Practical and Ritual Issues of Samayachara

[Guest guest]

The historical problems surrounding the Samayachara as a theoretical

school and as a practical, historical tradition have not yet been

raised in serious scholarly circles. While its rather puritanical,

intellectual and contempletive dimensions have been noted, we are

still left with at least two puzzling issues.

 

First is the paucity of materials regarding its interpretation and

practice. Other than Laksmidhara and a little-known and obscure

commentator by the name of Ramananda (or Ramanandatirtha), there do

not appear to be any other like-minded proponents of the Samayachara.

While many writers share the brahmanical moralism of Laksmidhara,

none take up his specific interpretive positions.

 

This leads us to the second puzzling issue. There is no evidence that

the Samayachara, despite its emphasis on internalization of ritual

(antaryAga), ever produced a viable method of interpreting the key

element of Srividya theology, the srichakra. While Laksmidhara most

sharply contrasts the Samayachara view with that of the Kaulas

onpractical and moral issues, he never addresses the rather obvious

theological problems of interpretation involved when the srichakra --

the central focus of all Srividya speculations -- is " inverted " in

the Samaya fashion.

 

Since the srichakra is not a symmetrical design, certain important

changes occur when it is, in the Samaya manner, " turned upside down "

from the so-called Kaula positioning. This is not a trivial point:

Samayins would have to refashion their entire cosmological picture of

reality to meet the new situation arising as the major triangles are

turned around.

 

Further the " laying down " (nyAsa) of deities (yoginIs) during

contemplative worship (upAsana) would also need serious emendation.

The problem appears abstract but is rather practical given the focus

of Srividya tradition on internalized, contemplative yoga centering

on the srichakra. The textual/historical discrepancy is simply that

there are no extant sources and no indications by Laksmidhara of what

actually is done ritually with the yantra.

 

We are left either to conclude that Laksmidhara and his Samayacara

did not survive, that it was absolutely secretive, or that it

produced only a theoretical interpretation of key Srividya elements

with no corresponding practical formulations.

In fact, contemporary Samayins -- who are our only clue to the

historical practice -- do not follow Laksmidhara's interpretation to

the letter and do not create ritual handbooks to meet the rather

special situation arising with the srichakra's repositioning.

 

While it is entirely possible that Samayacara has within itany number

of interpetations (depending on lineage transmissions), there is no

reason to believe that its more practical formulations were anything

more than reactionary, conservative responses to the already

established and prevalent Kaula Srividya.

 

The overwhelming majority of contemporary Srividya adepts in South

India today, for example, follow Kaula texts and practices -- guided

by puritanical Samayachara morals but not by Samaya " conventions " of

interpretation.

 

* * * * *

 

With respect to srichakra [itself] there was little debate until

Laksmidhara introduced his own version, the so-called Samaya

srichakra. Not only does Laksmidhara's version of the srichakra

present ritual complications he does not explain, it never seems to

have developed ritual formulationseven among those claiming to be

Samayacharins. Thus, Laksmidhara's theoretical distinction presumably

was developed in order to distance his tradition further from the

Kaula worship he so clearly rejected.

 

Except for this one historical aberration, it seems safe to conclude

that there has never been any reason for Srividya adepts to believe

the srichakra has, or even could, take a variant form. As the

cosmological bluebrint of reality and the very form which Brahman has

assumed, the yantra, in the minds of most historical and contemporary

adepts, is in some sense " fixed. " The more malleable [srividya]

mantra, however, can, at least theoretically, be made to conform to

srichakra.

 

[From Douglas Refrew Brooks' " The Secret of the Three Cities, " The

University of Chicago Press (Chicago, London), 1990. Note 45 to p. 28

and note 6 to page 43.]

[Guest guest]

very very interesting indeed. If one were to look at Bhaskara raya's

commantaries, we can see that he very politly indicates his disagreements on

many aspects of Lakshmidhara's opinion.

Is there any parampara that treats Lakshmidhara as part of a Guruparampara and

worships Sri Yantra in the way he discribed?

These would be interesting questions.

 

Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote:

The historical problems surrounding the Samayachara as a theoretical

school and as a practical, historical tradition have not yet been

raised in serious scholarly circles. While its rather puritanical,

intellectual and contempletive dimensions have been noted, we are

still left with at least two puzzling issues.

