Sri Vidya Tantra and Panchadasi in Atharva Veda - Chakarborti Ji

[Guest guest]

Dear Chakraborti Ji/group,

 

Thought to respond to one of your queries-

 

Srividya or Sritantra is very well mentioned in Sridevi Atharva Shirsham,

Mahalaxmi Gayatri mantra is also given in same in same devi shirsham.

What is said by Dr Satyaprakash that vedas dont have concept of bindu, yoni etc

is wrong, far from reality and an statement of ignorence.

 

In the verse 13 and 14, atharvan rishi says -

 

'Kamo Yonih Kamla Vajrapanirguha ha sa Matarirhwa Bhramindrah !

 

Punarguha Sakala Mayayaa cha Puruchaisha Viswamatadi Vdyom !!'

 

Above verse is seed of Panchadasi Mantra and Srividya.

 

You correctly pointed out that Dattatreya is a son of vedic couple as well as

founder of Sri Vidya Tantra.

 

Hope, above wd help Mr. Shankar in keeping a firm view of tantra's root in

Vedas.

 

Regards,

Utkal

[Guest guest]

Dear Utkal ji, //Dr Satyaprakash that vedas dont have concept of bindu, yoni etc is wrong, far from reality and an statement of ignorence.// While speaking with learned scholars please don't be that rude in the use of words. Better try to understand their perspective and even if don't agree - respect them for their own contribution and understanding. I don't feel it right to reject things on face saying that it is 'ignorance' etc; who can outright say who is knowledgeable and who is ignorant; or better what is knowledge and what is ignorance! Please be more polite in the conversations especially to Satya Prakash ji, since we have already seen the amount of info he can share and also the ability to present a learned but alternative perspective. You may or many not agree to this - but the fact remains that he is a learned scholar and that it is wrong to call him 'ignorant' etc. Hope you see the point. Let Satyaprakash ji advice you too much or you advice him - it is all not much going to help; since the fundamental approach may differ. At the end there is a saying that - "No one wants advice - only corroboration." (John Steinbeck, The Winter of Our Discontent). A statement that could possibly be true in the case of any member who participated in this discussion! Love and regards,Sreenadh , "utkal.panigrahi" <utkal.panigrahi wrote:>> Dear Chakraborti Ji/group,> > Thought to respond to one of your queries-> > Srividya or Sritantra is very well mentioned in Sridevi Atharva Shirsham, Mahalaxmi Gayatri mantra is also given in same in same devi shirsham.> What is said by Dr Satyaprakash that vedas dont have concept of bindu, yoni etc is wrong, far from reality and an statement of ignorence. > > In the verse 13 and 14, atharvan rishi says -> > 'Kamo Yonih Kamla Vajrapanirguha ha sa Matarirhwa Bhramindrah !> > Punarguha Sakala Mayayaa cha Puruchaisha Viswamatadi Vdyom !!'> > Above verse is seed of Panchadasi Mantra and Srividya. > > You correctly pointed out that Dattatreya is a son of vedic couple as well as founder of Sri Vidya Tantra.> > Hope, above wd help Mr. Shankar in keeping a firm view of tantra's root in Vedas.> > Regards,> Utkal>

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

 

//>>>>>> What is said by Dr Satyaprakash that vedas dont have concept >>>of

bindu, yoni etc is wrong, far from reality and an statement of >>>>ignorence.//

 

 

For record's sake, this is another MISREPRESENTATION of what I said!!! Please

see the original posts (in fact I repeat this point in two posts). This is what

I wrote originally:

 

 

Message #26786, section 4

 

" 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. "

 

 

Message #27142, point 7

 

" 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. "

 

What do the words *INDEBTED* and *CONCEDE* mean?

 

Hereafter I will not respond even to misrepresentations. Everything is on record

for verification.

 

 

Regards,

Satya Prakash

[Guest guest]

I percieve it in only way.

vedas came before tantra-

tantra is the path to realise god and his works. a person who is a tantrik received the divine knowledge which is none other than the vedas. so vedas are first.

 

correct me if my thought process is wrong.

