of

the many plural manifestations of the same underlying unity. The so-

called elements are varied forms of this one substance which

themselves combine to form the various compounds. The variety of our

experience is due to permutation and combination of the atoms of the

matter into which the primordial energy materializes. We thus find

that owing to the variety of atomic combinations of H N O C there

are differences in the compounds. It is curious to note in passing

how apparently slight variations in the quantity and distribution of

the atoms produce very varying substances. Thus gluten which is a

nutrient food, and quinine and strychnine which are in varying

degree poisons, are each compounds of C H N O. Strychnine, a

powerful poison, is C21H22N2O2 and quinine is C20H24N2O2. N and 0

are the same in both and there is a difference of one part only of C

and 2 of H. But neither these compounds nor the so-called elements

of which they are composed are permanent things. Scientific matter

is now found to be only a relatively stable form of cosmic energy.

All matter dissociates and passes into the energy of which it is a

materialized form and again it issues from it.

 

Modern Western Science and Philosophy have thus removed many

difficulties which were formerly thought to be objections to the

ancient Indian doctrine on the subject here dealt with. It has, in

the first place. dispelled the gross notions which were hitherto

generally entertained as to the nature of " matter. " According to the

notions of quite recent science, " matter " was defined to be that

which has mass, weight and inertia. It must be now admitted that the

two latter qualities no longer stand the test of examination, since,

putting aside our ignorance as to the nature of weight, this quality

varies, if we conceive matter to be placed under conditions which

admittedly affect it; and the belief in inertia is due to

superficial observation, it being now generally conceded that the

final elements of matter are in a state of spontaneous and perpetual

motion. In fact, the most general phenomenon of the universe is

vibration, to which the human body as all else is subject. Various

vibrations affect differently each organ of sensation. When of

certain quality and number, they denote to the skin the degree of

external temperature; others incite the eye to see different colors;

others again enable the ear to hear defined sounds.

Moreover " inertia " , which is alleged to be a distinguishing quality

of " matter, " is said to be the possession of electricity, which is

considered not to be " material " . What, then, is that to which we

attribute " mass " P In the first place, it is now admitted

that " matter, " even with the addition of all possible forces, is

insufficient to explain many phenomena, such as those of light; and

it has, accordingly, come to be for some an article of scientific

faith that there is a substance called " Ether " : a medium which,

filling the universe, transports by its vibrations the radiations of

light, heat, electricity, and perhaps action from a distance, such

as the attraction exercised between heavenly bodies. It is said,

however, that this Ether is not " matter, " but differs profoundly

from it, and that it is only our infirmity of knowledge which

obliges us, in our attempted descriptions of it, to borrow

comparisons from " matter, " in its ordinary physical sense, which

alone is known by our senses. But if we assume the existence of

Ether, we know that " material " bodies immersed in it can change

their places therein. In fact, to use an Indian expression, the

characteristic property of the vibrations of the Akasha Tattva is to

make the space in which the other Tattvas and their derivatives

exist. With " Matter " and Ether as their materials, Western

purely " scientific " theories have sought to construct the world. The

scientific atom which Du Bois Raymond described as an exceedingly

useful fiction -- " ausserst nutzliche fiction " -- is no longer

considered the ultimate indestructible element, but is held to be,

in fact, a kind of miniature solar system, formed by a central group

or nucleus charged with positive electricity, around which very much

smaller elements, called electrons or corpuscles, charged with

negative electricity, gravitate in closed orbits. These vibrate in

the etheric medium in which they and the positively charged nucleus

exist, constituting by their energy, and not by their mass, the

unity of the atom. But what, again, is the constitution of

this " nucleus " and the electrons revolving around it? There is no

scientific certainty that any part of either is due to the presence

of " matter " . On the contrary, if a hypothetical corpuscle consisting

solely of an electric charge without material mass is made the

subject of mathematical analysis, the logical inference is that the

electron is free of " matter " , and is merely an electric charge

moving in the Ether; and though the extent of our knowledge

regarding the positive nucleus which constitutes the remainder of

the atom is small, an eminent mathematician and physicist has

expressed the opinion that, if there is no " matter " in the negative

charges, the positive charges must also be free from it. Thus, in

the words of the author upon whose lucid analysis I have drawn,

(Houllevigue's Evolution of Science) the atom has been

dematerialized, if one may say so, and with it the molecules and the

entire universe. " Matter " (in the scientific sense) disappears, and

we and all that surround us are physically, according to these

views, mere disturbed regions of the ether determined by moving

electric charges -- a logical if impressive conclusion, because it

is by increasing their knowledge of " matter " that physicists have

been led to doubt its reality. But the question, as he points out,

does not remain there. For if the speculations of Helmholtz be

adopted, there is nothing absurd in imaging that two possible

directions of rotation of a vortex formed within, and consisting of,

ether correspond to the positive and negative electric charges said

to be attached to the final elements of matter. If that be so, then

the trinity of matter, ether, and electricity, out of which science

has hitherto attempted to construct the world, is reduced to a

single element, the ether (which is not scientific " matter " ) in a

state of motion, and which is the basis of the physical universe.

The old duality of force and matter disappears, these being held to

be differing forms of the same thing. Matter is a relatively stable

form of energy into which, on disturbance of its equilibrium, it

disappears; for all forms of matter dissociate. The ultimate basis

is that energy called in Indian philosophy Prakriti, Maya or Shakti.

 

Herbert Spencer, the Philosopher of Modern Science, carries the

investigation farther, holding that the universe, whether physical

or psychical, whether within or without us, is a play of Force,

which, in the case of Matter, we experience as object, and that the

notion that the ultimate realities are the supposed atoms of matter,

to the properties and combinations of which the complex universe is

due, is not true. Mind, Life and Matter are each varying aspects of

the one cosmic process from the First Cause. Mind as such is as much

a " material " organ as the brain and outer sense organs, though they

are differing forms of force.

 

Both mind and matter derive from what Herbert Spencer calls the

Primal Energy (Adya Shakti), and Haeckel the fundamental Spirit-

Matter Substance. Professor Fitz Edward Hall described the Samkhya

philosophy as being " with all its folly and fanaticism little better

than a chaotic impertinence " . It has doubtless its weaknesses like

all other systems. Wherein, however, consists its " fanaticism, " I do

not know. As for " impertinence, " it is neither more nor less so than

any other form of Western endeavor to solve the riddle of life. As

regards its leading concept, " Prakriti, " the Professor said that it

was a notion for which the European languages were unable to supply

a name; a failure, he added, which was " nowise to their discredit " .

The implication of this sarcastic statement is that it was not to

the discredit of Western languages that they had no name for so

foolish a notion. He wrote before the revolution of ideas in science

to which I have referred, and with that marked antagonism to things

Indian which has been and to some extent still is so common a

feature of the more ordinary type of the professional orientalist.

 

The notion of Prakriti is not absurd. The doctrine of a Primordial

Substance was held by some of the greatest minds in the past and has

support from the most modern developments of Science. Both now

concur to reject what the great Sir William Jones called the " vulgar

notion of material substance " (Opera I. 36). Many people were wont,

as some still are, to laugh at the idea of Maya. Was not matter

solid, permanent and real enough? But according to science what are

we (as physical beings) at base P The answer is, infinitely tenuous

formless energy which materializes into relatively stable, yet

essentially transitory, forms. According to the apt expression of

the Shakta Shastra, Shakti, as She creates, becomes Ghanibhuta, that

is, massive or thickened; just as milk becomes curd. The process by

which the subtle becomes gradually more and more gross continues

until it develops into what has been called the " crust " of solid

matter (Parthiva bhuta). This whilst it lasts is tangible enough.