 

First is the paucity of materials regarding its interpretation and

practice. Other than Laksmidhara and a little-known and obscure

commentator by the name of Ramananda (or Ramanandatirtha), there do

not appear to be any other like-minded proponents of the Samayachara.

While many writers share the brahmanical moralism of Laksmidhara,

none take up his specific interpretive positions.

 

This leads us to the second puzzling issue. There is no evidence that

the Samayachara, despite its emphasis on internalization of ritual

(antaryAga), ever produced a viable method of interpreting the key

element of Srividya theology, the srichakra. While Laksmidhara most

sharply contrasts the Samayachara view with that of the Kaulas

onpractical and moral issues, he never addresses the rather obvious

theological problems of interpretation involved when the srichakra --

the central focus of all Srividya speculations -- is " inverted " in

the Samaya fashion.

 

Since the srichakra is not a symmetrical design, certain important

changes occur when it is, in the Samaya manner, " turned upside down "

from the so-called Kaula positioning. This is not a trivial point:

Samayins would have to refashion their entire cosmological picture of

reality to meet the new situation arising as the major triangles are

turned around.

 

Further the " laying down " (nyAsa) of deities (yoginIs) during

contemplative worship (upAsana) would also need serious emendation.

The problem appears abstract but is rather practical given the focus

of Srividya tradition on internalized, contemplative yoga centering

on the srichakra. The textual/historical discrepancy is simply that

there are no extant sources and no indications by Laksmidhara of what

actually is done ritually with the yantra.

 

We are left either to conclude that Laksmidhara and his Samayacara

did not survive, that it was absolutely secretive, or that it

produced only a theoretical interpretation of key Srividya elements

with no corresponding practical formulations.

In fact, contemporary Samayins -- who are our only clue to the

historical practice -- do not follow Laksmidhara's interpretation to

the letter and do not create ritual handbooks to meet the rather

special situation arising with the srichakra's repositioning.

 

While it is entirely possible that Samayacara has within itany number

of interpetations (depending on lineage transmissions), there is no

reason to believe that its more practical formulations were anything

more than reactionary, conservative responses to the already

established and prevalent Kaula Srividya.

 

The overwhelming majority of contemporary Srividya adepts in South

India today, for example, follow Kaula texts and practices -- guided

by puritanical Samayachara morals but not by Samaya " conventions " of

interpretation.

 

* * * * *

 

With respect to srichakra [itself] there was little debate until

Laksmidhara introduced his own version, the so-called Samaya

srichakra. Not only does Laksmidhara's version of the srichakra

present ritual complications he does not explain, it never seems to

have developed ritual formulationseven among those claiming to be

Samayacharins. Thus, Laksmidhara's theoretical distinction presumably

was developed in order to distance his tradition further from the

Kaula worship he so clearly rejected.

 

Except for this one historical aberration, it seems safe to conclude

that there has never been any reason for Srividya adepts to believe

the srichakra has, or even could, take a variant form. As the

cosmological bluebrint of reality and the very form which Brahman has

assumed, the yantra, in the minds of most historical and contemporary

adepts, is in some sense " fixed. " The more malleable [srividya]

mantra, however, can, at least theoretically, be made to conform to

srichakra.

 

[From Douglas Refrew Brooks' " The Secret of the Three Cities, " The

University of Chicago Press (Chicago, London), 1990. Note 45 to p. 28

and note 6 to page 43.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love

(and love to hate): TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Brahminical way of Srividya worship is quite common in South India, however the

form of Srichakra is retained in the same manner as for kaulas. The mantras and

the paddhati followed are also as per parashuramakalpa and various other tantras

which are basically of kaula school. Substitutes are used for pancha makaras by

brahmins. This is as known this little-know-big-talk-me.

JR

 

sankara menon <kochu1tz wrote:

very very interesting indeed. If one were to look at Bhaskara raya's

commantaries, we can see that he very politly indicates his disagreements on

many aspects of Lakshmidhara's opinion.

Is there any parampara that treats Lakshmidhara as part of a Guruparampara and

worships Sri Yantra in the way he discribed?

These would be interesting questions.

 

Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote:

The historical problems surrounding the Samayachara as a theoretical

school and as a practical, historical tradition have not yet been

raised in serious scholarly circles. While its rather puritanical,

intellectual and contempletive dimensions have been noted, we are

still left with at least two puzzling issues.

