Astrology- the Heterodox systems of Tantra, Jina etc

[Guest guest]

Dear Utkal ji,

 

I already indicated that we will have to agree to disagree. But you are

unrelenting. Each time I see your email, I feel tempted to write back. At the

same time I wonder whether this will lead us anywhere. You conveniently raise a

few questions without addressing a lot of other points covered in my posts. What

an easy way to have an endless discussion without having to really address much.

Before we proceed further I have a question for you this time. Before addressing

tantra, mantra, devata, yantra, etc, let us first address a very important

aspect of post-vedic Hinduism- the basic question of murti puja itself. Is this

Agamic or Vaidik? If as you suggest agama sastra is fully rooted in the Veda,

please provide references for murti puja from the Vedas. What is the earliest

reference from your side for murti puja?

 

Regards,

Satya Prakash

[Guest guest]

1. In Rik Veda and Sam Veda both, salutation to Vishnu is available, Vishnu is

not characterized as an element of nature, rather, he is the one who controls

it, rishi meghatithi kanva refer's to vishnu padam in sukta 22, mantra 16 and

17.

 

He say's - 'trini pada cha vikrame vishnurgopa adabhyah.. ato dharmani dharyan',

 

it's almost same message given by krishna in geeta - 'dharma samsthanarthaya

sambhavami ...'

 

Rishi Kanva says - vishnu can be seen by divya chakshu, as given to arjun and

sanjay in geeta.

 

Vishnu is personified in rik veda, in sam veda vishnu's vaman avataar is

mentioned.

 

So, avataarvad also finds their root in vedas.

 

2. In the sam veda, they invoke 'lingyokta devata', this is a reference to

acceptance of shiva linga puja, murti puja is present in vedas.

 

3. Application of tantra is mentioned in sukta 20, in mantra 3 and 4, rishi

kanva refers to great power of satya mantra, he says Ribhus have made parents

young again.

Ribhus made a flying ratha for ashwinikumars.

 

4. That's why i requested self study, If somebody is based on another writer's

articles or books, he carries his ideas too, you should have studied vedas

yourself befor propoga ting false theory that agama or tantras don't have roots

in vedas, pls stop it.

 

5. I wd like to recommend you to study 'Brihad Devata' by Shaunak Rishi, to have

a better understanding of vedic devatas.

 

Regards,

Utkal

 

, " Dr Satya Prakash "

<backtocosmicroots wrote:

>

>

>

> Dear Utkal ji,

>

> I already indicated that we will have to agree to disagree. But you are

unrelenting. Each time I see your email, I feel tempted to write back. At the

same time I wonder whether this will lead us anywhere. You conveniently raise a

few questions without addressing a lot of other points covered in my posts. What

an easy way to have an endless discussion without having to really address much.

Before we proceed further I have a question for you this time. Before addressing

tantra, mantra, devata, yantra, etc, let us first address a very important

aspect of post-vedic Hinduism- the basic question of murti puja itself. Is this

Agamic or Vaidik? If as you suggest agama sastra is fully rooted in the Veda,

please provide references for murti puja from the Vedas. What is the earliest

reference from your side for murti puja?

>

> Regards,

> Satya Prakash

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Satya Prakash ji,

//the basic question of murti puja itself. Is this Agamic or Vaidik?//

I am certainly (just like you, I believe), is of the opinion that - it is

Agamic and not vedic.

//If as you suggest agama sastra is fully rooted in the Veda, please provide

references for murti puja from the Vedas. What is the earliest reference from

your side for murti puja?//

Yes, I am also much interested to see the answer to this question from Utpal ji

(and may be others as well). That would be much informative.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

 

, " Dr Satya Prakash "

<backtocosmicroots wrote:

>

>

>

> Dear Utkal ji,

>

> I already indicated that we will have to agree to disagree. But you are

unrelenting. Each time I see your email, I feel tempted to write back. At the

same time I wonder whether this will lead us anywhere. You conveniently raise a

few questions without addressing a lot of other points covered in my posts. What

an easy way to have an endless discussion without having to really address much.

Before we proceed further I have a question for you this time. Before addressing

tantra, mantra, devata, yantra, etc, let us first address a very important

aspect of post-vedic Hinduism- the basic question of murti puja itself. Is this

Agamic or Vaidik? If as you suggest agama sastra is fully rooted in the Veda,

please provide references for murti puja from the Vedas. What is the earliest

reference from your side for murti puja?

>

> Regards,

> Satya Prakash

>

[Guest guest]

yes i want to know......Love and regards,gopi. , "sreesog" <sreesog wrote:>> Dear Satya Prakash ji, > //the basic question of murti puja itself. Is this Agamic or Vaidik?//> I am certainly (just like you, I believe), is of the opinion that - it is Agamic and not vedic.> //If as you suggest agama sastra is fully rooted in the Veda, please provide references for murti puja from the Vedas. What is the earliest reference from your side for murti puja?//> Yes, I am also much interested to see the answer to this question from Utpal ji (and may be others as well). That would be much informative.> Love and regards,> Sreenadh > > , "Dr Satya Prakash" backtocosmicroots@ wrote:> >> > > > > > Dear Utkal ji,> > > > I already indicated that we will have to agree to disagree. But you are unrelenting. Each time I see your email, I feel tempted to write back. At the same time I wonder whether this will lead us anywhere. You conveniently raise a few questions without addressing a lot of other points covered in my posts. What an easy way to have an endless discussion without having to really address much. Before we proceed further I have a question for you this time. Before addressing tantra, mantra, devata, yantra, etc, let us first address a very important aspect of post-vedic Hinduism- the basic question of murti puja itself. Is this Agamic or Vaidik? If as you suggest agama sastra is fully rooted in the Veda, please provide references for murti puja from the Vedas. What is the earliest reference from your side for murti puja?> > > > Regards,> > Satya Prakash> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Srinadh ji,

 

Not only you, tens of thousands of people believe like you, I also believed

like you or Dr. Satyprakash, it's subject to study.

 

I m happy to have got this opporunity to let people know seeds of murti puja are

present in vedas. Will help us in having qualified beliefs.

