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

[Guest guest]

hinducivilization , " Jit Majumder "

<jitmajumder212 wrote:

 

Re: Indian Spiritual Traditions - a rejoinder to Sri Jit Majumder

 

 

Dear Sri S.K.,

 

 

I almost missed this post of yours, and would surely have missed it,

had I not by chance gone back and waded through the past 12 days of

posts on the list yesterday. I had taken a short break after that

wonderful " tamil-girls-and-tamil-culture " thread. Let's just say I

had been asked by the moderators to take a research trip to kumari-

kandam to learn about tamil culture and tamil girls (pss… pss… don't

tell anyone!). I see that alongside yours, there also is one from Mr.

Ramesh K. as a rejoinder to my last post for him. Though I see that

this post too – like the one form Mr. Ramesh, has gone way up on the

list, I nevertheless have taken it up and replied to it, since you

have taken the trouble to prepare it to the best of your ability and,

moreover have addressed it particularly to me. I appreciate that and

so I feel it should be addressed, so that the followers of the

discussion and yourself can get to know where all you have gone wrong

and how much wrong. I believe that can be the only positive outcome I

can make of this one. Yours is a long post itself, and it will take a

longer rejoinder to take on the points one by one and examine them.

So lest it seems another " looong rant " to you, I will honour you

invitation to " refute " them. And of course, I will care to take on

points with points, instead of any unessential words.

 

 

 

<<<It is unfortunate that while you make noteworthy points the

discussion got derailed. I am taking a step back, and instead of a

reactionary response, trying to put in perspective my take on the

subject. Since it is really a wide subject I have certainly not

covered too much of ground. You are welcome to refute it. >>>

 

 

 

It is not at all a question of fortunate or unfortunate.

And " derailment' is only what you make of it. For me, there has been

no derailment or anything, nor do I accuse anyone else with that – I

have made points and counter points as and when I could – in my own

way. I had thrown you a challenge by asking you some questions, and

it was you who decided to interpret it in a different way than was

intended by me, and evade it with the pretext that it was uncalled

for such and such reasons. You automatically stand refuted by that,

to start with. Anyways, for me, it is not a question of refuting for

the sake of refuting, nor a matter of one-upmanship… And I certainly

wont be suspecting or accusing you of any " reactionary response " even

you had not mentioned it.

After going through this post, I see that you have once again chosen

to stick to the same fallacious premises and have made point after

erroneous point without absolutely no supporting proof, but only your

personal assertion. The same premises, and the same primary objective

with which you had taken it upon yourself to debate with me earlier,

but had copped out on some pretext when I wanted to test your ability

to back up your premises with some questions. I am afraid that you

have not really made any point *essentially* new from your side, but

have once again come to prove to me how your smarta tradition and

vedic literature is the bedrock and origin of all our traditions and

rituals and deities.

You have invited me to refute you, but what I can see is that you

automatically stand refuted by your own premises, and you are

(naturally) not even aware of the deductive contradictions you have

made in your post. You might after that retain your views held till

now, or you might choose to delve into new sources which you have not

till now, in order to verify what I have said and am saying. I do not

know why you welcome me to " refute " you, since I do not know whether

just refuting something that you offer will by itself make you let go

of that pre-held notion or conclusion.

 

 

 

<<<There are a variety of spiritual traditions in India. They deal

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

 

 

 

Yes, there is a variety, but the variety is also in the *definition*

or the *approach* towards `spirituality', `god', `world'

and `salvation'. One of the main points I have tried to make before,

too (perhaps not in so many words) that this must be grasped by

someone belonging to one particular vantage point out of

this `variety'. That will prevent the mapping of one's own self-

understanding on that of others. I remember that it is a point to

which you had seemed to agree on, in writing, on a previous occasion.

I stress the same thing now.

`Salvation' in the brahminical sense is not at all any valuable aim

worth striving for, in the way of the Tantrikas. Rather, they have

very little use for that outlook, and look at the concept rather

condescendingly. Where the concept of `salvation' ends, their concept

(the `4 jewels') BEGINS – sahajiya, svecchachara, sama and samarasa.

If I ask you, or any other " vedic " or " bhakta " to elucidate on these

4 `S', he will surely be clueless – just as surely as he will be if I

ask them all those previous questions I threw at you.

So that is to be remembered – that the traditions are varied (that is

but obvious) – but exactly for that reason, their yardsticks and

conceptual frameworks are ALSO varied. Same with soul, god etc.

Similarly, the " advaita " of Vedanta and advaita of the Tantras are

very different, both in degree and in kind. Again, the bauddhas,

jainas, ajivikas, samkhyas etc, have different takes on these

concepts like souls and god and salvation. Not grasping this basic

thing, and almost obstinately trying to map your own on other

traditions you have never chosen to delve into in depth, will render

any discussion futile, in the long run. Everyone does not have or aim

for the same kind of salvation, god or world.

 

 

 

<<<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. >>>

 

 

 

First, let's deal with the favourite claim of yours, and several

other forum members who have enthusiastically lent vocal support to

you in the past – " the oldest literature available is the veda " .

By itself, the claim is absolutely okay with me (assuming first that

it is incontrovertibly true). This claim, in India, is of course an

all-time cliché, and I am not really concerned with that on a

personal level. But – to start with -- being the oldest does not mean

anything by itself – nothing. The Vedas just might manage to be

the " oldest literature available " , but it is not the oldest tradition

or culture available.

But let me *logically* examine your claim – " the oldest literature

available is the veda " .

 

(i) Since you have already meant " written literature " -- and have

used the adjective " oldest " – thereby bringing the factors of `time'

and `place' into the question -- when you say " veda " by your

sentence, you can no longer claim that by " veda " now you

mean " knowledge " in a generic and disembodied sense, or " impersonal

knowledge " – in this present discussion and in this present point.

 

(ii) Therefore, now you have to go by the meaning of the term " veda "

as those 4 written books, and their `angas'. Because `impersonal

knowledge' itself has no time and place – it is timeless. But you

have already used the superlative adjective " oldest " . Now you have to

stick by that.

 

(iii) When you say " the veda " , it is singular. But there are more

than one " veda " . And the time period for their compilation from the

first to the 4th book, and the later `vedangas' in forms we find them

today is enormous – not less than 700 years at the very least. So you

cannot claim that " the veda " *is " *the oldest* available literature.

Since you cannot any longer mean " knowledge " by the term " veda " here,

you cannot longer use the singular – since impersonal intangible

knowledge itself cannot be " oldest " or " youngest " .

 

(iv) In that case, you can no longer logically claim that " it is

impersonal " -- Since no literature can technically and in the true

sense be " impersonal " . Any literature – ancient or modern, sacred or

secular, must have the human mind, intellect, intuition, experience,

emotions, cognition and human language (and written script) as its

intrinsic ingredients and its origin.

 

(v) Further, if the brahmanas, aranyakas and the vedangas

are " personal " based on the fact that they relate the seeker to the

devata, then by the *same standards* the samhitas also have to be

personal. Because " mantras pertaining to " devatas -- automatically

and logically amounts to being personal -- since any mantra must have

a composer to create it. That automatically establishes a personal

interaction -- because hymns, mantras and supplications ALSO

*relate* the " seeker " to the devata. Here too, one is the giver and

one is the receiver, and a give-and-take relationship is established.

So if one is personal, so should be the other—by the same standards.

 

(vi) Since every sukta/ hymn of the samhitas has its own seer (rishi)

and devata. Logically, hymns, mantras and supplications also relate

the " seeker " to the devata. Here too, one is the giver and one is the

receiver. One is the supplicant, or seeker, and the other is the one

in realation to whom the supplicant or the seeker is so. The only

explanation behind this logically unsustainable claim of " impersonal "

status of the samhitas can be the firmly entrenched traditional

construct/ belief in the collective Hindu mind – that Vedas

are " apaurusheya " .

 

(vii) The adjective " oldest " is a superlative, and hence denotes and

singular subject and one particular point in time. And we find, in

your own wording – " The *subsequent* portions of literature… "

Something cannot be " the oldest " and " subsequent to the oldest " at

the same time. Mr. Khandavalli, and his family members born before

or/and after Mr. Khandavalli cannot all at the same time be " the

oldest " . That again enforces the third point I had made above. And it

took even more time, for an once purely oral tradition to be put to

pen-and-ink at a point in history. So, the first verse of the first

veda is the oldest, and the second verse is the second oldest, and so

on. Rig veda is also " veda' and atharva veda is also " veda " and

aranyakas, nirukta etc are also " Vedas " . But all of it did not some

out of the blue in one instant, in which case you or anybody else

could have rightly made your " oldest literature " claim. " oldest "

being a superlative term, only one portion of the same " veda " can be

credited with being so, while all other subsequent portions – that

came one after another in a span of nearly a millenium, are naturally

other than " oldest " – like any other literature.

 

(xi) So going by your own words, you must now admit that " the veda "

is not a singular, homogenous entity born in its totality at one

single partiuclar point in time. You have to admit that " the veda "

means many pieces of literature, all of which are composed in

*succession* -- and therefore only one portion of them – the

earliest – can only be correctly and logically dfefined with the

singular superlative " oldest " . And based on that, you also have to

admit now that any literary tradition, spanning a huge time period,

must require newer and newer components from other sources in the

same geo-cultural sphere, for it to grow to its present size in a

particular time and space. So, the " Vedas " cannot be one homogenous

entity, which was the same during its inception as it is today, but

*as a necessity* relied on pre-existing and contemporary/parallel

sources to reach to its present volume, and literary components. It

cannot be an exception to the natural rule by which every literary

tradition on earth grows and evolves.

 

(x) And finally, when a section of Hindus go on repeating the " oldest

literature " claim for the Vedas ad infinitum, like broken

taperecorders, do they remember or do they know – how old the Harappa-

mohenjodaro brhami script epigraphy is? Do they have any remote idea

how old the cuneiform script clay tablets of ancient sumeria are? Do

they have the faintest idea of how old the egyptian papyruses are?