 

First is the paucity of materials regarding its interpretation and

practice. Other than Laksmidhara and a little-known and obscure

commentator by the name of Ramananda (or Ramanandatirtha), there do

not appear to be any other like-minded proponents of the Samayachara.

While many writers share the brahmanical moralism of Laksmidhara,

none take up his specific interpretive positions.

 

This leads us to the second puzzling issue. There is no evidence that

the Samayachara, despite its emphasis on internalization of ritual

(antaryAga), ever produced a viable method of interpreting the key

element of Srividya theology, the srichakra. While Laksmidhara most

sharply contrasts the Samayachara view with that of the Kaulas

onpractical and moral issues, he never addresses the rather obvious

theological problems of interpretation involved when the srichakra --

the central focus of all Srividya speculations -- is " inverted " in

the Samaya fashion.

 

Since the srichakra is not a symmetrical design, certain important

changes occur when it is, in the Samaya manner, " turned upside down "

from the so-called Kaula positioning. This is not a trivial point:

Samayins would have to refashion their entire cosmological picture of

reality to meet the new situation arising as the major triangles are

turned around.

 

Further the " laying down " (nyAsa) of deities (yoginIs) during

contemplative worship (upAsana) would also need serious emendation.

The problem appears abstract but is rather practical given the focus

of Srividya tradition on internalized, contemplative yoga centering

on the srichakra. The textual/historical discrepancy is simply that

there are no extant sources and no indications by Laksmidhara of what

actually is done ritually with the yantra.

 

We are left either to conclude that Laksmidhara and his Samayacara

did not survive, that it was absolutely secretive, or that it

produced only a theoretical interpretation of key Srividya elements

with no corresponding practical formulations.

In fact, contemporary Samayins -- who are our only clue to the

historical practice -- do not follow Laksmidhara's interpretation to

the letter and do not create ritual handbooks to meet the rather

special situation arising with the srichakra's repositioning.

 

While it is entirely possible that Samayacara has within itany number

of interpetations (depending on lineage transmissions), there is no

reason to believe that its more practical formulations were anything

more than reactionary, conservative responses to the already

established and prevalent Kaula Srividya.

 

The overwhelming majority of contemporary Srividya adepts in South

India today, for example, follow Kaula texts and practices -- guided

by puritanical Samayachara morals but not by Samaya " conventions " of

interpretation.

 

* * * * *

 

With respect to srichakra [itself] there was little debate until

Laksmidhara introduced his own version, the so-called Samaya

srichakra. Not only does Laksmidhara's version of the srichakra

present ritual complications he does not explain, it never seems to

have developed ritual formulationseven among those claiming to be

Samayacharins. Thus, Laksmidhara's theoretical distinction presumably

was developed in order to distance his tradition further from the

Kaula worship he so clearly rejected.

 

Except for this one historical aberration, it seems safe to conclude

that there has never been any reason for Srividya adepts to believe

the srichakra has, or even could, take a variant form. As the

cosmological bluebrint of reality and the very form which Brahman has

assumed, the yantra, in the minds of most historical and contemporary

adepts, is in some sense " fixed. " The more malleable [srividya]

mantra, however, can, at least theoretically, be made to conform to

srichakra.

 

[From Douglas Refrew Brooks' " The Secret of the Three Cities, " The

University of Chicago Press (Chicago, London), 1990. Note 45 to p. 28

and note 6 to page 43.]

 

 

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love

(and love to hate): TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear R!!

Thats exactly what I was saying. South Indian brahmanical traditions either

put the 5M usage behind a screen or shifted to use the substitutes or even into

pure mental contemplation of the whole practice. That does not make it in any

way less kaula. it IS kaula with adjustments for time and clime.

 

 

Radhakrishnan J <jayaarshree wrote:

Brahminical way of Srividya worship is quite common in South India,

however the form of Srichakra is retained in the same manner as for kaulas. The

mantras and the paddhati followed are also as per parashuramakalpa and various

other tantras which are basically of kaula school. Substitutes are used for

pancha makaras by brahmins. This is as known this little-know-big-talk-me.

JR

 

sankara menon <kochu1tz wrote:

very very interesting indeed. If one were to look at Bhaskara raya's

commantaries, we can see that he very politly indicates his disagreements on

many aspects of Lakshmidhara's opinion.