 

Regards,

Utkal

 

 

 

, " sreesog " <sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Satya Prakash ji,

> //the basic question of murti puja itself. Is this Agamic or Vaidik?//

> I am certainly (just like you, I believe), is of the opinion that - it is

Agamic and not vedic.

> //If as you suggest agama sastra is fully rooted in the Veda, please provide

references for murti puja from the Vedas. What is the earliest reference from

your side for murti puja?//

> Yes, I am also much interested to see the answer to this question from Utpal

ji (and may be others as well). That would be much informative.

> Love and regards,

> Sreenadh

>

> , " Dr Satya Prakash "

<backtocosmicroots@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Utkal ji,

> >

> > I already indicated that we will have to agree to disagree. But you are

unrelenting. Each time I see your email, I feel tempted to write back. At the

same time I wonder whether this will lead us anywhere. You conveniently raise a

few questions without addressing a lot of other points covered in my posts. What

an easy way to have an endless discussion without having to really address much.

Before we proceed further I have a question for you this time. Before addressing

tantra, mantra, devata, yantra, etc, let us first address a very important

aspect of post-vedic Hinduism- the basic question of murti puja itself. Is this

Agamic or Vaidik? If as you suggest agama sastra is fully rooted in the Veda,

please provide references for murti puja from the Vedas. What is the earliest

reference from your side for murti puja?

> >

> > Regards,

> > Satya Prakash

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Utkal ji,

 

>>>> I m happy to have got this opporunity to let people know seeds >>>>>of

murti puja are present in vedas. Will help us in having >>>>>qualified beliefs.

 

 

You haven't given a single reference so far! Please give references to MURTI

puja with the actual numbers in any accepted manner of referencing the Vedic

stanzas, so that we too may verify the original sources.

 

 

Regards,

Satya Prakash

[Guest guest]

Dear Utkal ji,

 

>

> I have already said 2 times about invokation of lingyotka (shiva) >devata in

samveda. linga is a murty.

>

 

 

LINGA and the VEDAS! To the best of my knowledge (please correct me with

references if I am wrong) the very word " LINGA " occurs NOWHERE in the VEDA

SAMHITA, not JUST the Samaveda. In the *LATER* texts such as the Svetasvatara

Upanishad (6, 9) and Katha Upanishad (6, 8) too where the word 'linga' occurs,

it is solely used with the meaning " mark " , " sign " or " charecteristic " (and not

as 'murti'). Before you rush to misuse even this bit of information have a look

at the original verses in the Svetasvatara and Katha Upanishads. In fact in both

the contexts it is used in the negative sense to affirm that Brahman/Purusa is

devoid of any mark (alinga). So there you are. The more you write the more you

end up revealing what you DO NOT know of the Veda.

 

 

Please remember that you haven't yet given the reference to the so called

" invocation of the lingyokta devata " (as you call it) in the Samaveda.

References are required with hymn and verse numbers please!!!

 

 

Getting back to the original question, please give the ***exact reference (hymn,

verse etc)*** regarding MURTI puja or *LINGA* puja in the Samaveda so that

others too can verify. . If you cannot, kindly refrain from pontificating about

" qualified beliefs " .

 

 

Regards,

Satya Prakash

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh ji,Saitaan hajir!! Overall my stand on the topic more or less remains the same as what I expressed previously, so I did not want to go over it again. In short, to list out traditions as Vaidika, Tantrika, Bauddha and Jaina is not very neat. Basically we should draw a line between what is a tradition, what is literature, and what is a worldview. You call it Shanmatas or Vaidic tradition or Sanatana Dharma or whatever you want, it is basically one umbrella, with various layers of Vedic, Puranic and Tantric literature, practices, worldviews and traditions. They are all astika traditions and accept Sabda pramana in the general sense. What fall outside that umbrella are the Bauddha and Jaina. At the tantric or the practice level there is not a huge difference betweeen Bauddha,

Jaina and Vaidic traditions - they all have commonly accepted theory of consciousness, sound, intellect, mind and prana as primary upadhis for transcendence, core moral values and so on. The various paths of yoga are found in all the major traditions. And all of them run into each other. The difference is in the knowledge system, in the worldview. It is here that we see the cleanest picture. The Sanatana systems arrange Vedic, Agamic, Tantric, Pauranic, Darsanic, Sutra and other Sastra literature in a single hierarchy and not as separate systems. This alone, by itself, is the irrefutable evidence for their being a single body with various limbs related by the fact that they belong to the same body. And people who graduate from traditional education, know this to be a single body of knowledge. And this clearly is not the case with Jaina and Bauddha, which fall outside the system that values sabda pramana. A famous scientist once said -

science is nature's answer to man's question about the world. It is not what the world in itself is. In this case too, it is our inaccurate questions that result in inaccurate answers. More logical question would result in a more logical answer. For instance - let us take the questions "Where is murti puja or temple worship in Veda?". The question is wrong for the reason that it assumes the presence of temple worship in Veda is the proof for Agama to be a derivative of Veda. The better question is, "how did temple worship itself evolve? What is its basis? Where does that basis come from?" And the answer to this is clear - temple itself is evolved from yaga sala, the premises of fire altar. That there is a one-one mapping between the major places of yaga sala and temple, including the fire place, yupa and bali sthana, cannot be denied. That both of them base themselves on the virat purusha and designate different places as parts of the

body of virat purusha with atma at the fire/idol, cannot be ignored. More than everything, the fundamental rule that and organized concrete specification evolves from abstract, and that temple is the concrete that evolved from the abstract called yajna, cannot be overlooked. How then, can we say that temple and yajna are different concepts? Let us consider the fact that Agama deals very much with yajna, and is not limited to temple. Homa, arcana, japa are all emphasized. Also, most of the argument goes round the logical fallacy of searching for Agamic elements in Veda. If one claims Veda to be older, one should be searching for the Vedic elements in Agamic worship. And they are manifold. First of all, Agamas have a number of references to Veda and Purana, and Agama designates itself to be best suited for Kali Yuga. This by itself puts Agama later in timeline. That Agamas and even Sakta Tantras make explicit references to the