 

 

SR Rajkumar

rajkumar_v3--- On Tue, 10/27/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: Re: Sri Vidya Tantra and Panchadasi in Atharva Veda - Chakarborti Ji Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 2:09 PM

 

 

 

 

Dear friends,Namaste,Though belatedly, I am trying to find out what Dr. Satya Prakashji really said. If I have understood Dr. Satya Prakashji'a statement properly he tells us that the core of the Tantra belongs to pre-Vedic culture, which could mean that the Tantra is older han the Vedas and that the Vedas could have accepted some of the tantric ideas..It is also implied that the indebtedness of the Tantric philosophy to the Vedas then may be because the Vedas accepted it. It would have made it easier to accept what he said had he given some data / facts in support, otherwise that would remain as just assertion only.Interesting isn,t it? Mind that this is my observation as you too might have m noticed the same. This not my comment. Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 10/26/09, Dr Satya Prakash <backtocosmicroots@ . au>

wrote:

Dr Satya Prakash <backtocosmicroots@ . au>[ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Sri Vidya Tantra and Panchadasi in Atharva Veda - Chakarborti Jiancient_indian_ astrologyMonday, October 26, 2009, 1:42 PM

Namaste, //>>>>>> What is said by Dr Satyaprakash that vedas dont have concept >>>of bindu, yoni etc is wrong, far from reality and an statement of >>>>ignorence. // For record's sake, this is another MISREPRESENTATION of what I said!!! Please see the original posts (in fact I repeat this point in two posts). This is what I wrote originally:Message #26786, section 4"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."Message #27142, point 7"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." What do the words *INDEBTED* and *CONCEDE* mean? Hereafter I will not respond even to misrepresentations. Everything is on record for verification. Regards,Satya Prakash

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil Ji,

 

This is problem, on the one hand dr satya prakash is not able to define what

tantra is, and on the other hand he says tantra is older than vedas, it's

noticeable that he couldnt give the name of any tantra text before upnishads,

existing or not existing, still he claims that vedas are newer to tantra, what

tantra, who was the god, what was text, he has no idea but claims.

 

Regards,

Utkal

 

, Sunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

>

> Dear friends,

>

> Namaste,

>

> Though belatedly, I am trying to find out what Dr. Satya Prakashji really

said. If I have understood  Dr. Satya Prakashji'a statement properly he tells us

that the core of the Tantra belongs to pre-Vedic culture, which could  mean that

the Tantra is older han the Vedas and that the Vedas could have accepted some of

the tantric ideas..It is also implied that the  indebtedness of the Tantric

philosophy to the Vedas then may be because the Vedas accepted it. It would have

made it easier to accept what he said had he given some data / facts in support,

otherwise that would remain as  just assertion only.

>

> Interesting isn,t it? Mind that this is my observation as you too might have m

noticed the same. This not my comment.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

>

>

>

>

> --- On Mon, 10/26/09, Dr Satya Prakash <backtocosmicroots wrote:

>

> Dr Satya Prakash <backtocosmicroots

> Re: Sri Vidya Tantra and Panchadasi in

Atharva Veda - Chakarborti Ji

>

> Monday, October 26, 2009, 1:42 PM

 

>

>

>

Namaste,

>

>

>

> //>>>>>> What is said by Dr Satyaprakash that vedas dont have concept >>>of

bindu, yoni etc is wrong, far from reality and an statement of >>>>ignorence. //

>

>

>

> For record's sake, this is another MISREPRESENTATION of what I said!!! Please

see the original posts (in fact I repeat this point in two posts). This is what

I wrote originally:

>

>

>

> Message #26786, section 4

>

>

>

> " 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. "

>

>

>

> Message #27142, point 7

>

>

>

> " 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. "

>

>

>

> What do the words *INDEBTED* and *CONCEDE* mean?

>

>

>

> Hereafter I will not respond even to misrepresentations. Everything is on

record for verification.

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Satya Prakash

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shankarji,I think a member had told Satya Prakashji bluntly like that as he (the member) probably found the latter to be overly asserting rather than trying to convince with facts and references. Anyway calling a learned member as lacking understanding is harsh and is to be avoided. One may however lack information as it is not possible for a person to know everything and one may point that out with a constructive approach like you have given the additional information on the Sri Vidya in other upanishads. Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Tue, 10/27/09, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli

<shankarabharadwajRe: Re: Sri Vidya Tantra and Panchadasi in Atharva Veda - Chakarborti Ji Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 9:08 AM

 

 

1. Saiva-Vaishnava etc is just categorical. The classification of Upanishads typically is according to the Veda sakha and not theology. The theological classification itself, is done because of selective adoption by various traditions and has nothing to do with the arrangement in Veda itself. As a body of literature, Upanishads are part of Vedanta - however only few Upanishads are really part of the curriculum in any Vedantic tradition, other texts being Brahma Sutras and Gita. 2. There is no question of acceptance or non-acceptance of Upanishads or any other text for that matter. There is only subscription or non-subscription. Each tradition s to certain texts. 3. For Sri Vidya itself, there does not have to be a discussion on the acceptance of Nrisimha tapini at all.