But it will not last for ever, and in some radio-active substances

dissociates before our eyes. Where does it go, according to Shakta

doctrine, but to that Mother-Power from whose womb it came; who

exists as all forms, gross and subtle, and is the formless

Consciousness Itself. The poet's inspiration led Shakespeare to

say, " We are such stuff as dreams are made of. " It is a wonderful

saying from a Vedantic standpoint, for centuries before him

Advaitavada had said, " Yes, dreams; for the Lord is Himself the

Great World-dreamer slumbering in causal sleep as Ishvara, dreaming

as Hiranyagarbha the universe experienced by Him as the Virat or

totality of all Jivas, on waking. " Scientific revision of the notion

of " matter " helps the Vedantic standpoint, by dispelling gross and

vulgar notions upon the subject; by establishing its impermanence in

its form as scientific matter; by positing a subtler physical

substance which is not ponderable matter; by destroying the old

duality of Matter and Force; and by these and other conclusions

leading to the acceptance of one Primal Energy or Shakti which

transforms itself into that relatively stable state which is

perceived by the senses as gross " matter. " As, however, science

deals with matter only objectively, that is, from a dualistic

standpoint, it does not (whatever hypotheses any particular

scientist may maintain) resolve the essential problem which is

stated in the world Maya. That problem is, " How can the apparent

duality be a real unity? How can we bridge the gulf between the

object and the Self which perceives it? Into whatever tenuous energy

the material world is resolved, we are still left in the region of

duality of Spirit, Mind and Matter. The position is not advanced

beyond that taken by Samkhya. The answer to the problem stated is

that Shakti which is the origin of, and is in, all things has the

power to veil Itself so that whilst in truth it is only seeing

itself as object, it does not, as the created Jiva, perceive this

but takes things to be outside and different from the Self. For this

reason Maya is called, in the Shastra, Bhedabuddhi or the sense of

difference. This is the natural characteristic of man's experience.

 

Herbert Spencer, the Philosopher of Modern Science, carrying the

investigation beyond physical matter, holds, as I have already said,

that the universe, whether physical or psychical, whether as mind or

matter, is a play of Force; Mind, Life and Matter being each varying

aspects of the one cosmic process from the First Cause. This, again,

is an Indian notion. For, the affirmation that " scientific matter "

is an appearance produced by the play of Cosmic Force, and that mind

is itself a product of the same play is what both Samkhya and

Mayavada Vedanta hold. Both these systems teach that mind,

considered in itself, is, like matter, an unconscious thing, and

that both it and matter ultimately issue from the same single

Principle which the former calls Prakriti and the latter Maya.

Consciousness and Unconsciousness are in the universe inseparate,

whatever be the degree of manifestation or veiling of Consciousness.

For the purpose of analysis, Mind in itself -- that is, considered

hypothetically as dissociated from Consciousness, which, in fact, is

never the case, (though Consciousness exists apart from the Mind) --

is a force-process like the physical brain. Consciousness (Cit) is

not to be identified with mind (Antahkarana) which is the organ of

expression of mind. Consciousness is not a mere manifestation of

material mind. Consciousness must not be identified with its mental

modes; an identification which leads to the difficulties in which

western metaphysics has so often found itself. It is the ultimate

Reality in which all modes whether subjective or objective exist.

 

The assertion that mind is in itself unconscious may seem a strange

statement to a Western reader who, if he does not identify mind and

consciousness, at any rate, regards the latter as an attribute or

function of mind. The point, however, is of such fundamental

importance for the understanding of Indian doctrine that it may be

further developed.

 

According to the Lokayata School of Indian Materialism, mind was

considered to be the result of the chemical combination of the four

forms of material substance, earth, water, fire and air, in organic

forms. According to the Purva-Mimamsa and the Nyaya-Vaisheshika, the

Self or Atma is in itself and that is by nature (Svabhavatah),

unconscious (Jada, Acidrupa): for Atma is said to be unconscious

(Acetana) in dreamless sleep (Sushupti); and consciousness arises as

a produced thing, by association of the Atma with the mind, senses

and body. The reader is referred to Pandit Chandra Kanta

Tarkalamkara's Bengali Lectures on Hindu Philosophy. At p. 105 he

cites Prabhakara Mimamsaka-carya, saying that Vaisheshika-Nyaya

supports the view. Sacetanashcittayogat todyogena vina jadah. " Atma

is conscious by union with knowledge (Jñana) which comes to it by

association with mind and body. Without it, it is unconscious. "

Atma, according to this Darshana, is that in which (Ashraya) Jñana

inheres. Kumarila Bhatta says Atma is partly Prakasha and partly

Aprakasha, (luminous and non-luminous) like a fire-fly. But this is

denied, as Atma is Niramsha (part-less). Knowledge thus arises from

the association of mind (Manas) with Atma, the senses (Indriya) with

Manas, and the senses with objects, that, is, worldly (Laukika)

knowledge, which is the true -- that is, non-illusive --

apprehension of objects. Jñana in the spiritual Vedantic sense of

Mayavada is Paramatma, or pure Consciousness realized. The former

Jñana, in that it arises without effort on the presentation of the

objects is not action (Kriya), and differs from the forms of mental

action (Manasi Kriya), such as will (Iccha), contemplation and the

like. Atma manasa samyujyate, mana indriyena, indriyam arthena, tato

bhavati jñanam. Both these theories are refuted by Samkhya and

Advaitavada Vedanta (as interpreted by Shamkara, to which unless

otherwise stated I refer) which affirm that the very nature of Atma

is Consciousness (Cit), and all else, whether mind or matter, is

unconscious, though the former appears not to be so. The Jiva mind

is not itself conscious, but reflects consciousness, and therefore

appears to be conscious. Consciousness as such is eternal and

immutable; Mind is a creation and changeable. Consciousness as such

is unconditional. In the mind of the Jiva, Consciousness appears to

be conditioned by that Maya-Shakti which produces mind, and of which

Shakti, mind is a particular manifestation. Mind, however, is not

the resultant of the operation of the Bhuta -- that is, of gross

natural forces or motions -- but is, in Samhya and in Shakta monism,

an evolution which is logically prior to them.

 

The mode of exposition in which Consciousness is treated as being in

itself something apart from, though associated with, mind, is

profound; because, while it recognizes the intermingling of Spirit

and Matter in the embodied being (Jiva), it yet at the same time

clearly distinguishes them. It thus avoids the imputation of change

to Spirit (Atma). The latter is ever in Its own true nature

immutable. Mind is ever changing, subject to sensations, forming

ideas, making resolves, and so forth. Spirit in Itself is neither

affected nor acts. Manifold change takes place, through motion and

vibration in the unconscious Prakriti and Maya. Mind is one of the

results of such motion, as matter is another. Each of them is a form

of specific transformation of the one Principle whence

unconsciousness, whether real or apparent, arises. That, however,

mind appears to be conscious, the Mayavada Vedanta and Samkhya

admit. This is called Cidabhasa -- that is, the appearance of

something as Cit (Consciousness) which is not really Cit. This

appearance of Consciousness is due to the reflection of Cit upon it.