Veda, that they all acknowledge sabda pramana and Sanatana literature to be consisting of Veda, Agama and Sastras, is the irrefutable evidence that the Agamas corresponding to Vaishnava-Saiva-Sakta are not traditions independent of Veda but are very much related to it. Coming to Siva Linga etc again, we are picking the wrong question as I said. Reference to Linga in Veda samhita is not a prerequisite for worship of Siva Linga to be part of Vedic tradition. As I posted previously on this forum, the very fact that Baudhayana's Mahanyasa compiled with Veda mantras precedes Abhisheka, stands to show how the application or Tantra part of Siva worship is closely related to and is based on Veda. I have also previously listed out the major Mantra vidyas like Pancakshari, Ajapa, Nishkala, Pasupata that form the basis for Saiva Agamas, are taken directly from Veda. Shankar

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh ji and group,

 

 

The heretic is back! The topic at hand has many layers to it and is not as

simple as it sounds. My visit to this group was initially to give a quick

response on a particular issue related to astrology, never to convince anyone of

anything, definitely not to start off this topic. But once it started I had to

remain true to my thoughts. I have spent a week on this forum typing long posts

each time. It has taken a lot of my time. I don't think that I can afford to

spend another few weeks here. However each time I see a post I feel tempted to

write back. I think its time for me to get back to my routine which is running a

bit off schedule. So this will be my last post on this topic for atleast a

while. We all need time to reflect rather than just discuss. However before I

leave let me quickly share a few more thoughts one *last time*. I will try not

to repeat the points from my previous posts except where I need to recap the

idea/principle for contextualising something.

 

 

1. If you remember I prefer to use the generic word Tantra instead of the more

specific Agama. The discussion has reached a point where *some* of my reasons

for this have to be quickly recapped. Tantra stands for the timeless age-old

tradition that was always hard to exactly define as it included a range of

things from shamanism and folk-medicine to the simple pagan practices and highly

occult ideas/practices across many geographical boundaries. Compared to the

age-old phenomenon of Tantra, Agama sastra (I am referring to the Hindu usage of

this term) is a relatively late development. It is post-vedic, at a stage when

Tantra was partially accepted and absorbed by the Vaidik tradition as well as

other Indian religions such as Jina and Bauddha traditions. Remember even they

were originally non-tantrik in their conventional forms. Furthermore the

Buddhist usage of the word 'Agama' is not in the tantric sense, but a general

canonical sense and is used to denote texts with some of the Buddha's actual

historical discourses. The Buddhists use the generic word Tantras in this

context. Thus from my perspective the word Tantra differentiates the later Hindu

Agamic development from its earlier forms (at least as I look at it), and also

keeps the terminology uniform across the various tantrik traditions of India.

The word Agama refers largely to the later post-vedic Hindu tantric development.

The Jainas too use the word Agama to denote the Tantras, though their

presuppositions are not the same. Thus to me Tantra denotes the whole phenomenon

across various traditions and across times. Since very ancient times Tantra

seems to have existed as techniques and practices, more as a phenomenon, rather

than as a specific tradition. On the other hand the post-vedic Agama clearly

heralds the arrival of the Vaidik Tantrik tradition.

 

 

2. Over the centuries Agama sastra as a postvedic development within the Vaidik

tradition, went through many systematisations and revisions to reach its current

form. In fact few of the Agama texts can really be assigned to a period prior to

the ninth century AD. Please read Agama Kosha vol-1 (once again by Sri S. K.

Ramachandra Rao) for a very good exposition of the same. It is somewhat like a

great river that has changed its course a few times due to the inevitable force

called Time. It is very hard to distinguish the various streams that join to

form one mighty river, not to speak of the tributaries. Sometimes a great river

is in existence because of three or four major streams that join along its

course to make it what it is. To people who graduate from traditional education,

Agama's place within post-vedic Hinduism might look very coherent, inseparable

and indistinguishable. However tradition is always a dual-edged sword. It has

great strengths as well as its own limitations. Moreover there are bound to be a

few traditions despite claims to the contrary. Graduates from one tradition will

inevitably disagree with graduates of the other tradition, be they Buddhist or

Jina or Vaidik. Invariably each tradition will have its basic set of

assumptions. Despite the similarity in practices, the presuppositions of the

Hindu Agamas (Vaishnava, Saiva,Sakta) and the Jina or Buddhist tantras are all

quite different, as also the functional role of the concepts. One has to be

discerning before cross-referencing similar terms or accepting internal

quotations from any one tradition. One has to contextualise and see the bigger

picture, the larger system.

 

 

3. I agree that Agama is distinguished by its almost exclusive concern with

worship in temples. Though the Agamas recognize a four-fold division in their

books, it is the `kriyapada' that forms the bulk. And this is the section that

deals with every aspect of the temples from planning and construction to the

actual worship. The Agamas invariably draw a distinction between worship carried

out by the householder in his own home (atmartha) and worship carried out by

priests in the temples for the sake of others (parartha). This presupposes two

institutions- the temple as a public place of worship and priests as

professional officiates. Now to the main point- Sure enough conceptually

speaking temple and yajna are probably not much different. The temple is based

on the yaga sala. No major disagreement here. However one has to note that

temple culture was incidental to image-worship and not vice versa. The temple

acquires significance only by the image installed in it. Though Homa, Archana

and Japa, are all integral to temple worship, THE SOUL OF THE TEMPLE IS THE

IMAGE. A temple is described as the body (deha) of the godhead, while the image

in the sanctum is the soul (jiva), as per the Agamas. The temple as a structure

houses the image, and as an institution provides for worshipping the image. So

the question of `murti' puja is not an incorrect question. It still remains a

serious and basic question (at least from my perspective). There is another

important historical aspect regarding murtis that one needs to look into.

 

 

4. Let us pause and consider what we know about the practice of worshipping

murtis/icons? Were murtis always worshipped in the temple as a collective

ritual? What came first? The temple or the murti? " As a matter of historical

fact temple culture of the Agamic kind cannot be dated back to a period earlier

than the 3rd or 4th century, while murtis in households are mentioned in works

belonging to centuries prior to the Christian era " (Panini's Ashtadhyayi and

Patanjali's Mahabhashya). Religious columns and stone enclosures of the Buddhist

kind are different from temples in the Agamic sense. By icons I do not mean

stones or other objects of worship, but actual icons/murtis themselves.