There are many direct references - Saubhagya Lakshmi Upanishad, Tripura Tapini Upanishad, above all the Sri Sukta of Rig Veda khila. 4. When similar Mantra Sastra is found in both Veda and Tantra, when the practicing traditions value both texts, it is just scholarly reductionism to argue on two sides. Yes, there are practitioners that are not trained in the literature itself and they think they are Vaidikas or Tantrikas. But when someone understands the nature of spirituality itself, understands the sastras that form basis of all these texts, such dichotomy appears to be too bookish. There does exist opinion among scholars that Tantra is consolidated

from regional and folk traditions and eventually standardized through

Upasana and Mantra Sastras. This again brings the question of what is core and what is periphery - discussion never really went that far.

5. It is being unnecessarily rude on Dr Satya Prakash ji, to say he does not have understanding. Opinions on this subject are varied and there has never been consensus. Shankar

[Guest guest]

Dear Shankar ji,

 

 

Like your first post, I have enjoyed reading this post too. In both the posts

you have demonstrated knowledge and clarity.

 

 

//>>>> 1. Saiva-Vaishnava etc is just categorical. The classification of

Upanishads typically is according to the Veda sakha and not theology. The

theological classification itself, is done because of selective adoption by

various traditions and has nothing to do with the arrangement in Veda itself. As

a body of literature, Upanishads are part of Vedanta - however only few

Upanishads are really part of the curriculum in any Vedantic tradition, other

texts being Brahma Sutras and Gita.

>

> 2. There is no question of acceptance or non-acceptance of Upanishads or any

other text for that matter. There is only subscription or non-subscription. Each

tradition s to certain texts.//

 

 

 

I fully agree with this. Your choice of the word " " is better than what

I used- " accept " . But that was what I too meant.

 

 

//>>>>>> 3. For Sri Vidya itself, there does not have to be a discussion on the

acceptance of Nrisimha tapini at all. There are many direct references -

Saubhagya Lakshmi Upanishad, Tripura Tapini Upanishad, above all the Sri Sukta

of Rig Veda khila.//

 

 

The only point that I had already written in my older, longer posts is that that

unlike the original Veda Samhita, the Upanishads come much later by which time

the intermixing and mutual integration had become inevitable. Furthermore

chronologically there are older upanishads and relatively later ones. That is

all. No offense meant to any text. All upanishads are systematic crystallisation

of Sruti and fully depend on Sruti.

 

I do respect all upanishads and am not hostile to any tradition that s

to different texts. In fact when I am more than happy to accept ALL Indian

traditions, what to speak of different schools of vedanta.

 

 

//>>>>There does exist opinion among scholars that Tantra is consolidated > from

regional and folk traditions and eventually standardized through > Upasana and

Mantra Sastras. This again brings the question of what is core and what is

periphery - discussion never really went that far.//

 

 

Firstly thanks for clarifying this on the forum, that such an opinion does

exist. You have hit the nail with your excellent point on what is core and what

is periphery. This is what I too have been insisting on. Of course the

discussion never went further as the discussion got side tracked on the frills

and fringes.

 

 

Your post has given the nearly closed discussion a more dignified closure.

 

 

Regards,

Satya Prakash

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhardwaj ji,

 

Pls clarify what sort of consolidation you see in tantra way of sadhana, pls.

give some real examples.

 

Do you support the idea that tantra doesnt have their root in veda vangmaya.

 

Pls reply - yes or no.

 

Regards,

Utkal

 

, " Dr Satya Prakash "

<backtocosmicroots wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

> Dear Shankar ji,

>

>

> Like your first post, I have enjoyed reading this post too. In both the posts

you have demonstrated knowledge and clarity.

>

>

> //>>>> 1. Saiva-Vaishnava etc is just categorical. The classification of

Upanishads typically is according to the Veda sakha and not theology. The

theological classification itself, is done because of selective adoption by

various traditions and has nothing to do with the arrangement in Veda itself. As

a body of literature, Upanishads are part of Vedanta - however only few

Upanishads are really part of the curriculum in any Vedantic tradition, other

texts being Brahma Sutras and Gita.

