Brahmavidyavilasam - Clarification

[Guest guest]

One clarification:

In the following post, I mentioned that I pasted the views of an

acquaintance of mine.

 

/message/10318

 

I am pasting the full version below without editing.

 

Just to let people know, the person who wrote this is not some

western minded researcher who lacks practical knowledge of our

traditions. The following is the view of someone who is a smArta

brAhmaNa who follows shrauta rituals, has solid grounding in mantra

shastra from childhood and who mastered many mantra-s, tAntric vidhi-

s in addition to mastering mantra prayoga-s. The reason I am

mentioning this is because from the tone of the write-up it could be

misunderstood that it is by someone who has no " practical knowledge "

of our traditions.

------

 

 

The main topics in question are:

1) What is the origin of shrIvidyA and what were the original forms

of the shrIvidyA mantra-s? The pa~nchadashI and its derivative were

definitely not the earliest forms, and we have briefly discussed pre-

pa~nchadashI shrIvidyA and bAlA which were earlier. In a sense the

initiation pattern starting with bAlA and going to higher

pa~nchadashI derivatives actually mirrors history. The now declined

tripura-bhairavI form of shrIvidyA with 9 nityA-s (e.g. as in shArada-

tilaka) was an intermediate element in historical development. This

is true of many tantric traditions where ritual and initiation

patterns follow historical development (as in biology we observe

ontology following evolution). abhinavagupta in developing anuttara-

trika from the existing trika systems actually consciously follows

this pattern. The roots of shrIvidyA lie in the early kula texts,

which also spawned other kula traditions like kAli-kula, samayA-kula

and the poorly studied tvaritA.

2) Is prapa~nchasAra's shrIvidyA the pa~nchadashI? While the

commentarial tradition might hint the tripura-bhairavI form, the root

tantra itself seems to primarily follow the bAlA mantra.

3) Was mokSha the original goal of shrIvidyA? It was just one of the

many goals generally acknowledged by kaula systems.

4) Was advaita vedAnta connected to shrIvidyA from its inception? Is

the mahApaduka mantra a " genuine " aspect of shrIvidyA? Are sha~Nkara

and gauDapAda really connected to shrIvidyA?

advaita vedAnta has its origins in one set of the diverse ideas

presented by philosophers from the vedic period. Its subsequent

development stood on the great philosophical exegesis of sha~Nkara's

school. Tradition also connects sha~Nkara's school with a certain

form of shrIvidyA, which tends to ignore or remove the kula doctrines

and this is certainly the form of shrIvidyA practiced by modern

initiates affiliated with sha~Nkara's tradition. But there are some

issues amongst these initiates: 1) Many of the modern initiates while

very knowledgeable about their paddhati-s and mantra prayoga-s have a

relatively poor understanding of the root sources: the diverse kula

texts including the root tantra-s of shrIvidyA. 2) Many aspirants as

well as lay devotees actively practice texts like lalitA-sahasranAmaM

and saundaryalaharI but do not recognize or in some cases deny the

kula doctrine at their core. 3) They pay tremendous importance to the

mahApaduka mantra which incorporates upaniShadic mahAvAkya-s [*1].

There is no evidence that the mahApaduka mantra was central to any

kula teaching. But it does resemble the ene-mene-dapphe-daDapphe [*2]

of bauddha-s being incorporated as a mantra.

 

From early times the brAhmaNa-s migrated out of their smArta baseline

to develop new systems of philosophy or knowledge. In some cases they

converted entirely to these systems, like the nAstIka-matas, or in

other cases created versions that spanned a spectrum from purely

smArta to something which might contradict smArta norms[*3].

Likewise, in shrIvidyA's development from early on there were forms

in line with smArta norms (e.g. prapa~nchasAra and shAradA-tilaka) as

well as those transgressing smArta norms (e.g. parashurAma kalpa

sUtra-s; though from the very adoption of a mImAMsaka style is

indicative of the brahminical origins of the PKS), both systematized

by Brahmins of ultimately smArta origin. The pa~ncha-makara might not

necessarily be adopted by those who remain smArta because their norms

are violated by the 5 ma-s, but the principle of kAmakala worship and

the ShaT-chakra-s, both of which are drawn plainly from the original

kula doctrine, are retained at the heart of shrIvidyopAsana by even

these smArta-s. But nowhere in any of their early sources do we find

the mahApaduka and upaniShadic statements. Now the smArta-s appear to

have created another set of Agama-s much closer to their own pattern

of worship – the shubhAgama pa~nchaka. But interestingly these hardly

have any popularity compared to the root tantra-s which follow the

unadulterated kula doctrine. Now I have only seen fragments of these

and these are clearly later in provenance than the early kula texts.

 

advaita of the early kaula-s of matsyendra's successors does not mean

the same as the vedantic advaita. There a-dvaitam appears (at least

to me) to be interpreted as the lack of duality in worship – thereby

allowing the more kaula elements (the pure-impure distinction breaks

down). So the vedantic advaita does not in anyway appear to be

inherent to the kula doctrine.