A piece of polished steel which lies in the sunshine may appear to

be self-luminous, when it is merely reflecting the sun, which is the

source of the light it appears to give out. Cit as such is immutable

and never evolves. What do evolve are the various forms of natural

forces produced by Prakriti or Maya. These two are, however,

conceived as being in association in such a way that the result of

such association is produced without Cit being really affected at

all. The classical illustration of the mode and effect of such

association is given in the Samkhyan aphorism, " Just like the jewel

and the flower " -- Kusumavacca manih (Samkhya-Pravacana-Sutra, II,

35) -- that is, when a scarlet hibiscus flower is placed in

contiguity to a crystal, the latter appears to be red, though it

still in fact retains its pure transparency, as is seen when the

flower is removed. On the other hand, the flower as reflected in the

crystal takes on a shining, transparent aspect which its opaque

surface does not really possess. In the same way Consciousness

appears to be conditioned by the force of unconsciousness in the

Jiva, but is really not so. " Changeless Cit-Shakti does not move

towards anything, yet seems to do so " (Samkhya-pravacana-Sutra).

And, on the other hand, Mind as one of such unconscious forces takes

on the semblance of Consciousness, though this is borrowed from Cit

and is not its own natural quality. This association of Unconscious

Force with Consciousness has a two-fold result, both obscuring and

revealing. It obscures, in so far as, and so long as it is in

operation, it prevents the realization of pure Consciousness (Cit).

When mind is absorbed pure Consciousness shines forth. In this

sense, this Power or Maya is spoken of as a Veil. In another sense,

it reveals -- that is, it manifests -- the world, which does not

exist except through the instrumentality of Maya which the world is.

Prakriti and Maya produce both Mind and Matter; on the former of

which Consciousness is reflected (Cidabhasa). The human mind, then,

appears to be conscious, but of its own nature and inherent quality

is not so. The objective world of matter is, or appears to be, an

unconscious reality. These alternatives are necessary, because, in

Samkhya, unconsciousness is a reality; in Vedanta, an appearance. In

the Shakta Tantra, apparent unconsciousness is an aspect (Avidya

Shakti) of Conscious Shakti. Consciousness is according to Advaita

Vedanta, the true existence of both, illumining the one, hidden in

the other.

 

The internal instrument (Antahkarana) or Mind is one only, but is

given different names -- Buddhi, Ahamkara, Manas -- to denote the

diversity of its functions. From the second of these issue the

senses (Indriya) and their objects, the sensibles (Mahabhuta), or

gross matter with the super-sensibles (Tanmatra) as its intermediate

cause. All these proceed from Prakriti and Maya.

 

Therefore, according to these systems, Consciousness is Cit, and

Mind or Antahkarana is a transformation of Prakriti and Maya

respectively. In itself, Mind is an unconscious specialized organ

developed out of the Primordial Energy, Mulaprakriti or Maya. It is

thus, not in itself, consciousness but a special manifestation of

conscious existence, borrowing its consciousness from the Cit which

is reflected on it. Shakta doctrine states the same matter in a

different form. Consciousness at rest is Cit-Svarupa. Consciousness

in movement is Cit-Shakti associated with Maya-Shakti. The Shiva-

Shakti Svarupa is consciousness (Cit, Cidrupini). There is no

independent Prakriti as Samkhya holds, nor an unconscious Maya which

is not Brahman and yet not separate from Brahman, as Shamkara

teaches. What there is, is Maya-Shakti; that is Consciousness

(Shakti is in itself such) veiling, as the Mother, Herself to

herself as Her creation, the Jiva. There is no need then for

Cidabhasa. For mind is consciousness veiling itself in the forms or

limitation of apparent unconsciousness.

 

This is an attractive exposition of the matter because in the

universe consciousness and unconsciousness are mingled, and the

abolition of unconscious Maya satisfies the desire for unity. In all

these cases, however, mind and matter represent either the real or

apparent unconscious aspect of things. If man's consciousness is, or

appears to be, limited, such limitation must be due to some

principle without, or attached to, or inherent in consciousness;

which in some sense or other must ex hypothesi be really, or

apparently different from the consciousness, which it seems to

affect or actually affects. In all these systems, mind and matter

equally derive from a common finitizing principle which actually or

apparently limits the Infinite Consciousness. In all three, there

is, beyond manifestation, Consciousness or Cit, which in

manifestation appears as a parallelism of mind and matter; the

substratum of which from a monistic standpoint is Cit.

 

Herbert Spencer, however, as many other Western Philosophers do,

differs from the Vedanta in holding that the noumenon of these

phenomena is not Consciousness, for the latter is by them considered

to be by its very nature conditioned and concrete. This noumenon is

therefore declared to be unknown and unknowable. But Force as such

is blind, and can only act as it has been predetermined. We discover

consciousness in the universe. The cause must, therefore, it is

argued, be Consciousness. It is but reasonable to hold that, if the

first cause be of the nature of either Consciousness or Matter, and

not of both, it must be of the nature of the former, and not of the

latter. An unconscious object may wall be conceived to modify

Consciousness, but not to produce Consciousness out of its Self.

According to Indian Realism, the Paramanus are the material

(Upadana) cause (Karana), and Ishvara the instrumental (Nimitta)

cause, for He makes them combine. According to Vedanta, Matter is

really nothing but a determined modification of knowledge in the

Ishvara Consciousness, itself unaffected by such determination.

Ishvara is thus both the material and instrumental cause. A thing

can only dissolve into its own cause. The agency (Kartritva) of

Ishvara is in Mayavada attributed (Aupadika) only.

 

The Vedanta, therefore, in its Shakta presentment says, that the

Noumenon is knowable and known, for it is the inner Self, which is

not an unconscious principle but Being-Consciousness, which, as

above explained, is not conditioned or concrete, but is the absolute

Self-identity. Nothing can be more intimately known than the Self.

The objective side of knowledge is conditioned because of the nature

of its organs which, whether mental or material, are conditioned.

Sensation, perception, conception, intuition are but different modes

in which the one Consciousness manifests itself, the differences

being determined by the variety of condition and form of the

different organs of knowledge through which consciousness manifests.

There is thus a great difference between the Agnostic and the

Vedantist. The former, as for instance Herbert Spencer, says that

the Absolute cannot be known because nothing can be predicated of

it. Whereas the Vedantin when he says, that It cannot be known (in

the ordinary sense) means that this is because It is knowledge

itself. Our ordinary experience does not know a consciousness of

pure being without difference. But, though it cannot be pictured, it

may be apprehended. It cannot be thought because it is Pure

Knowledge itself. It is that state which is realized only in Samadhi

but is apprehended indirectly as the Unity which underlies and

sustains all forms of changing finite experience.

 

What, lastly, is Life? The underlying substance is Being-in-itself.

Life is a manifestation of such Being. If by Life we understand life

in form, then the ultimate substance is not that; for it is

formless. But in a supreme sense it is Life; for it is Eternal Life

whence all life in form proceeds. It is not dead Being. If it were

It could not produce Life. The Great Mother is Life; both the life

of Her children and the Life of their lives. Nor does She produce

what is without life or potency of life. What is in the cause is in

the effect. Some Western Scientists have spoken of the " Origin of

Life, " and have sought to find it. It is a futile quest, for Life as

such has no origin though life in form has. We cannot discover the

beginnings of that which is essentially eternal. The question is

vitiated by the false assumption that there is anything dead in the

sense that it is wholly devoid of Life or potency of Life. There is

no such thing. The whole world is a living manifestation of the

source of all life which is Absolute Being. It is sometimes made a

reproach against Hinduism that it knows not a " living God " . What is

meant I cannot say. For it is certain that it does not worship

a " dead God, " whatever such may be. Perhaps by " living " is

meant " Personal " . If so, the charge is again ill-founded. Ishvara

and Ishvari are Rulers in whom all personalities and personality

itself are. But in their ground they are beyond all manifestation,

that is limitation which personality, as we understand it, involves.