> >

> > 2. There is no question of acceptance or non-acceptance of Upanishads or any

other text for that matter. There is only subscription or non-subscription. Each

tradition s to certain texts.//

>

>

>

> I fully agree with this. Your choice of the word " " is better than

what I used- " accept " . But that was what I too meant.

>

>

> //>>>>>> 3. For Sri Vidya itself, there does not have to be a discussion on

the acceptance of Nrisimha tapini at all. There are many direct references -

Saubhagya Lakshmi Upanishad, Tripura Tapini Upanishad, above all the Sri Sukta

of Rig Veda khila.//

>

>

> The only point that I had already written in my older, longer posts is that

that unlike the original Veda Samhita, the Upanishads come much later by which

time the intermixing and mutual integration had become inevitable. Furthermore

chronologically there are older upanishads and relatively later ones. That is

all. No offense meant to any text. All upanishads are systematic crystallisation

of Sruti and fully depend on Sruti.

>

> I do respect all upanishads and am not hostile to any tradition that

s to different texts. In fact when I am more than happy to accept ALL

Indian traditions, what to speak of different schools of vedanta.

>

>

> //>>>>There does exist opinion among scholars that Tantra is consolidated >

from regional and folk traditions and eventually standardized through > Upasana

and Mantra Sastras. This again brings the question of what is core and what is

periphery - discussion never really went that far.//

>

>

> Firstly thanks for clarifying this on the forum, that such an opinion does

exist. You have hit the nail with your excellent point on what is core and what

is periphery. This is what I too have been insisting on. Of course the

discussion never went further as the discussion got side tracked on the frills

and fringes.

>

>

> Your post has given the nearly closed discussion a more dignified closure.

>

>

> Regards,

> Satya Prakash

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste,It is not a one-way exchange in any way, and it cannot be one-way. Both the Vedic and Tantra literature have evolved over time. And more importantly, for quite some time they have developed hand in hand. There are antecedents and consequent in both forms of literature. 1. Upasana sastra itself, is found in Aranyaka of Veda and Tantra. Not all over the Veda. Samhita is intended for expressing the impersonal. It is not intended to expound variables and details that relate human to impersonal (the upasana sastra). 2. Mantra Vidya is itself an evolved concept, and is visible in Aranyaka portion of Veda. Though there is a bulk of Mantra literature in the form of samhita, the concept of mantra vidya itself is not found there. It is found in Aranyaka and Tantra in common -

because it is upasana sastra. Mantra Vidya is encapsulation of Mantra in Astanga/Shadanga yoga. The Asana-Pranayama-Pratyahara-Nyasa-Dhyana-Japa of Mantra Vidyas basically follows Asana-Pranayama-Pratyahara-Dharana-Dhyana-Samadhi of laya yoga. It is here that we see the samputikarana resemblance with Tantra. Examples of such vidyas are Gayatri (Taittireeya Aranyaka), Ganapati (Atharva Seersha Upanishad). So if someone asks how did the concept of encapsulation of Mantra vidya come into the Veda, what is the answer? After all, that can happen after and not before yoga sastra itself is founded! When yoga sastra accepts sabda pramana and is post-Vedic, how come part of Vedic literature is founded in yoga sastra in turn! The answer is simple - the later part of Veda vangmaya, tantras and various sastras developed hand-in-hand. 3. The 32 canonical vidyas of upanishads (dahara vidya, akasa vidya, akshara vidya, bhuma vidya etc) are upasana

centered. They have close resamblance with Sakta vidyas. Vasistha Ganapati Muni in his Mahavidya Sutras gives correlation of each Sakta Mahavidya and its corresponding Upanishad vidya. Many of these are from Chandogya and looking at the extent of development Sakta vidyas should perhaps be later than these. However, that just means such an orientation is later adoption in Tantra and not that the Sakta mantras themselves came from these Upanishads. I am not probably able to articulate this well, but here we can see how the upasana orientation is coming into Upanishads and the spiritual philosophy orientation is coming into Tantra. 4. Of course, some of the mantra vidyas are direct exports from Samhita and Aranyaka into Tantra - I have listed this previously and there is no disagreement on this from anyone. 5. Some things in Veda vangmaya are clearly imports and not exports - the celebrated Lalita Sahasranama of Brahmanda Purana for