According to Patanjali, " Mauryas were mercenary priests who earned their

livelihood by carrying their deities to the houses of wealthy patrons and

performing worship in their presence for money. This was a departure from the

old custom of private worship of icons solely for personal benefits " . (Agama

kosha -vol1) Even reckoning only from around Panini's time, it took at least 800

years for the icons to pave way to the temple culture. To understand the tides

of time, that's approximately the time span in which India has seen the native

kings, Muslim invaders, the Europeans, our struggle for freedom, independence

and what not! How many changes has India been through in the last 800 years?

Getting back to the original point, murtis existed way before temple culture

came to be. Initially there was private worship of icons. Then came the custom

of privately performing icon worship for a fee. And still later came the temple

culture. The worshipping of deities in public places like temples for the

collective good was a step ahead in this regard. Since the temple culture is a

later development compared to the murtis themselves, the basic question of

'murti' puja becomes even more valid. There is nothing Vedic about this practice

however hard one may try to patch the gap by invoking the smrtis. Across **all**

schools of Vedanta only the Vedas are uniformly accepted, not the smrtis. What

is pramana and what is not (from the remaining literature) depends on the school

of thought that one s to. As most of you already know, the question

about the origins of murti puja has been raised by countless people in the last

two centuries. No one has come up with a satisfactory answer till date. So this

is definitely not the last time the question of the origins of murti puja will

be debated.

 

 

5. Now let us consider the various modes of worship known to human beings across

the globe since the earliest times. From stones and phallic symbols to serpents,

trees and empty caves, we find a variety of places and objects of worship. It is

undisputed that these simpler, inexpensive and natural modes were in existence

even before the vedic fire rituals (of course they were non-vedic). As a

phenomenon icon worship seems to be a more artistic refinement of the same human

impulse to worship, though the deity/seer/personified spirit invoked through the

icon could be anyone, non-vedic or vedic, Indian or non-Indian.

 

 

6. Here I will bring back my point on Tantra being more individualistic and

internalised in its approach as opposed to the Vedic approach that is collective

and sort of externalised. Here we are talking about the *predominant* approach.

In subsequent times though both the traditions underwent changes due to mutual

influences, it is still possible to see the original core beneath the surface.

The vedic approach to divinities is collective in nature, involving a number of

priests and experts with specific roles to play. And a sacrifice is generally in

a public place, in view of large congregations of people. On the other hand

Tantric tradition is individualistic in orientation, advocating the inward

movement of consciousness, as prescribed in Yoga marga. Tantric rituals are

conducted in privacy, at times in secret enclosures. The emergence of the

temple-culture amalgamates both the approaches. The temple is a public place of

worship, and several sequences of worship are conducted in public, in full view

of the devotees. But the more important rituals are always conducted behind

closed doors.

 

Now consider the fact that personal and private worship of icons appears first,

followed by temple traditions/culture/agamas after at least 800 years (let us

not get caught in a debate over the *exact* time gap but look at the sequence).

Owing to mutual influences both the vaidik and folk/mass traditions had to

concede to each other in the long run. Tantra eventually conceded by accepting

the Cosmic orientation, but merely as an extension, if not a projection of the

individual. As we know it today Tantrik philosophy *as obtained through the

Agamas* is undoubtedly indebted to the Vedic tradition and is inseparable from

it as the Agamas claim. But this integration was *gradually* ACHIEVED. The

temple was a major bridge in closing the gap between the Vedic and Tantric

approaches. It is through the temple culture that a private and personal worship

of murtis gradually attains a social, collective and cosmic approach. But the

practice of icon worship is first grounded in Vedic principles by patterning the

temple strictly after the yaga sala. In this regard the Agama sastra surely has

its roots firmly in the Veda. In fact that is the very purpose of Agama- to root

the already popular icon-worship in the vedic tradition. By that time

icon-worship had arrived to STAY and hence the inevitability of integrating the

practice into the vedic tradition. The integration of popular practices into the

vedic tradition cannot be denied. This is only one aspect to it. There are a few

more.

 

 

7. As already stated both traditions had to concede. Tantra eventually conceded

by accepting the Cosmos, but merely as an extension, if not a projection of the

individual. 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. However it

has retained an important feature-its emphasis on private practice and

internalisation of the cosmos through the consciousness of the practitioner.

Tantra recognises external yajna/sacrifice, however two forms of sacrifice are

recognised - one external (bahiryaga) and the other internal (antaryaga). The

external yajna is now internalised. It is acknowledged by most Tantric

practitioners that the inner yaga is the superior one, as the so-called

Samayachara affirms. While making room for external worship and not condemning

it, external worship is recognised as decidedly inferior. The internal yaga is

a sort of internal spiritual alchemy that is very rewarding in so far as

practice goes. If you zoom out and look at the bigger picture some Tantric sects

(outside the Agamik tradition) have no room for temple culture, but retain other

Tantric principles. We have not even examined the heterodox schools of Tantra

affiliated to Jainism and Buddhism, what their traditions affirm. There is a lot

more that one could compare and contrast. The orthodox claim that the Agamik

tradition is rooted in the Vedas is true enough for the Agamik version of Hindu

Tantra as we see it after the rise of the Agamas. However it cannot be denied

that it has also absorbed certain non-vedic traditions/practices too.

 

 

I am running out of time. But I cannot end this post without giving another

example of regional cults/traditions/practices being absorbed into the so called

Tantrik practices.

 

 

8. There are many strange monosyllables in the Tantras. Has anyone ever

wondered if they are all as meaningless or strange as they are thought to be?

Let us take the 6th century work Jayadratha-yamala. Once again I will quote from

Sri S. K. Ramachandra Rao. He writes the following in two of his works (Agama

Kosha vol-1 and Yoga and Tantra in India and Tibet-part1). " The strangeness of

the language used in Tantra was further due to the fact that characteristic

expressions were taken over, when details of alien cults were incorporated. The

Jayadratha-yamala contains some monosyllabic words (ekakshara-samullapa)

described as those used by yoginis, and they are identified as the

Trans-Himalayan dialects Paisacha and Bhota. The Yoginis appear to have been

mainly of non-Indian extraction " .