Man, the animal and the plant alone, it is true, exhibit certain

phenomena which are commonly called vital. What exhibits such

phenomena, we have commonly called " living " . But it does not follow

that what does not exhibit the phenomena which belong to our

definition of life is itself altogether " dead " . We may have to

revise our definition, as in fact we are commencing to do. Until

recently it was commonly assumed that matter was of two kinds:

inorganic or " dead, " and organic or " living " . The mineral

was " dead, " the vegetable, animal and man were endowed with " life " .

But these living forms are compounded of so-called " dead " matter.

How then, is it possible that there is life in the organic kingdom

the parts of which are ultimately compounded of " dead " matter? This

necessarily started the futile quest for the " origin of life " . Life

can only come from life: not from death. The greatest errors arise

from the making of false partitions in nature which do not exist. We

make these imaginary partitions and then vainly attempt to surmount

them. There are no absolute partitions or gulfs. All is continuous,

even if we cannot at present establish in each case the connection.

That there should be such gulfs is unthinkable to any one who has

even in small degree grasped the notion of the unity of things.

There is a complete connected chain in the hierarchy of existence,

from the lowest forms of apparently inert (but now held to be

moving) matter, through the vegetable, animal, human worlds; and

then through such Devatas as are super-human intelligences up to the

Brahman. From the latter to a blade of grass (says the Shastra) all

are one.

 

Western scientific notions have, however, in recent years undergone

a radical evolution as regards the underlying unity of substance,

destructive of the hitherto accepted notions of the discontinuity of

matter and its organization. The division of nature into the animal,

vegetable and mineral kingdoms is still regarded as of practical

use; but it is now recognized that no such clear line of demarcation

exists between them as has hitherto been supposed in the West.

Between each of nature's types there are said to be innumerable

transitions. The notion of inert, " dead " matter, the result of

superficial observation, has given way upon the revelation of the

activities at work under this apparent inertia -- forces which

endow " brute substance " with many of the characteristics of living

beings. It is no longer possible to dogmatically affirm where the

inorganic kingdom ends and " life " begins. It must be rather asserted

that many phenomena, hitherto considered characteristic of " life, "

belong to " inert matter, " composed of molecules and atoms,

as " animated matter " is of cells and micellae. It has been found

that so-called " inert matter, " possesses an extraordinary power of

organization, and is not only capable of apparently imitating the

forms of " living " matter, but presents in a certain degree the same

functions and properties.

 

Sentiency is a characteristic of all forms of Existence.

Physiologists measure the sensibility of a being by the degree of

excitement necessary to produce in it a reaction. Of this it has

been said (Le Bon Evolution of Matter, 250), " This sensibility of

matter, so contrary to what popular observation seems to indicate,

is becoming more and more familiar to physicists. This is why such

an expression as the " life of matter, " utterly meaningless twenty-

five years ago has come into common use. The study of mere matter

yields ever-increasing proofs that it has properties which were

formerly deemed the exclusive appanage of living beings. " Life

exists throughout, but manifests in various ways. The arbitrary

division which has been drawn between " dead " and " living " matter has

no existence in fact, and speculations as to the origin of " life "

are vitiated by the assumption that there is anything which exists

without it, however much its presence may be veiled from us. Western

science would thus appear to be moving to the conclusion that there

is no " dead " matter, but that life exists everywhere, not merely in

that in which, as in " organic matter, " it is to us plainly and

clearly expressed, but also in the ultimate " inorganic " atoms of

which it is composed -- atoms which, in fact, have their

organizations as have the beings which they go to build -- and that

all, to the minutest particle, is vibrating with unending Energy

(Tejas). (See Author's World as Power). Manifested life is Prana, a

form of Kriya Shakti in, and evolved from, the Linga Sharira, itself

born of Prakriti. Prana or the vital principle has been well defined

(Hindu Realism, by J. C. Chatterji) to be, " the special relation of

the Atma with a certain form of matter which, by this relation, the

Atma organizes and builds up as a means of having experience. " This

special relation constitutes the individual Prana in the individual

body. Just as in the West, " life " is a term commonly used of

organized body only, so also is the term Prana used in the East. It

is the technical name given to the phenomena, called " vital, "

exhibited by such bodies, the source of which is the Brahman Itself.

The individual Prana is limited to the particular body which it

vitalizes and is a manifestation in all breathing creatures (Prani),

of the creative and sustaining activity of the Brahman. All beings

exist so long as the Prana is in the body. It is as the Kaushitaki

Upanishad says, " the life duration of all " . The cosmic all-pervading

Prana is the collectivity of all Pranas and is the Brahman as the

source of the individual Prana. On the physical plane, Prana

manifests as breath through inspiration, " Sa " or Shakti and

expiration, " Ha " or Shiva. So the Niruttara Tantra (Chapter IV)

says: " By Hamkara it goes out and by Sakara it comes in again. A

Jiva always recites the Supreme Mantra Hamsa. "

 

Hang-karena bahir yati sah-karena vishet punah

 

Hangesti paramam mantram jivo japati sarvada.

 

Breathing is itself the Ajapa Mantra. Prana is thus Shakti as the

universally pervading source of life, organizing itself as matter

into what we call living forms. When the Prana goes, the organism

which it holds together disintegrates. Nevertheless each of the

atoms which remain has a life of its own, existing as such

separately from the life of the organized body of which they formed

a part; just as each of the cells of the living body has a life of

its own. The gross outer body is heterogeneous (Paricchinna) or made

up of distinct or well-defined parts. But the Pranamaya Self which

lies within the Annamaya Self is a homogeneous undivided whole

(Sadharana) permeating the whole physical body (Sarvapindavyapin).

It is not cut off into distinct regions (Asadharana) as is the Pinda

or mircrocosmic physical body. Unlike the latter it has no

specialized organs each discharging a specific function. It is a

homogeneous unity (Sadharana), present in every part of the body

which it ensouls as its inner vital Self. Vayu, as universal vital

activity, on entry into each body, manifests itself in ten different

ways. It is the one Prana, though different names are given

according to its functions, of which the five chief are

Appropriation (Prana), Rejection (Apana), Assimilation (Samana),

Distribution (Vyana), and that vital function (Udana) which is

connected with self-expression in speech. Prana in its general sense

represents the involuntary reflex action of the organism; just as

the Indriyas are one aspect of its voluntary activity. Breathing is

a manifestation of the Cosmic Rhythm to which the whole universe

moves and according to which it appears and disappears. The life of

Brahma is the duration of the outgoing breath (Nisvasa) of Kala.

 

The Samkhya rejecting the Lokayata notion that Vayu is a mere

biomechanical force or mechanical motion resulting from such a Vayu,

holds, on the principle of the economy of categories, that life is a

resultant of the various concurrent activities of other principles

or forces in the organism. This, again, the Vedantists deny, holding

that it is a separate, independent principle and material form

assumed through Maya by the one Consciousness. In either case, it is

an unconscious force, since everything which is not the Atma or

Purusha, is, according to Mayavada and Samkhya, unconscious, or, in

Western parlance, material (Jada).