instance. It is a compilation, a compendium of Yoga Sastra and Sakta - which by itself stands to say that it is prepared with a prior knowledge of those vidyas and not an origin from which those vidyas developed. 6. Great men have made contributions to both forms of literature - Vaidika and Tantrika. They have not been selective on just one of these. Take any major tradition they have pursued both forms of literature. When things have developed hand-in-hand, it is not appropriate for us to talk of whether Veda owes to Tantra or vice versa. Of course, Tantra being a later consolidation, a later development has taken more elements, used many elements already been developed. And no one is denying that. However there are a lot of practices that we do not find in the Vedic fold. Some of the possiblities are - whether these are originally part of tantra which were integrated into the above said Sastra and resulted in the present form

of Tantra - whether these form the core of tantra or just outward forms that are peripheral to the subject of Tantra - whether those practices themselves came before or after the mantra bhaga of Tantra - and so on So one has to traceout the older forms of Tantric litarature as you mentioned, before being confident on any of this. A few thoughts in that direction: 1. Like other literature, Tantra has evolved over time, in multiple phases. Unlike the Samhita which is standardized and maintained with six vedangas through oral tradition to prevent modification even of syllables, Tantra involved interaction of many parallel traditions. So it is relatively more difficult to ascertain its accurate historic position. 2. One of the positions maintained is that the tantra literature with its practices was consolidated with the more evolved mantra sastra subsequently, and still retaining the centrality of those

practices. This is how they explain the centrality of method and practices in tantra. This is not unviable. This is the position Dr Satya Prakash ji is taking. He can perhaps explain this better. 3. Another position is that those practices were added into the mantra and upasana sastras to make them reachable to wider public. This is not unviable either. This position holds strength on the basis that tantra needs an even more intimate teacher-practitioner parampara than the more standardized and less personal vedantic discipline, and the practices themselves are applicable only at some levels in the whole upasana. This position also does not deny those practices existed previously, but not under the "tantra". Also, when one sees the standardized upasana sastra to be central, then the practices themselves become secondary. This is how they explain the higher reaches of practices in tantra. This is my position. And the reasons for my position are -

* If we look at the older tantric literature, we see different set of Devatas including Indra etc. The later developments inclined towards the Sakti components of those devatas - Vairocani etc. Those devatas were not just popular or regional devatas, they were no less Vedic than today's Tantric devatas. This is the reason for my position that Tantra is not a later integration, but its development has always been hand-in-hand with the other traditions. Yes, there do exist numerous tribal, folk and regional traditions - they exist even today. Their literature is different on this date. Thre has not been invasive assimilation of those, to say that tantra was assimilated with a different core. * The set of practices being central to Tantra to me does not make it necessarily alien to Veda. After all not just in Atharva Veda, but we find many such practices of copulation, meat eating etc

mentioned in Vedic rites. However, the Srauta-Smarta traditions have evolved over time and rejected those practices while Tantra has retained those. This is more a reason for me to believe that their origin is common and have evolved in diverse ways, than to believe that their origins are different and have been integrated later. Shankar

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunil ji,The Brahmana and Aranyaka themselves are not necessarily more recent than samhita. But not all portions of the Veda are equally old. Within that, Aranyaka has more recent updates than samhita for obvious reasons. Secondly Veda was codified into Samhita, Brahmana and Aranyaka at some point of time. Not all Upanishads are recent, but it is a topic in its own right which upanishad was compiled at what stage. To take the example of Gayatri, the mantra itself is found in RV samhita and many other places. However, the prakarana that puts Gayatri into a Mantra Vidya is found in Taittireeya Aranyaka. This is the difference I was pointing out. Gayatri is given during upanayana, and that is a prerequisite for any other upadesa - be it Vedadhyayana or Sri Vidya. After upanayana,

Sri Vidya initiation is just like any other initiation - there is nothing more secretive about it. On the whole yes, tantra just like veda is passed over in guru-sishya parampara and they are to be known and learned that way. The secretive part of tantra is for some of the practices and not the mantra bhaga. The nature of secrecy in mantra bhaga is different - it is to prevent dry academic sessions on something that is very intimate to the practitioner. The nature of secrecy in the practices is different - it is to avoid any unnecessary thoughts in the mind of common man. ShankarSunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya Sent: Thu, October 29, 2009 4:16:46 AMRe: Re: Sri Vidya Tantra and Panchadasi in Atharva Veda - Chakarborti Ji