 

So, in conclusion, I believe the evidence favors the advaitins of the

sha~Nkara tradition have only secondarily adopted shrIvidyA and are

behind the creation of the mahApAduka mantra. They have even gone to

the extent of claiming that one can get the guru-status or a higher

level mantrAdhikAra only with this mahApAduka dIkSha. My personal

opinion is that every one is entitled to their own tradition. So, if

some one is affiliated with a sha~Nkara maTha they may follow their

maThAdhipati and Acharya-s, but the claims regarding mahApaduka are

not binding on all tAntrIka-s.

 

[*1] praj~nAnaM brahma; tat-tvam-asi; ayaM AtmA; brahma aham

brahmAsmi; .

[*2] dharmatrAta rendering the words of the tathAgata in devabhASha

states in the udAnavarga: ene mene tathA dapphe daDapphe cheti |

sarvasmAd viratiH pApAd duHkhasyAnto niruchyate || 26.18

[*3] Thus we see Brahmins of originally smArta origin diversifying in

their practice into, for example, non-mantra mArga pa~nchAyatana

shivopAsana with otherwise purely smArta norms, smArta mantra-mArga

shivopAsana (as in prapa~ncha-sAra), lAkula-s (and their kAlAmukha

successors) who observed smArta norms but additional unique forms of

shivopAsana, saiddhAntika-s who followed shivadharma in addition to

all the smArta norms (though considering shivadharma primary) and

bhairavAchAra mantra-mArgin-s who transgressed smArta norms. Thus, in

these diverse movements the scholastic tradition emerged from the

smArta ranks.

[Guest guest]

, " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi

wrote:

 

> Now, having come from this glorious tradition of sringeri acharyas,

> why do you have doubts on srividya origin.

 

I fail to see any relation between my teacher belonging to sringeri

tradition and me having doubts about the origin of shrIvidyA.

 

Just to clarify: I dont have a doubt about the origins of shrIvidyA.

It has its origins in kula texts and I mentioned why is it so in

earlier posts on the topic.

 

Kindly go through the following and its previous post 3 or 4 times.

/message/10334

 

Why not accept things for what they are with an open mind?

 

> All confusions arise

 

i am not confused about its origins

 

Regards

[Guest guest]

While I understand that this list is mainly a devotional rather than a

Tantrika, one should, I think, take the very valid points made by

Satish in the right spirit. Being devotional makes Bhakti take

precedence over Prayoga and Vidhi but we should not forget the

foundations of Smarta tradition that supported and still supports the

larger movement set rolling by Adishankara. The Smarta tradition

emphasizes interpretation of texts and development of new traditions

by using Shastra-s as Pramana and arguing in a certain style (Some may

call it Mimamsaka). This should not be conflated with what Tantras

prescribe about the necessity and power of a Guru and her/his Vakya.

Each has it own domain. Some of this discussion resorts to appeals to

authority rather than using logical argument, with clearly specified

assumptions to defend some novel positions.

 

Some " Narada " appears to have even taken this discussion to the

respected Harshanandanatha's list where again we observe appeal to

authority. But some assumptions were stated such as ninda of

paurusheyatva of shastras. But some of the things being questioned

here by Satish simply were not defended logically (including the

starting assumptions).

 

In Mahayana Buddhism people say Buddha initiated Tara, Vajrayogini and

Chinnamasta Upasana. Historically we know that Buddha had little to

do with Tantrik upasana and his main targets were the Upanishad

thoughts. But modern Mahayana Buddhists think he was a Tantrik using

mantras. They have historically adopted this from Hindu Mantrashastra

but they have internalized the whole thing and are not apologetic

about it. So we should not be surprised if people hold the view

Adishankara was also a Tantra teacher. If your tradition holds the

view - great! follow it. You are free to use it in any intra-tradition

discussion. But it might not reflect actual history as Satish points out.

 

Hopefully nobody is offended.

Rajita

[Guest guest]

Following may not sound sophisticated - but this is what I have realized

over a period of time observing debates starting in soc.religion.* groups

in early 90s.

 

1. For a bhakta, it is quite simple to have shraddha in shiva-dampati and

their role in whole scheme. So the origin of shrividya is from shiva

dampati. How it played out historically is again based on their will.

 

2. One of the names of our Acharya says that he uplifted many religious

cults and procedures - dvisaptati matochchhettre namaH. Essentially what it

means, with a little change in the attitude ( bhaavana) and the procedures

conforming to shruti/smrti/puraaNa - a religious procedure could be made

conforming and leading to a natural development to vedaanta. Essentially

in vedaanta, all karma is only for chitta shuddhi and only a indirect path

leading to moxa (even in krama mukti, one gets the jnana in brahma loka).

 

3. A religious mode of worship can decay over time, again and again seers

come to uplift it. So historical arguments based on wester historical

approach could be confusing - largely because there are a lot of gaps in the

texts. Either they are missing or lost completely. Take for instance, Lord

Krishna tells Arjuna that he instructed this yoga long long ago to vivasvan

etc. and over time it lost its original purport and meaning. So he is doing

that all over again to Arjuna. In the same way, Sri Sankara, who we believe

is an avatara of Lord Siva (this is quite unaminous in digvijayas), came

back to uplift what he gave in the first place.