 

If we apply Shakta principles, then Prana is a name of the general

Shakti displaying itself in the organization of matter and the vital

phenomena which bodies, when organized, exhibit. Manifest Shakti is

vitality, which is a limited concrete display in forms of Her own

formless Being or Sat. All Shakti is Jñana, Iccha, Kriya, and in its

form as Prakriti, the Gunas Sattva, Rajas, Tamas. She desires,

impelled by Her nature (Iccha), to build up forms; sees how it

should be done (Jñana); and then does it (Kriya). The most Tamasic

form of Kriya is the apparently mechanical energy displayed in

material bodies. But this is itself the product of Her Activity and

not the cause of it. Ultimately then Prana, like everything else, is

consciousness which, as Shakti, limits Itself in form which it first

creates and sustains; then builds up into other more elaborate forms

and again sustains until their life-period is run. All creation and

maintenance is a limiting power, with the appearance of

unconsciousness, in so far as, and to the degree that, it confines

the boundless Being-Consciousness-Bliss; yet that Power is nothing

but Consciousness negating and limiting itself. The Great Mother

(Sri Mata) limits Her infinite being in and as the universe and

maintains it. In so far as the form and its life is a limited thing,

it is apparently unconscious, for consciousness is thereby limited.

At each moment there is creation, but we call the first appearance

creation (Srishti), and its continuance, through the agency of

Prana, maintenance (Sthiti). But both that which is apparently

limited and that whose operation has that effect is Being-

Consciousness. Prana Vayu is the self-begotten but limited

manifestation of the eternal Life. It is called Vayu (Va -- to move)

because it courses throughout the whole universe. Invisible in

itself yet its operations are manifest. For it determines the birth,

growth, and decay of all animated organisms and as such receives the

homage of all created Being. For it is the Pranarupi Atma, the Prana

Shakti.

 

For those by whom inorganic matter was considered to be " dead " or

lifeless, it followed that it could have no Feeling-Consciousness,

since the latter was deemed to be an attribute of life. Further,

consciousness was denied because it was, and is indeed now, commonly

assumed that every conscious experience pre-supposes a subject,

conscious of being such, attending to an object. As Professor P.

Mukhyopadhyaya (Approaches to Truth) has well pointed out,

consciousness was identified with intelligence or understanding --

that is with directed consciousness; so that where no direction or

form is discernible, Western thinkers have been apt to imagine that

consciousness as such has also ceased. To their pragmatic eye

consciousness is always particular having a particular direction and

form.

 

According, however, to Indian views, there are three states of

consciousness: (1) a supramental supreme consciousness dissociated

from mind. This is the Paramatma Cit which is the basis of all

existence, whether organic or inorganic, and of thought; of which

the Shruti says, " know that which does not think by the mind and by

which the mind itself is thought. " These are then two main

manifested states of consciousness: (2) consciousness associated

with mind in organic matter working through its vehicles of mind and

matter; (3) consciousness associated with and almost entirely veiled

by inorganic gross matter (Bhuta) only; such as the muffled

consciousness, evidenced by its response to external stimuli, as

shown in the experiments with which Sir Jagadish Bose's name is

associated. Where are we to draw the lowest limit of sensation; and

if a limit be assigned, why there? As Dr. Ernst Mach has pointed out

(Analysis of Sensations, 243) the question is natural enough if we

start from the commonly current physical conception. It is, of

course, not asserted that inorganic matter is conscious to itself in

the way that the higher organized life is. The response, however,

which it makes to stimuli is evidence that consciousness is there,

though it lies heavily veiled in and imprisoned by it. Inorganic

matter displays it in the form of that seed or rudiment of sentiency

which enlarging into the simple pulses of feeling of the lowest

degrees of organized life, at length emerges in the developed self-

conscious sensations of human life. Owing to imperfect scientific

knowledge, the first of these aspects was not in antiquity capable

of physical proof in the same way or to the same extent, as Modern

Science with its delicate instruments have made possible. Starting,

however, from the revealed and intuitionally held truth that all was

Brahman, the conclusion necessarily followed. All Bhuta is composed

of the three Gunas or factors of Prakriti or the psycho-physical

potentials. It is the Sattva or Principle of Presentation of

Consciousness in gross matter (almost entirely suppressed by Tamas

or the Principle of Veiling of Consciousness though it be) which

manifests the phenomena of sensibility observed in matter. In short,

nature, it has been well said, knows no sharp boundaries or yawning

gulfs, though we may ignore the subtle connecting links between

things. There is no break in continuity. Being and Consciousness are

co-extensive. Consciousness is not limited to those centers in the

Ether of consciousness which are called organized bodies. But just

as life is differently expressed in the mineral and in man, so is

Consciousness which many have been apt to think exists in the

developed animal and even in man only.

 

Consciousness (Cit-Shakti) exists in all the hierarchy of Being, and

is, in fact, Being. It is, however, in all bodies veiled by its

power or Maya-Shakti which is composed of the three Gunas. In

inorganic matter, owing to the predominance of Tamas, Consciousness

is so greatly veiled and the life force is so restrained that we get

the appearance of insensibility, inertia and mere mechanical energy.

In organized bodies, the action of Tamas is gradually lessened, so

that the members of the universal hierarchy become more and more

Sattvik as they ascend in the scale of evolution. Consciousness

itself does not change. It remains the same throughout. What does

change is, its wrappings, unconscious or apparently so, as they may

alternatively be called. This wrapping is Maya and Prakriti with

their Gunas. The figure of " wrapping " is apt to illustrate the

presentment of Samkhya and Mayavada. From the Shakta aspect we may

compare the process to one in which it is assumed that in one aspect

there is an unchanging light, in another it is either turned up or

turned down as the case may be. In gross matter the light is so

turned down that it is not ordinarily perceptible and even delicate

scientific experiment may give rise to contending assertions. When

the veiling by Tamas is lessened in organic life, and the Jiva is

thus less bound in matter, the same Consciousness (for there is no

other) which previously manifested as, what seems to us, a mere

mechanical reaction, manifests in its freer environment in that

sensation which we associate with consciousness as popularly

understood. Shakti, who ever negates Herself as Maya-Shakti, more

and more reveals Herself as Cit-Shakti. There is thus a progressive

release of Consciousness from the bonds of matter, until it attains

complete freedom or liberation (Moksha) when the Atma is Itself

(Atma Svarupi) or Pure Consciousness. At this point, the same

Shakti, who had operated as Maya, is Herself Consciousness

(Cidrupini).

 

According to the Hindu books, plants have a sort of dormant

Consciousness, and are capable of pleasure and pain. Cakrapani says

in the Bhanumati that the Consciousness of plants is a kind of

stupefied, darkened, or comatose Consciousness. Udayana also says

that plants have a dormant Consciousness which is very dull. The

differences between plant and animal life have always been regarded

by the Hindus as being one not of kind, but of degree. And this

principle may be applied throughout. Life and Consciousness is not a

product of evolution. The latter merely manifests it. Manu speaks of

plants as being creatures enveloped by darkness caused by past deeds

having, however, an internal Consciousness and a capacity for

pleasure and pain. And, in the Mahabharata, Bhrigu says to

Bharadhvaja that plants possess the various senses, for they are

affected by heat, sounds, vision (whereby, for instance, the creeper

pursues its path to the light), odors and the water which they

taste. I may refer also to such stories as that of the

Yamalarjunavriksha of the Srimad Bhagavata mentioned in Professor

Brajendra Nath Seal's learned work, The Positive Sciences of the

Ancient Hindus, and Professor S. N. Das Gupta's scholarly paper on

Parinama to which I am indebted for these instances.

 

Man is said to have passed through all the lower states of

Consciousness and is capable of reaching the highest through Yoga.

The Jiva attains birth as man after having been, it is said, born 84

lakhs (84,000,000) of times as plants (Vrikshadi), aquatic animals

(Jalayoni), insects and the like (Krimi), birds (Pakshi), beasts

(Pashvadi), and monkeys (Vanar). He then is born 2 lakhs of times

(2,000,000) in the inferior species of humanity, and then gradually

attains a better and better birth until he is liberated from all the

bonds of matter. The exact number of each kind of birth is in 20, 9,

11, 10, 30 and 4 lakhs, respectively -- 84 lakhs. As pointed out by

Mahamahopadhyaya Chandrakanta Tarkalankara Lectures on " Hindu

Philosophy " (5th year, p. 227, Lecture VII), pre-appearance in

monkey form is not a Western theory only. The Consciousness which

manifests in him is not altogether a new creation, but an unfolding

of that which has ever existed in the elements of which he is

composed, and in the Vegetable and Animal through which prior to his

human birth he has passed. In him, however, matter is so re-arranged

and organized as to permit of the fullest rnanifestation which has

hitherto existed of the underlying Cit. Man's is the birth

so " difficult of attainment " (Durlabha). This is an oft-repeated

statement of Shastra in order that he should avail himself of the

opportunities which Evolution has brought him. If he does not, he

falls back, and may do so without limit, into gross matter again,

passing intermediately through the Hells of suffering. Western

writers in general, describe such a descent as unscientific. How,

they ask, can a man's Consciousness reside in an animal or plant'?

The correct answer (whatever be popular belief) is that it does not.

When man sinks again into an animal he ceases to be a man. He does

not continue to be both man and animal. His consciousness is an

animal consciousness and not a human consciousness. It is a,

childish view which regards such a case as being the imprisonment of

a man in an animal body. If he can go up he can also go down. The

soul or subtle body is not a fixed but an evolving thing. Only

Spirit (Cit) is eternal and unchanged. In man, the revealing

constituent of Prakriti Shakti (Sattvaguna) commences to more fully

develop, and his consciousness is fully aware of the objective world

and his own Ego, and displays itself in all those functions of it

which are called his faculties. We here reach the world of ideas,

but these are a superstructure on consciousness and not its

foundation or basis. Man's consciousness is still, however, veiled

by Maya-Shakti. With the greater predominance of Sattvaguna in man,

consciousness becomes more and more divine, until he is altogether

freed of the bonds of Maya, and the Jiva Consciousness expands into

the pure Brahman Consciousness. Thus life and Consciousness exist

throughout. All is living. All is Consciousness. In the world of

gross matter they seem to disappear, being almost suppressed by the

veil of Maya-Sakti's Tamoguna. As however ascent is made, they are

less and less veiled, and True Consciousness is at length realized

in Samadhi and Moksha. Cit-Shakti and Maya-Shakti exist inseparable

throughout the whole universe. There is therefore according to the

principles of the Shakta Shastra not a particle of matter which is

without life and consciousness variously displaced or concealed

though they be. Manifest Maya-Shakti is the universe in which Cit-

Shakti is the changeless Spirit. Unmanifest Maya-Shakti is

Consciousness (Cidrupini). There are many persons who think that

they have disposed of a doctrine when they have given it an

opprobrious, or what they think to be an opprobrious, name. And so

they dub all this " Animism, " which the reader of Census Reports

associates with primitive and savage tribes. There are some people

who are frightened by names. It is not names but facts which should

touch us. Certainly " Animism " is in some respects an incorrect and

childlike way of putting the matter. It is, however, an imperfect

presentment of a central truth which has been held by some of the

profoundest thinkers in the world, even in an age in which we are

apt to think to be superior to all others. Primitive man in his

simplicity made the discovery of several such truths. And so it has

been well said that the simple savage and the child who regard all

existence as akin to their own, living and feeling like himself,

have, notwithstanding their errors, more truly felt the pulse of

being, than the civilized man of culture. How essentially stupid

some of the latter can be needs no proof. For the process of

civilization being one of abstraction, they are less removed from

the concrete fact than he is. Hence their errors which seem the more

contorted due to the mass of useless verbiage in which they are

expressed. And yet, as extremes meet, so having passed through our

present condition, we may regain the truths perceived by the simple,

not only through formal worship but by that which consists of the

pursuit of all knowledge and science, when once the husk of all

material thinking is cast aside. For him, who sees the Mother in all

things, all scientific research is wonder and worship. So Gratry

said that the calculus of Newton and Leibnitz was a supralogical

procedure, and that geometric induction is essentially a process of

prayer, by which he evidently meant an appeal from the finite mind

to the Infinite, for light on finite concerns. The seeker looks upon

not mere mechanical movements of so-called " dead " matter, but the

wondrous play of Her Whose form all matter is. As She thus reveals

Herself She induces in him a passionate exaltation and that sense of

security which is only gained as approach is made to the Central

Heart of things. For, as the Upanishad says, " He only fears who sees

duality " . Some day may be, when one who unites in himself the

scientific ardor of the West and the all-embracing religious feeling

of India will create another and a modern Candi, with its multiple

salutations to the sovereign World-Mother (Namastasyai namo namah).

Such an one, seeing the changing marvels of Her world-play, will

exclaim with the Yoginihridaya Tantra, " I salute Her the Samvid Kala

who shines in the form of Space, Time and all Objects therein. "

 

Deshakalapadarthatma yad yad vastu yatha yatha,

 

Tattadrupena ya bhati tam shraye samvidam kalam

 

This is, however, not mere Nature-worship as it is generally

understood in the West, or the worship of Force as Keshub Chunder

Sen took the Shakta doctrine to be. All things exist in the Supreme

who in Itself infinitely transcends all finite forms. It is the

worship of God as the Mother-Creatrix who manifests in the form of

all things which are, as it were, but an atom of dust on the Feet of

Her who is Infinite Being (Sat), Experience (Cit), Love (Ananda) and

Power (Shakti). As Philibert Commerson said: " La vie d'un

naturaliste est, je L'ose dire, une adoration presque perpétuelle. "

 

I have in my paper Shakti and Maya (here reprinted from the Indian

Philosophical Review, 1918, No. 2) contrasted the three different

concepts of the Primal Energy as Prakriti, Maya and Shakti of

Samkhya, Vedanta and the Agama respectively. I will not, therefore,

repeat myself but will only summarize conclusions here. In the first

place, there are features common to all three concepts. Hitherto,

greater pains have been taken to show the differences between the

Darshanas than to co-ordinate them systematically, by regarding

their points of agreement or as regard apparent disagreement, their

viewpoint. It has been said that Truth cannot be found in such a

country as India, in which, there are six systems of philosophy

disputing with one another, and where even in one system alone,

there is a conflict between Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita and Advaita. One

might suppose from such a criticism that all in Europe were of one

mind, or that al least the Christian Community was agreed, instead

of being split up, as it is, into hundreds of sects. An American

humorist observed with truth that there was a good deal of human

nature in man everywhere.

 

Of course there is difference which, as the Radd-ul-Muhtar says, is

also the gift of God. This is not to deny that Truth is only one. It

is merely to recognize that whilst Truth is one, the nature and

capacities of those who seek it, or claim to possess it, vary. To

use a common metaphor, the same white light which passes through

varicolored glass takes on its various colors. All cannot apprehend

the truth to the same extent or in the same way. Hence the sensible

Indian doctrine of competency or Adhikara. In the Christian Gospel

it is also said, " Throw not your pearls before swine lest they

trample upon them and then rend you. " What can be given to any man

is only what he can receive.

 

The Six Philosophies represent differing standards according to the

manner and to the extent to which the one Truth may be apprehended.

Each standard goes a step beyond the last, sharing, however, with it

certain notions in common. As regards the present matter, all these

systems start with the fact that there is Spirit and Mind, Matter,

Consciousness and Unconsciousness, apparent or real. Samkhya,

Vedanta and the Shakta Agama called the first Purusha, Brahman,

Shiva; and the second Prakriti, Maya, Shakti respectively. All agree

that it is from the association together of these two Principles

that the universe arises and that such association is the universe.

All, again, agree that one Principle, namely, the first, is

infinite, formless consciousness, and the second is a finitizing

principle which makes forms. Thirdly, all regard this last as a

veiling principle, that is, one which veils consciousness; and hold

that it is eternal, all-pervading, existing now as seed (Mula-

prakriti, Avyakta) and now as fruit (Vikriti), composed of the Gunas

Sattva, Rajas and Tamas (Principles of presentation of

Consciousness, Action, and Veiling of Consciousness respectively);

unperceivable except through its effects. In all, it is the Natural

Principle, the material cause of the material universe.

 

The word Prakriti has been said to be derived from the root " Kri, "

and the affix " Ktin, " which is added to express Bhava or the

abstract idea, and sometimes the Karma or object of the action,

corresponding with the Greek affix Sis. Ktin inflected in the

nominative becomes tis. Prakriti, therefore, has been said to

correspond with Phusis (Nature) of the Greeks. In all three systems,

therefore, it is, as the " natural, " contrasted with the " spiritual "

aspect of things.

 

The first main point of difference is between Samkhya, on the one

hand, and the Advaita Vedanta, whether as interpreted by Shamkara or

taught by the Shaiva-Shakta Tantra on the other. Classical Samkhya

is a dualistic system, whereas the other two are non-dualistic. The

classical Samkhya posits a plurality of Atmans representing the

formless consciousness, with one unconscious Prakriti which is

formative activity. Prakriti is thus a real independent principle.

Vedantic monism does not altogether discard these two principles,

but says that they cannot exist as two independent Realities. There

is only one Brahman. The two categories of Samkhya, Purusha and

Prakriti are reduced to one Reality, the Brahman; otherwise the

Vakya, " All this is verily Brahman " (Sarvam khalvidam Brahma), is

falsified.

 

But how is this effected? It is on this point that Mayavada of

Shamkara and the Advaita of Shaiva-Shakta Agama differ. Both systems

agree that Brahman has two aspects in one of which It is

transcendent and in another creative and immanent. According to

Shamkara, Brahman is in one aspect Ishvara associated with, and in

another one dissociated from Maya which, in his system, occupies the

place of the Samkhyan Prakriti, to which it is (save as to reality

and independence) similar. What is Maya P It is not a real

independent Principle like the Samkhyan Prakriti. Then is it Brahman

or not'? According to Shamkara, it is an unthinkable, alogical,

unexplainable (Anirvacantia) mystery. It is an eternal falsity

(Mithyabhuta sanatani), owing what false appearance of reality it

possesses to the Brahman, with which in one aspect it is associated.

It is not real for there is only one such. It cannot, however, be

said to be unreal for it is the cause of and is empirical

experience. It is something which is neither real (Sat) nor unreal

(Asat), nor partly real and partly unreal (Sadasat), and which

though not forming part of Brahman, and therefore not Brahman, is

yet, though not a second reality, inseparably associated and

sheltering with (Maya Brahmashrita) Brahman in Its Ishvara aspect.

Like the Samkhyan Prakriti, Maya (whatever it be) is in the nature

of an unconscious principle. The universe appears by the reflection

of consciousness (Purusha, Brahman) on unconsciousness (Prakriti,

Maya). In this way the unconscious is made to appear conscious. This

is Cidabhasa.

 

Maya is illusive and so is Shamkara's definition of it. Further,

though Maya is not a second reality, but a mysterious something of

which neither reality nor unreality can be affirmed, the fact of

positing it at all in this form gives to Shamkara's doctrine a tinge

of dualism from which the Shakta doctrine is free. For, it is to be

noted that notwithstanding that Maya is a falsity, it is not,

according to Shamkara, a mere negation or want of something

(Abhava), but a positive entity (Bhavarupam ajñanam), that is in the

nature of a Power which veils (Acchadaka) consciousness, as Prakriti

does in the case of Purusha. Shamkara's system, on the other hand,

has this advantage from a monistic standpoint, that whilst he, like

the Shakta, posits the doctrine of aspects saying that in one aspect

the Brahman is associated with Maya (Ishvara), and in another it is

not (Parabrahman; yet in neither aspect does his Brahman change.

Whereas, according to Shakta doctrine, Shiva does, in one aspect,

that is as Shakti, change.

 

Whilst then Shamkara's teaching is consistent with the

changelessness of Brahman, he is not so successful in establishing

the saying,. " All this is Brahman " . The position is reversed as

regards Shaiva-Shakta Darshana which puts forth its doctrine of Maya-

Shakti with greater simplicity. Shakta doctrine takes the

saying, " All this is Brahman " (the realization of which, as the

Mahanirvana Tantra states, is the aim and end of Kulacara) in its

literal sense. " This " is the universe. Then the universe is Brahman.

But Brahman is Consciousness. Then the universe is really That. But

in what way P Shamkara says that what we sense with our senses is

Maya, which is practically something, but in a real sense nothing;

which yet appears to be something because it is associated with the

Brahman which alone is Real. Its appearance of independent reality

is thus borrowed and is in this sense said to be " illusory " . When,

therefore, we say, " All this is Brahman " -- according to Shamkara,

this means that what is at the back of that which we see is Brahman;

the rest or appearance is Maya. Again, according to Shamkara, man is

spirit (Atma) vestured in the Mayik falsities of mind and matter.

He, accordingly, can then only establish the unity of Ishvara and

Jiva by eliminating from the first Maya, and from the second Avidya;

when Brahman is left as a common denominator. The Shakta, however,

eliminates nothing. For him, in the strictest sense, " All is

Brahman. " For him, man's Spirit (Atma) is Shiva. His mind and body

are Shakti. But Shiva and Shakti are one. Paramatma is Shiva-Shakti

in undistinguishable union. Jivatma is Shiva-Shakti in that state in

which the Self is distinguished from the not-Self. Man, therefore,

according to the Shakta Tantra, is not Spirit seemingly clothed by a

non-Brahman falsity, but Spirit covering Itself with its own power

or Maya-Shakti. All is Shakti whether as Cit-Shakti or Maya-Shakti.

When, therefore, the Shakta Tantric says, " All this is Brahman, " he

means it literally. " This, " here means Brahman as Shakti, as Maya-

Shakti, and Cit-Shakti.

 

Shiva as Parabrahman is Shiva-Shakti in that state when Shakti is

not operating and in which She is Herself, that is, pure

consciousness (Cidrupini). Shiva as Ishvara is Shiva-Shakti in that

state in which Shiva, associated with Maya-Shakti, is the source of

movement and change; Shiva-Shakti as Jiva is the state produced by

such action which is subject to Maya, from which Ishvara, the Mayin

is free. The creative Shakti is therefore changeless Cit-Shakti and

changing Maya-Shakti. Yet the One Shakti must never be conceived as

existing apart from, or without the other, for they are only twin

aspects of the fundamental Substance (Paravastu). Vimarsha-Shakti

(See Kamakalavilasa, 3rd Edition, 1961, Verses 1-4) as Maya-Shakti

produces the forms in which Spirit as Cit-Shakti inheres and which

it illuminates (Prakasha). But Maya-Shakti is not unconscious. How

can it be; for it is Shakti and one with Cit-Shakti. All Shakti is

and must be Consciousness. There is no unconscious Maya which is not

Brahman and yet not separate from Brahman. Brahman alone is and

exists, whether as Cit or as manifestation of Maya. All is

Consciousness, as the so-called " New Thought " of the West also

affirms.

 

But surely, it will be said, there is an unconscious element in

things. How is this accounted for if there be no unconscious Maya?

It is conscious Shakti veiling Herself and so appearing as limited

consciousness. In other words, whilst Shamkara says mind and matter

are in themselves unconscious but appear to be conscious through

Cidabhasa, the Shakta Agama reverses the position, and says that

they are in themselves, that is in their ground, conscious, for they

are at base Cit; but they yet appear to be unconscious, or more

strictly limited consciousness, by the veiling power of

Consciousness Itself as Maya-Shakti. This being so, there is no need

for Cidabhasa which assumes, as it were, two things, the Brahman,

and unconscious Maya in which the former reflects itself. Though

some of the Shastras do speak of a reflection, Pratibimba is between

Shiva and Shakti. Brahman is Maya-Shakti in that aspect in which it

negates itself, for it is the function of Shakti to negate

(Nishedhavyapararupa shaktih), as it is said by Yoga-Raja or Yoga-

Muni (as he is also called) in his commentary on Abhinava Gupta's

Paramarthasara. In the Shakta Tantras, it is a common saying of

Shiva to Devi, " There is no difference between Me and Thee. " Whilst

Shamkara's Ishvara is associated with the unconscious Maya, the

Shaiva Shakta's Ishvara is never associated with anything but

Himself, that is as Maya-Shakti.

 

Whether this doctrine be accepted as the final solution of things or

not, it is both great and powerful. It is great because the whole

world is seen in glory according to the strictest monism as the

manifestation of Him and Her. The mind is not distracted and kept

from the realization of unity, by the notion of any unconscious Maya

which is not Brahman nor yet separate from It. Next, this doctrine

accommodates itself to Western scientific monism, so far as the

latter goes, adding to it however a religious and metaphysical

basis; infusing it with the spirit of devotion. It is powerful

because its standpoint is the 'here' and 'now,' and not the

transcendental Siddhi standpoint of which most men know nothing and

cannot, outside Samadhi, realize. It assumes the reality of the

world which to us is real. It allows the mind to work in its natural

channel. It does not ask it to deny what goes against the grain of

its constitution to deny. It is, again, powerful because we stand

firmly planted on a basis which is real and natural to us. From the

practical viewpoint, it does not ask man to eschew and flee from the

world in the spirit of asceticism; a course repugnant to a large

number of modern minds, not only because mere asceticism often

involves what it thinks to be a futile self-denial; but because that

mind is waking to the truth that all is one; that if so, to deny the

world is in a sense to deny an aspect of That which is both Being

and Becoming. It thinks also that whilst some natures are naturally

ascetic, to attempt ascetic treatment in the case of most is to

contort the natural being, and to intensify the very evils which

asceticism seeks to avoid. Not one man in many thousands has true

Vairagya or detachment from the world. Most are thoroughly even

glued to it. Again, there are many minds which are puzzled and

confused by Mayavada; and which, therefore, falsely interpret it,--

may be to their harm. These men, Mayavada, or rather their

misunderstanding of it, weakens or destroys. Their grip on

themselves and the world is in any case enfeebled. They become

intellectual and moral derelicts who are neither on the path of

power nor of renunciation, and who have neither the strength to

follow worldly life, nor to truly abandon it. It is not necessary,

however, to renounce when all is seen to be Her. And, when all is so

seen, then the spiritual illumination which transfuses all thoughts

and acts makes them noble and pure. It is impossible for a man, who

in whatever sense truly sees God in all things, to err. If he does

so, it is because his vision is not fully strong and pure; and to

this extent scope is afforded to error. But given perfect spiritual

eyesight then all " this " is pure. For, as the Greeks profoundly

said, " panta kathara tois katharois, " " To the pure all things are

pure. "

 

The Shakta doctrine is thus one which has not only grandeur but is

greatly pragmatic and of excelling worth. It has always been to me a

surprise that its value should not have been rightly appreciated. I

can only suppose that its neglect is due to the fact that is the

doctrine of the Shakta Tantras. That fact has been enough to warrant

its rejection, or at least a refusal to examine it. Like all

practical doctrines, it is also intensely positive. There are none

of those negations which weaken and which annoy those who, as the

vital Western mind does, feel themselves to be strong and living in

an atmosphere of might and power. For power is a glorious thing.

What is wanted is only the sense that all Power is of God and is

God, and that Bhava or feeling which interprets all thoughts and

acts and their objects in terms of the Divine, and which sees God in

and as all things. Those who truly do so will exercise power not

only without wrong, but with that compassion (Karuna) for all beings

which is so beautiful a feature of the Buddha of northern and

Tantrik Buddhism. For in them Shakti Herself has descended. This is

Shaktipata, as it is technically called in the Tantra Shastra; the

descent of Shakti which Western theology calls the grace of God. But

grace is truly not some exterior thing, though we may pictorially

think of it as 'streaming' from above below. Atma neither comes nor

goes. To be in grace is that state in which man commences to realize

himself as Shiva-Shakti. His power is, to use a Western

phrase, " converted " . It is turned from the husk of mere outwardness

and of limited self-seeking, to that inner Reality which is the

great Self which, at base, he (in this doctrine) is.

 

The principles of Shakta doctrine, which will vary according to

race, are a regenerating doctrine, giving strength where there is

weakness, and, where strength exists, directing it to right

ends. " Shivo' ham, " " I am Shiva, " " Sha' ham, " " I am She (the Devi), "

the Tantras say. The Western may call It by some other name. Some

call It this and some that, as the Veda says. " I am He, " " I am

She, " " I am It, " matters not to the Shakta so long as man identifies

himself with the 'Oversoul,' and thus harmonizes himself with its

Being, with Dharmic actions (as it manifests in the world) and

therefore necessarily with Its true ends. In its complete form the

Shakta doctrine is monistic. But to those to whom monism makes no

appeal, the Shakta will say that by adopting its spirit, so far as

the forms of their belief and worship allow, they will experience a

reflection of the joy and strength of those who truly live because

they worship Her who is Eternal life -- the Mother who is seated on

the couch of Shivas (Mahapreta), in the Isle of Gems (Manidvipa), in

the " Ocean of Nectar, " which is all Being-Consciousness and Bliss.

 

This is the pearl which those who have churned the ocean of Tantra

discover. That pearl is there in an Indian shell. There is a

beautiful nacre on the inner shell which is the Mother of Pearl.

Outside, the shell is naturally rough and coarse, and bears the

accretions of weed and parasite and of things of all kinds which

exist, good or bad as we call them, in the ocean of existence

(Samsara). The Scripture leads man to remove these accretions, and

to pass within through the crust, gross, though not on that account

only, bad; for there is a gross (Sthula) and subtle (Sukshma) aspect

of worship. Finally it leads man to seek to see the Mother of Pearl

and lastly the Pearl which, enclosed therein, shines with the

brilliant yet soft light which is that of the Moon-Cit (Cicchandra)

Itself.

 

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

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