 

 

Dear Shankarji and Utkalji,The concept that the Samhita came first and Brahmana, Aranyaka and the Upanishads followed later in that order was floated by Max thuller and other German Indologists in the late nineteenth century. They imagined that some couple of centuries slab to be between the development of these shastras to suit the chronology of their Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). Some Indian scholars are still singing in the same tune without applying mind.Four ashramas are as old as the Hindu civilisation. In the Brahmacharyashrama all the Vedangas are taught followed by the vedic mantras ie. the Samhita and then the Brahmanas.

The Mahabharata says that one ought to read the puranas also before learning the Vedas. In the Grihashthashrama the Vedic karyas are done by the grihshthi according to what one had learnt at the

Brahmacharyashrama. At the third ashrama of life (ie. of retirement to Vana or seclusion or Vanaprastha) one goes deep into the priciples of what Vedic Karya one had been doing in earlier two stages of life. The Arnyakas are mainly meant for this stage. This is not to say that there has no absolute overlapping of the stages. In the final stage of life ie. the Sannyashrama one has to concentrate on the Upanishads which contain the ultimate teachings. Thus it is wrong to say that the Aranyakas came much later. They are as old as the system of the four Ashramas in the Hindu canon. The Samayachara way of Tantra is also as old as the Veda as in the Veda there is reference to Srividya. As regards the chronology there has been several good works and one such us by Prof. Narahari Achar on the dating of Rigveda.There is a verse that says the Vedas were open but the Tantra is hidden. I do not remember the exact verse now but the scholars may remember

this. Even now while the Gayatri is taught at the time of the Upanayana, the secret Srividya-pancadasaa kshari mantra is given only to the inititaed at a later stage. It could be that there has been additional practices which evolved in due course of time but that does not reduce the antiquity of Tantra in general.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

[Guest guest]

Dear Shankarji,Yes, our views broadly agree. When I was mentioning about the secret "Srividya-pancadasaa kshari mantra" I was not referring to just the fifteen syllables, which one can find in the open literature but I was referring to the 16th syllable also, which is kept hidden and one has to know that from the Guru. I hope you are aware of this.Regards,Sunil--- On Wed, 10/28/09, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwajRe: Re: Sri Vidya Tantra and Panchadasi in Atharva Veda - Chakarborti JiTo:

Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 9:27 PM

 

 

Dear Sunil ji,The Brahmana and Aranyaka themselves are not necessarily more recent than samhita. But not all portions of the Veda are equally old. Within that, Aranyaka has more recent updates than samhita for obvious reasons. Secondly Veda was codified into Samhita, Brahmana and Aranyaka at some point of time. Not all Upanishads are recent, but it is a topic in its own right which upanishad was compiled at what stage. To take the example of Gayatri, the mantra itself is found in RV samhita and many other places. However, the prakarana that puts Gayatri into a Mantra Vidya is found in Taittireeya Aranyaka. This is the difference I was pointing out. Gayatri is given during upanayana, and that is a prerequisite for any other upadesa - be it Vedadhyayana or Sri Vidya. After upanayana,

Sri Vidya initiation is just like any other initiation - there is nothing more secretive about it. On the whole yes, tantra just like veda is passed over in guru-sishya parampara and they are to be known and learned that way. The secretive part of tantra is for some of the practices and not the mantra bhaga. The nature of secrecy in mantra bhaga is different - it is to prevent dry academic sessions on something that is very intimate to the practitioner. The nature of secrecy in the practices is different - it is to avoid any unnecessary thoughts in the mind of common man. ShankarSunil Bhattacharjya

<sunil_bhattacharjya @>ancient_indian_ astrologyThu, October 29, 2009 4:16:46 AMRe: [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Sri Vidya Tantra and Panchadasi in Atharva Veda - Chakarborti Ji

 

 

Dear Shankarji and Utkalji,The concept that the Samhita came first and Brahmana, Aranyaka and the Upanishads followed later in that order was floated by Max thuller and other German Indologists in the late nineteenth century. They imagined that some couple of centuries slab to be between the development of these shastras to suit the chronology of their Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). Some Indian scholars are still singing in the same tune without applying mind.Four ashramas are as old as the Hindu civilisation. In the Brahmacharyashrama all the Vedangas are taught followed by the vedic mantras ie. the Samhita and then the Brahmanas.