Does it even occur to those whose mental horizon ends with the Vedas,

how old the inscriptions of the mayas, incas and Aztecs are? Do they

even care to remember that the avestan literature of the Zoroastrians

came to existewnce at the same time the very first sections of the

fisrt Vedas came into existence?

In one single point – one of the very first points itself – so many

logical fallacies…..

I dealt with this " oldest literature " point in length, showing the

no. logical fallacies in one single point, and mentioning these

literatures of formidable aniquity – only because this mindless

clichéd slogan is becoming increasingly tiresome day by day – and it

does contribute to discussion getting " derailed " more than any other

thing does. I hope that we can just leave this issue once and for all

and move on to more points worth the time and energy.

 

 

 

<<<Smarta and Tantra are the two major traditions, besides Jaina and

Bauddha. They are very much overlapping in their practices.>>>

 

 

 

The " overlapping " is very much superficial, and very much " qualified "

or " conditional " , as you say it yourself in your next (below)

sentences. And this " overlapping " claim, again, is a very very

superficial, fallacious and reductionist claim indeed – something

that has always been asserted infinitely more than is ever proved.

And talking of being " major " or " minor " , it depends on your citeria

for deciding the status. And that is something, which I see " vedic "

proponents conveniently miss specifying – time and again.

Is it the volume of the ritualistic/ philosophical/

symbolical/idiomatic components present in existing traditions –

which will then prove the degree of influence and effect a tradition

has had? In that case – Tantra, in the context of modern day mass

Hinduism, wins hands down. Puja, homa, Murti, Mandir,, Japa, teertha,

and Mantra – these principle components of modern hinduism are

alomost entirely founded on the tantras (agams and nigamas). Folk/

tribal Hinduism (lokAyata), as based on local traditions and cults of

local deities at a communal level in all indian states and regions,

and coming down from pre-historic times, make up another huge chunk

of modern grassroot level and subaltern Hinduism – with practically

no element of smarta or srauta.

 

Or is it just plain and simple demographics – how many people follow

what? In that case too, the agamic/nigamic/tanrik tradition wins by a

landslide. The meager handful of authentic, purely smarta communities

remaining in India today are –

 

In the south – (i) Havyaka, (ii) Iyer, (iii) Mulukanadu, (iv)

Velanadu, (v) Veginadu, (vi) Telanganya, (vii) Namboothiri, (viii)

Badaganadu, (ix) Hoysala Kannada, (x) Kota brahmin, (xi) Babboor

Kamme, and (xii) Arvel Niyogis.

 

Elsewhere – (xiii) Karhade, (xiv) Deshastha, (xv) Konkanastha

(Chitpavan), and (xvi) Devrukhe in Maharshtra; (xvii) Saraswat and

(xviii) Gour-saraswat brahmins in north-west India and Bengal

respectively.

 

Total no. of smarta communities -- 18 ONLY. That pathetic demography

does not earn enough points for earning the title of " major

tradition " . Are you really unaware of the actual percentage of smarta

and srauta adherents in present Hinduism? That might be the case,

since smug, blind belief in overused cliches does prevent proper

investigation and verification of a supposed " truth " .

 

Tantra and smarta are overlapping in their practices? Maybe, that is

the case in the south. If you say it, I will give you the benefit of

doubt, because I do not live in the south. Anyways, the southern

tantra system and the Sri-kula has been almost completely taken over

by the brahminic approach – since the time of Shankara and that

insufferable sanctimonious bigot Laxmidhara. But at the same time,

which does did not and does not stop the brahminical clique to deride

the kaula practices and bowdlerize the ritual texts, and rant on

how `avaidika' and transgressional the tantra marga is – thereby

making things easy for us and showing that smartism/brahminism itself

sees tantra as different, anthithetical and outside its perimeters.

What I see all around me is that smartism – by its very self-

understanding, by its very self-definition, by its very approach, and

by its very approach towards tantra – is irreconcilable and in almost

all principle/ essential areas -- antithetical to Tantra. Tantra does

not need any smarta components – none – because it has enough hugely

sophisticated components for itself, and has developed unprecedented

philosophy and cosmology all by itself and claims an inheritance

older then the first veda. That you, like so many others, know *next

to nothing* about Tantra, and your sole interest in Tantra seems to

be in " proving " it to be totally indebted to " smarta " and " veda " for

its identity and components – is a different matter, and has to do

with the collective psychology of a segment of Hindus, rather than

historical and documentary evidence.

 

With 10-12 million followers, the jains form one of the smallest of

India's and the world's religious denominations, making decidedly

less than 1% of India's population.

 

Buddhism and Jainism are the two branches of the pre-smarta Shramana

tradition that still exist today – the other being the practically

extinc Ajivikas. The astonishing wish-fulfilling " overlapping " that

you obssessively crave for in each and every of your points – in the

case of Buddhism and Jainism – are rendered improbable at the *very

historical roots*. Therefore, while these two systems naturally

overlap in many areas, they are by their very origin and route of

development independent of that of smartism. The Shraman tradition

was one of wandering ascetics in ancient India, whose origins were

hoary and who were contemporaries all thorugh to the (and therefore

referred to in the vedic texts and in the epics) evolving srauta and

smarta tradition. By nature this tradition was against those

essential identification marks of smartas and srautas – the rituals-

and-sacrifices orientation, and the vedic/smarta varna-based society

and world-view. So early is the shraman tradition that even the quite

old (yajurvedic) Taittariya Aranyaka (2.7.1) defines " shramana " with

the meaning of " performer of austerities " . The Sramanic ideal of

mendicancy and renunciation, that the worldly life was full of

suffering and that emancipation required giving up of desires and

withdrawal into a lonely and contemplative life, was in stark

contrast with the smarta/ brahminic ideal of a scripturally and

ritually punctuated life. Exactly because the sramanas *rejected* the

vedic scriptural authority and way of life, Brahmins (as was habit)

labelled Sramana philosophy " nastika darsana " . Out of the 6 foremost,

essential points of Shramanism, no less than 5 were: (i) Denial of

creator and omnipotent God (ii) Rejection of Vedas as revealed texts

(iii) Denial of efficacy of sacrifices and rituals for purification

(iv) Rejection of caste system. On the other hand, as even a child

studying 4th standard history can tell – these very points have

remained the defining characteristics of the vedic/smarta tradition.

Author Y. Masih (2000) in his " A Comparative Study of Religions "

(Motilal Banarsidass, 2000), points out – " We know only this much

that the doctrine of karma-samsara-jnana-mukti is first seen in the

clearest form in the shramanic tradition. It is now even accepted by

orthodox bhramins. This doctrine is not clearly spelled out in

Rgvedas and not even in the oldest parts of Upanishads called

chandogya and Brhadaranyaka. " (P-149). Had it been any other person

with just his common sense working, it would have occurred to him

that had smarta and shramana traditions " overlapped " there would have

been no logical need behind labelling the shramanism based

traditions " nastika " in the first place. If all things have a mixed

up, overlapping hodge-podge from the beginning, in their natural

states, then how and why it had to be necessary for arch-amarta

Sankaracharya to debate vigorously with all non-vedic representatives

in his short life, and codifying and packaging smartism for posterity

by bringing all the Vedic communities together, and very nitpickingly

removing the non-Vedic aspects that had, by the natural process in

parallel co-existence, crept into them. This basic questions would

have occurred to anyone's mind.

 

But here, it is your " take " – Mr. S.K. Whenever convenient, you seem

to be needing common sense as much as yopu seem to need to do even a

tiny bit of basic homework on subjects you comment upon, and " prove "

your " smarta overlapping " . That seems to be the ultimate aim of all

your activities on the forum.

 

 

 

<<<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.

>>>

 

 

 

The term Smarta refers to adherents who follow the vedas. They mainly

follow the mayavada-advaita philosophy of Shankara. Sm & #257;rta

means " relating to memory, recorded in or based on the smriti, based

on tradition, prescribed or sanctioned by traditional law or usage.

This term is used with respect to a certain specialized category of

Brahmins. Propagating texts derived directly from the Vedas, they are

followers of apastambha Sutra (as opposed to others following manu

smriti). Smartas, by their very self-understanding, hold practice

of " dharma " (rituals and observances) more important than beliefs.

Smartism, due to Shankara, promoites the worship of 6 particular,

specific deities (shanmata). Anybody, even a bonafide smarta, would

wonder how that makes smartism " more of a framework than a spiritual

tradition " . But you must have all of sudden discovered the new

convenience in your take of the very definition and identity of

smartism now. After all, for you, as we all know – everything

just " overlaps " .

 

" to the extent that it does not go against the smriti. " – yes,

exactly my point above – in other words. One example of that is the

insufferable perversion of " samayachara " that is seen in the south

created by the likes of Laxmidhara – neither this, nor that – just

like " Indian scotch " . Neither tantra, nor officially smarta/srauta,

but brahminism disguised as " tantra " . And worse than that – the

audacity of those humbugs – dare to advertise it as " alternative

choice " or " replacement " to tantra. Such were these sanctimonious

humbug brahmins – they will do tantra, but not do tantra as tantra is

to be done, *according to* tantra. They will do tantra " their way " ,

after they have created their own " brahminic tantra " . I will take

others' things, but not understand it and approach it the way it is

to be approached, but I will re-shape it and redo it to my liking,

and then do it *my* way.

 

If you mean such perversions and such intellectual burglary by the

term " overlapping " – then my answer to you will of course be the same

as it was in previous occasions. And worse, you intentionally or

otherwise – totally rob the meaning of the word " overlapping " in that

process. " Accepting " something " only to the extent it does not go

against " it does not amount to any " overlapping. Neither is

it " accepting " .

 

Srauta traditions are conservative ritualistic traditions of the

historical Vedic religion, based on the body of & #346;ruti literature.

They persist in a few places in India today although constituting a

clear minority within Hinduism. Srauta is a vrddhi derivation of

Sruti, just like Smarta is the vrddhi derivation of Smrti. The & #346;rauta

tradition lays more emphasis on practice of the rituals rather than

having a set of beliefs. The practices of the & #346;rauta tradition mainly

consist of yajnas. These are divided into two categories, namely:

nitya-karma and kaamya karma. The remaining srauta communities today

are even lesser then the prementioned smarta ones. Today the & #346;rauta

tradition is limited by and large to the 4 southern states with a

couple of more communities in UP and Maharashtra.