 

4. Source of knowledge need not be always via other texts present at a

time. It could be a divine inspiration. maadhaviya shankara digvijaya and

others accept that Sri Sankara obtained the mantra portion of

saundaryalahari from kailasa. In there in verse 32, srividya is coded in.

Even if you do not accept it, shiva dampati can instruct these to any mantra

drashta. (For instance, hayagriiva)

 

 

As a moderator I do not like members dragging in the lineage of other

members. That kind of argument is violating their privacy on a public space.

Please avoid it.

 

I find nothing offensive in the mail forwarded by Satish. If at all, it is

very well composed and logically delineated. It shows that the person who

composed with very well versed with the subject matter. But again each

person comes with his/her own way resolving conflicts he/she notices. In

way these apparent conflicts are tests for one's progress.

 

shriimatre namaH

 

Ravi

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sri Ravi :

 

Let me congratulate you on this healthy interjection in the middle of

a heated discussion.

 

i particularly resonated with these words in your post:

 

(In the same way, Sri Sankara, who we believe is an avatara of Lord

Siva (this is quite unaminous in digvijayas), came back to uplift

what he gave in the first place.)

 

Yes! It is believed Adi shankara Bhagvadapada is the very incarnation

of Sri Dakshinamurthy, the Guru of all Gurus.

 

For those of you who do not have a Guru as yet, please do not

despair.

 

Nama 725 of Sri Lalita Sahasaranama DESCRIBES Sri Lalita Parameshweri

as

 

Sri Daksinamurti-rupini

 

— The Form of Sri Daksinamurti, The Cosmic Guru.

— The Treasure-House of All Knowledge.

 

Bhoorambhamsyanolo anilombaramaharnaatho himaamsu:pumaan,

Ityaabhaati charaacharaatmakam idam yasyaiva moortyashtakam!

Naanyat kincanavaidyate vimrusataam yasmaat parasmaad vibho

Tasmai Sree gurumoortaye nama idam Sree Dakshinaa-moortaye!!

 

I bow to Sri Dakshinamurti in the form of my guru:

Beyond whom, for a wise and discerning man, no being exists superior;

Who has manifested Herself is an eightfold form As the tangible and

insentient earth, water, fire, air, and ether, As the sun, the lord

of the day, the moon, of soothing light, and as living man.

 

On this beautiful Thursday, is it not auspicious to recall this verse

and offer our Salutations to Sri Dakshinamurthy , the mouna guru ?

 

Adi Shankara Bhagvadapada himself acknowledges in this verse of

Saundarya Lahari that it was because of Ambaal's infinite grace and

mercy ( kataksham), he was able to compose the 100 verses of

Saundarya Lahari !

 

Here it goes :

 

DIVINE MOTHER'S KATAKSHA

 

" Drsaa draagheeyasyaa dara-dalita-neelotpala-ruchaa daveeyaamsam

deenam snapaya krpayaa maamapisive; Anena-ayam dhanyo bhavanti na cha

te haanir-iyataa Vane vaa harmye vaa samakara nipato himakarah " .

 

In the words of Paramacharya Kanchi Swamigal :

 

" This verse is from Soundarya Lahari, composed by Sri Sankara

Bhagavatpada. Addressing the Divine Mother, Sive, Sri Acharya

requests Her to bathe even him, who is helpless and standing at a

great distance, with the far-reaching glance of Her soothing blue

eyes, beautiful as a half-blossomed blue lily. By this act, the

Acharya says, the Mother stands to lose nothing while he, a deena,

will be blessed and enabled to achieve the goal of life. The soothing

cool moonlight falls equally on a forest and a beautiful mansion. By

this verse, Sri Adi Sankara seeks to convey the idea that the range

of the benevolent look or kataaksha of the Divine Mother is long

enough to embrace everything and every one in this wide world.

 

The Divine Mother is part of Isvara. Sri Adi Sankara, an incarnation

of Isvara, is the embodiment of the Divine Mother also. Yet for the

purpose of instilling bhakti in the minds of the people, he humbles

himslef by describing himself as deena, or helpless, and considers

himself as standing in the last place in the queue of people waiting

to receive the grace of the Mother. By invoking Her to bless " even

him " (maamapi), he suggests, by inference, the existence of persons

more deserving than himself to receive Her grace. On the other hand,

he describes the glance of the Mother as reaching the far ends of the

Universe and embracing everything. It is in such a spirit of humility

and intense devotion that Sri Adi Sankara has given to us a rich

devotional treasure in the form of Soundarya Lahari and it is up to

us to benefit from it. "

 

( KANCHI KAMAKOTI.ORG)

 

So ,Dear Devotees of Sri Mata , please do not fight over whose

parampara is superior and which Guru is superior. We are all children

of Ambaal and she is Guru Murtihi ! It is bty her divine grace (

anugraham) we are blessed with a human guru!

 

and Remember , Shri Dattatreya ( the gresat avadhoota) had 24 gurus

and he regarded each one of them equally importanyt in his spiritual

growth and development!

 

 

Om Shri Gurubyo Namaha!

 

Om Shri Matre Namaha !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

>>