Historical question on Astrology- the Heterodox systems of Tantra, Jina etc

October 19, 2009

Dear Satya Prakash ji,

Thanks for the beautiful post.

//> 1. Much of the old argument feeds itself on the belief that Hinduism and the

Vedic cultures are synonymous. If there is no mention of something in the vedic

corpus some scholars conclude that the idea is borrowed from a foriegn

non-Indian source.

>

> 2. However it has to be pointed that the Tantric/Proto-Agamic and Vedic

traditions are both old enough and have *independant* as well as

*interdependant* sources. //

Well said - I completely agree with you on this.

//there could have been an older common source for the older Jina, later Bauddha

and some older Hindu Yoga traditions that have disagreements with the vedic

traditions. Most of these were non-vedic while some patterned themselves

expressly as anti-vedic. Nevertheless they were all Indian traditions inspite of

their non-vedic origins.//

Yes - quite possible.

//> 3. Some of these heterodox, non-vedic Indian traditions have links with the

*so called* Dravidian cultures too. And the so called Dravidian cultures in turn

seem to share something with the Sumerians, Babylonians and Assyrians.//

Yes, this is well true (even though I don't agree to the later part of that

para)

//> 4. Much of what is Hinduism today has its roots in the Heterodox traditions

of India as well. This holds true for Indian astrology too.//

Agree.

//Whilst Greek astrology and Indian astrology seem to have had interactions

directly and indirectly at a later period, there has always been an older

astrological tradition in India that was not necessarily Vedic. The Greeks

themselves entered the picture relatively late and probably owe much of their

knowledge to these original sources that had by the time of the Greeks spread

out to other areas of the globe. //

Well said - I agree with you completely.

//though I am willing to give credit to the Greeks for a number of things it

becomes clear from the above that the Greeks themselves are not the originators

of certain ideas ascribed to them. Most of the traditions worldwide had other

common sources of origin whether our own biases make us conclude that they are

Dravidian/Tamilian or Tantric or Babylonian or from some other

culture/tradition. //

A good pointer - and I agree with you.

//> 5. Whether or not one sees sense in the above ideas depends on one's

exposure to a few systems of knowledge. //

That is one of the best points/pointers you presented.

//> In conclusion I do not believe that the Vedic traditions are the only

origins for current day Hindu beliefs and practices. There are Indian traditions

outside the Vedic fold, some of them possibly older. These older traditions

include the Heterodox systems such as Jina, Tantric and Dravidian traditions.//

Beautiful! But I wonder whether it would be better to use the word 'Agamic'

than to use the word 'Tantric' to get a better and wider understanding. And I

also wonder whether you will include 'Zorashtrian Avestan', 'Scythian' and Asura

(Assyrian) and Bhargava Parasurama traditions within the Vedic fold or outside.

(I will prefer to include all of them within the Vedic fold, even if the

orthodox vedavadies does not agree). I also wonder why you haven't included the

Kambojan, Naga, and Buddhist traditions in the above list. They too have much

'Non-vedic Indian' in them. The ancient 'Pasupata Siva traditon' is another one

that definitely needs mention.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

, " Dr Satya Prakash "

<backtocosmicroots wrote:

>

> Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,

>

> Namaste.

>

> That's okay. There is nothing personal in this discussion. My main reason for

objecting to your words is not your disagreement, but your misrepresentation of

my words. I had to defend as well as clarify my stand as otherwise your

misinterpretation of my article could be understood as my belief.

>

> No. *Nowhere have I given any date to the Atharvana Jyotisha*. The only thing

that I ever mention is that it does not belong to the early vedic period.

Moreover I do NOT hold the belief that Vara (weekday) has been a Greek influence

on Indian astrology. Let me explain myself. Whilst there has been an interaction

between Hindu and Greek astrologies at some point of time, both were already in

existence at that point. Indian astrology existed long before Parasara's magnum

opus. In fact my own studies based on a multidisciplinary approach that includes

not just Astronomy & Astrology, but Linguistics, Anthropology, Discourse

Analysis, etc all of which have an overlap with Behavioural Sciences

(Behavioural Sciences which is a multidisciplinary field is one of my major

areas of expertise in which I run a teaching Institute affiliated to the Clinic)

point to something else.

>

> I do not wish to start another controversy here as I do not have the time to

give the required lengthy explanations that link fragments from various areas.

However I will quickly hint at some things. I will try to simplify the whole

thing and avoid the details due to lack of time. Inevitably I am running the

risk of another controversy by this oversimplification. If the reader is willing

to go with the process and not get stuck with the details, here it is.

>

> Note to the readers: Please do not get stuck with the words 'Aryan' and

'Dravidian' or use the following as confirmation of the Aryan invasion theory.

>

> 1. Much of the old argument feeds itself on the belief that Hinduism and the

Vedic cultures are synonymous. If there is no mention of something in the vedic

corpus some scholars conclude that the idea is borrowed from a foriegn

non-Indian source.

>

> 2. However it has to be pointed that the Tantric/Proto-Agamic and Vedic

traditions are both old enough and have *independant* as well as

*interdependant* sources. Those who do not understand the antiquity of the

Tantric/Proto-Agamic traditions see little beyond the Veda. However there could

have been an older common source for the older Jina, later Bauddha and some

older Hindu Yoga traditions that have disagreements with the vedic traditions.

Most of these were non-vedic while some patterned themselves expressly as

anti-vedic. Nevertheless they were all Indian traditions inspite of their

non-vedic origins. These are all clubbed together in the orthodox Vedic context

as the Nastika (Heterodox) traditions. Note that the orthodox Hindu definition

of an atheist and theist is not based on belief in God, but by belief in the

Veda; So you have Purva Mimamsa an orthodox Vedic system that does not believe

in God!