 

On the other hand, Smarta means " relating to memory, recorded in or

based on the smriti, based on tradition, prescribed or sanctioned by

traditional law or usage, (etc) " , from the root `smr' ( " to

remember " ). Whereas the srautas follow directly the four vedic texts

(primarily the first 3), Smartas are followers and propagators of

smriti or religious texts derived from the vedas (vedangas).

I wonder what remotest sense your statement " smartas follow srauta

completely " makes, given that the two are distinct definitions,

and `sruti " and " smriti " are completely different things. Are you by

any chance really aware of the definitions of and the diiferences

between sruti and smriti? Or do you like to just drop terms without

knowing their meanings and application, as was before?

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

 

Vaishnava traditions refer to the writings of previous acharyas in

their respective lineage or sampradya (see below) as authoritative

interpretations of scripture. While smartism encourages

interpretation of scriptures philosophically and metaphorically and

not too literally, Vaishnavism stresses the literal meaning (mukhya

vritti) as primary and indirect meaning (gauna vritti) as secondary:

s & #257;k & #7779;h & #257;d upadesas tu shrutih - " The instructions of the

shruti-sh & #257;stra

should be accepted literally, without fanciful or allegorical

interpretations. " (Krishna Sandarbha 29.26-27) This is an example

that even within hindu religion there exists fundamentalism - the

literal interpretations of religious mythology, similar to christian

fundamentalists of various cults.

 

So once again, I wonder what sense you make by the

statement " Vaishnavites by and large, are smarta and they call

themselves smarta. " Going by earlier discussions with you, as well as

this one, it is increasingly becoming very apparent to me that for

some reason, you seem to be simply unable to look beyond the horizon

of " smarta " . You would have the entire spectrum of Hinduism

intimately involved and intertwined with " smarta " , I you could. Even

if that means error after factual error.

That's not where the factual errors as assertions end, however.

Again, you try to present non-smarta Vaishnavism in a rather

condescending tone, and would have them as " minor practices " . What

you mean by the misnomer of " smarta vaishnavism " , can only be the

vaikhanasas tradition, limited in south india. Vaikhanasas claim to

be a surviving school of Vedic ritual, the Taittiriya sakha of the

Krishna Yajurveda. The name Vaikhanasas stands for both the followers

as well as the fundamental philosophy itself with the name derived

from founder, sage Vaikhanasa. Vaikhanasa tradition says the sage,

who was a manifestation of Brahma or Vishnu, composed the Vaikhanasa

Kalpasutra and taught four disciples, Atri, Bhringu, Kasyapa, and

Marici, the procedures of samurtarcana, devotional service to Vishnu

in images. Most Vaikhanasa literature is almost completely concerned

with ritual, prescribing the rituals and their rules of performance.

To the Vaikhanasas their temple worship is a continuation of Vedic

fire sacrifice. It is principally monotheistic in its philosophy,

focuses on rituals and worship of Lord Vishnu rather than the

philosophy, unlike Vaishnavism, the larger and more prevalent form on

Vishnu worship. Surviving Vaikhanasa sutras are no older than the

fourth century CE. Inscriptions from perhaps the eighth century CE

identify Vaikhanasas as temple priests, and from the end of the tenth

century they are prominently mentioned in South Indian inscriptions.

At present, Vaikhanasas are a tiny brahman community of about 2,500

families widely dispersed in South India at Vaishnava temples in

Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and parts of Karnataka. Incidentally,

Ramanuja, leader of the Shri Vaishnavas and the first organiser of

temple administration at Srirangam Temple, replaced the Vaikhanasa

system of worship with the more liberal, and more prominent

 

Pancaratra system, expanded the fivefold division of temple servants

into tenfold, and gave an important part in ritual to sudra, lowest

caste, ascetics – which the smarta vaikhanasas, very typical of their

smarta obscurantism, refused to do so.

 

A little bit more of *facts* (as against wishful " smarta " thinking)

about the " minor " non-smarta streams of vaishnavism:

 

The Ramanandis -- This Vaishnava denomination has played an important

role in shaping the social and spiritual climate of the populous

Ganges valley. The Ramanandi movement owes its origin to the saint

Ramananda, who lived in Varanasi in the 14th century, and influenced

such popular saints like Tusidas, Kabir and Chaitanya among others.

This " minor " sect of your wishful thinking is, till date, one of the

*largest* and *most egalitarian* Hindu sects around the Gangetic

plains, and its ascetic wing constitutes the *largest Vaishnava

monastic order* in *all of India*.

 

Mahapuruxiya Dharma -- (Assamese mahapuruxiya, from Sanskrit `maha-

purusha') is a monotheistic religion initiated by Srimanta

Sankardeva – the foremost of assamese spiritual figures -- in the

15th century. Most of the adherents of this religion today live in

Assam. This religion has definite features that set it apart from

smartism.

The only central scripture of this religion is Bhagavat of

Sankardeva, which was transcreated from the Sanskrit Bhagavatam by

Sankardeva and other religious percepts. This book is supplemented by

the two books of hymns: Kirtan Ghoxa by Sankardeva and Naam Ghoxa by

Madhabdeva. These books are written in Assamese and Brajavuli

languages.

The religion is called Mahapuruxiya because it is based on the

teachings of Sankardeva who is known by the honorific Mahapurux

( " great man " ). The religion is also called Ek Sarana Naam Dharma, and

the adherents are often called Sarania, Sankari, Mahapuruxia etc. Non-

adherence to the smarta varnasrama system and egalitarianism is one

of the essential traits of its character.

Unlike the smarta pancha-devvata, the only form of worship prescribed

by this religion that of Krishna. Thus it is also called ek sarana

naam dharma. Though a part of the wider bhakti movement, it does not

worship Radha with Krishna, and it is characterized by the dasa form

of worship, like the gaudiya vaishnavas. Noted for its

egalitarianism, it posed a challenge to smarta/ brahminical hinduism,

and converted into its folds people of all castes, ethnicity and

religion (including Islam).

 

Vaishnava-Sahajiya is another form of tantrik vaishnavism that

originated in bengal in the 16th century. It is unambiguously

a `vamachari path', as well as " heterodox " to vedic/smarta

injunction. The Vaishnava-Sahajiya sought religious experience

through the 5 senses which included human coupling and sexual love.

The tradition, used the romance between Krishna and Radha as a

metaphor for the union of the soul with God, and sought to experience

that union through its physical reenactment. It teaches that the

ideal way to understand the union of humanity is to transcend the

profane aspects of sexual intercourse and experience it as a divine

act. In their literature they deliberately employed an encrypted and

enigmatic style of substitutions and correspondences that has come to

be known the " twilight language " (sandhya bhasa), iconic of all

permutations of Tantra. The divine relationship between Krishna and

Radha (guises of the divine masculine and divine feminine: Shiva-

Shakti) were celebrated by the poets Candidas, Jayadeva and Vidyapati

whose works parallel the rasa or " divine mood " of human and divine

love; which was later explored by Chaitanya in less overtly sexual

tones. The Vaisnava-Sahajiya coterie is a synthesis and complex of

these various traditions. The sahajiya (literally: natural, or

spontaneous) approach and idiom is the primary and basic approach and

idiom of bengal vaishnavism, without any slightest flavour of rigid,

puritanical and obscurantist smartism.

 

Then comes another off-the-mark assertion, that " Vaishnava Agamas

come closer to Brahmana portion of the Veda than Saiva and Sakta

Tantras " . It is hard to continue a constructive debate, if sentence

after sentence consists of these totally uninformed, totally

unfounded, and totally insubstantiated and historically inaccurate

claims – that too said with such an assurance that can only come from

a blissful ignorance. Just how much of Vaishnava Agamas have you

studied? Does not the previous points you have made and to which I

have provided facts (as against assumptions) give some idea? I hope

you can manage to do some research on your own, based on the few

facts I provided, and verify your assumptions about saivism, shaktism

and vaishnavism vis-à-vis smartism to a reasonable extent.

Again, in one single point, so many factual errors and unfounded,

unhistorical notions – in rapid succession.

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

Once again, quite a bit of wrong understanding in the last sentence.

It is not that some depend more on philosophy and some more on

something else. It is that both philosophy and method are different

in different approaches under our discussion, and more importantly

here – the nature of the relationship between philosophy and method

is entirely different in tow different traditions. Not understanding

that deliberately had been the affliction of the Brahmins of yore

like laxmidhara and the reason behind their irresponsible tomfoolery

with another tradition.

 

And I do remember stressing this point with utmost clarity in a

previous thread, and which you apparently seemed to have grasped,

when I pointed out that you have to grasp the self-understanding of

the tradition(s) you are discussing and comparing with another one,

rather than mapping other frameworks on those traditions. But I do

doubt it now, as to how much really you had understood that. Again

and again you seem to drop terms like " mantra " , " methods " , " devata " ,

etc. where the context does not at all call for it.

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

 

Who says so? Who decides that for one and all? The smartas? Who takes

it upon them to present that particular understanding as the self-

understanding of all Hindu traditions without exception? are you

speaking for yourself, or are you venturing to speak for every

tradition that exists?

Let's examine your last sentence/ claim: " newer world views are

improvements over the older ones, and not necessarily refutations of

those. "

 

(i) Any " improvement " over any pre-existing thing is by nature, by

definition and by effect, a " refutation " of that thing. Because and

improvement is not an improvement, unless it renders the pre-existing

thing obsolete. If an " improvement " cannot be a better replacement

for anything, if it cannot enable us to take a step higher, and

proceed from one point to the next level, then the meaning of the

word is lost.