 

Bhota is in all probability a Tibetan dialect. Remember this is only part of the

discussion while the symbolism of Tantra (sandha bhasa) too plays a major role

in this discussion. A lot of Tantras seem to have such details of the

local/regional cults/shamanistic traditions. Some of the names of the Goddess

are clearly indicative of such absorption of local deities/cults etc. By the way

Jayadratha-yamala is probably at least a century ahead of the Indianisation of

the Tibet. Either ways the above example from Jayadratha-yamala serves to

illustrate the undeniable presence of regional cults/traditions. Let me also

clarify that I am NOT generalising the above example to ALL TANTRIK

MONOSYLLABLES.

 

 

 

9. There are many other interesting observations Sri S. K. Ramachandra Rao makes

in `Agama Kosha vol-1', about the early folk-shrines. He also writes that famous

shrines such as Jagannatha temple at Puri, Venkateswara temple at Tirumala, Kali

temple at Calcutta, Madurai Minakshi, Kanchi Kamakshi, Pandharapur Vithoba,

Guruvayur Krishna, Kollur Mukambika and Kashi Visvanatha temples, all had their

origin in folk cults and had widespread popular appeal before they were

transformed into magnificent temples with the incorporation of an Agama to guide

the structural changes as well as the worship rituals. This is an ongoing

process.

 

 

I have only given a sample. I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Those

who wish to take it up further can refer Agama Kosha vol-1 at the least (if not

the other volumes too). By the way Sri Rao is not the first person to write on

this. But he is perhaps among the best voices that graduated from tradition and

has been honoured with half dozen titles. He also combines academic rigour as he

headed various Departments in various Institutes. I recommended his books as

they come from a great scholar of his stature and also because he seems quite

balanced in his presentation. In fact he has more reasons to lean towards the

vedic tradition and not the other way round. He has authored more than 50

titles on the Veda and Agama, including the entire range of Rgveda Darsana (13

volumes), Agama Kosha (12 volumes), Pratima Kosha (6 volumes), etc, all of which

are encyclopaedic to say the least. Having gone through many editions by other

authors on some of these subjects, I am inclined to personally rate Sri Rao

relatively higher. I am sure some of you know his name already. Anyway I will

leave this topic here. If anyone is seriously interested in going deeper, you

have the references. Those who don't wish to, please just ignore. There is no

point in having an endless cycle of discussions and counter-discussions. This

discussion has taken a lot of my time in the last one week. I have aired my

current thoughts on this topic without fear or favour. Personally it is not a

major concern for me whether Tantra is fully rooted in the Vedas or whether it

has other sources of input or not. Most importantly it makes no difference to my

sadhana. Those of you who have exposure to other disciplines of thinking might

understand my reasons for sharing these thoughts here. Whatever reactions they

may arouse in each of us, it is up to each of us to decide for ourselves.

 

 

In matters such as this, we are ALL bound to be limited by our respective

biases. It is a different matter that we may have *different* biases. Those from

within the Buddhist tradition will have their biases just as those from within

the Hindu tradition will have theirs. This is the subjectivity of the mind,

despite all our claims to the contrary. That includes me as well. After all, we

are all thinking-feeling-emotional, living systems. Here I will share a model of

thinking that comes from postmodern constructivist schools of thought that

overlap in some ways with Madhyamika thinking. Let me draw your attention to a

particular psychotherapeutic school- that of the Milan group. According to them

every field/method of study is limited by its own models, hypotheses and

presumptions. Cecchin etal's view of all " models, hypotheses, and techniques as

prejudices rather than unquestionable facts " is an important one to bear in

mind, not only in the psychotherapeutic or psychological context, but in all

areas involving the human mind, be it religion or science. This does not mean

that a prejudice or bias is not useful, but rather that scholars should be

self-reflexive and should engage in open scrutiny and examination of the

beliefs. It is impossible not to have some bias. What is suggested by them, is

an *awareness* of possible biases in one's own model of thinking and the

conscious attempt at achieving neutrality and balance through a counterbalancing

approach. I don't know what others make of this. Some of you may find this

interesting. Others can ignore it.

 

 

I think that there is a place for discussions such as this. But one has to draw

a line somewhere. All discussions serve one good purpose-they sharpen our

thinking and perhaps deepen our knowledge if we are willing to be open. But

beyond a point they become meaningless and even unhealthy. I think from my side

I would prefer to wrap it up here at this stage though I might return back after

a few weeks/months for *other *discussions if and when I can afford the time. We

all have our day to day commitments and sadhanas to do. I thank everyone for

sharing their views. It was a pleasure to read some posts from those who

participated in the discussion- especially Shankar ji's first post, Sreenadh

ji's, and Sunil Bhattacharjya ji's.

Utkal ji, I do find your unrelenting zeal quite amazing. I hope you are able to

transform that passion into deeper knowledge of what you are trying to defend. I

am sure that these interactions will benefit all of us at some level, in

reflecting the weaknesses in our own thought processes, apart from inspiring all

of us to go deeper into our chosen areas of study. Bye for now...

 

 

aa no bhadraaH kratavo yantu vishvataH

 

 

Regards,

Satya Prakash

 

 

 

 

, " sreesog " <sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Shankar Bharadwaj ji,

> //For instance - let us take the questions " Where is murti puja or temple

worship in Veda? " . The question is wrong for the reason that it assumes the

presence of temple worship in Veda is the proof for Agama to be a derivative of

Veda.

> The better question is, " how did temple worship itself evolve? What is its

basis? Where does that basis come from? " And the answer to this is clear -

temple itself is evolved from yaga sala, the premises of fire altar. That there

is a one-one mapping between the major places of yaga sala and temple,//

> But the problem is - Temple worship was there present in many cultures such

as Sumer, Egypt, Anatolia, Central Russian countries and so on from very very

ancient period; and we have evidence that many of them is as old as Vedas; and

we have evidence even in Mahabharata that there was a lot of interaction

happening between all these cultures. And the other part of the story would be

that Central Asian, Anatolian people were all speaking a Sanskrit like

(Indo-European language family) at that time! Or in short that tradition was

Tantric/Agamic - one which follows temple worship and idol worship.