>

> 3. Some of these heterodox, non-vedic Indian traditions have links with the

*so called* Dravidian cultures too. And the so called Dravidian cultures in turn

seem to share something with the Sumerians, Babylonians and Assyrians. In fact

there are some like Dr. R. Hall who contend that Mesopotamians themselves

especially the Sumerians who are the older ones have been civilized by a

migration from the Dravidian ethinc group from India. Migrations add more

complexity to our already complex topic.

>

> 4. Much of what is Hinduism today has its roots in the Heterodox traditions of

India as well. This holds true for Indian astrology too. Now coming to the

starting point of our discussion- Whilst Greek astrology and Indian astrology

seem to have had interactions directly and indirectly at a later period, there

has always been an older astrological tradition in India that was not

necessarily Vedic. The Greeks themselves entered the picture relatively late and

probably owe much of their knowledge to these original sources that had by the

time of the Greeks spread out to other areas of the globe.

>

> 5. Whether or not one sees sense in the above ideas depends on one's exposure

to a few systems of knowledge. Leaving all this aside, though I am willing to

give credit to the Greeks for a number of things it becomes clear from the above

that the Greeks themselves are not the originators of certain ideas ascribed to

them. Most of the traditions worldwide had other common sources of origin

whether our own biases make us conclude that they are Dravidian/Tamilian or

Tantric or Babylonian or from some other culture/tradition.

>

> In conclusion I do not believe that the Vedic traditions are the only origins

for current day Hindu beliefs and practices. There are Indian traditions outside

the Vedic fold, some of them possibly older. These older traditions include the

Heterodox systems such as Jina, Tantric and Dravidian traditions.

>

> Don't know if this post of mine has done more to clarify or confound things

further!

>

> Regards,

> Satya Prakash

October 19, 2009

Dear Sreenadh ji,

Thanks for the feedback and comments.

> Beautiful! But I wonder whether it would be better to use the word >'Agamic'

than to use the word 'Tantric' to get a better and wider >understanding.

In fact it is precisely for the same reason that I prefer to use the words

'Tantric' or 'Proto-Agamic' instead of 'Agamic' because in later times when the

orthodox vedic group absorbed some of the tantric ideas, it appropriated the

word 'Agama' to refer to the tantric systems that had a vedic sanction. So I

prefer to use 'Tantric' or 'Proto-Agamic' to suggest the bigger picture of the

Tantric traditions that include the non-vedic, anti-vedic and in later times the

vedic streams of Tantra.

>And I also wonder whether you will include 'Zorashtrian Avestan', >'Scythian'

and Asura (Assyrian) and Bhargava Parasurama traditions >within the Vedic fold

or outside. (I will prefer to include all of >them within the Vedic fold, even

if the orthodox vedavadies does not >agree).

Clearly enough some of the above traditions especially the Zorastrian Avestan

and Scythian traditions are broadly under the Vedic group despite the orthodox

vedavadins claims. The others might have probably been influenced by non-vedic

streams to a certain extent inspite of their vedic affiliation. However broadly

speaking they seem to be part of the Vedic group.

>I also wonder why you haven't included the Kambojan, Naga, and >Buddhist

traditions in the above list. They too have much 'Non-vedic >Indian' in them.

The ancient 'Pasupata Siva traditon' is another one >that definitely needs

mention.

I did mention the Buddhist traditions as Bauddha among the non-vedic traditions.

Pasupata Saiva tradition is one among the older Hindu Yoga traditions that

belong to the Heterodox or Non-Vedic group. Please see my second point in the

previous post where I wrote, " However there could have been an older common

source for the older Jina, later Bauddha and some older Hindu Yoga traditions

that have disagreements with the vedic traditions " . In fact if I had to mention

each of the heterodox sects/schools it would be a long list. I don't know if the

average reader has enough exposure to identify various traditions of the

non-vedic Indian group. Also my intention was to keep the discussion simple and

avoid being pulled into longer discussions.

I could go on with this topic except for lack of time. I am quite happy to see

that this forum is quite open to such healthy discussions unlike some forums

that are very much closed and keep quoting from only internal evidence from

their own traditions. No single school can lay exclusive claims to Truth or that

they alone have the unbiased truth.

Regards,

Satya Prakash

October 19, 2009

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,

Namaste.

>> Why do you say " in later times the orthodox vedic group absorbed >some of the

tantric ideas " , >>when we find the mention of Kundalini >>in Veda and Sreevidya

in the Vedanta.

I have addressed your query systematically in five sections. The first three

sections outline the backdrop of the heterodox and orthodox systems which will

help the reader in contextualising the actual answer better. The last two

sections directly address your query. There are many angles from which your

query needs to be approached. But I will restrict myself to the 2 points raised

by you.

-------------------------------

Section 1

-------------------------------

I will start by quoting from an older article of mine. " Broadly speaking there

are two ancient traditions in India, both of which are independent as well as

inter-mixed at times- the Tantric and the Vedic. In his commentary on Manu (II.

1.) Kullukabhatta, divides traditional knowledge into Vedic and Tantric. While

some argue that both are same, the division is definitely not baseless. Though

later Tantric writers made deliberate attempts to base their doctrines on the

Vedas, certain orthodox sections within the Vedic tradition emphasize the

anti-vedic character of the Tantras. Much of the systematized traditional

knowledge is of later times, though the germs of these ideas belong to

pre-historic times " . (ref " The Genesis and Evolution of Early Indian Thought-1 "

http://www.karmicrhythms.com/yoga2.htm )

----------------------------

Section 2

----------------------------

In their earliest phases Samkhya-Yoga and Jina & Bauddha traditions were derived

from a common nucleus that was Veda bahya (outside the Vaidic tradition).

However there seems to have been a series of successful contacts between the

Vedic and Non-Vedic systems. It has to be pointed out that both Samkhya and

Yoga have been accepted as orthodox (astika) systems only since the 16th

century. This eventual acceptance/integration seems rather strained given the

clear and unmistakable hostility towards Samkhya by all the three commentators,

namely Samkara, Ramanuja and Madhva. Samkara clearly mentions Samkhya as

veda-viruddha (anti-vedic). Yoga was considered veda-bahya (non-vedic) if not

veda-viruddha. The beginnings of Samkhya-Yoga as well as Jina-Bauddha systems

were quite different from what they came to be as a result of the

reconstructions, redactions and systematisation, all owing to the successful

contacts with the Vedic-Upanishadic traditions. This influence was mutual and

not one-way.

-------------------------------

Section 3

-------------------------------

Tantra too was conditionally integrated into the Vedic fold with many

reservations. The non-conformists and protestants among the Vaidics were the

veda-bahyas who were there since the earliest times. Then there were the

Veda-viruddhas. They were collectively referred to as the Vratyas in the Rg

Veda. The Vratyas comprised of a multiplicity of local traditions and regional

cults that either resisted or remained indifferent to the Vaidic tradition.

Tantra seems to be a later survival of this Vratya culture. " If Vratya was the

folk nomenclature, Tantra was the cult word " , according to the widely acclaimed

scholar Sri. S.K. Ramachandra Rao (his works have been published by Kalpatharu

Research Academy that runs with the blessings of the orthodox South Indian

Sringeri Samkaracharya parampara).

The Tantric culture was widely recognised as non-vedic if not anti-vedic for a

long time. Since it was already so widespread and deeply rooted the Vedic

tradition could not brush it aside. Like Samkhya-Yoga it too was eventually

integrated into the Vedic fold albeit conditionally and partially. Samkhya

itself is based on the common earlier core of Tantra that most heterodox systems

such as Yoga, Jina and Bauddha share. Thus despite the initial irreconcilable

differences between the Veda and the Tantra, eventually they were reconciled and

in the process quite naturally both the traditions assimilated/absorbed the

appealing particulars of the other. The reconciliation between the Tantric and

Vaidik traditions was partly effected by the vaidiks affiliating Tantra to the

`Saubhagya-kanda' of Atharva veda. It is quite well known that Atharva veda

itself is outside the classical Vedic tradition which was initially only

threefold (trayi). However though the Atharva veda acquired the vedic status

relatively late, some of the contents are more ancient than the Riks themselves.

-------------------------------

Section 4

-------------------------------

Coming to the presence of Kundalini in the Veda, firstly are you referring to

Upanishads such as Yoga Kundalini Upanishad of the Krishna Yajur Veda or are you

referring to the VEDA SAMHITA itself? To my knowledge the Veda Samhita refers to

`KALAGNI' which some people interpret as Kundalini. Please provide any direct

references to Kundalini in the Veda Samhita if you have come across any. I hope

you understand the importance as well as the distinction of the Samhita portion

of the Vedas compared to the Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads which were

later developments. Moreover it is the Samhitas that contain the Mantras and are

considered to be truly revealed. As already stated, by the upanishadic time both

the traditions had borrowed the attractive particulars of the other and any

references to Kundalini by this time are not acceptable. Of course one cannot

say the same regarding the Veda SAMHITA.

Furthermore while Kundalini yoga or Laya yoga is part of the Tantric approach

there are other important characteristic features of Tantra that differentiate

its approach from the Vaidik, such as its reliance on the ultimacy of the

Feminine principle, almost reducing the Purusha to a secondary or apradhana

status.

Another important feature of Tantra is that the Tantrik tradition focuses its

attention mainly on the INDIVIDUAL including the emphasis on the BODY, somewhat

akin to Yoga. In the individual, two aspects of life demand the attention of

Tantra: Breath-control and Seminal-control (in fact texts such as Goraksha

Samhita discuss the intimate relationship between both the breath and semen). As

such procedures such as Yoni-mudra and Vajroli mudra were central to Tantric

techniques originally. Where employed sex in Tantrik traditions is not for

direct gratification, but for reversal (paravrtti) and restraint (samyama).

On the other hand the Vedic tradition concerns itself mainly with the COSMOS and

its FORCES. Here we are talking about the MAIN emphasis. Furthermore the

Vedantic tradition upholds the Masculine or Purusha through its BRAHMA-VADA in

contradistinction to the PRADHANA-VADA of the heterodox Samkhyan and Tantrik

systems that uphold the Feminine as already stated earlier.

Owing to mutual influences both traditions had to concede to each other in the

long run. Tantra eventually conceded by accepting the Cosmos, but merely as an

extension, if not a projection of the individual. Similar ideas in the

Upanishads are found owing to the Tantric influence. Remember that the

Upanishads come much later by which time the intermixing and mutual integration

had become inevitable. Tantrik philosophy, as obtained from medieval texts is

undoubtedly indebted to the Vedic tradition, although it still contains the core

that goes back to pre-vedic culture. The classical Tantrik concepts of bija,

bindu, samvit, kalaa, mandala, prakasa, vimarsa, ahamta, idamta, kancuka etc are

clearly the way heterodox Tantra was integrated with the orthodox Vedic

tradition.

Thus to someone who is willing to see the big picture, Tantra in its entirety is

not the same as the partial and conditional presentation of Tantra within the

Vedic fold. While there is nothing wrong with this, it does compromise the

original world-view of Tantra to a great degree. It is understandable that the

Vaidik compromise makes it more acceptable to those who shy away from the

original Tantrik stand for the sake of propriety. This seems to be *one* of the

main impetuses for the distinction between the Samaya and Kaula paths in Tantra.

However such an extremely cautious attitude is actually unwarranted. In itself

the sexual instinct is natural and neutral. Its expression depends on individual

maturity, motivation and habits. Moreover while all this is integral to Tantra

in its ORIGINAL form, Tantra is a straightforward, serious, temperate and

realistic philosophy of life that takes into account the normal impulses and

instincts. Tantra is a life-affirmative and practical approach that neither

idealises nor denies the sexual.

Interestingly although the Tantrik and Vaidik traditions have mutually

influenced each other and have even been integrated to a certain degree, in

their essential import they are still distinct enough. That is how we still see

the original tension and rigidity of their respective preferences/biases

persisting to this day albeit in isolated areas and practitioners. Look at the

tension between practitioners of the Kaula marga and Samaya marga even within

the Sri Vidya tradition. One will experience varying degrees of tolerance in

their exchange. In a seminar on Tantra by the Birla Archaeological and Cultural

Research Institute, Hyderabad early this year, the Samayins who comprised the

vast majority were marginalising Kaula marga which was initially represented by

one lone Buddhist (!) Avadhuta from Gangtok. In the entire assembly there was

only one confident, open minded and scholarly Kaula practitioner of Sri Vidya

who rose to defend the lone Buddhist practitioner. Remember that this was

supposed to be a scientific seminar!

-------------------------------

Section 5

-------------------------------

Now to the second part of the query regarding the presence of Sri Vidya in the

Vedantic tradition.

Firstly whilst Sri Vidya sampradaya is a major current within the river of Sakta

Tantricism, there are other sampradayas too. There are three traditions in the

big picture that one needs to acknowledge before proceeding further- Kali kula,

Tara kula and Sri kula. Of course though not exclusively, Tara kula is

predominantly followed in Buddhist traditions, whilst it is Kali and Sri who

remain prominent in the Hindu traditions. Sri kula focuses on the goddess in

her benign form (saumya and aghora) while Kali kula focuses on the terrifying

forms (ghora and and raudra).

Secondly Sri kula is not entirely identical with Sri Vidya. That aside, of the

two areas in India in which Sri Vidya has flourished most visibly (Kashmir and

South India) only the South Indian one remains a vital tradition today. However

it is clear that South Indian Sri Vidya has adopted and expanded the Kashmiri

canon by assimilating the ethics and ideologies of south Indian vaidik smarta

Brahmins. So in its current version it would be nearly impossible to find a

conflict of interests in being both a vaidika and tantrika.

Fourthly if one examines closely Sri Vidya's presence in the Vedantic tradition,

is it as straightforward and fully reconciled as some make it seem? Besides

though it is asserted that Sri Vidya accepts the common Sakta position on the

creation of the universe through sound (Sabda Brahman), this is inconsistent

with Samkara's Absolute non-dualism (kevaladvaita). This inconsistency between

Kashmiri Saiva non-dualism in Sri Vidya texts and Samkara's Vedantic non-dualism

is a big discrepancy that no serious philosopher can brush aside easily. It is

not enough that both are Advaitic in their perspective. Abhinavagupta's Advaita

differs on important matters of ideology and practice from Samkara's Advaita.

If Advaitavada is all that matters then what about Buddhist advaitavada such as

Madhyamika and Vijnanavada schools? In fact the Madhyamika view is a lot closer

to Samkara's view, far more than the Kashmiri Saiva view. Add to this that

Samkara even criticises all his predecessors such as Brahma-datta,

Bhartrprapancha and Bhartrhari, all of whom were Advaitins! Clearly the Kashmiri

Saiva-Sri Vidya form of Advaitavada is not acceptable from Samkara's

Kevaladvaita standpoint.

Furthermore whilst the credit for integrating the Vaidik and Tantrik traditions

is accorded to Adi-Samkara by many, it is intriguing that nowhere in

Adi-Samkara's Prasthana-traya bhasya, do we find a reference or even indirect

suggestion of Tantric ideas, necessitating the introduction of a later and

different Samkara by some. Could the self-same Adi-Samkara have written the

celebrated Tantrik works such as Prapanchasara, Saundarya Lahari, Chintamani

stave , Lalitatrisati bhasya and Tarapajjhatika? Highly improbable if not

impossible.

There is a lot more that I can expand upon but will refrain from as this has

already become a very long post, long enough to be an article. Besides the above

points are already a good starting point if one is willing to do a genuine and

open minded inquiry/reflection.

As usual such discussions will necessitate further discussion. Due to time

constraints it may not be possible to reply quickly or at times even reply. If

there are others who are conversant with this topic and share a similar

perspective they can take the discussion forward.

I have given a very brief introduction to this topic. If you need more elaborate

and detailed explanation on the interaction between Tantra and Veda, please

refer works such as " Darsanodaya " and " Yoga and Tantra in India and Tibet " by

the widely acclaimed Sri S. K. Ramachandra Rao.

Regards,

Satya Prakash

October 20, 2009

Dear Satya Prakashji,Namaste,I think we will have to agree to disagree on some of the points.While discussing the evolution of the Indian philosophical thoughts most scholars do not care to take into account the chronological aspects (ie. what came before what) and that makes the discussions very general and at times upside down.Lord Buddha was prior to Lord Mahavira and we know that Lord Buddha learnt Sankhya from Allara Kalama. Sankhya is a very old tradition. Sankhya of Kapila is Neerishwara (Godless as it refused to talk about God like Lord Buddha did) but not Naastik. Sankhya is there in Vedanta and Lord Krishna also treated some aspects of Sankhya. Sankara was only against the Atheistic presentation of Sankhya and not the Upanishadic view of Sankhya. I find it difficult to agree to the calling of Tantra as Bahya

though some of its later day practices in Tantra may be. Tantra has Vedic root and Tantra boldly says so.Kundalini is mentioned in the Rig Veda samhita also and not only in the Yoga kundalini Upanishad. As regards the Atharva Veda it is one of the four Vedas and it is in no way considered inferior to the Vedatrayee. The Vedatrayee has the vedic rituals to be performed by their respective priests and that is different from the ways of the Atharva veda. Atharva Veda has some of the highest Upanishads like Mundaka and Mandukya.Adi Sankaracharya's Advaita is in no way incompatible with Sri Vidya. One may dispute as to whether Adi Sankaracharya was the author or not of the Saundarylahari but there is no doubbt that he composed the Lalita Trishati bhashya.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 10/19/09, Dr Satya Prakash <backtocosmicroots wrote:Dr Satya Prakash <backtocosmicroots Re: Historical question on Astrology- the Heterodox systems of Tantra, Jina etc Date: Monday, October 19, 2009, 2:27 PM

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,

Namaste.

>> Why do you say "in later times the orthodox vedic group absorbed >some of the tantric ideas", >>when we find the mention of Kundalini >>in Veda and Sreevidya in the Vedanta.

I have addressed your query systematically in five sections. The first three sections outline the backdrop of the heterodox and orthodox systems which will help the reader in contextualising the actual answer better. The last two sections directly address your query. There are many angles from which your query needs to be approached. But I will restrict myself to the 2 points raised by you.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Section 1

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

I will start by quoting from an older article of mine. "Broadly speaking there are two ancient traditions in India, both of which are independent as well as inter-mixed at times- the Tantric and the Vedic. In his commentary on Manu (II. 1.) Kullukabhatta, divides traditional knowledge into Vedic and Tantric. While some argue that both are same, the division is definitely not baseless. Though later Tantric writers made deliberate attempts to base their doctrines on the Vedas, certain orthodox sections within the Vedic tradition emphasize the anti-vedic character of the Tantras. Much of the systematized traditional knowledge is of later times, though the germs of these ideas belong to pre-historic times". (ref "The Genesis and Evolution of Early Indian Thought-1" http://www.karmicrh ythms.com/ yoga2.htm )

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Section 2

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

In their earliest phases Samkhya-Yoga and Jina & Bauddha traditions were derived from a common nucleus that was Veda bahya (outside the Vaidic tradition). However there seems to have been a series of successful contacts between the Vedic and Non-Vedic systems. It has to be pointed out that both Samkhya and Yoga have been accepted as orthodox (astika) systems only since the 16th century. This eventual acceptance/integrat ion seems rather strained given the clear and unmistakable hostility towards Samkhya by all the three commentators, namely Samkara, Ramanuja and Madhva. Samkara clearly mentions Samkhya as veda-viruddha (anti-vedic) . Yoga was considered veda-bahya (non-vedic) if not veda-viruddha. The beginnings of Samkhya-Yoga as well as Jina-Bauddha systems were quite different from what they came to be as a result of the reconstructions, redactions and systematisation, all owing to the successful contacts with the Vedic-Upanishadic

traditions. This influence was mutual and not one-way.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Section 3

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Tantra too was conditionally integrated into the Vedic fold with many reservations. The non-conformists and protestants among the Vaidics were the veda-bahyas who were there since the earliest times. Then there were the Veda-viruddhas. They were collectively referred to as the Vratyas in the Rg Veda. The Vratyas comprised of a multiplicity of local traditions and regional cults that either resisted or remained indifferent to the Vaidic tradition. Tantra seems to be a later survival of this Vratya culture. "If Vratya was the folk nomenclature, Tantra was the cult word", according to the widely acclaimed scholar Sri. S.K. Ramachandra Rao (his works have been published by Kalpatharu Research Academy that runs with the blessings of the orthodox South Indian Sringeri Samkaracharya parampara).

The Tantric culture was widely recognised as non-vedic if not anti-vedic for a long time. Since it was already so widespread and deeply rooted the Vedic tradition could not brush it aside. Like Samkhya-Yoga it too was eventually integrated into the Vedic fold albeit conditionally and partially. Samkhya itself is based on the common earlier core of Tantra that most heterodox systems such as Yoga, Jina and Bauddha share. Thus despite the initial irreconcilable differences between the Veda and the Tantra, eventually they were reconciled and in the process quite naturally both the traditions assimilated/ absorbed the appealing particulars of the other. The reconciliation between the Tantric and Vaidik traditions was partly effected by the vaidiks affiliating Tantra to the `Saubhagya-kanda' of Atharva veda. It is quite well known that Atharva veda itself is outside the classical Vedic tradition which was initially only threefold (trayi). However though the

Atharva veda acquired the vedic status relatively late, some of the contents are more ancient than the Riks themselves.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Section 4

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Coming to the presence of Kundalini in the Veda, firstly are you referring to Upanishads such as Yoga Kundalini Upanishad of the Krishna Yajur Veda or are you referring to the VEDA SAMHITA itself? To my knowledge the Veda Samhita refers to `KALAGNI' which some people interpret as Kundalini. Please provide any direct references to Kundalini in the Veda Samhita if you have come across any. I hope you understand the importance as well as the distinction of the Samhita portion of the Vedas compared to the Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads which were later developments. Moreover it is the Samhitas that contain the Mantras and are considered to be truly revealed. As already stated, by the upanishadic time both the traditions had borrowed the attractive particulars of the other and any references to Kundalini by this time are not acceptable. Of course one cannot say the same regarding the Veda SAMHITA.

Furthermore while Kundalini yoga or Laya yoga is part of the Tantric approach there are other important characteristic features of Tantra that differentiate its approach from the Vaidik, such as its reliance on the ultimacy of the Feminine principle, almost reducing the Purusha to a secondary or apradhana status.

Another important feature of Tantra is that the Tantrik tradition focuses its attention mainly on the INDIVIDUAL including the emphasis on the BODY, somewhat akin to Yoga. In the individual, two aspects of life demand the attention of Tantra: Breath-control and Seminal-control (in fact texts such as Goraksha Samhita discuss the intimate relationship between both the breath and semen). As such procedures such as Yoni-mudra and Vajroli mudra were central to Tantric techniques originally. Where employed sex in Tantrik traditions is not for direct gratification, but for reversal (paravrtti) and restraint (samyama).

On the other hand the Vedic tradition concerns itself mainly with the COSMOS and its FORCES. Here we are talking about the MAIN emphasis. Furthermore the Vedantic tradition upholds the Masculine or Purusha through its BRAHMA-VADA in contradistinction to the PRADHANA-VADA of the heterodox Samkhyan and Tantrik systems that uphold the Feminine as already stated earlier.

Owing to mutual influences both traditions had to concede to each other in the long run. Tantra eventually conceded by accepting the Cosmos, but merely as an extension, if not a projection of the individual. Similar ideas in the Upanishads are found owing to the Tantric influence. Remember that the Upanishads come much later by which time the intermixing and mutual integration had become inevitable. Tantrik philosophy, as obtained from medieval texts is undoubtedly indebted to the Vedic tradition, although it still contains the core that goes back to pre-vedic culture. The classical Tantrik concepts of bija, bindu, samvit, kalaa, mandala, prakasa, vimarsa, ahamta, idamta, kancuka etc are clearly the way heterodox Tantra was integrated with the orthodox Vedic tradition.

Thus to someone who is willing to see the big picture, Tantra in its entirety is not the same as the partial and conditional presentation of Tantra within the Vedic fold. While there is nothing wrong with this, it does compromise the original world-view of Tantra to a great degree. It is understandable that the Vaidik compromise makes it more acceptable to those who shy away from the original Tantrik stand for the sake of propriety. This seems to be *one* of the main impetuses for the distinction between the Samaya and Kaula paths in Tantra. However such an extremely cautious attitude is actually unwarranted. In itself the sexual instinct is natural and neutral. Its expression depends on individual maturity, motivation and habits. Moreover while all this is integral to Tantra in its ORIGINAL form, Tantra is a straightforward, serious, temperate and realistic philosophy of life that takes into account the normal impulses and instincts. Tantra is a

life-affirmative and practical approach that neither idealises nor denies the sexual.

Interestingly although the Tantrik and Vaidik traditions have mutually influenced each other and have even been integrated to a certain degree, in their essential import they are still distinct enough. That is how we still see the original tension and rigidity of their respective preferences/ biases persisting to this day albeit in isolated areas and practitioners. Look at the tension between practitioners of the Kaula marga and Samaya marga even within the Sri Vidya tradition. One will experience varying degrees of tolerance in their exchange. In a seminar on Tantra by the Birla Archaeological and Cultural Research Institute, Hyderabad early this year, the Samayins who comprised the vast majority were marginalising Kaula marga which was initially represented by one lone Buddhist (!) Avadhuta from Gangtok. In the entire assembly there was only one confident, open minded and scholarly Kaula practitioner of Sri Vidya who rose to defend the lone Buddhist

practitioner. Remember that this was supposed to be a scientific seminar!

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Section 5

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Now to the second part of the query regarding the presence of Sri Vidya in the Vedantic tradition.

Firstly whilst Sri Vidya sampradaya is a major current within the river of Sakta Tantricism, there are other sampradayas too. There are three traditions in the big picture that one needs to acknowledge before proceeding further- Kali kula, Tara kula and Sri kula. Of course though not exclusively, Tara kula is predominantly followed in Buddhist traditions, whilst it is Kali and Sri who remain prominent in the Hindu traditions. Sri kula focuses on the goddess in her benign form (saumya and aghora) while Kali kula focuses on the terrifying forms (ghora and and raudra).

Secondly Sri kula is not entirely identical with Sri Vidya. That aside, of the two areas in India in which Sri Vidya has flourished most visibly (Kashmir and South India) only the South Indian one remains a vital tradition today. However it is clear that South Indian Sri Vidya has adopted and expanded the Kashmiri canon by assimilating the ethics and ideologies of south Indian vaidik smarta Brahmins. So in its current version it would be nearly impossible to find a conflict of interests in being both a vaidika and tantrika.

Fourthly if one examines closely Sri Vidya's presence in the Vedantic tradition, is it as straightforward and fully reconciled as some make it seem? Besides though it is asserted that Sri Vidya accepts the common Sakta position on the creation of the universe through sound (Sabda Brahman), this is inconsistent with Samkara's Absolute non-dualism (kevaladvaita) . This inconsistency between Kashmiri Saiva non-dualism in Sri Vidya texts and Samkara's Vedantic non-dualism is a big discrepancy that no serious philosopher can brush aside easily. It is not enough that both are Advaitic in their perspective. Abhinavagupta' s Advaita differs on important matters of ideology and practice from Samkara's Advaita. If Advaitavada is all that matters then what about Buddhist advaitavada such as Madhyamika and Vijnanavada schools? In fact the Madhyamika view is a lot closer to Samkara's view, far more than the Kashmiri Saiva view. Add to this that Samkara even

criticises all his predecessors such as Brahma-datta, Bhartrprapancha and Bhartrhari, all of whom were Advaitins! Clearly the Kashmiri Saiva-Sri Vidya form of Advaitavada is not acceptable from Samkara's Kevaladvaita standpoint.

Furthermore whilst the credit for integrating the Vaidik and Tantrik traditions is accorded to Adi-Samkara by many, it is intriguing that nowhere in Adi-Samkara' s Prasthana-traya bhasya, do we find a reference or even indirect suggestion of Tantric ideas, necessitating the introduction of a later and different Samkara by some. Could the self-same Adi-Samkara have written the celebrated Tantrik works such as Prapanchasara, Saundarya Lahari, Chintamani stave , Lalitatrisati bhasya and Tarapajjhatika? Highly improbable if not impossible.

There is a lot more that I can expand upon but will refrain from as this has already become a very long post, long enough to be an article. Besides the above points are already a good starting point if one is willing to do a genuine and open minded inquiry/reflection.

As usual such discussions will necessitate further discussion. Due to time constraints it may not be possible to reply quickly or at times even reply. If there are others who are conversant with this topic and share a similar perspective they can take the discussion forward.

I have given a very brief introduction to this topic. If you need more elaborate and detailed explanation on the interaction between Tantra and Veda, please refer works such as "Darsanodaya" and "Yoga and Tantra in India and Tibet" by the widely acclaimed Sri S. K. Ramachandra Rao.

Regards,

Satya Prakash

October 20, 2009

Dear Dr. Satyaprakash Ji,

Hope you are aware that there are many disconnects in your write up, it's

strange that you install sankhya and tantra in same slot.

Can you pls give chronology of core tantra texts along with vedic and puranic

texts.

Which is the oldest tantra text, pls. give it's name, unless you do this, it's

not right to tell vedic and puranic texts, upnishads, darshans, brahman and

aranyak upto mahabharata are relatively new, particularly in comparision to

tantra texts, i think, there are some one sided imaginations and the other side,

well constructed chronology (will addres it after your reply on my queries about

ageing of tantra texts)

Regards,

Utkal

October 22, 2009

Dear Dr. Satya Prakash Ji,

Let's overcome the idea that we all see what we want to see, I m trying to

reflect what's actually there -

1. Wd like to let you know that tantra is no way individualistic, they do their

kriyas in dual-couple, in groups.

2. Wd ask again which tantra text is contemporary to upnishads, existing or not

existing.

3. What's your base to think that tantra system does not have it's root in vedic

system, seen you got agreed that all systems including tantras are influenced

by upnishads, further, you need to understand, tantras are 'kriya' or

'functional' part of togather 'upnishads' and 'shad darshan'.

Tantras follow the philosphy of vedic system, there is no distinction at all,

it's wrong to differentiate them, not only shaiva tantras, there are vaishnava

tantras, ganpatya tantras also. You referred to Bana Bhatta, pls, recall, he

mentioned 'Maha Varah', a vaishnava tantra, tantras are kriya part of vedic

system, I think matter wd be clearer to you when you review what's tantra

according to your understanding, we can do an effort in group also.

4. Pls. review you ideas of pashupatya, pls take into consideration that

pashupatya's derive their name in pashupati avataar of shiva, what's your ground

to state it's a non vedic system.

5. I wd suggest to depend on self study instead of other scholars like Sri Rao

or some body else's study.

Regards,

Utkal.

, " Dr Satya Prakash "

<backtocosmicroots wrote:

>

October 22, 2009

Dear Utkal ji,

> 1. Wd like to let you know that tantra is no way individualistic, they do

their kriyas in dual-couple, in groups.

Your reference to " their kriyas in dual-couple, in groups " is not true for all

schools of Tantra. Why judge all based on some? Have you interacted with any

*serious* Kaula practitioner? Is your information based on first hand knowledge

or hearsay? If you ask me this question, I have interacted with a *few*, though

I am NOT a so called Kaula practitioner.

You are misreading the word " individualistic " . It is about the *world-view* as

opposed to a world view that is more oriented to the " cosmos " or its forces.

Here the emphasis is on the Kundalini and other more internalised functions of

consciousness. I have actually mentioned it in my earlier posts.

>

> 2. Wd ask again which tantra text is contemporary to upnishads, existing or

not existing.

I have already given my answer, of course not to your satisfaction

>

> 3. What's your base to think that tantra system does not have it's

>>>>>>including tantras are influenced by upnishads, further, you need to

understand, tantras are 'kriya' or 'functional' part of >>>togather 'upnishads'

and 'shad darshan'.

>>>> Tantras follow the philosphy of vedic system, there is no distinction at

all, it's wrong to differentiate them, not only shaiva tantras, there are

vaishnava tantras, ganpatya tantras also. You referred to Bana Bhatta, pls,

recall, he mentioned 'Maha Varah', a vaishnava tantra, tantras are kriya part of

vedic system, I think >>>>>matter wd be clearer to you when you review what's

tantra according >>>>>to your understanding, we can do an effort in group also.

I already stated in my earlier post that I took only one tantrik tradition as an

illustration (also gave my reasons too) and that many more existed. One cannot

dispute the existence of non-vedic and anti-vedic schools of Tantra or

Samkhya-Yoga, by quoting the existence of Vedic schools.

>

>>>> 4. Pls. review you ideas of pashupatya, pls take into consideration that

pashupatya's derive their name in pashupati avataar of shiva, what's your ground

to state it's a non vedic system.

I have already addressed this in a previous post. Why does the Mahabharata

mention it apart from the Vedic doctrines?

>

>>>>>5. I wd suggest to depend on self study instead of other scholars like Sri

Rao or some body else's study.

That's exactly my point. I have studied the originals too to a *certain extent*.

That's what influences my current views. I referred to Sri S. K. Ramachandra Rao

because he has already done a good job in doing a comparitive study of these

systems. His books have been suggested so as to save me from having to go into

an endless cycle of discussions. They were suggested for the **openminded

reader** who wishes to take it up further. Of course they are only starting

points. One can also read the originals. But why conclude without even examining

his line of thought? Finally each of us can come to our own conclusions as

always. But why not be willing to expose ourselves to other lines of thinking or

be willing to step out of our comfort zones?

Finally its okay to acknowledge the contribution of other traditions be it of

the wandering ascetics or the folk traditions. That is not going to reduce the

greatness of the Vaidik tradition's contribution. One need not explain away the

Heterodox schools as having their **complete origins** in the Veda. They have

other sources of input too. It is pointless to pretend that the Vedics were the

only people in India at any point of time, or that they were living in a

**static world**. However insignificant, the **regional traditions** too existed

and had their influence too. When we talk of texts we are using a literate

society's way to assess the semi-literate or even illeterate local traditions.

Anyway as I said earlier ***we will have to agree to disagree***.

I will leave the discussion here positively as our approaches (and thereby our

views) are bound to be very different.

Regards,

Satya Prakash

October 22, 2009

Dear Satya Parakash ji,

That is beautiful and much informative! Keeps pouring!

Love and Hugs,

Sreenadh

, " Dr Satya Prakash "

<backtocosmicroots wrote:

>

October 22, 2009

Dear Utkal ji,

The informative and wonderful exchange between you and Satya Prakash ji, is a

feast to all of us preset in this group. I am jealous of you too with so much

of knowledge in all these areas! Thanks for the feast - and it is a knowledge

treasure for the group. I know that many knowledgeable members like Chakraborty

ji, Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, Shandar Bharadwaj ji etc who are much interested in

the subjects under discussion would be watching this conversation with curiosity

and enthusiasm - waiting for an apt time to enter in the conversation - but not

disturbing the graceful current flow!

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

, " utkal.panigrahi "

<utkal.panigrahi wrote:

>

> Dear Dr. Satya Prakash Ji,

>

> Let's overcome the idea that we all see what we want to see, I m trying to

reflect what's actually there -

>

> 1. Wd like to let you know that tantra is no way individualistic, they do

their kriyas in dual-couple, in groups.

>

> 2. Wd ask again which tantra text is contemporary to upnishads, existing or

not existing.

>

> 3. What's your base to think that tantra system does not have it's root in

vedic system, seen you got agreed that all systems including tantras are

influenced by upnishads, further, you need to understand, tantras are 'kriya'

or 'functional' part of togather 'upnishads' and 'shad darshan'.

>

> Tantras follow the philosphy of vedic system, there is no distinction at all,

it's wrong to differentiate them, not only shaiva tantras, there are vaishnava

tantras, ganpatya tantras also. You referred to Bana Bhatta, pls, recall, he

mentioned 'Maha Varah', a vaishnava tantra, tantras are kriya part of vedic

system, I think matter wd be clearer to you when you review what's tantra

according to your understanding, we can do an effort in group also.

>

> 4. Pls. review you ideas of pashupatya, pls take into consideration that

pashupatya's derive their name in pashupati avataar of shiva, what's your ground

to state it's a non vedic system.

>

> 5. I wd suggest to depend on self study instead of other scholars like Sri Rao

or some body else's study.

>

> Regards,

> Utkal.

October 22, 2009

Dear Dr. Satya Prakash,

From 'maltimadhava' to 'mrichhakatikam' and in many other works you w'd find

reference to performance of tantra kriya in group and in pair both, pls do not

make wrong perceptions that only one or two people enquires or interacts with

followers of a system they are studying, you can not be an exception.

2. There is a straight question- what your study says about tantras belief, are

they ishwarvadi or anishwarvadi, i mean 'god' exists in tantras or not, give

facts in your support.

3. What is tantra according to your study, you have said tantras do find their

reference in vedic literature, it's correct because they have their root

therein.Tantra is a 'kriya' of 'gyan' or theory stated in upnishads. Pls tell

what makes you say tantras don't have their roots in vedic system. We find

tantra mantra for most vedic devatas. Who is the devata exclusive in tantra, not

available in vedic literature including puran, mahabharata.

Regards,

Utkal

, " Dr Satya Prakash "

<backtocosmicroots wrote:

>

> Dear Utkal ji,

>

> > 1. Wd like to let you know that tantra is no way individualistic, they do

their kriyas in dual-couple, in groups.

>

> Your reference to " their kriyas in dual-couple, in groups " is not true for all

schools of Tantra. Why judge all based on some? Have you interacted with any

*serious* Kaula practitioner? Is your information based on first hand knowledge

or hearsay? If you ask me this question, I have interacted with a *few*, though

I am NOT a so called Kaula practitioner.

>

> You are misreading the word " individualistic " . It is about the *world-view* as

opposed to a world view that is more oriented to the " cosmos " or its forces.

Here the emphasis is on the Kundalini and other more internalised functions of

consciousness. I have actually mentioned it in my earlier posts.

>

> >

> > 2. Wd ask again which tantra text is contemporary to upnishads, existing or

not existing.

>

> I have already given my answer, of course not to your satisfaction

>

> >

> > 3. What's your base to think that tantra system does not have it's

>>>>>>including tantras are influenced by upnishads, further, you need to

understand, tantras are 'kriya' or 'functional' part of >>>togather 'upnishads'

and 'shad darshan'.

>

> >>>> Tantras follow the philosphy of vedic system, there is no distinction at

all, it's wrong to differentiate them, not only shaiva tantras, there are

vaishnava tantras, ganpatya tantras also. You referred to Bana Bhatta, pls,

recall, he mentioned 'Maha Varah', a vaishnava tantra, tantras are kriya part of

vedic system, I think >>>>>matter wd be clearer to you when you review what's

tantra according >>>>>to your understanding, we can do an effort in group also.

>

> I already stated in my earlier post that I took only one tantrik tradition as

an illustration (also gave my reasons too) and that many more existed. One

cannot dispute the existence of non-vedic and anti-vedic schools of Tantra or

Samkhya-Yoga, by quoting the existence of Vedic schools.

>

> >

> >>>> 4. Pls. review you ideas of pashupatya, pls take into consideration that

pashupatya's derive their name in pashupati avataar of shiva, what's your ground

to state it's a non vedic system.

>

> I have already addressed this in a previous post. Why does the Mahabharata

mention it apart from the Vedic doctrines?

>

> >

> >>>>>5. I wd suggest to depend on self study instead of other scholars like

Sri Rao or some body else's study.

>

> That's exactly my point. I have studied the originals too to a *certain

extent*. That's what influences my current views. I referred to Sri S. K.

Ramachandra Rao because he has already done a good job in doing a comparitive

study of these systems. His books have been suggested so as to save me from

having to go into an endless cycle of discussions. They were suggested for the

**openminded reader** who wishes to take it up further. Of course they are only

starting points. One can also read the originals. But why conclude without even

examining his line of thought? Finally each of us can come to our own

conclusions as always. But why not be willing to expose ourselves to other lines

of thinking or be willing to step out of our comfort zones?

>

> Finally its okay to acknowledge the contribution of other traditions be it of