 

(ii) Anyone who truly understands the meaning and significance of

Hindu spirituality and philosophy, will know that these also, are

sciences. Our approach to spirituality is not different form the

scientist's approach to the physical sciences. In both spheres, the

method of progress is basically same – enquiry, research, experiment,

deduction. And this much worked-upon theme – that of the science of

spirituality – should be well-known by anyone who likes to present

before others his understanding of Indian philosophical traditions.

 

(iii) Hindu philosophical/ spiritual/ religious history is basically

the history of refutations of various traditions and approaches by

other traditions and approaches. Every

philosopher/reformer/theologist from the ancient times to the modern,

has done that, and left for posterity the records of their purva-

paksha.

 

(iv) even if for arguments sake we assume that " improvement "

and " refutation " are mutually exclusive, the also, going by oyur own

words, it is " not necessarily " so, since you say that improvements

are not really refutations, which logically would means that

improvements *could also be* refutations.

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

 

Please excuse me for saying that the first sentence itself is plain

nonsense. It is not good or bad, it is just senseless. You do seem to

have your own " original " take on " Indian spiritual traditions " and

other things. I wonder whether you have gone through the length and

breath of India and have confirmed from reliable sources of each and

every tradition that all of them without exception see " That " as

the " additional " one, who is supposed to be not one with the " world "

but is something in " addition " to it. In spite of repeatedly

betraying a very problematic and fallacious understanding on a

diverse range of things, you somehow go on and on trying to speak for

all traditions…..

As for the rest of the above point, I fail to see how they are

relevant, since you have just declared some commonly known stuff,

without clarifying how they are relevant to the discussion or why you

are mentioning them.

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

 

(i) That is why, in effect, Tantra refutes samkhya, in the sense that

it renders the 24 tattva limit of samkhya as something not to be tied

down to anymore, with its " expansion " of those tattvas to 36.

(ii) Tantra is not an " instance " of a " recent school " .

(iii) Tantra is not an school – it is a vast tradition containing

several schools.

(iv) Tantra is not one " instance " that enumerates 36 tattvas. It is

the only tradition that had conceived it and enumerates it.

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

 

Is that so?? Is that all you know about " aum " ?? Is that all you can

possibly manage to tell us about " aum " ??

 

Let's us look at some " vedic " texts. yes, your " smarta " literature…..

Etymologically speaking, the name " pranava " comes from the root " nu "

meaning " to shout, sound, praise " ; verbal " pra-nu " being attested

as " to make a humming or droning sound " in the Brahmanas, and taking

the specific meaning of " to utter the syllable Om " only in the

Chandogya Upanishad and the Srauta Sutras. till that point, there is

absolutely no talk of " creation, sustenance and dissolution " – which

is a much much later interpretation, and rather too commonplace one

to make any particular point.

 

When elaborated upon in the Taittiriya, Chandogya and Madukya, the

syllable is set forth as the object of profound religious meditation,

the highest spiritual efficacy being attributed not only to the whole

word but also to the three sounds (a-k & #257;ra), (u-k & #257;ra) and

(ma-k & #257;ra),

of which it consists. A-kara means form or shape like earth, trees,

or any other object. U-kara means formless or shapeless like water,

air or fire. Ma-kara means neither shape nor shapeless (but still

exists) like the dark matter in the Universe. When we combine all

three syllables we get AUM which is a combination of these three.

Again, if you look at the yoga sutras of Patanjali (1:27), you can

read: " tasya vacakah pranavah " which translates as " Aum is His

voice " .

 

The Katha upanisad says: " The goal, which all Vedas declare, which

all austerities aim at, and which humans desire when they live a life

of continence, I will tell you briefly it is Aum " . " The one syllable

(evaksara, viz. aum) is indeed Brahman. This one syllable is the

highest. Whosoever knows this one syllable obtains all that he

desires. " " This is the best support; this is the highest support.

Whosoever knows this support is adored in the world of Brahma. "

(1.2.15-17)

 

Further it says: " Om, indeed, is the Lower Brahman; this is, indeed,

the Higher Brahman. Anyone who, meditating on Om, wishes either of

the Two [aspects], by him that is attained. " ( 1.2.17)

The Chandogya (1.1.1-1) states: " The udgitha ( " the chanting " ) is the

best of all essences, the highest, deserving the highest place, the

eighth. " You can also enjoy verses 1.5.1, 1.5.3, 1.5.5, 1.9.2-4, and

8.6.2,5.

 

Further it says: " Verily, this Syllable is of assent, for whenever

one assents to anything he says simply 'Om.' What is assent is

fulfillment. He, who knowing this thus, meditates on the Syllable,

becomes, verily, a fulfiller of desires. " (1:1:8)

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says: " Om is Brahman, the Primeval

Being. This is the Veda which the knowers of Brahman know; through it

one knows what is to be known. " (5:1:1)

The Mandukya defines it as the threefold time (1). And as the Self,

or Atman (8,12).

The Gita (8.13) says: Uttering the monosyllable Aum, the eternal

world of Brahman, One who departs leaving the body (at death), he

attains the superior goal.

Similarly, in all other major upanishads, au is defined as like other

things, but still not as cration, preservation and dissolution.

Okay, okay, can we just look outside of sanskrit? (anything in times

of need, right?) But alas! In Tamil " Om " literally means " Yes " , " Yes,

it is " .

 

I wonder if I should see it as surprising that none of your

favourite, bona-fide and authoritative " vedic " and " smarta " texts

start by interpreting " aum " as you have done. Or that I have

presented " aum " in a much more comprehensive, specific manner with

references, unlike your very vague and commonplace definition of it.

" In later texts like Tantras and Puranas… " – you say, even in this

occasion not missing the chance to point out how " later " the Tantras

are. Well, in Puranas, Aum is almost on all occassions the mystic

name for the Hindu Trinity, and represents the union of the three

deities. But that is not all, it seems. Even at this point, your

simplistic commonplace interpretation (the one and only you have been

able to recall) seems pretty far off from occuring. For the other

(lesser occuring) meanings of the syllable in the puranas are:

(i) Waking- Dreaming- Dreamless Sleep into Turiya (transcendental

state). (ii) Sattva - Rajas - Tamas - into Brahman. (iii) Body -

Speech - Mind into Oneness

 

Okay, it does look like a bleak hope by now in seeking material

from " ve-dic " and " smarta " sources to back up the only definition of

all the definitions of aum that you have managed to present us. Let's

take the help of those whom you smartas love to call " heterodox "

(nastika).

 

In Jainism, Aum is regarded to be a condensed form of reference to

the five " paramesthis " , by their initials A+A+A+U+M. For that, you

have to get yourself a text named Dravyasamgraha. " Aum " is the

syllable made from the initials of the five parameshthis, which are --

" Arihanta, Ashiri, Acharya, Upadhyaya, and

Muni " .

 

Oh crap!!

And let me not even start with the Tantras. Let's just end this point

by observing that – now – you have a rather " comprehensive "

understanding of what Om means – okay?

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

 

Astika-nastika is not a bifurcation. It is plain ve-dic/brahminic

shit. And this vedic shit has caused enough damage for centuries. I

doubt if you would be able to give an accurate answer, if I asked you

the original meanings of these terms. Astika is an adjective (and

noun) that is derived from `asti' ( " it is or exists " )

meaning " believing " or " pious " ; or " one who believes in the existence

(of God, of another world, etc.). " Nastika (na (not) + & #257;stika) is its

negative, literally meaning " not believing " or, more

pejoratively, " not pious " . As used in Hindu philosophy the

differentiation between astika and nastika refers to belief in Vedic

authority, not belief or lack of belief in theism.

 

The term " bifurcation " that you have carelessly used, automatically

implies the existence of only two choices or two divisions, or two

alternatives (the prefix `bi' = two). BUT, there are more than two

alternatives in case of Indic traditions. There are those who do not

define themselves either as astika or as nastika – those for whom

these very temrs are irrelevant and redundant. But to be aware of

those, requires a more extended mental horizon than is hardly allowed

by the narrow blinder of a vedic/brahminc/smarta worldview which is

so prone to evaluating and judging all traditions primarily on the

basis of its adherence or non-adherence to " vedic authority " . We are

reminded of the proverbial frog-in-the-well syndrome, which

nonetheless cannot make one control his obssession for historically

unsubstantiated " common grounds " and " overlappings " . That is of

course not an individual phenomenon, but the collective trait of a

segment whose traditional cultural upbringing does not leave much

room for the " difference-with-respect " attitude.

 

And again, as if almost by compulsive habit more than any actual

knowledge or information or even a sincere attempt to understand the

other first – you once again go on about " methods " the moment you

have to talk about Tantras. Once again I remember telling you

pointedly that in Tantra, the method itself is the purpose – you seem

to have forgotten every infinitesimal bit of that. Ad nauseum, you go

on and on and on, like a tape-recorder, about the " same mantra/

method " being shared by other traditions and world-views. It is

unfortunate that you refuse to realize that these are exactly the

debating habits that run the risk of having discussions " derailed " –

since " raising good points " should not be the burden of only one of

the participants. When the simplest of simple things, the basic of

basic things are given a miss by fossilized minds or brains that

somehow cannot see beyond an certain horizon, then carrying on a

discussion and preventing it form getting " derailed " gets

increasingly harder.

 

As we can see in point after point of this long post of yours, Mr.

Avatar K. Kaul seems to be nearer and nearer to accuracy perhaps,

when he observed a couple of days back that your posts are more

confusing than anything on the contrary.

 

Had there been anyone else other than me, he/she certainly would have

been astonished at the way you manage to produce over-simplistic,

sweepingly generalized factual errors in point after point with such

a superior level of consistency and total assurance based on

blissfull ignorance in all your posts. I again wonder how can I

manage single-handedly the task of preventing derailment of

discussions – specially given your enthusiasm to debate with me.

" another practicle difference is that …..the former speak of atma… " --

 

I am particularly amused at the usga of the word " practicle " here.

Wonder whether it is an attempt to give a " practicle " " value "

and " credibility " to an impractically ridiculous statement. Not only

you are perfectly at ease with your total apathy and disinterest in

knowing about the subjects (in this case " nastika " traditions) that

you – nonetheless proceed to comment on so easily and callously – you

have an interest in giving a `practicle " veneer to this intellectual

irresponsibility.

 

Jainism uses the term atman to refer to 'the self'. Often atman is

mistaken as being interchangeable with the word Jiva with the

difference being somewhat subtle. Whereas atman refers to the self,

jiva refers to the living being, the exact comprehension of which

varies throughout the philosophical schools. In Jainism, the soul is

the knower, and knowledge pertains to the soul or self as a mode of

it, and not in the sense of an external possession. The soul without

any knowledge is an unreality. Similarly, knowledge without any

reference to soul is a mere word signifying nothing. The self knows

itself simultaneously, omniscience is a potentiality inherent in

every soul. When the soul is unimpeded by the influences of matter

which obscure knowledge and freely functions, it is capable of

omniscience. Consciousness is the inseperable essence of every soul.

It is not a mere acidental property arising under certain conditions.

Consciousness is not an evolute of matter, but is self-revealing. It

is capable of manifesting itself and everything else, unless some

obstruction prevents its from reaching its object. The jainas have

recognized jiva as a conscious substance. The soul is the knower,

agent and enjoyer. As a spiritual substance the soul is changeless.

The soul can maintain its existence independent of the body. The

existance of the soul is directly proved by its consciousness of

itself. Due to inclination (samakara) generated by its past actions,

a soul comes to different bodies succesively. As light, which is

formless assumes the form and dimension of the case in which it is

placed, so also the soul, having no form of its own, acquires the

size and form of the body it inhabits. it is in this sense that a

soul, though formless and intangible, is daid to occupy space or have

extension (astikAya). But the soul does not occupy spce in the sens

ein which a material body does. In Jainism, the obstacles that

obstruct the native omniscience, omnipotence and infinite bliss of

the soul, are constituted by the matter particles. The limitations

found in any body with which the soul identitfies itself. The body is

made of particles of matter (pudgala), and the particular body that

an individual soul inhabits is also created by the soul itself. In

the sense that the karma or the sum of the pat thought, speech and

activity, generates in the soul a knid of blind cravings and passions

that want satisfaction. theses cravings and passions in a soul

attract to it particular sorts of matter-particles and organise them

into the body which was unconsciously desired. It is for these

reasons that Jainas consider the passions and cravings of the soul to

tbe the organiser of the body. The bondage of the soul, according to

them, is due to its association with matter. Moksha therefore

conssits in the complete dissociation of the soul from matter.

The extent of the falsity, the callous sweeping over-simplification

of your statement, and your lack of even the fundamental,

introductory information regarding the " nastika " traditions' approach

to the `atman' can be further inferred by the following fact, that

the very first five of the " main points " of Jainism are:

Every living being has a soul. (ii) Every soul is divine with innate,

though typically unrealized, infinite knowledge, perception, power,

and bliss. (iii) Therefore, regard every living being as yourself,

harm no one, manifest benevolence for all living beings. (iv) Every

soul is born as a celestial, human, sub-human or hellish being

according to its own karmas. (v) Every soul is the architect of its

own life, here or hereafter.

 

These, happen to be the *very first five* of the main points of

Jainism.

 

And now, a " little bit " about Buddhism:

 

In Buddhism, the belief in the existence of an unchanging atman is

the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all

misery and the foundation of samsara. The early scriptures do,

however, see an enlightened being as one whose changing, empirical

self is highly developed. Some Mahayana Buddhist sutras and tantras

present other Buddhist teachings with positive language by strongly

insisting upon the ultimate reality of the atman when it is equated

with each being's inborn potential to become and future status as a

Buddha (Tathagatagarbha doctrine). 8th century Buddhist philosopher

Santideva informs us that in order to be able to deny something, we

first of all need to know what it is that we are denying: Without

contacting the entity that is imputed, you will not apprehend the

absence of that entity. (Bodhicary & #257;vat & #257;ra).

 

Another philosopher Candrakirti contextualises & #257;tman as follows:

& #256;tman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is

an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness —

(Bodhisattva-yogacarya-catuhsatakatika)

 

In the Abhidharmapitaka, a prime authoritative text of

Buddhism, " Atman " is a conceptual attachment to oneself that promotes

a false belief that one is intrinsic and without incident.

As the belief in & #257;tman is identified as a cause of samsara, it is not

merely cognate with the various concepts of atman as found

in " astika " philosophy, and indeed the specific identification of

what & #257;tman is, is an essential philosophical concept for the Buddhist

meditator. If no concept of & #257;tman were to exist at all, then we would

all be naturally free from sa & #7747;s & #257;ra. What this entails is that

& #257;tman

is identified as existing as a concept - more specifically, as an

afflictive misunderstanding; moreover, it is this specific affliction

which is identified as being the root cause of all suffering. Within

the Mahayana branch of Buddhism, there exists an important class of

sutras (influential upon Ch'an and Zen Buddhism), generally known as

Tathagatagarbha sutras ( " Buddha-Matrix " or " Buddha-Embryo " sutras), a

number of which affirm that, in contradistinction to the

impermanent " mundane self " of the five " skandhas " (the physical and

mental components of the mutable ego), there does exist an eternal

True Self, which is in fact none other than the Buddha himself in his

ultimate " Nirvanic " nature. This is the " true self " in the self of

each being, the ideal personality, attainable by all beings due to

their inborn potential for enlightenment. This True Self of the

Buddha is indeed said to be pure, real and blissful, and to be

attainable by anyone in the state of Mahaparinirvana. Furthermore,

the essence of that Buddha — the Buddha-dhatu ( " Buddha-

nature " , " Buddha principle " ), or Dharmakaya, as it is termed — is

present in all sentient beings and is described as " radiantly

luminous " . This Buddha-dhatu is said in the Nirvana Sutra to be the

uncreated, immutable and immortal essence ( " svabhava " ) of all beings,

which can never be harmed or destroyed. The most extensive sutra

promulgating this as an " ultimate teaching " (uttara-tantra) on the

Buddhic essence of all creatures (animals included) is the Mahayana

Mahaparinirvana Sutra. There we read in words attributed to the

Buddha: " ... it is not the case that they [i.e. all phenomena] are

devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon [ " dharma " ] that

is true [ " satya " ], real [ " tattva " ], eternal [ " nitya " ],

sovereign/autonomous [ " aishvarya " ] and whose foundation is unchanging

[ " ashraya-aviparinama " ] is termed 'the Self' [atman]. " (translated

from Dharmak & #7779;ema's version of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra).

This True Self — so the Buddha of such scriptures indicates — must

never be confused with the ordinary, ever-changing, worldly ego,

which, with all its emotional and moral taints and turmoil, conceals

the True Self from view. Far from being possessed of the negative

attributes of the mundane ego, the Buddhic or Nirvanic Self is

proclaimed by the Buddha of the Nirvana Sutra to be characterised

by " Great Loving-Kindness, Great Compassion, Great Sympathetic Joy,

and Great Equanimity " (refer the Four Brahmaviharas). There are

numerous references to the reality of this transcendental yet

immanent Self of the Buddha in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra,

which scripture the Buddha declares to embody the " uttarottara "

(absolutely supreme) meaning of all Mahayana Buddhism. One of the

features most frequently linked to this " Self-that-is-Buddha " is its

great purity, which sets it apart from the illusory and tarnished

mundane ego. The Buddha states in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra: " To

crush out the worldly notion of the Self and purity, the Tathagata

speaks of the Self and Purity of true sense. " The Tathagatagarbha is

indicated by the relevant sutras to be the ultimate, pure,

ungraspable, irreducible, invulnerable, true and deathless

quintessence of the Buddha's liberating being (kaya), the very core

of his supreme Selfhood (dharmakaya or dhammakaya). In this same

sutra the Buddha explains that he proclaims all beings to have Buddha-

nature (which is used synonymously with tathagatagarbha in this

sutra) in the sense that they will in the future become Buddhas.

Furthermore, the Tibetan Tantrik (Vajrayana) Buddhist scriptures also

do not fall behind. one of them, entitled " Manjushri nama sangiti " ,

as quoted by Tibetan Buddhist master Dolpopa, applies the following

terms to the Ultimate Buddhic Reality: (i) " the pervasive Lord " ,

(ii) " the Supreme Guardian of the world " (iii) " Buddha-Self "

(iv) " the beginningless Self " (v) " the Self of Thusness " (vi) " the

Self of primordial purity " (vii) " the Source of all " (viii) " the

Single Self " (ix) " the Diamond Self " (x) " the Solid Self " (xi) " the

Holy, Immovable Self " (xii) " the Supreme Self " (xiii) " the Supreme

Self of all creatures " .

 

" Major bifurcation " and " veda pramana " , right? " astika "

and " nastika " , right? Pls remember – this is the type of cluelessness

that gets discussions " derailed " , not anything else, certainly not

me. And such cluelessness is inevitable, when one's mental/

intellectual horizon begins and ends with " veda " and " smarta " . It is

the same clueless, which transports any wishful thinker to a virtual

reality, where a tradition that has remained in just about 18

communities in all of India and Hindudom becomes a " major tradition " .

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

 

The vague over-simplifications and factual errors continue in full

flow….

 

(i) The " advaita " of Vedanta and the advaita of Tantra are very

different. You have zero knowledge about the premises and the

structure of the Tantrik advaita philosophy. This is a single point

with many other " points " remaining to be addressed, and also, since a

full-scale elucidation on the difference between Shankara's advaita

and Tantrik advaita would go high over your head (because you do not

have the groundwork for understanding certain terms and concepts that

will immediately come into usage in the process), let me just put it

in a tentative " nutshell " here –

 

Unlike that of vedanta's brahma and maya, the relation envisaged in

tantra is not an external relation between shakti as something which

has only " byavaharik sattva " and not " paramarthik satta " . Further,

Shkati is not even in an external relation between Shiva as Being and

Shakti as consciousness of being, butan *internal* relation

of " ananyatva " . In shakta-advaita, " relation " is discarded as

superfluous and inseperability (aprithak-siddhi) is itself viewed as

the essential nature of the two " relata " . It is therefore not

relation, but is spoken of as " relation " tentaivley of ease of

conceptualizing in the empirical world. Shakta-advaita lies in the

dynamic fullness of shakti (in contrast to the concept of " maya " in

mayavada) in terms of self-consciousness (consciousness identified

with being). In Tantra, MayaShakti is `brahmanistha sanatani " –

consciousnessas Shakti is intrinsic and ever-abiding in Shiva.