Is there any parampara that treats Lakshmidhara as part of a Guruparampara and

worships Sri Yantra in the way he discribed?

These would be interesting questions.

 

Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote:

The historical problems surrounding the Samayachara as a theoretical

school and as a practical, historical tradition have not yet been

raised in serious scholarly circles. While its rather puritanical,

intellectual and contempletive dimensions have been noted, we are

still left with at least two puzzling issues.

 

First is the paucity of materials regarding its interpretation and

practice. Other than Laksmidhara and a little-known and obscure

commentator by the name of Ramananda (or Ramanandatirtha), there do

not appear to be any other like-minded proponents of the Samayachara.

While many writers share the brahmanical moralism of Laksmidhara,

none take up his specific interpretive positions.

 

This leads us to the second puzzling issue. There is no evidence that

the Samayachara, despite its emphasis on internalization of ritual

(antaryAga), ever produced a viable method of interpreting the key

element of Srividya theology, the srichakra. While Laksmidhara most

sharply contrasts the Samayachara view with that of the Kaulas

onpractical and moral issues, he never addresses the rather obvious

theological problems of interpretation involved when the srichakra --

the central focus of all Srividya speculations -- is " inverted " in

the Samaya fashion.

 

Since the srichakra is not a symmetrical design, certain important

changes occur when it is, in the Samaya manner, " turned upside down "

from the so-called Kaula positioning. This is not a trivial point:

Samayins would have to refashion their entire cosmological picture of

reality to meet the new situation arising as the major triangles are

turned around.

 

Further the " laying down " (nyAsa) of deities (yoginIs) during

contemplative worship (upAsana) would also need serious emendation.

The problem appears abstract but is rather practical given the focus

of Srividya tradition on internalized, contemplative yoga centering

on the srichakra. The textual/historical discrepancy is simply that

there are no extant sources and no indications by Laksmidhara of what

actually is done ritually with the yantra.

 

We are left either to conclude that Laksmidhara and his Samayacara

did not survive, that it was absolutely secretive, or that it

produced only a theoretical interpretation of key Srividya elements

with no corresponding practical formulations.

In fact, contemporary Samayins -- who are our only clue to the

historical practice -- do not follow Laksmidhara's interpretation to

the letter and do not create ritual handbooks to meet the rather

special situation arising with the srichakra's repositioning.

 

While it is entirely possible that Samayacara has within itany number

of interpetations (depending on lineage transmissions), there is no

reason to believe that its more practical formulations were anything

more than reactionary, conservative responses to the already

established and prevalent Kaula Srividya.

 

The overwhelming majority of contemporary Srividya adepts in South

India today, for example, follow Kaula texts and practices -- guided

by puritanical Samayachara morals but not by Samaya " conventions " of

interpretation.

 

* * * * *

 

With respect to srichakra [itself] there was little debate until

Laksmidhara introduced his own version, the so-called Samaya

srichakra. Not only does Laksmidhara's version of the srichakra

present ritual complications he does not explain, it never seems to

have developed ritual formulationseven among those claiming to be

Samayacharins. Thus, Laksmidhara's theoretical distinction presumably

was developed in order to distance his tradition further from the

Kaula worship he so clearly rejected.

 

Except for this one historical aberration, it seems safe to conclude

that there has never been any reason for Srividya adepts to believe

the srichakra has, or even could, take a variant form. As the

cosmological bluebrint of reality and the very form which Brahman has

assumed, the yantra, in the minds of most historical and contemporary

adepts, is in some sense " fixed. " The more malleable [srividya]

mantra, however, can, at least theoretically, be made to conform to

srichakra.

 

[From Douglas Refrew Brooks' " The Secret of the Three Cities, " The

University of Chicago Press (Chicago, London), 1990. Note 45 to p. 28

and note 6 to page 43.]

 

 

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love

(and love to hate): TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thank you sir. After a very long time, I am not coming across brahmin-bashing

now only. It , I think, has become quite fashioable to now and then indulge in

some brahmin-bashing. But, alas, we too ARE SV-upaasakas. I don't know, but Devi

is sure stuck with us.

JR

 

sankara menon <kochu1tz wrote: Dear

R!!