> Thus we don't have to search in Vedas to find the root/beginning/evolution

of Moorti puja (idol worship). It is well and evidently available outside vedas

itself with good amount of archeological and linguistic support.

> Note: I am not an expert to elaborate on this (because this not my area of

expertise), but clearly this is my understanding. May be Satya prakash ji can

elaborate on the same, if his thought/opinion too is in the same direction.

> Love and regards,

> Sreenadh

>

> , ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli

<shankarabharadwaj@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh ji,

> >

> > Saitaan hajir!!

> >

> > Overall my stand on the topic more or less remains the same as what I

expressed previously, so I did not want to go over it again. In short, to list

out traditions as Vaidika, Tantrika, Bauddha and Jaina is not very neat.

Basically we should draw a line between what is a tradition, what is literature,

and what is a worldview. You call it Shanmatas or Vaidic tradition or Sanatana

Dharma or whatever you want, it is basically one umbrella, with various layers

of Vedic, Puranic and Tantric literature, practices, worldviews and traditions.

They are all astika traditions and accept Sabda pramana in the general sense.

What fall outside that umbrella are the Bauddha and Jaina.

> >

> > At the tantric or the practice level there is not a huge difference betweeen

Bauddha, Jaina and Vaidic traditions - they all have commonly accepted theory of

consciousness, sound, intellect, mind and prana as primary upadhis for

transcendence, core moral values and so on. The various paths of yoga are found

in all the major traditions. And all of them run into each other.

> >

> > The difference is in the knowledge system, in the worldview. It is here that

we see the cleanest picture. The Sanatana systems arrange Vedic, Agamic,

Tantric, Pauranic, Darsanic, Sutra and other Sastra literature in a single

hierarchy and not as separate systems. This alone, by itself, is the irrefutable

evidence for their being a single body with various limbs related by the fact

that they belong to the same body. And people who graduate from traditional

education, know this to be a single body of knowledge. And this clearly is not

the case with Jaina and Bauddha, which fall outside the system that values sabda

pramana.

> >

> > A famous scientist once said - science is nature's answer to man's question

about the world. It is not what the world in itself is. In this case too, it is

our inaccurate questions that result in inaccurate answers. More logical

question would result in a more logical answer.

> >

> > For instance - let us take the questions " Where is murti puja or temple

worship in Veda? " . The question is wrong for the reason that it assumes the

presence of temple worship in Veda is the proof for Agama to be a derivative of

Veda.

> >

> > The better question is, " how did temple worship itself evolve? What is its

basis? Where does that basis come from? " And the answer to this is clear -

temple itself is evolved from yaga sala, the premises of fire altar. That there

is a one-one mapping between the major places of yaga sala and temple, including

the fire place, yupa and bali sthana, cannot be denied. That both of them base

themselves on the virat purusha and designate different places as parts of the

body of virat purusha with atma at the fire/idol, cannot be ignored. More than

everything, the fundamental rule that and organized concrete specification

evolves from abstract, and that temple is the concrete that evolved from the

abstract called yajna, cannot be overlooked. How then, can we say that temple

and yajna are different concepts?

> >

> > Let us consider the fact that Agama deals very much with yajna, and is not

limited to temple. Homa, arcana, japa are all emphasized.

> >

> > Also, most of the argument goes round the logical fallacy of searching for

Agamic elements in Veda. If one claims Veda to be older, one should be searching

for the Vedic elements in Agamic worship. And they are manifold. First of all,

Agamas have a number of references to Veda and Purana, and Agama designates

itself to be best suited for Kali Yuga. This by itself puts Agama later in

timeline.

> >

> > That Agamas and even Sakta Tantras make explicit references to the Veda,

that they all acknowledge sabda pramana and Sanatana literature to be consisting

of Veda, Agama and Sastras, is the irrefutable evidence that the Agamas

corresponding to Vaishnava-Saiva-Sakta are not traditions independent of Veda

but are very much related to it.

> >

> > Coming to Siva Linga etc again, we are picking the wrong question as I said.

Reference to Linga in Veda samhita is not a prerequisite for worship of Siva

Linga to be part of Vedic tradition. As I posted previously on this forum, the

very fact that Baudhayana's Mahanyasa compiled with Veda mantras precedes

Abhisheka, stands to show how the application or Tantra part of Siva worship is

closely related to and is based on Veda. I have also previously listed out the

major Mantra vidyas like Pancakshari, Ajapa, Nishkala, Pasupata that form the

basis for Saiva Agamas, are taken directly from Veda.

> >

> > Shankar

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Just a small addendum - The whole anthropomorphic treatment of Devata in murti puja (the shorter version of panca puja and the more elaborate shodasha upacara where Devata is given all the treatment similar to a human being) by itself stands to say that it evolved from the anthropomorphic conceptualization and description of Devatas. That definitely is one of the originating points of murti puja. The other point is about idol itself, which is necessarily a point of concentration of one's upasana bala. The popular notion that idol is for preliminary worship is valid only to a limited extent. It is essentially for concentrating the divine energy in the idol, for individual and collective good. ShankarShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj Sent: Sun, October 25, 2009 9:35:11 PMRe: Re: Astrology- the Heterodox systems of Tantra, Jina etc

 

 

Dear Dr Satya Prakash ji,I appreciate the pain you took to do the posting. My post will be a much smaller one, adressing only the points of agreement/disagreem ent. I think we are essentially agreeing on some points: * Agama-tantra portions are there in all the major traditions, Sanatana Jaina or Bauddha. Agama/Tantra Sastra is more of Sastra, more of a layer of practices and literature found in all the traditions and not a tradition. * "Despite the similarity in practices, the presuppositions of the Hindu