The Mahabharata says that one ought to read the puranas also before learning the Vedas. In the Grihashthashrama the Vedic karyas are done by the grihshthi according to what one had learnt at the

Brahmacharyashrama. At the third ashrama of life (ie. of retirement to Vana or seclusion or Vanaprastha) one goes deep into the priciples of what Vedic Karya one had been doing in earlier two stages of life. The Arnyakas are mainly meant for this stage. This is not to say that there has no absolute overlapping of the stages. In the final stage of life ie. the Sannyashrama one has to concentrate on the Upanishads which contain the ultimate teachings. Thus it is wrong to say that the Aranyakas came much later. They are as old as the system of the four Ashramas in the Hindu canon. The Samayachara way of Tantra is also as old as the Veda as in the Veda there is reference to Srividya. As regards the chronology there has been several good works and one such us by Prof. Narahari Achar on the dating of Rigveda.There is a verse that says the Vedas were open but the Tantra is hidden. I do not remember the exact verse now but the scholars may remember

this. Even now while the Gayatri is taught at the time of the Upanayana, the secret Srividya-pancadasaa kshari mantra is given only to the inititaed at a later stage. It could be that there has been additional practices which evolved in due course of time but that does not reduce the antiquity of Tantra in general.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

[Guest guest]

The question that still stands open is - do bharadwaj ji accepts tantra do not

have their origin in vedas or vedic vangmaya.

 

If tantra has different origin than veda, who was the god in tantra and who

replaced that god with new range of vedic gods,what happend to those gods, are

the gods are imaginations that we can create and forget.

 

Taking tantra to be of diff origin has above questions, useless question with no

answers.

 

I have given proof of isolated upasana and a atharva mantra which is root of sri

vidya tantra, which establishes tantra has it's origin in vedas.

 

If bhardwaj ji differs, wd ask for evidences, facts to underline the different

origin.

 

Regards,

Utkal

[Guest guest]

Dear Utkal ji,Who after all is Bharadwaj and what is the relevance of his or anyone Else's acceptance in this? Those traditions by themselves, are eternal and vast - we are merely trying to make some guesses/speculations based on the limited information we have. And our agreements or disagreements are irrelevant as far as those traditions themselves are concerned - they just make us happy or unhappy "Taking tantra to be of diff origin has above questions, useless question with no answers."That we have no answers does not make the question itself useless! "

If bhardwaj ji differs, wd ask for evidences, facts to underline the different origin."Whether I agree or differ, I have given my reasoning along in the longer post - what are the possibilities, and what my stand on that is. I have tried to compare a few aspects of the Vedic and Tantric literature to substantiate my stand too! "I have given proof of isolated upasana and a atharva mantra which is

root of sri vidya tantra, which establishes tantra has it's origin in

vedas."The whole Sri Vidya Tantra has not evolved from a single Atharva mantra. In fact I have myself listed out references to Sri Vidya in Samhita as well as Aranyaka. That however just means overlap - but to establish origins one must do more - to traceout the whole history and evolution of Sri Vidya, Pancadasi, Shodasi, the anga vidyas, amnaya pancaka. Not merely the texts that contain these but the sequence of their evolution. So, nothing is "proven" with respect the origin of Tantra itself - only some overlap is proven - which no one is denying even otherwise. But to conclusively establish the starting point in time for the whole body of literature called Tantra, arbitrary references do not suffice! Bharadwaj utkal.panigrahi <utkal.panigrahi Sent: Thu, October 29, 2009 5:09:07 PM Re: Sri Vidya Tantra and Panchadasi in Atharva Veda - Chakarborti Ji

 

 

The question that still stands open is - do bharadwaj ji accepts tantra do not have their origin in vedas or vedic vangmaya.

 

If tantra has different origin than veda, who was the god in tantra and who replaced that god with new range of vedic gods,what happend to those gods, are the gods are imaginations that we can create and forget.

 

Taking tantra to be of diff origin has above questions, useless question with no answers.

 

I have given proof of isolated upasana and a atharva mantra which is root of sri vidya tantra, which establishes tantra has it's origin in vedas.

 

If bhardwaj ji differs, wd ask for evidences, facts to underline the different origin.

 

Regards,

Utkal