Thats exactly what I was saying. South Indian brahmanical traditions either

put the 5M usage behind a screen or shifted to use the substitutes or even into

pure mental contemplation of the whole practice. That does not make it in any

way less kaula. it IS kaula with adjustments for time and clime.

 

 

Radhakrishnan J <jayaarshree wrote:

Brahminical way of Srividya worship is quite common in South India,

however the form of Srichakra is retained in the same manner as for kaulas. The

mantras and the paddhati followed are also as per parashuramakalpa and various

other tantras which are basically of kaula school. Substitutes are used for

pancha makaras by brahmins. This is as known this little-know-big-talk-me.

JR

 

sankara menon <kochu1tz wrote:

very very interesting indeed. If one were to look at Bhaskara raya's

commantaries, we can see that he very politly indicates his disagreements on

many aspects of Lakshmidhara's opinion.

Is there any parampara that treats Lakshmidhara as part of a Guruparampara and

worships Sri Yantra in the way he discribed?

These would be interesting questions.

 

Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote:

The historical problems surrounding the Samayachara as a theoretical

school and as a practical, historical tradition have not yet been

raised in serious scholarly circles. While its rather puritanical,

intellectual and contempletive dimensions have been noted, we are

still left with at least two puzzling issues.

 

First is the paucity of materials regarding its interpretation and

practice. Other than Laksmidhara and a little-known and obscure

commentator by the name of Ramananda (or Ramanandatirtha), there do

not appear to be any other like-minded proponents of the Samayachara.

While many writers share the brahmanical moralism of Laksmidhara,

none take up his specific interpretive positions.

 

This leads us to the second puzzling issue. There is no evidence that

the Samayachara, despite its emphasis on internalization of ritual

(antaryAga), ever produced a viable method of interpreting the key

element of Srividya theology, the srichakra. While Laksmidhara most

sharply contrasts the Samayachara view with that of the Kaulas

onpractical and moral issues, he never addresses the rather obvious

theological problems of interpretation involved when the srichakra --

the central focus of all Srividya speculations -- is " inverted " in

the Samaya fashion.

 

Since the srichakra is not a symmetrical design, certain important

changes occur when it is, in the Samaya manner, " turned upside down "

from the so-called Kaula positioning. This is not a trivial point:

Samayins would have to refashion their entire cosmological picture of

reality to meet the new situation arising as the major triangles are

turned around.

 

Further the " laying down " (nyAsa) of deities (yoginIs) during

contemplative worship (upAsana) would also need serious emendation.

The problem appears abstract but is rather practical given the focus

of Srividya tradition on internalized, contemplative yoga centering

on the srichakra. The textual/historical discrepancy is simply that

there are no extant sources and no indications by Laksmidhara of what

actually is done ritually with the yantra.

 

We are left either to conclude that Laksmidhara and his Samayacara

did not survive, that it was absolutely secretive, or that it

produced only a theoretical interpretation of key Srividya elements

with no corresponding practical formulations.

In fact, contemporary Samayins -- who are our only clue to the

historical practice -- do not follow Laksmidhara's interpretation to

the letter and do not create ritual handbooks to meet the rather

special situation arising with the srichakra's repositioning.

 

While it is entirely possible that Samayacara has within itany number

of interpetations (depending on lineage transmissions), there is no

reason to believe that its more practical formulations were anything

more than reactionary, conservative responses to the already

established and prevalent Kaula Srividya.

 

The overwhelming majority of contemporary Srividya adepts in South

India today, for example, follow Kaula texts and practices -- guided

by puritanical Samayachara morals but not by Samaya " conventions " of

interpretation.

 

* * * * *

 

With respect to srichakra [itself] there was little debate until

Laksmidhara introduced his own version, the so-called Samaya

srichakra. Not only does Laksmidhara's version of the srichakra

present ritual complications he does not explain, it never seems to

have developed ritual formulationseven among those claiming to be

Samayacharins. Thus, Laksmidhara's theoretical distinction presumably

was developed in order to distance his tradition further from the

Kaula worship he so clearly rejected.

 

Except for this one historical aberration, it seems safe to conclude

that there has never been any reason for Srividya adepts to believe

the srichakra has, or even could, take a variant form. As the

cosmological bluebrint of reality and the very form which Brahman has

assumed, the yantra, in the minds of most historical and contemporary

adepts, is in some sense " fixed. " The more malleable [srividya]

mantra, however, can, at least theoretically, be made to conform to

srichakra.

 

[From Douglas Refrew Brooks' " The Secret of the Three Cities, " The

University of Chicago Press (Chicago, London), 1990. Note 45 to p. 28

and note 6 to page 43.]

 

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love

(and love to hate): TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

 

[Guest guest]

I am sorry if you took this as Brahmin bashing. I had no such intention and if

you felt so I apologise profusely.

I was just saying that brahmanical system avoids real 5Ms but still use the

same with prateekas or Bhavana. It was just a statement with no bias. (In fact I

may add that 90% o the practitioners – whether Brahmin or otherwise avoids real

5Ms)

I know of pure Brahmins who use 5Ms or at least 4 Ms in private and will not

speak of this in public. There are others who have completely internalized it or

uses substitutes, all the while following the kaula form of sriyantra and sri

vidya.

I was NOT saying that there is anything wrong with this approach. This

statement was intended to point ou that this is not, IMHO the samaya achara

propounded by Lakshmidhara.

Here the issue is whether Lakshmidhara’s form of interpretation forms the

basis of any practice. That was the issue being addressed. You mentioned that

except the use of 5M rest is the same. I was expanding on that. I am sorry if I

was misunderstood.

I have no caste bias.

 

Radhakrishnan J <jayaarshree wrote:

Thank you sir. After a very long time, I am not coming across brahmin-bashing

now only. It , I think, has become quite fashioable to now and then indulge in

some brahmin-bashing. But, alas, we too ARE SV-upaasakas. I don't know, but Devi

is sure stuck with us.

JR

 

sankara menon <kochu1tz wrote: Dear R!!

Thats exactly what I was saying. South Indian brahmanical traditions either put

the 5M usage behind a screen or shifted to use the substitutes or even into pure

mental contemplation of the whole practice. That does not make it in any way

less kaula. it IS kaula with adjustments for time and clime.

 

 

Radhakrishnan J <jayaarshree wrote:

Brahminical way of Srividya worship is quite common in South India, however the

form of Srichakra is retained in the same manner as for kaulas. The mantras and

the paddhati followed are also as per parashuramakalpa and various other tantras

which are basically of kaula school. Substitutes are used for pancha makaras by

brahmins. This is as known this little-know-big-talk-me.

JR

 

sankara menon <kochu1tz wrote:

very very interesting indeed. If one were to look at Bhaskara raya's

commantaries, we can see that he very politly indicates his disagreements on

many aspects of Lakshmidhara's opinion.

Is there any parampara that treats Lakshmidhara as part of a Guruparampara and

worships Sri Yantra in the way he discribed?

These would be interesting questions.

 

Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote:

The historical problems surrounding the Samayachara as a theoretical school and

as a practical, historical tradition have not yet been raised in serious

scholarly circles. While its rather puritanical,

intellectual and contempletive dimensions have been noted, we are still left

with at least two puzzling issues.

 

First is the paucity of materials regarding its interpretation and practice.

Other than Laksmidhara and a little-known and obscure commentator by the name of

Ramananda (or Ramanandatirtha), there do

not appear to be any other like-minded proponents of the Samayachara. While many

writers share the brahmanical moralism of Laksmidhara, none take up his specific

interpretive positions.

 

This leads us to the second puzzling issue. There is no evidence that the

Samayachara, despite its emphasis on internalization of ritual (antaryAga), ever

produced a viable method of interpreting the key element of Srividya theology,

the srichakra. While Laksmidhara most sharply contrasts the Samayachara view

with that of the Kaulas onpractical and moral issues, he never addresses the

rather obvious theological problems of interpretation involved when the

srichakra -- the central focus of all Srividya speculations -- is " inverted " in

the Samaya fashion.

 

Since the srichakra is not a symmetrical design, certain important changes occur

when it is, in the Samaya manner, " turned upside down " from the so-called Kaula

positioning. This is not a trivial point: Samayins would have to refashion their

entire cosmological picture of reality to meet the new situation arising as the

major triangles are turned around.

 

Further the " laying down " (nyAsa) of deities (yoginIs) during

contemplative worship (upAsana) would also need serious emendation. The problem

appears abstract but is rather practical given the focus of Srividya tradition

on internalized, contemplative yoga centering on the srichakra. The

textual/historical discrepancy is simply that there are no extant sources and no

indications by Laksmidhara of what actually is done ritually with the yantra.

 

We are left either to conclude that Laksmidhara and his Samayacara did not

survive, that it was absolutely secretive, or that it produced only a

theoretical interpretation of key Srividya elements

with no corresponding practical formulations.

 

In fact, contemporary Samayins -- who are our only clue to the historical

practice -- do not follow Laksmidhara's interpretation to the letter and do not

create ritual handbooks to meet the rather special situation arising with the

srichakra's repositioning.

 

While it is entirely possible that Samayacara has within itany number of

interpetations (depending on lineage transmissions), there is no reason to

believe that its more practical formulations were anything more than

reactionary, conservative responses to the already established and prevalent

Kaula Srividya.

 

The overwhelming majority of contemporary Srividya adepts in South

India today, for example, follow Kaula texts and practices -- guided

by puritanical Samayachara morals but not by Samaya " conventions " of

interpretation.

 

* * * * *

 

With respect to srichakra [itself] there was little debate until Laksmidhara

introduced his own version, the so-called Samaya srichakra. Not only does

Laksmidhara's version of the srichakra

present ritual complications he does not explain, it never seems to have

developed ritual formulationseven among those claiming to be Samayacharins.

Thus, Laksmidhara's theoretical distinction presumably was developed in order to

distance his tradition further from the

Kaula worship he so clearly rejected.

 

Except for this one historical aberration, it seems safe to conclude that there

has never been any reason for Srividya adepts to believe the srichakra has, or

even could, take a variant form. As the

cosmological bluebrint of reality and the very form which Brahman has assumed,

the yantra, in the minds of most historical and contemporary adepts, is in some

sense " fixed. " The more malleable [srividya] mantra, however, can, at least

theoretically, be made to conform to srichakra.

 

[From Douglas Refrew Brooks' " The Secret of the Three Cities, " The University of

Chicago Press (Chicago, London), 1990. Note 45 to p. 28 and note 6 to page 43.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.

Play Sims Stories at Games.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Oh dear Sankara

I never misundertood you and never even thought it was brahmin bashing. I in

fact was appreciative of your note saying what brahmins practice IS ALSO kaula.

I also know (the secretive practice) of 4Ms. The quantity imbibed is so small

and taken with a complete sense of mahaprasadam...Let me not go beyond this. It

is much much later that internalisation comes. Aparaa, paraaparaa and paraa.

 

I am pained you apologised.

 

As for lakshmidhara's form of Sri Vidya, though he is held in esteem, I at least

know of no one who follows his system of the yantra.

 

JR

 

sankara menon <kochu1tz wrote: I am

sorry if you took this as Brahmin bashing. I had no such intention and if you

felt so I apologise profusely.

I was just saying that brahmanical system avoids real 5Ms but still use the

same with prateekas or Bhavana. It was just a statement with no bias. (In fact I

may add that 90% o the practitioners – whether Brahmin or otherwise avoids real

5Ms)

I know of pure Brahmins who use 5Ms or at least 4 Ms in private and will not

speak of this in public. There are others who have completely internalized it or

uses substitutes, all the while following the kaula form of sriyantra and sri

vidya.

I was NOT saying that there is anything wrong with this approach. This

statement was intended to point ou that this is not, IMHO the samaya achara

propounded by Lakshmidhara.

Here the issue is whether Lakshmidhara’s form of interpretation forms the

basis of any practice. That was the issue being addressed. You mentioned that

except the use of 5M rest is the same. I was expanding on that. I am sorry if I

was misunderstood.

I have no caste bias.

 

Radhakrishnan J <jayaarshree wrote:

Thank you sir. After a very long time, I am not coming across brahmin-bashing

now only. It , I think, has become quite fashioable to now and then indulge in

some brahmin-bashing. But, alas, we too ARE SV-upaasakas. I don't know, but Devi

is sure stuck with us.

JR

 

sankara menon <kochu1tz wrote: Dear R!!

Thats exactly what I was saying. South Indian brahmanical traditions either put

the 5M usage behind a screen or shifted to use the substitutes or even into pure

mental contemplation of the whole practice. That does not make it in any way

less kaula. it IS kaula with adjustments for time and clime.

 

Radhakrishnan J <jayaarshree wrote:

Brahminical way of Srividya worship is quite common in South India, however the

form of Srichakra is retained in the same manner as for kaulas. The mantras and

the paddhati followed are also as per parashuramakalpa and various other tantras

which are basically of kaula school. Substitutes are used for pancha makaras by

brahmins. This is as known this little-know-big-talk-me.

JR

 

sankara menon <kochu1tz wrote:

very very interesting indeed. If one were to look at Bhaskara raya's

commantaries, we can see that he very politly indicates his disagreements on

many aspects of Lakshmidhara's opinion.

Is there any parampara that treats Lakshmidhara as part of a Guruparampara and

worships Sri Yantra in the way he discribed?

These would be interesting questions.

 

Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote:

The historical problems surrounding the Samayachara as a theoretical school and

as a practical, historical tradition have not yet been raised in serious

scholarly circles. While its rather puritanical,

intellectual and contempletive dimensions have been noted, we are still left

with at least two puzzling issues.

 

First is the paucity of materials regarding its interpretation and practice.

Other than Laksmidhara and a little-known and obscure commentator by the name of

Ramananda (or Ramanandatirtha), there do

not appear to be any other like-minded proponents of the Samayachara. While

many writers share the brahmanical moralism of Laksmidhara, none take up his

specific interpretive positions.

 

This leads us to the second puzzling issue. There is no evidence that the

Samayachara, despite its emphasis on internalization of ritual (antaryAga), ever

produced a viable method of interpreting the key element of Srividya theology,

the srichakra. While Laksmidhara most sharply contrasts the Samayachara view

with that of the Kaulas onpractical and moral issues, he never addresses the

rather obvious theological problems of interpretation involved when the

srichakra -- the central focus of all Srividya speculations -- is " inverted " in

the Samaya fashion.

 

Since the srichakra is not a symmetrical design, certain important changes

occur when it is, in the Samaya manner, " turned upside down " from the so-called

Kaula positioning. This is not a trivial point: Samayins would have to refashion

their entire cosmological picture of reality to meet the new situation arising

as the major triangles are turned around.

 

Further the " laying down " (nyAsa) of deities (yoginIs) during

contemplative worship (upAsana) would also need serious emendation. The problem

appears abstract but is rather practical given the focus of Srividya tradition

on internalized, contemplative yoga centering on the srichakra. The

textual/historical discrepancy is simply that there are no extant sources and no

indications by Laksmidhara of what actually is done ritually with the yantra.

 

We are left either to conclude that Laksmidhara and his Samayacara did not

survive, that it was absolutely secretive, or that it produced only a

theoretical interpretation of key Srividya elements

with no corresponding practical formulations.

 

In fact, contemporary Samayins -- who are our only clue to the historical

practice -- do not follow Laksmidhara's interpretation to the letter and do not

create ritual handbooks to meet the rather special situation arising with the

srichakra's repositioning.

 

While it is entirely possible that Samayacara has within itany number of

interpetations (depending on lineage transmissions), there is no reason to

believe that its more practical formulations were anything more than

reactionary, conservative responses to the already established and prevalent

Kaula Srividya.

 

The overwhelming majority of contemporary Srividya adepts in South

India today, for example, follow Kaula texts and practices -- guided

by puritanical Samayachara morals but not by Samaya " conventions " of

interpretation.

 

* * * * *

 

With respect to srichakra [itself] there was little debate until Laksmidhara

introduced his own version, the so-called Samaya srichakra. Not only does

Laksmidhara's version of the srichakra

present ritual complications he does not explain, it never seems to have

developed ritual formulationseven among those claiming to be Samayacharins.

Thus, Laksmidhara's theoretical distinction presumably was developed in order to

distance his tradition further from the

Kaula worship he so clearly rejected.

 

Except for this one historical aberration, it seems safe to conclude that there

has never been any reason for Srividya adepts to believe the srichakra has, or

even could, take a variant form. As the

cosmological bluebrint of reality and the very form which Brahman has assumed,

the yantra, in the minds of most historical and contemporary adepts, is in some

sense " fixed. " The more malleable [srividya] mantra, however, can, at least

theoretically, be made to conform to srichakra.

 

[From Douglas Refrew Brooks' " The Secret of the Three Cities, " The University

of Chicago Press (Chicago, London), 1990. Note 45 to p. 28 and note 6 to page

43.]

 

Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.

Play Sims Stories at Games.