Agamas (Vaishnava, Saiva,Sakta) and the Jina or Buddhist tantras are

all quite different, as also the functional role of the concepts." as you noted. Basically the similarity and overlap is in practice level and difference is in worldview as I mentioned in my previous post. On some points however, on which either I differ or have not seen any convincing refutation: * Temple as the body of Virat purusha and idol at the heart, is a direct mapping with Yaga Sala and the base architecture is essentially yaga sala. The concept of temple and its architecture by itself, is more important than specific aspects* Murti-Agni dichotomy of temple and yajna is the essential dichotomy between Upasana-Karma approaches, nothing else. * The Agama fashions upasana marga very much after the karma marga, either by the classification of rites, or by mantra marga. The classification of rites as nitya-naimittika- kamya-prayascitt a is just a replica of Vedic karma marga. * Agama itself, makes explicit

references to Veda - there is no point asking for more proof, when such a direct evidence is there. * One has to differentiate murti and temple worship in general. Murti is an essential part of worship, temple or personal. It is not an equivalent of temple worship, by itself. I agree with you till here. However, this by itself refutes the other point that we should trace out murti to explain the evolution of temple.The overall concept of temple, its architecture, its rites all have a definitely known origin. One more point I wanted to clarify: On murti puja itself, I stand by looking at tradition for what it is rather than searching for books. That murti is not unknown to Vedic tradition is a well known fact for any practitioner. "There is nothing Vedic about murti" is far off from the fact. The only question is about the origin of concept of murti. Basically when we talk of a symbol, the best source to search for is the origin

of the concept which is being symbolized. The best, direct and explicit reason as to why idols ideally thumb/finger sized idols are used in personal worship in Vedic tradition, is the Katha statement "Angustha matram PurushaH". However, this is only an arbitrary reference from the top of my mind. Gods in the oldest texts right from the Veda have always been described in anthropomorphic ways, and describing Devatas in anthropomorhic ways is the starting point of anthropomorphic idols. Worshiping them in outer forms must precede their symbolic worship through fire. It is polytheism that makes it a cumbersome process to worship too many idols, and creates a single point of offering through which any Devata can be invoked and propitiated. Shankar

[Guest guest]

Dear Shankar ji,

 

As I wrote earlier, I will refrain from writing any more for the time being. The

reason I have responded to this post is because you *misrepresented* my stand

that we essentially agree on some points, where actually I DO NOT. So I will

clarify only this.

 

>

>>>>>>>>>>> I think we are essentially agreeing on some points:

>

>>>> * Agama-tantra portions are there in all the major traditions, >Sanatana

Jaina or Bauddha. Agama/Tantra Sastra is more of Sastra, more >of a layer of

practices and literature found in all the traditions and >not a

tradition.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

Nowhere do I say that Agama-tantra *PORTIONS* are there in all major traditions.

I will reproduce my statement again.

 

" Tantra was partially accepted and absorbed by the Vaidik tradition as well as

other Indian religions such as Jina and Bauddha traditions. Remember even they

were originally non-tantrik in their conventional forms " .

 

What is meant by this is that neither the astika nor the nastika systems could

resist the mass phenomenon (having its roots in what I have maintained as the

folk/mass traditions which Tantra represents). In order to survive all systems

REVISED their original approaches by ACCOMODATING some aspects of the folk

traditions such as ICON worship (it is only one important aspect). This is what

each of them seems to have done:

 

Buddhists: The oldest school of Theravada (also called Hinayana) did not absorb

any of these aspects. Though they allow venerating the Buddha through statues,

they were uncompromising about adapting the original teachings. Theravada has no

room for Tantric ideas. The Mahayanas allowed some ideas but it is the

Vajrayanas (an offshoot of Mahayanas) who are the only ones who fully absorbed

Tantric practices/ideas.

 

Vaidiks: Accomodated many aspects (murti worship is only one such) through

gradual concessions and systematic revisions. This was done through the

post-vedic development (largely 3rd to 9th centuries) of Agama sastra. It is

such adaptations that make Sanatana Dharma (which is not just Vaidik) the best

survivor of all.

(In more modern times there are reformers like Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the

founder of Arya Samaj who called for a return to a purely vedic approach.)

 

Jaina: Majority went with the flow. But those who did not agree to any such

compromise are there (sects such as Lumpakas).

 

 

Regards,

Satya Prakash

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr Satya Prakash ji,"Tantra was partially accepted and absorbed by the Vaidik tradition as

well as other Indian religions such as Jina and Bauddha traditions.

Remember even they were originally non-tantrik in their conventional

forms".Sure, I did misread the finer aspect of this. Yes with your clarification, we do differ on this. My take is that those traditions have developed more tantric layers and the others have not, owing to their non-upasana nature. Because if there is a tradition from which they have absorbed elements, what is that tradition? My take is that it is to reach the common man that these traditions have developed those elements. While certain disciplines that were not meant for common practitioner but for already trained practitioners, have not developed or integrated those elements. On Dayananda, he did not return to "pure Vedic" approach - he limited himself to Veda by leaving out rest of Vedic literature. We have different views on this, and I agree to differ and stop here. Nevertheless, it was a nice exchange. ShankarDr Satya Prakash <backtocosmicroots Sent: Mon, October 26, 2009 10:06:20 AM Re: Astrology- the Heterodox systems of Tantra, Jina etc

 

 

 

 

Dear Shankar ji,

 

As I wrote earlier, I will refrain from writing any more for the time being. The reason I have responded to this post is because you *misrepresented* my stand that we essentially agree on some points, where actually I DO NOT. So I will clarify only this.

 

>

>>>>>>>>>>> I think we are essentially agreeing on some points:

>

>>>> * Agama-tantra portions are there in all the major traditions, >Sanatana Jaina or Bauddha. Agama/Tantra Sastra is more of Sastra, more >of a layer of practices and literature found in all the traditions and >not a tradition.>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>

 

Nowhere do I say that Agama-tantra *PORTIONS* are there in all major traditions. I will reproduce my statement again.

 

"Tantra was partially accepted and absorbed by the Vaidik tradition as well as other Indian religions such as Jina and Bauddha traditions. Remember even they were originally non-tantrik in their conventional forms".

