Fwd: [hc] Indian Spiritual Traditions - a rejoinder to Sri Jit Majumder

[Guest guest]

hinducivilization , " Jit Majumder "

<jitmajumder212 wrote:

 

 

<<<Dear Jit,I do not at the moment have the time to respond to your

mail in detail, but just a couple of points:>>>

 

 

 

You have already posted two different replies. Why not note down a

msg no. and its date, take your own good time when you are free

enough, and give one single reply in detail instead of this -- that

is more convenient for both sides. I have already replied to two

rejoinders of yours with this one, I cannot engage myself in waiting

for and giving replies two frequent rejoinders to one single post.

 

 

 

<<<So Vidyaranya and Madhavacharya are one and the same person>>>

 

 

Congratulations. This is the only one in which you have nailed me,

and which I was totally wrong without any other possibilities. I

extend my apologies to Mr S.K. for saying that he was wrong and he

could not get the name correct, when it was me who did not bother to

check and get the name correct.

 

 

 

<<<Much of what you have written about tantra is a sectarian kaula

tAntric view. I am not suggesting its all wrong, merely that it is a

sectarian (albeit substantially traditional) position.>>>

 

 

 

that depends on what you mean by " sectarian " . A kaula is by nature

non-sectarian. If " sectarian " means to point out the distinct and

independent nature and character traits of one's tradition (not with

just loud assertions but with valid points), if " sectarian " means

refuting the attempts to show as if that tradition has othing

original of its own or no independant distinct character and

identity, but is just something that is originating from anddepending

on another (allegedly older and vaster) tradition for its components,

character and everything else -- then I am surely a " sectarian "

without any apologies or explanations, just like I am a " communal

Hindu " without any apologies or explanations. I never said that I

am " universal " .

I have a sect, I know it far better than those who are not of that

sect, I uphold the identity of my sect, I try to put my knowledge,

understanding and insight of my sect/ tradition to defend against

misinterpretations, wrong notions, fabrications, unsubstantiable

presumptions and imaginary connections and relations with other sects

or traditions (but not where those connections or relations are

provable). Therefore, i am sectarian.

You want to take a glimpse of " sectarian positions " then go take a

look at smarta/ bhakti/ vedantic ideologues of " bygone days " -- each

trying to prove himself and his mata/siddhanta to be the onloy

correct one and spending their waking hours debating and arguing? I

am a sectarian? are those smartas not sectarian? Are your Shankara,

Madhva, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Ramanuja, Chaitanya and the rest not

sectarian? Are your sampradayas of the south not sectarian? Sectarian

is only when I refute false notions about Tantra?

 

 

 

<<<There is as yet no evidence that mantra-shAstra, kunDalinI yoga

etc derived from anything other than vedic sources. The vedic origin

of many tAntric mantra-s is also clear.>>>

 

 

 

About Tantrik mantras, I have already said a lot before and I dont

want to rehash the same thing again.

About the origin of Kundalini yoga, It is yours and everyone else's

full right and freedom to investigate, instead of holding on to what

you have thought till now, because of not looking beyond " mantra-

shastra " and the like.

It is not that there is evidence, it is just that you all have never

botherd to look for evidence, your investigation of hindu history and

your mental horizon have been limited by you to merely " written

literature " -- and that too meaning only some selective sanskrit

texts and verses.

This too, I dont want to dwell on as I have talked about it in the

other (larger) rejoinder of mine.

For it to *occur* to someone that the truth about somehting can

*possibly* be other than what he has held with total assurance to be

true without a second possibility (blissful ignorance), he has to

look beyond, and look at things apart from merely his shastra

literature, and his two verses from the chandogya and maitriyani.

When one's Hinduism is merely " textbook hinduism " , and the

only " valid " resources, the only proofs, the only relevant literature

are those books written in sanskrit and of " bygone days " (after which

further enquiry, investigation, further findings, are suppoosed not

to happen) then one cannot get for oneself the " evidence " that one

needs. If you had asked, I could have given you the lead to evidence,

just like i did for Mr. Venkatasubramunian when he asked for it just

once. He too, you will see if you go uplist, never even suspected,

never even expected, and was perfectly confident that I would not be

able to give him any reference, any evidence, any resource. It si the

same thing in your case. But that is your problem, not the problem of

a lack of evidence. Because you have decided before hand that the

only " evidence " for you should be the verses of the chandogya and

maitriyani and nothing else.

But as you said, that is supposed to be " an axiomatic difference "

between us that " cannot be reconciled " . Thats why, I cannot show

somebody somehting which he has decided beforehand not to see.

 

 

Thanks -- Jit Majumder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hinducivilization , Ramesh Krishnamurthy

<rkmurthy@> wrote:

>

> Dear Jit,

>

> I do not at the moment have the time to respond to your mail in

> detail, but just a couple of points:

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh ji,I do not remember if I posted this here earlier, I might not have since this subject has not much to do with astrology. But since you forwarded a reply to it from HC group, I am posting here the original writeup to which this was a response, so that readers may get the context of it. However this has a small addition of my response to Sri Bhadraiah too.

An Overview of Indian Spiritual Traditions

 

There are a variety of spiritual

traditions in India.

They deal primarily with the nature of soul, God, world and salvation.

 

The oldest literature available

is the Veda. Samhita portion of the Veda contains praises to Devatas and

explains the nature of various Devatas, contains the mantras pertaining to

them. It is impersonal in nature. The subsequent portions of literature,

Brahmanas, Aranyaka and Vedangas are “personal” in the sense that they relate

the seeker to Devata, analyze his consciousness and deal with methods and so

on.

 

Smarta and Tantra are the two

major traditions, besides Jaina and Bauddha. They are very much overlapping in

their practices.

 

Smarta is more of a framework

than a spiritual tradition. It is the Smriti following tradition. Any practice

is valid in smarta to the extent that it does not go against the smriti. Smartas

follow Srauta completely, and many portions of Agama and Tantra to the extent the

practices do not conflict with the guidelines of smriti.

 

There are a variety of practices

in Saiva and Sakta Tantras. Some of them are followed by smartas, some are not.

However Vaishnavites by and large, are smarta and they call themselves smarta. There

exist practices in Vishnu worship that are non-smarta, esp. in Naarasimha, but

they are minor. The Vaishnava Agamas come closer to Brahmana portion of the

Veda than Saiva and Sakta Tantras. Moreover the various Vaishnava traditions that

developed over time, emphasized only on aspects that have smriti acceptance.

 

Social Aspect

Tantras belong to the same

framework of society as smritis do. They speak of the same social structure

having four varnas, four ashramas and four purusharthas of life. While

specifying differences for initiation and practice for persons of different

varnas, they also hold that once in the divine sphere varna difference does not apply. This too, is

the same take as smarta has on liberated beings and common man.

 

All the traditions deal with

common subjects: spiritual philosophy, metaphysical world view, consciousness

studies, study of word/mantra, philosophy of Devata/theology, methods and

philosophy of worship. Depending on their nature, some of them stress more on

spiritual philosophy while some on methods of worship.

 

World View

Old Scientific theories in

general are refuted by newer ones, with improved knowledge. In Indian

philosophical traditions however, newer world views are improvements over the

older ones, and not necessarily refutations of those.

 

While there are diverse world

views in Indian spiritual traditions, one common feature can be observed: they

all include “the Additional One” in their enumeration of the world. And that is

the eternal. This is one way in which the different theories do not falsify

each other but remain diverse and still valid. For instance in consciousness

studies, the faculties analyzed are enumerated, while all those that are not,

are defaulted to the eternal. If phenomenal-eternal dual is considered, there

are four levels – mind, life, matter and eternal. Here “eternal” includes

knowledge of eternal too. In Mandukya it is listed as four – gross, subtle,

causal and eternal. In panca kosa theory, the subtle is expanded into three

levels, while causal is defaulted in eternal. In seven lokas concept eternal is

expanded as Ananda, Chit and Sat.

 

The enumeration of universe too,

follows the same pattern. Sankhya expands over its previous schools and

enumerates 24 cosmic principles. More recent schools enumerate more tatvas. For

instance Tantra texts expand it further, adding 12 more to those listed by

Sankhya – making it 36.

 

Similarly the pranava is said to represent

the entire universe, with A, U and M representing creation, sustenance and

dissolution – and AUM as the eternal. In later texts like Tantra and Purana, we

find an addition to these – pranava is enumerated as A, U, M, bindu and nada

representing creation, sustenance, dissolution, veiling and unveiling.

 

The only major bifurcation of

world views is Astika-Nastika, which is based on acceptance of Veda Pramana. Another

practical difference between Astika and Nastika darsanas is that the former

speak of Atma. However Tantra has more to do with methods, and in many cases the

same mantra portion/method is followed by traditions sharing different world

views.

 

While Saiva-Sakta traditions

follow Advaita, there are Dvaita and Visistadvaita followers in Saiva as well

as Vaishnava. All these in turn, are in smarta as well as non-smarta Tantra. There

is no classification of any world view as Vedic or Tantric.

 

Vidyaranya enumerates 16 darsanas

in his Sarva Darsana Sangraha, that include both Astika and Nastika world views.

The Astika darsanas include the popular Shad-darsanas, Sankara Advaita,

Vaishnava Darsanas like Purna Prajna and Saiva Darsanas like Pasupata, Pratyabhijna

and Raseswara.

 

The world view as explained by any

Astika text follows the same scheme: atma, Brahman, world, their relation,

paths to liberation. Some times explanatory of a world view, and some times

not, Tantric texts basically follow the same scheme as the Astika darsanas. However

their emphasis is more on the practice than enumeration of the world.

 

Vak

The foremost of the subjects in

spiritual traditions, is the study of word or vak. Samhita itself is the science

of word or Mantra Sastra. The study of Vak is identical to the study of

Devatas, since mantra is the subtle body or sound-form of Devata. Saraswati is

the presiding deity of Vak and the earliest analysis of Vak is found in Saraswati

Sukta of Rig Veda (“Catvari vak parimita padani…”). It says Vak is of four

forms; three of them are hidden in the heart while the fourth (turiya or

vaikhari) is in the spoken form. However since Samhita’s subject is not

“personal” aspect, it does not explain where in the body the sound is produced

and how its study is tapas.

 

Further explanation on this is found

in the praises of Ganapati (implicitly as Brahmanaspati and explicitly as

Ganapati in Atharva Seersha Upanishad). These four forms are para, pasyanti,

madhyama and vaikhari. Vaikhari is the external form of sound that emanates

from Vagbhava or throat centre. Madhyama is subtle form that is not externally produced

but only heard – anahata. Pasyanti is below that and Para

vak is eternal – Ganapati who presides over it, resides at Muladhara. Another

Rik “rco akshare parame vyoman yasmin deva adhi visve nishedhuH” also refers to

the eternal nature of Vak.

 

The two ways – from muladhara to

vagbhava where Vak manifests from para to vaikhari form and from vagbhava to

muladhara where it is realized from vaikhari to para form, are called pravritti

and nivritti margas respectively. Ganapati represents nivritti marga.

 

These four forms of Vak also correspond

to the four levels of consciousness spoken of by Mandukyopanishad – gross

(vaikhari), subtle (madhyama), causal (pasyanti) and eternal (para).

 

Further, various subjects evolved

that study the different aspects of Vak. The two aspects of Vak are dhvani

(sound) and varna

(shade of sound or alphabet). The former has two aspects swara and nada. From

the latter come all the subjects of language – vyakarana, siksha, nirukta,

chandas. The subject that deals with sound-seeds, with a combination of these, is

Mantra Sastra.

 

The same theory of sound is used

in all Indian spiritual traditions, including Tantra.

 

Consciousness Studies

After realizing that phenomenal world is

relativistic, the next stage is realizing that the truth in phenomenal world is

determined by state of consciousness of the observer. Therefore study of

consciousness is a must in any pursuit of truth.

 

Thus consciousness study is the

next most important subject. It expounds the faculties of consciousness, various

levels of consciousness, states of consciousness, the nature of consciousness

at each level, the nature of Truth at each level of consciousness and methods

to attain those levels.

 

Consciousness study is applied

extensively in the traditions that emphasize on methods and procedures of

sadhana, and not just philosophical traditions.

 

The most comprehensive

explanation of the subject is found in Lalita Sahasra Nama of Brahmanda Purana.

However it is in Upanishads that we find the earliest explanations.

 

Mandukya Upanishad explains the four

states of consciousness and four faculties. In waking, dream, sleeping states

one perceives gross, subtle, causal world respectively. These are said to be

the three bodies of jiva. The fourth is eternal and absolute. In Atharva

Seersha we find an identical explanation.

 

Then there are three consciousness

qualities – satva, rajas and tamas. The eternal is beyond these.

 

In later literature, we find a

more detailed analysis. The three bodies are further explained in terms of five

sheaths of consciousness – physical constitutes the gross and sensuous mental

and intellectual make the subtle body. Body is classified as having seven

dhatus. Mind is further classified as mind-proper, intellect, memory and ego. The

causal being is blissful. Within that there are three aspects – truth, beauty

and permanence. These seven make seven planes of consciousness.

 

The same theory is applied in all

the traditions, of Smarta, and Tantra.

 

Yoga

Yoga is just one, and the

different paths of Yoga differ in the faculties they primarily address. For

instance Laya yoga (Patanjala) emphasizes on control of mind through breath.

Hatha yoga emphasizes control of mind through control of body. Jnana marga

emphasizes more on intellect.

 

They all aim at transcending

physical to reach subtle and subtle to reach causal. Mantra yoga uses sound as

the means, to activate nadis of the subtle body, and realize the para through

vaikhari, madhyama and pasyanti vak. Laya yoga uses breath control to control the

mind, to internalize it and dissolve it in the causal. Kundalini yoga involves

awakening Kundalini of the subtle body and through granthi-traya bhedana take

Her through the shatcakras to merge consciousness in the causal and eventually

eternal. However all the paths are basically the same yoga, in the sense that

when one is achieved the others too are. Only the seeker’s concentration is on different

means.

 

Yoga is more of method than

philosophy or theology, and hence its mention is found more in texts that

concentrate on methods.

 

Mantra Sastra implies mantra

yoga, and is central to all the upasana oriented schools in Smarta, Srauta and Tantra.

 

 

Kundalini yoga is visible more in

post-Vedic literature – Puranic and Tantric. Since Purana is more theological

than method-prescribing in nature, the subjects are visible in the description

of Devatas. Vishnu of Veda becomes Ananta Sayana, Kartikeya/Kumaraswamy becomes

Shanmukha in Purana and so on. These explain how the symbols that were earlier representatives

of Mantra method later came to symbolize Kundalini along with Mantra method. In

Tantra we find a more explicit mention of Kundalini, since the text deals more

with methods and procedures than Purana does. This holds for all the Tantric

texts, Vaishnava, Saiva, Sakta and others.

 

Vaishnava schools are more Bhakti-oriented

and stress more on the Yama-Niyamas such as Asteya and Isvara Pranidhana, than

other schools. Looking at the fact that the old Vaishnava schools dealt extensively

with Mantra and Yoga while the later schools went the Bhakti-way, it can be

interpreted that this is more of a reaction against the stress in other schools

on other limbs of Yoga in Shadanga and Kundalini Yogas. The siddhi and sakti

aspects of sadhana assumed more emphasis and the necessary emphasis on basic

conduct and Yama-Niyamas was lacking. Any vision is a product of its times, and

the emphasis on any aspect is a reaction to the prevailing conditions.

 

Smarta and Yoga

Smarta-Pauranika worship does not

exclude kundalini yoga. However it is implicit and not explicit. Anyone well

versed with the terminology of Kundalini yoga can understand that the central

theme, trimurty of Purana means the granthi-traya. Many of the stories around

them, are applicable in that sense. And prohibiting Brahma from receiving

worship is a fairly explicit hint to the smarta approach of not meditating on

brahma granthi/muladhara. Even in case of Kumaraswamy whose six faces feed on

the breasts of six mothers/krittikas/shatcakras, there is no explicit

meditation on muladhara. Saubhagyalakshmi Upanishad too, does not talk directly

of brahma granthi while it speaks of the other two.

 

The explicit meditation on

muladhara in smarta is in the context of mantra yoga, while worshiping Ganapati

as Para Vak.

 

For that matter, the smarta and

Pauranikas have almost always been implicit about kundalini yoga itself, and

not just muladhara. There is another reason for this, apart from the yogic one.

Kumara- Ganapati are seen as pravritti-nivritti margas (not in the sense they

are referred to in karma yoga), and nivritti marga has usually received higher

priority in the vedic/puranic/smarta system. Kaumara is a relatively smaller

tradition in shanmatas, for the same reason.

 

This is one of the most

fundamental differences between smarta and tantric sadhanas.

 

However, contrary to the smarta

take on this, Adi Sankara bridged this difference by his explicit mention of

meditation on all the six major cakras including muladhara (Saundaryalahari). And

in this case he put tantric aspect in smarta rather than the other way round.

This is just one of the many samanvayas he did across traditions. He also

brought emphasis back to the upward/pravritti/kundalini marga. For instance he

equates the four forms of mukti with worship of the Mother at four centers –

salokya, sameepya, sarupya amd sayujya at anahata, visuddha, ajna and sahasrara

respectively (Mukambika stuti). In this stuti however, we see that he has

organized the stuti in the typical smarta way – starting from Manipura instead

of Muladhara.

 

Bhava pradhana bhakti and nama

japa, Mantra yoga, Laya yoga, Kundalini yoga are difficult in the increasing

order. In smarta they receive encouragement in decreasing order. For this

reason their mention becomes more and more implicit.

 

In total contrast with this,

Tantra expressly goes the kundalini way. It is not for a layman (with respect

to spiritual practices of course). It needs training of senses, basic

understanding of the mechanism of mantra or subtle body dynamics, and quite a

few other things. Which means it is for an advanced and serious sadhaka. In

Tantra there is no hesitation about any method, for the same reason. The

tantric yogi is not implicit about muladhara, the way smarta practitioners are.

Whether it is sexual or any other natural phenomenon he makes it a tool in

sadhana unlike the way common man is trained in the pauranika/popular religion.

 

 

Therefore we should remember that its practices are meant for a trained man,

while doing a comparison between Tantric and other practices.

 

Theology

Development of theology is

another important subject.

 

The major devatas worshiped are

same in all the Astika traditions, though in different forms and in different

methods. The Vedic devatas like Indra are found in the early Tantric texts. The

later forms are of Vishnu, Siva, Sakti, Ganapati, Kali and so on. Their tatva

is established in Veda however they developed into wide schools subsequently in

the Puranic and Tantric literature.

 

For example the Tatva of Rudra is

described similarly in Veda as well as subsequent literature – Purana and

Tantra. However we can observe that Rudra, Vishnu become Pradhana devatas in

Purana and are not just their Vedic tatvas but more than that. They become

“complete” Gods or Isvara, all other Devatas are whose aspects. Thus Sri Maha

Vishnu of Purana is Vishnu of Veda, along with aspects of Aditya, Suparna and

Indra. (For instance Suparna’s Vamanatva and Trivikramatva are explained in

Vamana Avatara of Vishnu, His bird-form assumes Garuda, the vehicle of Vishnu.).

Similarly Siva as described in Purana is Rudra of Veda, along with aspects of

Soma, Vayu and Indra. Devi tatva as explained in Purana and Tantra, is found in

Aditi and the nature of Agni in Veda.

 

Further, Aditi is the prototype

of Bhuvaneswari, the Sakta Maha Vidya. Also, the central beeja of Bhuvaneswari Vidya,

the Hrillekha, is the one of Aditya loka. Besides, Bhuvaneswari tatva underlies

most of the Sakta Vidyas. Devi also has close resemblance to Agni of the Veda, as

the Iccha Sakti (Lalita Upakhyana).

 

The Mantra Vidyas for various

devatas that smartas worship are found in Veda as well as Tantra. Further, some

of the central mantras of Tantric Vidyas are directly Vedic verses – for

example Pasupata, Mrutyujnaya, Jatavedasi Durga.

 

In Veda there is a distinction

between devata tatva/mantra and application. That Tantra has more to do with

practice, is evident from the fact that even the main mantra portion in Tantra

contains beejas that are primarily meant for application - hum, phat, vashat,

bhindi, chindi, vicce, svaha, vashat etc. In Veda the "application"

or "prayoga" beejas are found more in non-samhita portion. Their

presence in samhita is minimal.

Besides Samhita, we find the

compositions of Mantra Vidyas in the Brahmana, to some extent in Upanishads,

and in Kalpa Sutras.

 

Mahanyasa Khanda of Baudhayana is

a classic example of the usage of Vedic mantras in the “tantric” way. Many of these

compositions/verses such as Ajapa are found in Tantras too.

 

The form and qualities of Devata are

determined by the beejas used in the Mantra. Once the tatva of the Devata is

established, the same Devata is worshiped in multiple forms – those are

variants of the mula, additions of beejas that determine those forms. For

instance Siva – is worshiped in forms like Bhairava, Dakshinamurty, Pasupati,

Mrutyunjaya, Isana and so on. Each of these, is in turn a set of Vidyas – there

are multiple forms of Bhairava and so on. It is in Tantra texts that we find

the ocean of Vidyas in each of these. However they

are worshiped across traditions, and not exclusively by “Tantrics” or “Smartas”.

 

 

In case of Vaishnava Agamas, one

can clearly see that the texts are not a “different school” from the Veda, but those

that serve the purpose of worshiping the same “Vedic Gods”, by elaborating the

upasana methodology and philosophy, expound the methods and procedures for

idols and temples, and so on – in short the whole subject of practice of

worship of the Devatas. This applies in general to any Tantric text.

 

However in Sakta, we can observe

that this is not totally true. Sakta Tantras have practices that are not just

developed within the framework of Vedic society, but outside it too. Some of

the Devatas like Gauri, Durga and Bhadra Kali are found directly in Vedic

literature. Some forms like Tripura Sundari are found in Puranic as well as Tantric

literature. However there are also Vidyas like Tara

that are specific to Sakta Tantra. It is said that Taresi Vidya is an import

from Bauddha. Besides, the practices like Ceena krama, Maha Ceena krama and

Divya Ceena krama in Vamacara, as their names suggest, are imports.

 

But the fact remains that Bauddha

is not exclusive or totally separate from Sanatana Dharma when it comes to practices

– there are overlapping vidyas and practices in these and exchanges too. And

the practices as such, are “practices” – there does not have to be a change of

world view for those practices to be a part of Sakta – it has not made Sakta

Tantra anything that the Astika darsanas are not.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shankara Bharadwaj ji,

That was a very long write-up explaining a particular stance,

especially in favor of Vedic tradition. Thanks for the write-up.

But I don't agree to you in most of the points mentioned in the

message; answering the 'why' will demand a very long reply which I

don't want to do as of now. My personal opinion is that you are mixing

many things without going to depths. Thinks are NOT this simple,

straight and equatable.

Whether it be related to the inherent efforts to equate things such as -

Tantric = Vedic

Jain = Buddhist

Pancharatra Vishnava Tantra tradition = Vedic Vaishna tradition = Narayana dharma

Tantric Vinayaka Ganapati = Vedic Ganapati

Saiva Advaita = Mayavada (dwata!) Advaita of Sankara

Tantric Mantra Sastra = Veda Manta

Kundalini Yoga = Hadha Yoga = Ashtanga Yoga

- everywhere this 'not going to depth' attitude in an effort to

equate things is visible. A detailed comment will consume much time

and effort and so I am staying away from doing the same.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh , ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote:>> Dear Sreenadh ji,> > I do not remember if I posted this here earlier, I might not have since this subject has not much to do with astrology. But since you forwarded a reply to it from HC group, I am posting here the original writeup to which this was a response, so that readers may get the context of it. However this has a small addition of my response to Sri Bhadraiah too. > > > An Overview of Indian Spiritual Traditions> > There are a variety of spiritual> traditions in India.> They deal primarily with the nature of soul, God, world and salvation. > > The oldest literature available> is the Veda. Samhita portion of the Veda contains praises to Devatas and> explains the nature of various Devatas, contains the mantras pertaining to> them. It is impersonal in nature. The subsequent portions of literature,> Brahmanas, Aranyaka and Vedangas are "personal" in the sense that they relate> the seeker to Devata, analyze his consciousness and deal with methods and so> on. > > Smarta and Tantra are the two> major traditions, besides Jaina and Bauddha. They are very much overlapping in> their practices. > > Smarta is more of a framework> than a spiritual tradition. It is the Smriti following tradition. Any practice> is valid in smarta to the extent that it does not go against the smriti. Smartas> follow Srauta completely, and many portions of Agama and Tantra to the extent the> practices do not conflict with the guidelines of smriti. > > There are a variety of practices> in Saiva and Sakta Tantras. Some of them are followed by smartas, some are not.> However Vaishnavites by and large, are smarta and they call themselves smarta. There> exist practices in Vishnu worship that are non-smarta, esp. in Naarasimha, but> they are minor. The Vaishnava Agamas come closer to Brahmana portion of the> Veda than Saiva and Sakta Tantras. Moreover the various Vaishnava traditions that> developed over time, emphasized only on aspects that have smriti acceptance. > > Social Aspect> Tantras belong to the same> framework of society as smritis do. They speak of the same social structure> having four varnas, four ashramas and four purusharthas of life. While> specifying differences for initiation and practice for persons of different> varnas, they also hold that once in the divine sphere varna difference does not apply. This too, is> the same take as smarta has on liberated beings and common man. > > All the traditions deal with> common subjects: spiritual philosophy, metaphysical world view, consciousness> studies, study of word/mantra, philosophy of Devata/theology, methods and> philosophy of worship. Depending on their nature, some of them stress more on> spiritual philosophy while some on methods of worship. > > World View > Old Scientific theories in> general are refuted by newer ones, with improved knowledge. In Indian> philosophical traditions however, newer world views are improvements over the> older ones, and not necessarily refutations of those. > > While there are diverse world> views in Indian spiritual traditions, one common feature can be observed: they> all include "the Additional One" in their enumeration of the world. And that is> the eternal. This is one way in which the different theories do not falsify> each other but remain diverse and still valid. For instance in consciousness> studies, the faculties analyzed are enumerated, while all those that are not,> are defaulted to the eternal. If phenomenal-eternal dual is considered, there> are four levels – mind, life, matter and eternal. Here "eternal" includes> knowledge of eternal too. In Mandukya it is listed as four – gross, subtle,> causal and eternal. In panca kosa theory, the subtle is expanded into three> levels, while causal is defaulted in eternal. In seven lokas concept eternal is> expanded as Ananda, Chit and Sat. > > The enumeration of universe too,> follows the same pattern. Sankhya expands over its previous schools and> enumerates 24 cosmic principles. More recent schools enumerate more tatvas. For> instance Tantra texts expand it further, adding 12 more to those listed by> Sankhya – making it 36. > > Similarly the pranava is said to represent> the entire universe, with A, U and M representing creation, sustenance and> dissolution – and AUM as the eternal. In later texts like Tantra and Purana, we> find an addition to these – pranava is enumerated as A, U, M, bindu and nada> representing creation, sustenance, dissolution, veiling and unveiling. > > The only major bifurcation of> world views is Astika-Nastika, which is based on acceptance of Veda Pramana. Another> practical difference between Astika and Nastika darsanas is that the former> speak of Atma. However Tantra has more to do with methods, and in many cases the> same mantra portion/method is followed by traditions sharing different world> views. > > While Saiva-Sakta traditions> follow Advaita, there are Dvaita and Visistadvaita followers in Saiva as well> as Vaishnava. All these in turn, are in smarta as well as non-smarta Tantra. There> is no classification of any world view as Vedic or Tantric. > > Vidyaranya enumerates 16 darsanas> in his Sarva Darsana Sangraha, that include both Astika and Nastika world views.> The Astika darsanas include the popular Shad-darsanas, Sankara Advaita,> Vaishnava Darsanas like Purna Prajna and Saiva Darsanas like Pasupata, Pratyabhijna> and Raseswara. > > The world view as explained by any> Astika text follows the same scheme: atma, Brahman, world, their relation,> paths to liberation. Some times explanatory of a world view, and some times> not, Tantric texts basically follow the same scheme as the Astika darsanas. However> their emphasis is more on the practice than enumeration of the world. > > Vak > The foremost of the subjects in> spiritual traditions, is the study of word or vak. Samhita itself is the science> of word or Mantra Sastra. The study of Vak is identical to the study of> Devatas, since mantra is the subtle body or sound-form of Devata. Saraswati is> the presiding deity of Vak and the earliest analysis of Vak is found in Saraswati> Sukta of Rig Veda ("Catvari vak parimita padani…"). It says Vak is of four> forms; three of them are hidden in the heart while the fourth (turiya or> vaikhari) is in the spoken form. However since Samhita's subject is not> "personal" aspect, it does not explain where in the body the sound is produced> and how its study is tapas. > > Further explanation on this is found> in the praises of Ganapati (implicitly as Brahmanaspati and explicitly as> Ganapati in Atharva Seersha Upanishad). These four forms are para, pasyanti,> madhyama and vaikhari. Vaikhari is the external form of sound that emanates> from Vagbhava or throat centre. Madhyama is subtle form that is not externally produced> but only heard – anahata. Pasyanti is below that and Para vak is eternal – Ganapati who presides over it, resides at Muladhara. Another> Rik "rco akshare parame vyoman yasmin deva adhi visve nishedhuH" also refers to> the eternal nature of Vak. > > The two ways – from muladhara to> vagbhava where Vak manifests from para to vaikhari form and from vagbhava to> muladhara where it is realized from vaikhari to para form, are called pravritti> and nivritti margas respectively. Ganapati represents nivritti marga. > > These four forms of Vak also correspond> to the four levels of consciousness spoken of by Mandukyopanishad – gross> (vaikhari), subtle (madhyama), causal (pasyanti) and eternal (para). > > Further, various subjects evolved> that study the different aspects of Vak. The two aspects of Vak are dhvani> (sound) and varna (shade of sound or alphabet). The former has two aspects swara and nada. From> the latter come all the subjects of language – vyakarana, siksha, nirukta,> chandas. The subject that deals with sound-seeds, with a combination of these, is> Mantra Sastra. > > The same theory of sound is used> in all Indian spiritual traditions, including Tantra. > > Consciousness Studies > After realizing that phenomenal world is> relativistic, the next stage is realizing that the truth in phenomenal world is> determined by state of consciousness of the observer. Therefore study of> consciousness is a must in any pursuit of truth. > > Thus consciousness study is the> next most important subject. It expounds the faculties of consciousness, various> levels of consciousness, states of consciousness, the nature of consciousness> at each level, the nature of Truth at each level of consciousness and methods> to attain those levels. > > Consciousness study is applied> extensively in the traditions that emphasize on methods and procedures of> sadhana, and not just philosophical traditions. > > The most comprehensive> explanation of the subject is found in Lalita Sahasra Nama of Brahmanda Purana.> However it is in Upanishads that we find the earliest explanations. > > Mandukya Upanishad explains the four> states of consciousness and four faculties. In waking, dream, sleeping states> one perceives gross, subtle, causal world respectively. These are said to be> the three bodies of jiva. The fourth is eternal and absolute. In Atharva> Seersha we find an identical explanation. > > Then there are three consciousness> qualities – satva, rajas and tamas. The eternal is beyond these. > > In later literature, we find a> more detailed analysis. The three bodies are further explained in terms of five> sheaths of consciousness – physical constitutes the gross and sensuous mental> and intellectual make the subtle body. Body is classified as having seven> dhatus. Mind is further classified as mind-proper, intellect, memory and ego. The> causal being is blissful. Within that there are three aspects – truth, beauty> and permanence. These seven make seven planes of consciousness. > > The same theory is applied in all> the traditions, of Smarta, and Tantra. > > Yoga > Yoga is just one, and the> different paths of Yoga differ in the faculties they primarily address. For> instance Laya yoga (Patanjala) emphasizes on control of mind through breath.> Hatha yoga emphasizes control of mind through control of body. Jnana marga> emphasizes more on intellect. > > They all aim at transcending> physical to reach subtle and subtle to reach causal. Mantra yoga uses sound as> the means, to activate nadis of the subtle body, and realize the para through> vaikhari, madhyama and pasyanti vak. Laya yoga uses breath control to control the> mind, to internalize it and dissolve it in the causal. Kundalini yoga involves> awakening Kundalini of the subtle body and through granthi-traya bhedana take> Her through the shatcakras to merge consciousness in the causal and eventually> eternal. However all the paths are basically the same yoga, in the sense that> when one is achieved the others too are. Only the seeker's concentration is on different> means. > > Yoga is more of method than> philosophy or theology, and hence its mention is found more in texts that> concentrate on methods. > > Mantra Sastra implies mantra> yoga, and is central to all the upasana oriented schools in Smarta, Srauta and Tantra. > > Kundalini yoga is visible more in> post-Vedic literature – Puranic and Tantric. Since Purana is more theological> than method-prescribing in nature, the subjects are visible in the description> of Devatas. Vishnu of Veda becomes Ananta Sayana, Kartikeya/Kumaraswamy becomes> Shanmukha in Purana and so on. These explain how the symbols that were earlier representatives> of Mantra method later came to symbolize Kundalini along with Mantra method. In> Tantra we find a more explicit mention of Kundalini, since the text deals more> with methods and procedures than Purana does. This holds for all the Tantric> texts, Vaishnava, Saiva, Sakta and others. > > Vaishnava schools are more Bhakti-oriented> and stress more on the Yama-Niyamas such as Asteya and Isvara Pranidhana, than> other schools. Looking at the fact that the old Vaishnava schools dealt extensively> with Mantra and Yoga while the later schools went the Bhakti-way, it can be> interpreted that this is more of a reaction against the stress in other schools> on other limbs of Yoga in Shadanga and Kundalini Yogas. The siddhi and sakti> aspects of sadhana assumed more emphasis and the necessary emphasis on basic> conduct and Yama-Niyamas was lacking. Any vision is a product of its times, and> the emphasis on any aspect is a reaction to the prevailing conditions. > > Smarta and Yoga > Smarta-Pauranika worship does not> exclude kundalini yoga. However it is implicit and not explicit. Anyone well> versed with the terminology of Kundalini yoga can understand that the central> theme, trimurty of Purana means the granthi-traya. Many of the stories around> them, are applicable in that sense. And prohibiting Brahma from receiving> worship is a fairly explicit hint to the smarta approach of not meditating on> brahma granthi/muladhara. Even in case of Kumaraswamy whose six faces feed on> the breasts of six mothers/krittikas/shatcakras, there is no explicit> meditation on muladhara. Saubhagyalakshmi Upanishad too, does not talk directly> of brahma granthi while it speaks of the other two. > > The explicit meditation on> muladhara in smarta is in the context of mantra yoga, while worshiping Ganapati> as Para Vak. > > For that matter, the smarta and> Pauranikas have almost always been implicit about kundalini yoga itself, and> not just muladhara. There is another reason for this, apart from the yogic one.> Kumara- Ganapati are seen as pravritti-nivritti margas (not in the sense they> are referred to in karma yoga), and nivritti marga has usually received higher> priority in the vedic/puranic/smarta system. Kaumara is a relatively smaller> tradition in shanmatas, for the same reason. > > This is one of the most> fundamental differences between smarta and tantric sadhanas. > > However, contrary to the smarta> take on this, Adi Sankara bridged this difference by his explicit mention of> meditation on all the six major cakras including muladhara (Saundaryalahari). And> in this case he put tantric aspect in smarta rather than the other way round.> This is just one of the many samanvayas he did across traditions. He also> brought emphasis back to the upward/pravritti/kundalini marga. For instance he> equates the four forms of mukti with worship of the Mother at four centers –> salokya, sameepya, sarupya amd sayujya at anahata, visuddha, ajna and sahasrara> respectively (Mukambika stuti). In this stuti however, we see that he has> organized the stuti in the typical smarta way – starting from Manipura instead> of Muladhara. > > Bhava pradhana bhakti and nama> japa, Mantra yoga, Laya yoga, Kundalini yoga are difficult in the increasing> order. In smarta they receive encouragement in decreasing order. For this> reason their mention becomes more and more implicit. > > In total contrast with this,> Tantra expressly goes the kundalini way. It is not for a layman (with respect> to spiritual practices of course). It needs training of senses, basic> understanding of the mechanism of mantra or subtle body dynamics, and quite a> few other things. Which means it is for an advanced and serious sadhaka. In> Tantra there is no hesitation about any method, for the same reason. The> tantric yogi is not implicit about muladhara, the way smarta practitioners are.> Whether it is sexual or any other natural phenomenon he makes it a tool in> sadhana unlike the way common man is trained in the pauranika/popular religion. > > Therefore we should remember that its practices are meant for a trained man,> while doing a comparison between Tantric and other practices. > > Theology > Development of theology is> another important subject. > > The major devatas worshiped are> same in all the Astika traditions, though in different forms and in different> methods. The Vedic devatas like Indra are found in the early Tantric texts. The> later forms are of Vishnu, Siva, Sakti, Ganapati, Kali and so on. Their tatva> is established in Veda however they developed into wide schools subsequently in> the Puranic and Tantric literature. > > For example the Tatva of Rudra is> described similarly in Veda as well as subsequent literature – Purana and> Tantra. However we can observe that Rudra, Vishnu become Pradhana devatas in> Purana and are not just their Vedic tatvas but more than that. They become> "complete" Gods or Isvara, all other Devatas are whose aspects. Thus Sri Maha> Vishnu of Purana is Vishnu of Veda, along with aspects of Aditya, Suparna and> Indra. (For instance Suparna's Vamanatva and Trivikramatva are explained in> Vamana Avatara of Vishnu, His bird-form assumes Garuda, the vehicle of Vishnu.).> Similarly Siva as described in Purana is Rudra of Veda, along with aspects of> Soma, Vayu and Indra. Devi tatva as explained in Purana and Tantra, is found in> Aditi and the nature of Agni in Veda. > > Further, Aditi is the prototype> of Bhuvaneswari, the Sakta Maha Vidya. Also, the central beeja of Bhuvaneswari Vidya,> the Hrillekha, is the one of Aditya loka. Besides, Bhuvaneswari tatva underlies> most of the Sakta Vidyas. Devi also has close resemblance to Agni of the Veda, as> the Iccha Sakti (Lalita Upakhyana). > > The Mantra Vidyas for various> devatas that smartas worship are found in Veda as well as Tantra. Further, some> of the central mantras of Tantric Vidyas are directly Vedic verses – for> example Pasupata, Mrutyujnaya, Jatavedasi Durga. > > In Veda there is a distinction> between devata tatva/mantra and application. That Tantra has more to do with> practice, is evident from the fact that even the main mantra portion in Tantra> contains beejas that are primarily meant for application - hum, phat, vashat,> bhindi, chindi, vicce, svaha, vashat etc. In Veda the "application"> or "prayoga" beejas are found more in non-samhita portion. Their> presence in samhita is minimal. > Besides Samhita, we find the> compositions of Mantra Vidyas in the Brahmana, to some extent in Upanishads,> and in Kalpa Sutras. > > Mahanyasa Khanda of Baudhayana is> a classic example of the usage of Vedic mantras in the "tantric" way. Many of these> compositions/verses such as Ajapa are found in Tantras too. > > The form and qualities of Devata are> determined by the beejas used in the Mantra. Once the tatva of the Devata is> established, the same Devata is worshiped in multiple forms – those are> variants of the mula, additions of beejas that determine those forms. For> instance Siva – is worshiped in forms like Bhairava, Dakshinamurty, Pasupati,> Mrutyunjaya, Isana and so on. Each of these, is in turn a set of Vidyas – there> are multiple forms of Bhairava and so on. It is in Tantra texts that we find> the ocean of Vidyas in each of these. However they> are worshiped across traditions, and not exclusively by "Tantrics" or "Smartas". > > In case of Vaishnava Agamas, one> can clearly see that the texts are not a "different school" from the Veda, but those> that serve the purpose of worshiping the same "Vedic Gods", by elaborating the> upasana methodology and philosophy, expound the methods and procedures for> idols and temples, and so on – in short the whole subject of practice of> worship of the Devatas. This applies in general to any Tantric text. > > However in Sakta, we can observe> that this is not totally true. Sakta Tantras have practices that are not just> developed within the framework of Vedic society, but outside it too. Some of> the Devatas like Gauri, Durga and Bhadra Kali are found directly in Vedic> literature. Some forms like Tripura Sundari are found in Puranic as well as Tantric> literature. However there are also Vidyas like Tara that are specific to Sakta Tantra. It is said that Taresi Vidya is an import> from Bauddha. Besides, the practices like Ceena krama, Maha Ceena krama and> Divya Ceena krama in Vamacara, as their names suggest, are imports. > > But the fact remains that Bauddha> is not exclusive or totally separate from Sanatana Dharma when it comes to practices> – there are overlapping vidyas and practices in these and exchanges too. And> the practices as such, are "practices" – there does not have to be a change of> world view for those practices to be a part of Sakta – it has not made Sakta> Tantra anything that the Astika darsanas are not.>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh ji,It is just that a response should have a context. I am not forwarding my responses on this thread. Coming to "depth", the reason I kept things simple is that it will otherwise make the writeup lengthy. However, I have not made the equations you said I am making. Please see the subtle difference in how things are related and are not compartmental. For instance: "Tantric = Vedic"This is the difference I sufficiently dealt with. There is a difference between being related, being the same and being unrelated. A few tantrics claim the third, almost no body claims the second. I am saying the first. Where there is a

relation, there is no point seeking a different historical explanation or origin. "Jain = Buddhist"I have not equated them - I have not even talked of them. All I said is both are nastika. How does that equate them? "Pancharatra Vishnava Tantra tradition = Vedic Vaishna tradition = Narayana dharma"No I did not equate them - but at the same time they are not as disconnected as people think they are. One should see the basis for them. "Tantric Vinayaka Ganapati = Vedic Ganapati"There are no Tantric Ganapati or Vedic Ganapati or Smarta Ganapati or Srauta Ganapati. Ganapati is ONE. There are only Tantric or Vedic mantras/methods for worshiping Him. There are no different tatvas laid down with the name Ganapati in Tantra or Veda. If one looks closer into the

devata tatva, this is not all that remote. "Saiva Advaita = Mayavada (dwata!) Advaita of Sankara"Again, where there are differences, there are. Where there are not, there are not. The classification can be between Nakuleeswara Pasupata or Pratyabhijna or Sankara Darsana, but not between Tantra and Vaidika. Seers have never drawn the differences between darsanas in those lines. Because the word darsana by itself, implies that it has nothing to do with specific methods - Tantric or otherwise. "Tantric Mantra Sastra = Veda Manta"Same here. There are no jatis in mantra sastra. It is the same seers, same theory of dhvani and vak, same beejas, same devatas. Moreover, it is me who mentioned the essential nature of difference in the tantric and vedic mantra vidyas. Different texts, different methods evolve for different purposes.

That does not bring difference in the science that underlies them. "Kundalini Yoga = Hadha Yoga = Ashtanga Yoga"I have not equated them. At the same time, leaving Hatha yoga, yoga traya (kundalini, laya, mantra) is present in both the tantric and vedic schools. Please understand that I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you here. I am correcting where you mistook the writeup. Sreenadh <sreesog Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:54:45 AM Fwd: [hc] Re: Indian Spiritual Traditions - a rejoinder to Sri Jit Majumder

 

Dear Shankara Bharadwaj ji,

That was a very long write-up explaining a particular stance,

especially in favor of Vedic tradition. Thanks for the write-up.

But I don't agree to you in most of the points mentioned in the

message; answering the 'why' will demand a very long reply which I

don't want to do as of now. My personal opinion is that you are mixing

many things without going to depths. Thinks are NOT this simple,

straight and equatable.

Whether it be related to the inherent efforts to equate things such as -

Tantric = Vedic

Jain = Buddhist

Pancharatra Vishnava Tantra tradition = Vedic Vaishna tradition = Narayana dharma

Tantric Vinayaka Ganapati = Vedic Ganapati

Saiva Advaita = Mayavada (dwata!) Advaita of Sankara

Tantric Mantra Sastra = Veda Manta

Kundalini Yoga = Hadha Yoga = Ashtanga Yoga

- everywhere this 'not going to depth' attitude in an effort to

equate things is visible. A detailed comment will consume much time

and effort and so I am staying away from doing the same.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

[Guest guest]

Dear Shankara Bharadwaj ji,

By "not going to depth attitude in an effort to equate things",

I meant, "In an effort to equate things, not going to depth";

not because you can't but because that won't help you in equating things.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

, "Sreenadh" <sreesog wrote:>> Dear Shankara Bharadwaj ji,> That was a very long write-up explaining a particular stance,> especially in favor of Vedic tradition. Thanks for the write-up.> But I don't agree to you in most of the points mentioned in the> message; answering the 'why' will demand a very long reply which I don't> want to do as of now. My personal opinion is that you are mixing many> things without going to depths. Thinks are NOT this simple, straight> and equatable.> Whether it be related to the inherent efforts to equate things such> as -> Tantric = Vedic> Jain = Buddhist> Pancharatra Vishnava Tantra tradition = Vedic Vaishna tradition => Narayana dharma> Tantric Vinayaka Ganapati = Vedic Ganapati> Saiva Advaita = Mayavada (dwata!) Advaita of Sankara> Tantric Mantra Sastra = Veda Manta> Kundalini Yoga = Hadha Yoga = Ashtanga Yoga> > - everywhere this 'not going to depth' attitude in an effort to equate> things is visible. A detailed comment will consume much time and effort> and so I am staying away from doing the same.> Love and regards,> Sreenadh> > , ShankaraBharadwaj> Khandavalli shankarabharadwaj@ wrote:> >> > Dear Sreenadh ji,> >> > I do not remember if I posted this here earlier, I might not have> since this subject has not much to do with astrology. But since you> forwarded a reply to it from HC group, I am posting here the original> writeup to which this was a response, so that readers may get the> context of it. However this has a small addition of my response to Sri> Bhadraiah too.> >> >> > An Overview of Indian Spiritual Traditions> >> > There are a variety of spiritual> > traditions in India.> > They deal primarily with the nature of soul, God, world and salvation.> >> > The oldest literature available> > is the Veda. Samhita portion of the Veda contains praises to Devatas> and> > explains the nature of various Devatas, contains the mantras> pertaining to> > them. It is impersonal in nature. The subsequent portions of> literature,> > Brahmanas, Aranyaka and Vedangas are "personal" in the sense> that they relate> > the seeker to Devata, analyze his consciousness and deal with methods> and so> > on.> >> > Smarta and Tantra are the two> > major traditions, besides Jaina and Bauddha. They are very much> overlapping in> > their practices.> >> > Smarta is more of a framework> > than a spiritual tradition. It is the Smriti following tradition. Any> practice> > is valid in smarta to the extent that it does not go against the> smriti. Smartas> > follow Srauta completely, and many portions of Agama and Tantra to the> extent the> > practices do not conflict with the guidelines of smriti.> >> > There are a variety of practices> > in Saiva and Sakta Tantras. Some of them are followed by smartas, some> are not.> > However Vaishnavites by and large, are smarta and they call themselves> smarta. There> > exist practices in Vishnu worship that are non-smarta, esp. in> Naarasimha, but> > they are minor. The Vaishnava Agamas come closer to Brahmana portion> of the> > Veda than Saiva and Sakta Tantras. Moreover the various Vaishnava> traditions that> > developed over time, emphasized only on aspects that have smriti> acceptance.> >> > Social Aspect> > Tantras belong to the same> > framework of society as smritis do. They speak of the same social> structure> > having four varnas, four ashramas and four purusharthas of life. While> > specifying differences for initiation and practice for persons of> different> > varnas, they also hold that once in the divine sphere varna difference> does not apply. This too, is> > the same take as smarta has on liberated beings and common man.> >> > All the traditions deal with> > common subjects: spiritual philosophy, metaphysical world view,> consciousness> > studies, study of word/mantra, philosophy of Devata/theology, methods> and> > philosophy of worship. Depending on their nature, some of them stress> more on> > spiritual philosophy while some on methods of worship.> >> > World View> > Old Scientific theories in> > general are refuted by newer ones, with improved knowledge. In Indian> > philosophical traditions however, newer world views are improvements> over the> > older ones, and not necessarily refutations of those.> >> > While there are diverse world> > views in Indian spiritual traditions, one common feature can be> observed: they> > all include "the Additional One" in their enumeration of the> world. And that is> > the eternal. This is one way in which the different theories do not> falsify> > each other but remain diverse and still valid. For instance in> consciousness> > studies, the faculties analyzed are enumerated, while all those that> are not,> > are defaulted to the eternal. If phenomenal-eternal dual is> considered, there> > are four levels – mind, life, matter and eternal. Here> "eternal" includes> > knowledge of eternal too. In Mandukya it is listed as four –> gross, subtle,> > causal and eternal. In panca kosa theory, the subtle is expanded into> three> > levels, while causal is defaulted in eternal. In seven lokas concept> eternal is> > expanded as Ananda, Chit and Sat.> >> > The enumeration of universe too,> > follows the same pattern. Sankhya expands over its previous schools> and> > enumerates 24 cosmic principles. More recent schools enumerate more> tatvas. For> > instance Tantra texts expand it further, adding 12 more to those> listed by> > Sankhya – making it 36.> >> > Similarly the pranava is said to represent> > the entire universe, with A, U and M representing creation, sustenance> and> > dissolution – and AUM as the eternal. In later texts like Tantra> and Purana, we> > find an addition to these – pranava is enumerated as A, U, M,> bindu and nada> > representing creation, sustenance, dissolution, veiling and unveiling.> >> > The only major bifurcation of> > world views is Astika-Nastika, which is based on acceptance of Veda> Pramana. Another> > practical difference between Astika and Nastika darsanas is that the> former> > speak of Atma. However Tantra has more to do with methods, and in many> cases the> > same mantra portion/method is followed by traditions sharing different> world> > views.> >> > While Saiva-Sakta traditions> > follow Advaita, there are Dvaita and Visistadvaita followers in Saiva> as well> > as Vaishnava. All these in turn, are in smarta as well as non-smarta> Tantra. There> > is no classification of any world view as Vedic or Tantric.> >> > Vidyaranya enumerates 16 darsanas> > in his Sarva Darsana Sangraha, that include both Astika and Nastika> world views.> > The Astika darsanas include the popular Shad-darsanas, Sankara> Advaita,> > Vaishnava Darsanas like Purna Prajna and Saiva Darsanas like Pasupata,> Pratyabhijna> > and Raseswara.> >> > The world view as explained by any> > Astika text follows the same scheme: atma, Brahman, world, their> relation,> > paths to liberation. Some times explanatory of a world view, and some> times> > not, Tantric texts basically follow the same scheme as the Astika> darsanas. However> > their emphasis is more on the practice than enumeration of the world.> >> > Vak> > The foremost of the subjects in> > spiritual traditions, is the study of word or vak. Samhita itself is> the science> > of word or Mantra Sastra. The study of Vak is identical to the study> of> > Devatas, since mantra is the subtle body or sound-form of Devata.> Saraswati is> > the presiding deity of Vak and the earliest analysis of Vak is found> in Saraswati> > Sukta of Rig Veda ("Catvari vak parimita padani…"). It says> Vak is of four> > forms; three of them are hidden in the heart while the fourth (turiya> or> > vaikhari) is in the spoken form. However since Samhita's subject> is not> > "personal" aspect, it does not explain where in the body the> sound is produced> > and how its study is tapas.> >> > Further explanation on this is found> > in the praises of Ganapati (implicitly as Brahmanaspati and explicitly> as> > Ganapati in Atharva Seersha Upanishad). These four forms are para,> pasyanti,> > madhyama and vaikhari. Vaikhari is the external form of sound that> emanates> > from Vagbhava or throat centre. Madhyama is subtle form that is not> externally produced> > but only heard – anahata. Pasyanti is below that and Para vak is> eternal – Ganapati who presides over it, resides at Muladhara.> Another> > Rik "rco akshare parame vyoman yasmin deva adhi visve> nishedhuH" also refers to> > the eternal nature of Vak.> >> > The two ways – from muladhara to> > vagbhava where Vak manifests from para to vaikhari form and from> vagbhava to> > muladhara where it is realized from vaikhari to para form, are called> pravritti> > and nivritti margas respectively. Ganapati represents nivritti marga.> >> > These four forms of Vak also correspond> > to the four levels of consciousness spoken of by Mandukyopanishad> – gross> > (vaikhari), subtle (madhyama), causal (pasyanti) and eternal (para).> >> > Further, various subjects evolved> > that study the different aspects of Vak. The two aspects of Vak are> dhvani> > (sound) and varna (shade of sound or alphabet). The former has two> aspects swara and nada. From> > the latter come all the subjects of language – vyakarana, siksha,> nirukta,> > chandas. The subject that deals with sound-seeds, with a combination> of these, is> > Mantra Sastra.> >> > The same theory of sound is used> > in all Indian spiritual traditions, including Tantra.> >> > Consciousness Studies> > After realizing that phenomenal world is> > relativistic, the next stage is realizing that the truth in phenomenal> world is> > determined by state of consciousness of the observer. Therefore study> of> > consciousness is a must in any pursuit of truth.> >> > Thus consciousness study is the> > next most important subject. It expounds the faculties of> consciousness, various> > levels of consciousness, states of consciousness, the nature of> consciousness> > at each level, the nature of Truth at each level of consciousness and> methods> > to attain those levels.> >> > Consciousness study is applied> > extensively in the traditions that emphasize on methods and procedures> of> > sadhana, and not just philosophical traditions.> >> > The most comprehensive> > explanation of the subject is found in Lalita Sahasra Nama of> Brahmanda Purana.> > However it is in Upanishads that we find the earliest explanations.> >> > Mandukya Upanishad explains the four> > states of consciousness and four faculties. In waking, dream, sleeping> states> > one perceives gross, subtle, causal world respectively. These are said> to be> > the three bodies of jiva. The fourth is eternal and absolute. In> Atharva> > Seersha we find an identical explanation.> >> > Then there are three consciousness> > qualities – satva, rajas and tamas. The eternal is beyond these.> >> > In later literature, we find a> > more detailed analysis. The three bodies are further explained in> terms of five> > sheaths of consciousness – physical constitutes the gross and> sensuous mental> > and intellectual make the subtle body. Body is classified as having> seven> > dhatus. Mind is further classified as mind-proper, intellect, memory> and ego. The> > causal being is blissful. Within that there are three aspects –> truth, beauty> > and permanence. These seven make seven planes of consciousness.> >> > The same theory is applied in all> > the traditions, of Smarta, and Tantra.> >> > Yoga> > Yoga is just one, and the> > different paths of Yoga differ in the faculties they primarily> address. For> > instance Laya yoga (Patanjala) emphasizes on control of mind through> breath.> > Hatha yoga emphasizes control of mind through control of body. Jnana> marga> > emphasizes more on intellect.> >> > They all aim at transcending> > physical to reach subtle and subtle to reach causal. Mantra yoga uses> sound as> > the means, to activate nadis of the subtle body, and realize the para> through> > vaikhari, madhyama and pasyanti vak. Laya yoga uses breath control to> control the> > mind, to internalize it and dissolve it in the causal. Kundalini yoga> involves> > awakening Kundalini of the subtle body and through granthi-traya> bhedana take> > Her through the shatcakras to merge consciousness in the causal and> eventually> > eternal. However all the paths are basically the same yoga, in the> sense that> > when one is achieved the others too are. Only the seeker's> concentration is on different> > means.> >> > Yoga is more of method than> > philosophy or theology, and hence its mention is found more in texts> that> > concentrate on methods.> >> > Mantra Sastra implies mantra> > yoga, and is central to all the upasana oriented schools in Smarta,> Srauta and Tantra.> >> > Kundalini yoga is visible more in> > post-Vedic literature – Puranic and Tantric. Since Purana is more> theological> > than method-prescribing in nature, the subjects are visible in the> description> > of Devatas. Vishnu of Veda becomes Ananta Sayana,> Kartikeya/Kumaraswamy becomes> > Shanmukha in Purana and so on. These explain how the symbols that were> earlier representatives> > of Mantra method later came to symbolize Kundalini along with Mantra> method. In> > Tantra we find a more explicit mention of Kundalini, since the text> deals more> > with methods and procedures than Purana does. This holds for all the> Tantric> > texts, Vaishnava, Saiva, Sakta and others.> >> > Vaishnava schools are more Bhakti-oriented> > and stress more on the Yama-Niyamas such as Asteya and Isvara> Pranidhana, than> > other schools. Looking at the fact that the old Vaishnava schools> dealt extensively> > with Mantra and Yoga while the later schools went the Bhakti-way, it> can be> > interpreted that this is more of a reaction against the stress in> other schools> > on other limbs of Yoga in Shadanga and Kundalini Yogas. The siddhi and> sakti> > aspects of sadhana assumed more emphasis and the necessary emphasis on> basic> > conduct and Yama-Niyamas was lacking. Any vision is a product of its> times, and> > the emphasis on any aspect is a reaction to the prevailing conditions.> >> > Smarta and Yoga> > Smarta-Pauranika worship does not> > exclude kundalini yoga. However it is implicit and not explicit.> Anyone well> > versed with the terminology of Kundalini yoga can understand that the> central> > theme, trimurty of Purana means the granthi-traya. Many of the stories> around> > them, are applicable in that sense. And prohibiting Brahma from> receiving> > worship is a fairly explicit hint to the smarta approach of not> meditating on> > brahma granthi/muladhara. Even in case of Kumaraswamy whose six faces> feed on> > the breasts of six mothers/krittikas/shatcakras, there is no explicit> > meditation on muladhara. Saubhagyalakshmi Upanishad too, does not talk> directly> > of brahma granthi while it speaks of the other two.> >> > The explicit meditation on> > muladhara in smarta is in the context of mantra yoga, while worshiping> Ganapati> > as Para Vak.> >> > For that matter, the smarta and> > Pauranikas have almost always been implicit about kundalini yoga> itself, and> > not just muladhara. There is another reason for this, apart from the> yogic one.> > Kumara- Ganapati are seen as pravritti-nivritti margas (not in the> sense they> > are referred to in karma yoga), and nivritti marga has usually> received higher> > priority in the vedic/puranic/smarta system. Kaumara is a relatively> smaller> > tradition in shanmatas, for the same reason.> >> > This is one of the most> > fundamental differences between smarta and tantric sadhanas.> >> > However, contrary to the smarta> > take on this, Adi Sankara bridged this difference by his explicit> mention of> > meditation on all the six major cakras including muladhara> (Saundaryalahari). And> > in this case he put tantric aspect in smarta rather than the other way> round.> > This is just one of the many samanvayas he did across traditions. He> also> > brought emphasis back to the upward/pravritti/kundalini marga. For> instance he> > equates the four forms of mukti with worship of the Mother at four> centers –> > salokya, sameepya, sarupya amd sayujya at anahata, visuddha, ajna and> sahasrara> > respectively (Mukambika stuti). In this stuti however, we see that he> has> > organized the stuti in the typical smarta way – starting from> Manipura instead> > of Muladhara.> >> > Bhava pradhana bhakti and nama> > japa, Mantra yoga, Laya yoga, Kundalini yoga are difficult in the> increasing> > order. In smarta they receive encouragement in decreasing order. For> this> > reason their mention becomes more and more implicit.> >> > In total contrast with this,> > Tantra expressly goes the kundalini way. It is not for a layman (with> respect> > to spiritual practices of course). It needs training of senses, basic> > understanding of the mechanism of mantra or subtle body dynamics, and> quite a> > few other things. Which means it is for an advanced and serious> sadhaka. In> > Tantra there is no hesitation about any method, for the same reason.> The> > tantric yogi is not implicit about muladhara, the way smarta> practitioners are.> > Whether it is sexual or any other natural phenomenon he makes it a> tool in> > sadhana unlike the way common man is trained in the pauranika/popular> religion.> >> > Therefore we should remember that its practices are meant for a> trained man,> > while doing a comparison between Tantric and other practices.> >> > Theology> > Development of theology is> > another important subject.> >> > The major devatas worshiped are> > same in all the Astika traditions, though in different forms and in> different> > methods. The Vedic devatas like Indra are found in the early Tantric> texts. The> > later forms are of Vishnu, Siva, Sakti, Ganapati, Kali and so on.> Their tatva> > is established in Veda however they developed into wide schools> subsequently in> > the Puranic and Tantric literature.> >> > For example the Tatva of Rudra is> > described similarly in Veda as well as subsequent literature –> Purana and> > Tantra. However we can observe that Rudra, Vishnu become Pradhana> devatas in> > Purana and are not just their Vedic tatvas but more than that. They> become> > "complete" Gods or Isvara, all other Devatas are whose> aspects. Thus Sri Maha> > Vishnu of Purana is Vishnu of Veda, along with aspects of Aditya,> Suparna and> > Indra. (For instance Suparna's Vamanatva and Trivikramatva are> explained in> > Vamana Avatara of Vishnu, His bird-form assumes Garuda, the vehicle of> Vishnu.).> > Similarly Siva as described in Purana is Rudra of Veda, along with> aspects of> > Soma, Vayu and Indra. Devi tatva as explained in Purana and Tantra, is> found in> > Aditi and the nature of Agni in Veda.> >> > Further, Aditi is the prototype> > of Bhuvaneswari, the Sakta Maha Vidya. Also, the central beeja of> Bhuvaneswari Vidya,> > the Hrillekha, is the one of Aditya loka. Besides, Bhuvaneswari tatva> underlies> > most of the Sakta Vidyas. Devi also has close resemblance to Agni of> the Veda, as> > the Iccha Sakti (Lalita Upakhyana).> >> > The Mantra Vidyas for various> > devatas that smartas worship are found in Veda as well as Tantra.> Further, some> > of the central mantras of Tantric Vidyas are directly Vedic verses> – for> > example Pasupata, Mrutyujnaya, Jatavedasi Durga.> >> > In Veda there is a distinction> > between devata tatva/mantra and application. That Tantra has more to> do with> > practice, is evident from the fact that even the main mantra portion> in Tantra> > contains beejas that are primarily meant for application - hum, phat,> vashat,> > bhindi, chindi, vicce, svaha, vashat etc. In Veda the "application"> > or "prayoga" beejas are found more in non-samhita portion. Their> > presence in samhita is minimal.> > Besides Samhita, we find the> > compositions of Mantra Vidyas in the Brahmana, to some extent in> Upanishads,> > and in Kalpa Sutras.> >> > Mahanyasa Khanda of Baudhayana is> > a classic example of the usage of Vedic mantras in the> "tantric" way. Many of these> > compositions/verses such as Ajapa are found in Tantras too.> >> > The form and qualities of Devata are> > determined by the beejas used in the Mantra. Once the tatva of the> Devata is> > established, the same Devata is worshiped in multiple forms –> those are> > variants of the mula, additions of beejas that determine those forms.> For> > instance Siva – is worshiped in forms like Bhairava,> Dakshinamurty, Pasupati,> > Mrutyunjaya, Isana and so on. Each of these, is in turn a set of> Vidyas – there> > are multiple forms of Bhairava and so on. It is in Tantra texts that> we find> > the ocean of Vidyas in each of these. However they> > are worshiped across traditions, and not exclusively by> "Tantrics" or "Smartas".> >> > In case of Vaishnava Agamas, one> > can clearly see that the texts are not a "different school"> from the Veda, but those> > that serve the purpose of worshiping the same "Vedic Gods", by> elaborating the> > upasana methodology and philosophy, expound the methods and procedures> for> > idols and temples, and so on – in short the whole subject of> practice of> > worship of the Devatas. This applies in general to any Tantric text.> >> > However in Sakta, we can observe> > that this is not totally true. Sakta Tantras have practices that are> not just> > developed within the framework of Vedic society, but outside it too.> Some of> > the Devatas like Gauri, Durga and Bhadra Kali are found directly in> Vedic> > literature. Some forms like Tripura Sundari are found in Puranic as> well as Tantric> > literature. However there are also Vidyas like Tara that are specific> to Sakta Tantra. It is said that Taresi Vidya is an import> > from Bauddha. Besides, the practices like Ceena krama, Maha Ceena> krama and> > Divya Ceena krama in Vamacara, as their names suggest, are imports.> >> > But the fact remains that Bauddha> > is not exclusive or totally separate from Sanatana Dharma when it> comes to practices> > – there are overlapping vidyas and practices in these and> exchanges too. And> > the practices as such, are "practices" – there does not> have to be a change of> > world view for those practices to be a part of Sakta – it has not> made Sakta> > Tantra anything that the Astika darsanas are not.> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh ji,There is no capability/knowledge/motive race here, so there is no need to clarify what you mean by a general statement. Clarity is needed only on the subject ShankarSreenadh <sreesog Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:35:27 AM Fwd: [hc] Re: Indian Spiritual Traditions - a rejoinder to Sri Jit Majumder

 

 

Dear Shankara Bharadwaj ji,

By "not going to depth attitude in an effort to equate things",

I meant, "In an effort to equate things, not going to depth";

not because you can't but because that won't help you in equating things.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

[Guest guest]

Dear Shankara Bharadwaj ji,

==>

There is a difference between being related, being the same and being

unrelated. A few tantrics claim the third, almost no body claims the second. I

am saying the first. Where there is a relation, there is no point seeking a

different historical explanation or origin.

<==

OK. Let us accept for argument sake that, both of us are speaking about

Tantric and Vedic "being related"; it cannot be otherwise in the

current state of affairs, where everything gets merged into the multi-god,

multi-system sea of Hindu religion. But please look at this - There is a clear

difference between -

I) Two or more rivers originating separately and merging into one

AND

II) One river splitting into two or more rivers.

You seem to stand for the second and me for the first. As a sub-division

of the second type of argument, about the all the equalities (your seem to hide

it with the words 'related' cleverly) you are trying to create/argue-about

spring from an effort to state that -

1) either they are one and the same river splitting in to two or more rivers

 

2) or they are two connected rivers, possibly originated together,

running together mixing together at times and at times not.

I don't agree to both the statements, even though half agree to the second

statement. My argument would be -

 

I) They all are two or more rivers originating separately and now flowing

merging and separating at times; but there essential originality, identity,

core concept remains distinct, separate, understandable, identifiable.

Therefore for all practical understanding it is better to treat them as separate

and distinct philosophies.

 

For example, the total Mantrika (Mantravada)/Sorcery/Tantric Mantra

system is based on 8 or more fundamental base BELIEFS (I will try to list them

in another mail); except the belief in the 'power of words', we can't see any

similarity to for this system with any Vedic tradition. But even the

'power of words' concept was not of vedic alone; 'Power of words' was a concept

that was present with every tradition, almost every ancient system, every

religion and culture. Even in it there is nothing fundamentally vedic is

present. If so, what is 'Vedic' there at all in the 'Mantrika' system?!

It gets revealed to us that it is a totally independent path, and that occasional

mix-up was just accidental! Same is the case with almost all the thought

to be 'similar'/'related' things you stated.

For the sake of simplicity let us take one and elaborate. We will

start with the base concepts/beliefs present in Tantric system &

Vedic system and elaborate. Let us keep our lists to be the core, to the

essence - so that an easy comparison is possible. Let us understand how much

similarity is present between the two lists. (No third party lists, let us

prepare our own lists). To start with -

1) I will prepare a list of core

beliefs used/can-be-seen in Tantric Mantra Sastra (or better Mantra Vada)

2) You prepare a list of core beliefs

used/can-be-seen in Vedic Mantra Sastra (or application of Veda Mantras)

We will compare these lists; and try

to discuss in detail about each of the item presented. Shall we start such a study?

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote:>> Dear Sreenadh ji,> > It is just that a response should have a context. I am not forwarding my responses on this thread. > > > Coming to "depth", the reason I kept things simple is that it will otherwise make the writeup lengthy. However, I have not made the equations you said I am making. Please see the subtle difference in how things are related and are not compartmental. For instance: > > "Tantric = Vedic"> > This is the difference I sufficiently dealt with. There is a difference between being related, being the same and being unrelated. A few tantrics claim the third, almost no body claims the second. I am saying the first. Where there is a relation, there is no point seeking a different historical explanation or origin. > > "Jain = Buddhist"> > I have not equated them - I have not even talked of them. All I said is both are nastika. How does that equate them? > > "Pancharatra Vishnava Tantra tradition = Vedic Vaishna tradition = Narayana dharma"> > No I did not equate them - but at the same time they are not as disconnected as people think they are. One should see the basis for them. > > "Tantric Vinayaka Ganapati = Vedic Ganapati"> > There are no Tantric Ganapati or Vedic Ganapati or Smarta Ganapati or Srauta Ganapati. Ganapati is ONE. There are only Tantric or Vedic mantras/methods for worshiping Him. There are no different tatvas laid down with the name Ganapati in Tantra or Veda. If one looks closer into the devata tatva, this is not all that remote. > > "Saiva Advaita = Mayavada (dwata!) Advaita of Sankara"> > Again, where there are differences, there are. Where there are not, there are not. The classification can be between Nakuleeswara Pasupata or Pratyabhijna or Sankara Darsana, but not between Tantra and Vaidika. Seers have never drawn the differences between darsanas in those lines. Because the word darsana by itself, implies that it has nothing to do with specific methods - Tantric or otherwise. > > "Tantric Mantra Sastra = Veda Manta"> > Same here. There are no jatis in mantra sastra. It is the same seers, same theory of dhvani and vak, same beejas, same devatas. Moreover, it is me who mentioned the essential nature of difference in the tantric and vedic mantra vidyas. Different texts, different methods evolve for different purposes. That does not bring difference in the science that underlies them. > > "Kundalini Yoga = Hadha Yoga = Ashtanga Yoga"> > I have not equated them. At the same time, leaving Hatha yoga, yoga traya (kundalini, laya, mantra) is present in both the tantric and vedic schools. > > Please understand that I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you here. I am correcting where you mistook the writeup. > > > > > > ________________________________> Sreenadh sreesog > Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:54:45 AM> Fwd: [hc] Re: Indian Spiritual Traditions - a rejoinder to Sri Jit Majumder> > > Dear Shankara Bharadwaj ji, > That was a very long write-up explaining a particular stance,> especially in favor of Vedic tradition. Thanks for the write-up.> But I don't agree to you in most of the points mentioned in the> message; answering the 'why' will demand a very long reply which I> don't want to do as of now. My personal opinion is that you are mixing> many things without going to depths. Thinks are NOT this simple,> straight and equatable.> Whether it be related to the inherent efforts to equate things such as - > Tantric = Vedic> Jain = Buddhist> Pancharatra Vishnava Tantra tradition = Vedic Vaishna tradition = Narayana dharma> Tantric Vinayaka Ganapati = Vedic Ganapati> Saiva Advaita = Mayavada (dwata!) Advaita of Sankara> Tantric Mantra Sastra = Veda Manta> Kundalini Yoga = Hadha Yoga = Ashtanga Yoga> > - everywhere this 'not going to depth' attitude in an effort to> equate things is visible. A detailed comment will consume much time> and effort and so I am staying away from doing the same.> Love and regards,> Sreenadh>