Reality is formless and that which is formless goes beyond relation,

and hence nothing can be attributed to Reality. The word " beyond " in

a " beyond relation " is used in two senses in two traditions – (i)

including or wider than relation, and (ii) having no absolute

relation at all, but only empirical. Shakta-advaita is the first one,

and vedantic/Shankara advaita is the second one. In order to

understand the difference between the two clearly, you have to fist

go and learn what is " vivarta-vaada " and what is " parinaam-vaada " .

 

(ii) Shaktas are ALWAYS advaitic in approach, without exception

(shakti-vishsistha-advaita). The Shaivas have pluralistic, monistic,

dualistic, qualified-monistic, qualified non-dualistic, and monistic-

theist streams.

 

(iii) There is no " smarta " Tantra. Just like there can be no " Bengali

Tamil " or " native foreigner " . For someone who is so enthusiastic about

presenting himself as a vedic/smarta stalwart, it is surely

significant that a non-vedic would have to point out to him at this

moment *just one* of the many available clues from " vedic literature "

itself – Kulluka Bhatta, the author of the most authoritative

commentary on Manu Samhita, has in his note on the 1st shloka of

Chapter II quoted a passage from the work of Harita which reads –

" Now we shall explain Dharma. Dharma is base don the authority of

Shruti. Shruti is of *two kinds – Vaidika *and* Tantrika*. "

What is there is a smarta take on Tantra, which I had dwelt on

previously. There is no separate thing as non-smarta Tantra, because

Smarta is a vedic-based tradition, as I have defined earlier, while

tantra is a non-vedic tradition running parallel to the vedic one,

and with its roots in pre/non-vedic cultures of India.

 

(iv) There is unambiguously clear, specific, point-wise

classification of " vedic/brahminic " and " tantric " worldviews, running

into numerous points.

 

And to end this point, may I just display one more example of your

utter cluelessness by juxtaposing your brilliant " revelation "

that " there is no classification of any world view as Vedic or

Tantric " with another of your own " revelation " in just the very

previous " point " of yours: " the same mantra portion/method is

followed by traditions sharing DIFFERENT WORLD VIEWS " (emphasis

mine).

 

And I would just like to add to this at a grammatical, and logical

fallacy, that can only be possible perhaps by " vedic " stalwarts –

that " different " and " sharing " does not go together. The questing

of " sharing " comes when the object shared is the " same " , and

not " different " . The very term " different " renders the term " sharing "

redundant. If two parties have " different " world views, they are then

having each their own world view, and not " sharing " .

And then there is another sentence of yours in another point –

acouple of points earlier to this one where again you begin

with : " While THERE ARE DIVERSE WORLD VIEWS in Indian spiritual

traditions… " (emphasis mine).

 

Anything in times of need, right Mr. S.K.?

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

 

(i) The sarva-darshan-samgraha is not " his " (i.e. Vidyaranya's). It

was the work of Madhavacharya. And even a 10th standard student knows

what " astika " includes and what " nastika " includes. Besides, he also

can get the name of the author of sarva-darshana-samgraha right.

 

(ii) The " astika " darsanas include ONLY the six darshanas. Shankara-

advaita is one stream of the first one of the six -- Vedanta itself,

and not something separate.

 

(ii) Pashupata is not of vedic origin, but predates the vedic culture

and society – the most ancient of the Saiva sects and all sects in

Hinduism. The key Hindu concepts of karma, Maya (not in the mayavad

sense) and reincarnation or transmigration of the soul – were

originally alien to the vedic religion and were integrated into –

primarily through ancient Saivism. The tribes who worshipped Shiva in

the vedic period were the non-arya tribes – primary among them the

Shibi people of the north west, who finds mention even in the

Mahabharata and the earliest portions of the Vedas. The ajivika sect

was also, to a large extent, Shiva worshippers.

 

(iii) The Pratyabhigna school of Kashmir philosophers gave a lead to

the mystic flowering of Shaivite Philosophy by providing a

breakthrough technique of spiritual realisation that even Shankara

must have wondered at and cunningly utilized as a tool to bring a

practical shape to his concept of pseudo-advaita mayavada philosophy

that later encroached on Shaivism.

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

 

Thank you for teaching me an awesome lot on " vak " . But why did you

leave out so many things from your samhita?

Why did you also not teach me that In the early Rigveda (books 2 to

7), v & #257;c- refers to the voice, in particularly the voice of the priest

raised in sacrifice. She is personified only RV 8 and RV 10, in RV

10.125.5 speaking in the first person

aham eva svayam idam vadami / justam devebhir uta manusebhih

yam kamaye tam-tam ugram krnomi / tam brahmanam tam rsim tam sumedham

 

" I, verily, myself announce and utter the word that Gods and men

alike shall welcome.

I make the man I love exceeding mighty, make him a sage, a Rsi, and a

Brahman. "

 

Why did you not teach me that The intimate connection of speech,

sacrifice and creation in (late) Rigvedic thought is expressed in RV

10.71.1-4:

1. b & #341;haspate prathamá & #7747; v & #257;có ágra & #7747; / yát praírata

n & #257;madhéya & #7747; dádh & #257;n & #257; & #7717;

yád e & #7779; & #257; & #7747; & #347;ré & #7779; & #7789;ha & #7747; yád ariprám

âs & #299;t

/ pre & #7751;â tád e & #7779; & #257; & #7747; níhita & #7747; gúh & #257;ví & #7717;

2. sáktum iva títa'un & #257; punánto / yátra dhîr & #257; mánas & #257;

vâcam ákrata

yátr & #257; sákh & #257;ya & #7717; sakhyâni j & #257;nate /

bhadraí & #7779; & #257; & #7747; lak & #7779;mîr níhitâdhi v & #257;cí

3. yajñéna v & #257;cá & #7717; padavîyam & #257;yan / tâm ánv avindann

& #341; & #7779;i & #7779;u právi & #7779; & #7789; & #257;m

tâm & #257;bh & #341;ty & #257; vy àdadhu & #7717; purutrâ / tâ & #7747; saptá

rebhâ abhí

sá & #7747; navante

4. utá tva & #7717; pá & #347;yan ná dadar & #347;a vâcam / utá tva & #7717;

& #347; & #7771; & #7751;ván ná & #347; & #7771; & #7751;oty en & #257;m

utó tvasmai tanvà & #7747; ví sasre / j & #257;yéva pátya u & #347;atî

suvâs & #257; & #7717;

 

" When men, Brihaspati!, giving names to objects, sent out Vak's first

and earliest utterances

All that was excellent and spotless, treasured within them, was

disclosed through their affection. "

" Where, like men cleansing corn-flour in a cribble, the wise in

spirit have created language,

Friends see and recognize the marks of friendship: their speech

retains the blessed sign imprinted. "

" With sacrifice the trace of Vak they followed, and found her

harbouring within the Risis.

They brought her, dealt her forth in many places: seven singers make

her tones resound in concert. "

" One man hath ne'er seen Vak, and yet he seeth: one man hath hearing

but hath never heard her.

But to another hath she shown her beauty as a fond well-dressed woman

to her husband. "

 

Why did you not teach me that Vak also speaks, and is described as a

goddess, in RV 8.100:

10. yád vâg vádanty avicetanâni / râ & #7779; & #7789;r & #299;

devân & #257; & #7747;

ni & #7779;asâda mandrâ

cátasra ûrja & #7747; duduhe páy & #257; & #7747;si / kvà svid asy & #257; & #7717;

paramá & #7747; jag & #257;ma

11. devî & #7747; vâcam ajanayanta devâs / tâ & #7747;

vi & #347;vár & #363;p & #257; & #7717; pa & #347;ávo vadanti

sâ no mandré & #7779;am ûrja & #7747; dúh & #257;n & #257; / dhenúr vâg asmân úpa

sú & #7779; & #7789;utaítu

 

" When, uttering words which no one comprehended, Vak, Queen of Gods,

the Gladdener, was seated,

The heaven's four regions drew forth drink and vigour: now whither

hath her noblest portion vanished? "

" The Deities generated Vak the Goddess, and animals of every figure

speak her.

May she, the Gladdener, yielding food and vigour, the Milch-cow Vak,

approach us meetly lauded. "

 

There, Mr. S.K. Now you are in a perfectly good position and with

enough material to lecture me about Vak.

 

 

 

<<<Further explanation on this is found in the praises of Ganapati ……

(clip…clip…)

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).>>>

 

 

 

Why did you not mention by the way that RV 1.164.45 says:

catvâri vâk párimit & #257; padâni / tâni vidur br & #257;hma & #7751;â yé

man & #299; & #7779;í & #7751;a & #7717;

gúh & #257; trî & #7751;i níhit & #257; né & #7749;gayanti / turîya & #7747;

v & #257;có

manu & #7779;y & #257; & #768; vadanti

 

" Speech hath been measured out in four divisions, the Brahmans who

have understanding know them.

Three kept in close concealment cause no motion; of speech, men speak

only the fourth division. "

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

Wow! Did not know that. Sounds all Sanskrit to me.

 

 

<<<The same theory of sound is used in all Indian spiritual

traditions, including Tantra.>>>

 

 

Could you teach me please? Never knew that! Where is this Tantra

available? Where can I see it?

Anyways, if you have finished with your lecture, maybe you can use a

reference from me – try getting " The Serpent Power " by John Woodroffe

and studying it, if possible.

 

 

 

<<<After realizing that phenomenal world is relativistic…

(clip…clip…)

The same theory is applied in all the traditions, of Smarta, and

Tantra.>>>

 

 

 

Of course. Since you know so much of Consciousness studies, and since

(as usual) the smarta and the Tantras are common areas of

application, normally it would seem that I could, if I wanted, ask

you a few questions on the subject of consciousness studies.

Logically, Answering them would be child's play for you, since you

already know that it is the " same theory applied in …..smarta, and

Tantra " . But I remember you not liking the idea of being quizzed very

much (though answering questions is actually a child's play)…. You

seem to enjoy teaching, though.

 

 

 

<<<Mantra Sastra implies mantra yoga, and is central to all the

upasana oriented schools in Smarta, Srauta and Tantra.>>>

 

 

There is no concept of " upasana " in smarta and srauta. But that falls

in the realm of Tantra.

 

 

 

<<<Kundalini yoga is visible more in post-Vedic literature – Puranic

and Tantric.>>>

 

 

 

Kundalini yoga is visible – ONLY – in post vedic literature. It is

not visble in the puranic literature. That is not the purpose or

objective of the puranas.

 

 

 

<<<Since Purana is more theological than method-prescribing in

nature, the subjects are visible in the description of Devatas.>>>

 

 

 

A lot of puranas contain a lot of prescriptions of methods. And they

are certainly not " more theological " , to the exclusion of other

components. Why don't you tell us then, -- what are the five defining

features of the puranas?

 

 

 

<<<Vishnu of Veda becomes Ananta Sayana,>>>

 

 

 

(i) Vishnu of " veda " was a very minor, unimportant, inconspicuous

deity, just one of the 12 adityas, with no separate identity or

presence of his own. The Vishnu of the puranas who is the second of

the Trinity, and who is the Supreme lord of Vaishnavism was a product

of primarily non-vedic components. The vedic component of the present

day Vishnu is microscopic.

 

(ii) Ananta naga is not the symbol of kundalini. Secondly, He, like

all other zoomorphic and semi-zoomorphic icons in later Hinduism, are

fully non-aryan components.

 

 

 

<<<These explain how the symbols that were earlier representatives of

Mantra method later came to symbolize Kundalini along with Mantra

method.>>>

 

 

 

(i) These explain nothing but remain far-fetched conclusions,

identical to the ones you made earlier in that " vedic astrology "

thread.

 

(ii) The concept of Kundalini originated and prior to the mantras of

the Vedas.

 

 

 

<<<In Tantra we find a more explicit mention of Kundalini>>>

 

That's natural, because the science and philosophy of kundalini

evolved with the evolution of primitive(proto) tantra prior to the

Vedas and later running parallel to the vedic stream – in a similar

oral guru-shishya tradition.

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

 

All of these mentioned " later forms " – are the result of the

incorporation of non-vedic/non-aryan components and identification

with vedic ones. Vishnu as was aforementioned was very minor and

unimportant in the Vedas, but came to his present form after non-

aryan incorporation into the vedic vishnu. Unlike Vishnu, Siva, Kali

and Ganapati are totally non-vedic in their origins and come down

from pre-vedic times, and their mention is found in only the later

Vedic texts, by way of incorporation and assimilation.

 

 

 

<<<Their tatva is established in Veda however they developed into

wide schools subsequently in the Puranic and Tantric literature.>>>

 

 

 

That is not their " tattva " . It is a totally upturning of the

historical sequence. The vedic gods are there in Vedas in their full

forms and not as " tattvas " – whatever that may mean. And the huge

majority of them – mitra, varuna, aryamaan, pushan, ashwin, vayu,

dayus, ushas, aroura, maruts, vasus, tvastri, parjanya, etc have long

faded into oblivion. the supreme and the central Indra and Agni have

been hugely demoted in status in post-vedic age – the first to the

status of a " lokapala " and the ruler of the deva clan, and the second

to one of the devas in Indra's court.

 

Whereas the ancient and primordial non-aryan Siva, the

supreme " ganadevata " of the non-aryan peoples – totally unmentioned

and disregared in the rig-veda, and instead criticized and belittled

as the phallus-god (shishna-deva), after merging into himself the

inconspicuous vedic rudra (who has only 3 mentions in the entire rig

veda) went on to become the supreme lord by the time of the yajur

veda, when the mutual give-and-take between Aryan and non-aryan

culture went into full flow.

 

Ganapati, in the early vedic times, was – instead of a god – a

rakshasa (vinayaka – the creator of obstacles) since he was the chief

of the " ganas " of Shiva. As was with Shiva, he went on to become one

of the primary deities of later Hinduism, with the changing Aryan-

nonaryan equations. From the creator, he became the remover of

obstacles.

Kali, the primordial mother-goddess who was worshipped along with

primordial father-god, went on in her own independent parallel

stream, later merging with Chamunda of the puranas, and at the same

time evolving from her prehistoric stage into the regional mother

goddesses and fertility goddesses of the Indian states, and the

supreme tattva of the tantras.

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

 

I certainly feel like laughing at your usage of the words " we can

observe " . You mean, you see only what you want to see – the commonly

found " cognitive bias " as they say in cognitive and behavioral

psychology. Yes, because by that time the vedic Aryans were forced to

give recognition to non-vedic deities and in time turn them into the

major deities. That is why they become pradhana in the later vedic

and post vedic age, and not earlier.

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

 

Factual errors – all of them. The same over-circulated hogwash

unhistorical theories. Vishnu is exsplained above. Rudra forms less

than 5 % of the present day Shiva. Garuda and Shesha are 100 % non-

aryan, originating from the clan totems of the non-aryan naga and

suparna tribes. Aditi has no connection with the Devi of the Tantras,

origin wise and tattva wise. Agni is associated not only with the pre-

vedic goddess, but with several others non-vedic deities, since the

vedic Aryans used to associate evry new deity they incorporated with

their central deity agni. And devi Tattva as is explained in Tantra

has absolutely no foundation, in any sense, in the vedic Aditi.

 

 

 

<<<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).>>>

 

 

 

Wrong again. Totally wrong.

 

 

 

<<<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 " .>>>

 

 

 

Smartas never did, nor do they now – worship the Bhairavas or the

Mahavidyas. There is no smarta method of worship for these deities.

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

 

(i) Agamas are by definition non-vedic authorities. " Agama "

means " that which comes " from the root " gam " which means to come

(from the mouth of Shiva).

 

(ii) A text is not the identification mark or " badge " of a school.

 

(iii) No " vedic " are worshipped. The Puranic and agamic deities are

worshipped.

 

(iv) Exponding of the methods and procedures for idols and temples

are the unique features of the agamas and nigamas. The vedic religion

never had image construction, worship and temple building. vedic

deities were non-anthromorphic. It is the agamas and nigamas that are

theological treatises and practical manuals of divine worship. The

Agamas include the Tantras, Mantras and Yantras. These are treatises

explaining the external worship of God, in idols, temples, etc. There

is no reference to worship of images or yantras in the Vedas.

 

(v) Vedic religion never consisted of worship but only consisted of

yajna. Worship (upasana) is the domain of the puranas and Tantras.

 

(vi) Vaishnava agamas are unambiguously non-vedic as a tradition. The

Vaishnava Agamas are of four kinds: the Vaikhanasa, Pancharatra,

Pratishthasara and Vijnanalalita. The Brahma, Saiva Kaumara,

Vasishtha, Kapila, Gautamiya and the Naradiya are the seven groups of

the Pancharatras. The Naradiya section of the Santi-Parva of the

Mahabharata is the earliest source of information about the

Pancharatras. The Vaishnavas regard the Pancharatra Agamas to be the

most authoritative, and not any vedic text, just like the Shaivas see

their shaiva agamas like the kamika-agama etc. as the authorities.

There are two hundred and fifteen of these Vaishnava texts. Isvara,

Ahirbudhnya, Paushkara, Parama, Sattvata, Brihad-Brahma and

Jnanamritasara Samhitas are the important ones. Boradly they could be

classified as Panacratra and Vaikhanasa. Pancaratra, as the name

suggests, involve a five-fold ritual schedule. There are about 200-

225 Pancaratra texts. They are not born from the " vedas " .

 

 

 

<<<Some of the Devatas like Gauri, Durga and Bhadra Kali are found

directly in Vedic literature>>>

 

 

 

All three of the mentioned goddeses are non-aryan fertility goddesses

in origin. They were not even part of the Aryan society as a whole,

let alone a part of " vedic " literature.

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

(i) It was held among some that " Taresi " vidya (the term is Tara

Vidya), but is now no longer substantiated by historical facts.

 

(ii) Ceena krama, Mahceena karma and divya ceena karma are not

separate karmas. They are one and the same. Ceena-krama is one of the

five shakhas of Tantrik Hinduism. It was an *export* from Hindu to

Vajrayana Bauddha, not an import from Bauddha to Hindu. It was

experted by mainly the virachari Tantrikas of Bengal and the north-

east. The foremost Sadhak of ceena-krama shakha was Vasistha (not the

Vasistha of the epics and puranas), who lived and did his sadhana in

Tarapith, and was responsible for establishing tarapith as a siddha-

pitha. Vamakhepa also belonged to ceena-krama, and so did his

disciples alike Tarakhepa, Nigamananda, etc.

 

 

 

<<<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.>>>

 

 

 

(i) Baudhha is separate from the vedic/brahminical version of

sanatana dharma – primarily in the realm of practices, even more so

than in the realm of philosophy. The same sweeping generalizations,

callous half-turths, irresponsible factual errors, unhistorical

conclusions are carried to even the last of the points.

 

(ii) " overlapping " -- for the umpteenth time in so many words – is

only the result of a parallel birth, evolution and co-existence in a

common geo-cultural matrix, and not a proof of " common ground " or one

being the foundation of the other.

 

(iii) Practices are the external implementation of a world view for

any tradition. The world-view shapes the practices and the

approaches, not the other way round.

 

(iv) Since shakta tantra is unambiguously something that the " astika "

darshanas are not (whether there " have to be a change " or not is a

moot irrelevant point), it has not been possible for you to answer

the questions I gave you as a challenge earlier. But, (assuming you

do know your " astika darsanas well) it would have been very easy for

you to answer them, since Shakta tantra is supposed to be nothing

more than " astika " darshanas.

 

For that same reason, There have been different " acharas " created by

different factions as their own takes on Tantra, and the labeling

of " vamachara " and " vedachara " , " vaishnavachara " " shaivachara " etc.

as separate modes of sadhana -- thus making " vamachara " vamachara

only in the context of a vedic/brahminical context, which defined

itself as the right hand " other " . Had the deliberate great falsehood

that makes up the last sentence been true, there would not have been

biased, prejudiced, hostile, denigrating remarks on and

interpretations of Tantra by various vedic " astika " commentators

through the ages. Had the great lie been a truth, there would have

been no need to apologise for and make rationalizations and

intellectualizations for the Tantrik features such as the 5 m's. Had

the great lie been a truth, There would have been no need of a

separate term, a separate literature and philosophy by the name of

Tantras.

 

Had the great lie been truth, The smartas – according to your

own " observations " – need not have " accepted " tantras only " to the

extent that " the practices " do not *conflict* with the guidelines of

smriti " ; but could have accepted them wholly without reserve or

compromise or intellectual burglary – since they are allegedly

nothing that the " astika darsanas " are not. Had this great lie been a

truth, it would not have been that the advaita of the Tantras start

where the pseudo-advaita of the " astikas " exhausts its possibilities

and scope.

 

Shakta Tantra is what the " astika " darshanas are not, exactly because

Vedanta is not tantra, samkhya is not tantra, nyaya is not tantra,

mimansa is not tantra, vaisheshika is not tantra, and the

vedantic/patanjal/ ashtanga yoga is not the tantric kundalini/kriya

yoga, or the 5M yoga. Shakta tantra is something that " astika "

darshanas are not, that's why there is this separate term " shakta

tantra " .

 

On a physical level, Shakta Tantra is something that " astika

darshana " is not – by more than a hundred texts more. And lastly, the

shkata tantras had to be logically more than what the `astika

darshanas " are, only because it is way much older than all of the

astika darsanas, with the exception of samkhya.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Anyways, there I end my rejoinder to you post prepared specially for

me. And if you can see the extent to which your posts contain such a

high degree of falsehood, half-truth, outright factual errors,

tortuous interpretations and explanations, self-contradictions,

logical fallacies, totally unsubstantiated assertion after

assertions, abject superficiality and unbounded wishful thinking –

then you might just manage to guess why posts form your end are

perceived by few as `confusing " , and how debates with you are too

prone to be " derailed " . Your problem, I feel is a particular kind of

stagnancy, or rigidity, or fossilization. which finds it difficult to

really grasp anything new, anything other than what it has held

entrenched in it for long. The problem is that you mental horizon

ends at a certain distance, beyond which it simply cannot comprehend.

But that at the same time does not prevent you from making claim

after claim – from your very first to your very last point in your

longer-than-usual post to me, which interestingly, was hailed by some

as the " best " one to have come from your end. if this is your " best " ,

I can just about guess how/what your " worst " might be. From my end,

having answered the points, I would suggest to you to think deeply

about the actually objective as to why really you have written such a

post – to what end? And what did you prove by all those errors,

fallacies and assertions?

 

" while you make noteworthy points…. " you intentionally or

unintentionally compliment me at the beginning. While I thank you for

that, and would certainly like to return the compliment to anybody, I

cannot honestly do that right now, when you have not provided even an

inch of ground on which I can say that truthfully.

Not only is your knowledge (even on a basic level) of non-vedic

traditions like tantra, bauddha, jaina, shaiva, vaishnava etc. less

than mentionable, it is also that you are clueless about what vedic

literature itself says about various topics and points that you bring

up.

 

You know nothing about the advaita of tantra, yet you go on to match

the tantric advaita with Shankara' mayavada. You know absolutely

nothing about the historical origins of the Tantrik goddess, yet

there is not the least bit of conscientiousness when you – in

sentence after sentence make assertions about thei origins being from

mvedic adaiti or vedic agni. You know nothing about Vaishnavism,

Shaivism, yet you proceed to " prove " the " smarta " character of those.

You are apparently confused even about the distinction of shruti and

smirit, yet in point after point you flaunt those terms in such

a " generous " manner. You are clueless about the Tantrik mahavidyas

and their tattvas, yet you don't hesitate to cover all of them under

the umbrella of " aditi " . You are clueless about the relation of the

term " agama " to the term " tantra " , yet you go on and on regurgitating

that term (agama) blissfully unaware of its application and usage.

You have clearly not delve into even a single work of Tantra in depth

till now in your life for all I can see, but you don't hesitate to

make sweeping statements using the terms " tantra " and " tantric

texts " , like you know their contents and spirit like the back of your

hand. You know nothing about the panchratras, yet you comment with

utter irresponsibility and without discrimination on " vaishanava

agamas " . You are utterly clueless about the historical origin and

evolution of the deities like Shiva, Ganapati, kali, Durga, Skanda

etc. yet with total smug self-assurance proceed to turn them

into " later forms " . It has never been your inclination to study in

depth about the comprehensive worldview, complicated epistemology and

ontology of tantra – even in outline – but that does not stop you

from engaging in the most low standard attempts at sophistry and

reductionism. You are utterly clueless about the approach to and

treatment of concepts like mantra, yantra, tattva, sadadhva, kala

etc, yet you glibly throw around these terms in your uninformed and

imaginative " observations " . You contradict yourself at random --

anywhere and everywhere -- directly and/or indirectly, yet the extent

of your cluelessness about what you are talking about makes you

unable to even sense or locate those contradictions. You are

absolutely clueless about the Shaktadvaita view of experience, about

the siddhanta theory of experience, about concepts

like " samavayavarti " , " parigrahavarti " , " anugraha " , " tirodhana " , " avab

odha " , etc, but that does not make you hesitate the least when

you " prove " common ground and common components of shakta and

smartism, when you almost forcefully would have Shaktism nothing more

than what " astika darsanas " are not, or when you go on using the

term " sakta " , " sakta " every now and then. In all of the questions I

had asked you to answer previously -- for which you accused me of a

couple of things and till date have evaded them under some pretexts --

you surely have noticed that at the end of each one, I had asked you

show parallels or origins from " vedic literature " . I doubt now

whether you had understood what I was trying to say, or show you. And

that's why you have not stopped going " sakta " , " sakta "

or `smarta " " smarta " incessantly, in context or out of it. That is

why you have not stopped trying to " prove " your `take " of a non-

independent, non-distinguishable world-view of the Tantars vis-à-

vis " smarta " or " astika " – even till the last sentence of

your " take " .

 

These happen, and you waste precious time and energy in trying to

prove unprovable fallacies, largely because of one main problem I

feel you have.

 

What I find in you are a few rigid mental beliefs (most probably due

to your cultural upbringing and very limited exposure to traditions

along the length and breath of India) that has taken a somewhat

obsseive-compulsive turn, where your sole objective of a `discussion "

is to " prove " a " smarta " or " vedic " foundation for all things and

specially tantra. And no unhistorical conclusions, tortuous

explanations, twisted logic, or the absence of logic, or half-turths,

or seeping, utterly perspective-less generalizations, no assertion

after assertion (without the need for providing references) is too

much, provided the " goal " is achieved somehow. I run again and again

into this " unintentionally sophistc logic " – to use Sri Aurobindo's

term -- when I examine your posts and rejoinders – and I am not only

talking about those posts which have been rejoinders to mine. You

jump continuously into what you think are " conclusions " but which in

fact are sans any premises – because you have been clueless from

beginning about how to proceed towards getting the clues themselves

in the first place. So unless you can manage to come out of this

intellectual straitjacket, and make a sincere effort to learn the

self-understanding of the traditions you want to speak for with such

enthusiasm, before you actually start speaking for them and defining

them -- it is hard prevent discussions from getting " derailed " . Apart

from the primary reason for my replying to this post being that you

had prepared it with me in mind and had addressed it to me in

particular, one more reason was that upon the first reading itself,

before I got down to typing the counterpoints – was that this post of

yours is clearly an example of your propensity for combining

contradictions, sweeping half-true or half-false generalizations and

logical fallacies with the help of your " unintentionally sophistic

logic " . Not to mention the separate, different standards you apply in

turn, in your self-appraisal of veda and tantra – each time every

time. That is probably why it becomes a necessity for you, like

several others, to continuously harp and quibble on " mantra-shastra "

and " method " and " sampootikarana " and " tattvas " , instead of seeing

what is obvious and going into the heart of things.

 

I once again appreciate your " trying to put in perspective "

(your) " take on the subject " – as you have put it in the beginning.

And of course by the end of it I do clearly see your " take " .

That's why, I humbly suggest that you do not reply to this just for

the sake of carrying on a " debate " . As you are not (and I this only

in an objective manner) informed enough to have a debate on the

points and topics which you have been dwelling on. Mere quibbling,

dropping technical terms

like " tattvas " , " mantras " , " vak " , " agamas " , " sakta " , " method " " mantra

portion " and displaying knowledge of a few names of texts, deities,

and phrases do not a point make, when you proceed to talk

about " sakta " without even a rudimentary idea of the main points of

Shakta-advaita and mayavada advaita. So what you can well do is to

just take my rejoinder – which you yourself had invited, and do some

homework and research on your own. And like Mr. Venkatasubramunian

previously, if you want me to give you leads to relevant resources --

that I shall gladly do, just like I had done for him. Do study on

things you are so prone to and so enthusiastic about commenting so

glibly, preremptorily and so emptily on, and that will be one sure

way in future to ensure that no discussion gets " derailed " but turns

out invariably to be mutually enlightening.

 

 

 

Thanks – Jit Majumder

 

 

 

 

 

 

hinducivilization , ShankaraBharadwaj

Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Jit,

>

> It is unfortunate that while you make noteworthy points the

discussion got derailed. I am taking a step back, and instead of a

reactionary response, trying to put in perspective my take on the

subject. Since it is really a wide subject I have certainly not

covered too much of ground. You are welcome to refute it.

>

>

> An Overview of Indian Spiritual Traditions

 

 

--- End forwarded message ---