 

What is meant by this is that neither the astika nor the nastika systems could resist the mass phenomenon (having its roots in what I have maintained as the folk/mass traditions which Tantra represents). In order to survive all systems REVISED their original approaches by ACCOMODATING some aspects of the folk traditions such as ICON worship (it is only one important aspect). This is what each of them seems to have done:

 

Buddhists: The oldest school of Theravada (also called Hinayana) did not absorb any of these aspects. Though they allow venerating the Buddha through statues, they were uncompromising about adapting the original teachings. Theravada has no room for Tantric ideas. The Mahayanas allowed some ideas but it is the Vajrayanas (an offshoot of Mahayanas) who are the only ones who fully absorbed Tantric practices/ideas.

 

Vaidiks: Accomodated many aspects (murti worship is only one such) through gradual concessions and systematic revisions. This was done through the post-vedic development (largely 3rd to 9th centuries) of Agama sastra. It is such adaptations that make Sanatana Dharma (which is not just Vaidik) the best survivor of all.

(In more modern times there are reformers like Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj who called for a return to a purely vedic approach.)

 

Jaina: Majority went with the flow. But those who did not agree to any such compromise are there (sects such as Lumpakas).

 

Regards,

Satya Prakash

[Guest guest]

Dear Shankara Bharadwaj ji,

I am also of the opinion that we all do not agree much on the points under

discussion. Possibly, from an objective point of view what one could see is that

-

* Vedic extremist view

* There is some agreement between the stand points of Shankara Bharadwaj ji

and Utkal ji (but there is a whole lot of differences as well, since Shankara

Bharadwaj ji goes more into the conceptual level while Utkal ji depends more on

textual references). Sunil Bhattacharjya ji's stand also may be much in tune

with what Utkal ji's.

* Chakraborty ji's stand point and view seems to be somewhere between this and

the one given below.

* There is certainly some agreement between Satya Prakash ji's stand point and

my own standpoint. (But his understanding is much better than mine in this area

of knowledge)

* Tantric extremist view

The major point or graditing we can see is a gradation from Vedic extremist

view to Tantric extremist view - we all fall somewhere in between with enough

difference of opinion, but with a common interest in this Vedic-Tantric

correlation/interaction.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

 

, " Dr Satya Prakash "

<backtocosmicroots wrote:

Dear Shankar ji,

>

> As I wrote earlier, I will refrain from writing any more for the time being.

The reason I have responded to this post is because you *misrepresented* my

stand that we essentially agree on some points, where actually I DO NOT. So I

will clarify only this.

>

> >

> >>>>>>>>>>> I think we are essentially agreeing on some points:

> >

> >>>> * Agama-tantra portions are there in all the major traditions, >Sanatana

Jaina or Bauddha. Agama/Tantra Sastra is more of Sastra, more >of a layer of

practices and literature found in all the traditions and >not a

tradition.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>

>

> Nowhere do I say that Agama-tantra *PORTIONS* are there in all major

traditions. I will reproduce my statement again.

>

> " Tantra was partially accepted and absorbed by the Vaidik tradition as well as

other Indian religions such as Jina and Bauddha traditions. Remember even they

were originally non-tantrik in their conventional forms " .

>

> What is meant by this is that neither the astika nor the nastika systems could

resist the mass phenomenon (having its roots in what I have maintained as the

folk/mass traditions which Tantra represents). In order to survive all systems

REVISED their original approaches by ACCOMODATING some aspects of the folk

traditions such as ICON worship (it is only one important aspect). This is what

each of them seems to have done:

>

> Buddhists: The oldest school of Theravada (also called Hinayana) did not

absorb any of these aspects. Though they allow venerating the Buddha through

statues, they were uncompromising about adapting the original teachings.

Theravada has no room for Tantric ideas. The Mahayanas allowed some ideas but it

is the Vajrayanas (an offshoot of Mahayanas) who are the only ones who fully

absorbed Tantric practices/ideas.

>

> Vaidiks: Accomodated many aspects (murti worship is only one such) through

gradual concessions and systematic revisions. This was done through the

post-vedic development (largely 3rd to 9th centuries) of Agama sastra. It is

such adaptations that make Sanatana Dharma (which is not just Vaidik) the best

survivor of all.

> (In more modern times there are reformers like Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the

founder of Arya Samaj who called for a return to a purely vedic approach.)

>

> Jaina: Majority went with the flow. But those who did not agree to any such

compromise are there (sects such as Lumpakas).

>

>

> Regards,

> Satya Prakash

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh ji,Yes, those who think they are Vaidika on one side and those who think

they are Tantrika on the other side, hold that their literature and

tradition in its purity has been untouched by others and has only got

touched by them as a later development.

"Vedic extremist view" does not hold Agama to be part of the primary Vedic literature. They do not to much of the Tantric world view by and large. My position is far from that. What I hold, as some others, is a samanvaya viewpoint. Neither the Vaidika nor the Tantrika position. Fundamentally, I am saying that Agama by its nature is an evolution over something - it takes many things, many concepts for granted, as if they already existed. And when there is something so clearly expressive of those concepts, we do not have to search all over the world for the origin of those things - especially when the texts themselves say so. Not that one should agree with this, but my position is not what you say it is Shankarsreesog <sreesog Sent: Mon, October 26, 2009 2:16:34 PM Re: Astrology- the Heterodox systems of Tantra, Jina etc

 

 

Dear Shankara Bharadwaj ji,

I am also of the opinion that we all do not agree much on the points under discussion. Possibly, from an objective point of view what one could see is that -

* Vedic extremist view

* There is some agreement between the stand points of Shankara Bharadwaj ji and Utkal ji (but there is a whole lot of differences as well, since Shankara Bharadwaj ji goes more into the conceptual level while Utkal ji depends more on textual references). Sunil Bhattacharjya ji's stand also may be much in tune with what Utkal ji's.

* Chakraborty ji's stand point and view seems to be somewhere between this and the one given below.

* There is certainly some agreement between Satya Prakash ji's stand point and my own standpoint. (But his understanding is much better than mine in this area of knowledge)

* Tantric extremist view

The major point or graditing we can see is a gradation from Vedic extremist view to Tantric extremist view - we all fall somewhere in between with enough difference of opinion, but with a common interest in this Vedic-Tantric correlation/ interaction.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh