Philosophy and Religion / Tantratattva (Principles of Tantra)

Sriyukta Sivacandra Vidyarnava Bhattacarya Mahodaya

The Tantratattva (Principles of Tantra): Preface

Edited by Arthur Avalon (John Woodroffe).

MEDIEVAL "Hinduism" (to use a convenient, if somewhat vague, term) was, as its successor, modern Indian orthodoxy, is, largely Tantrik. The Tantra was then, as it is now, the great Mantra and Sadhana¹ Sastra (Scripture), and the main, where not the sole, source of some of the most fundamental concepts still prevalent as regards worship, images, initiation, yoga, the supremacy of Guru, and so forth. This, however, does not mean that all the injunctions which are to be found in the Sastra are of universal acceptance, as is pointed out in the Introduction which follows. This Introduction, however, is but a mere sketch of that which I hope to develop in a future volume after the ritual (in its widest sense) has been dealt with in detail. What is, in fact, wanted in this matter is an accurate statement of the facts; whereas up to now such cursory accounts of the Tantra as have appeared are as a rule mere general statements by way of condemnation of it.

One of the earliest of such accounts in English is contained in that interesting though biased and, in essential respects, ill-understanding work ² written by W. Ward, and published by the Serampore Mission in 1818. Of this book Horace Hayman Wilson wrote, in his well-known "essays," ³ that Ward's information was merely oral, and might be regarded as unsatisfactory. It is a fuller account, however, than his own, and contains a certain amount of information which is fairly accurate with some which is not so. The author, however, like so many of his English successors, was influenced by a strong racial and credal bias, which in the old style he quite frankly and honestly displayed to view. With a strong faith in Protestant Christianity he combined exaggerated notions of the universal piety and morals of his own people who professed it. ⁴ On the other hand, he wrote at a time when, according to his account, Hinduism was at a low ebb, and in its lower forms apparently productive of many evils. Contrasting, as some of his successors have since done, an over­painted picture of Western “Light" with a fictitious or exaggerated Eastern "Darkness," he expressed himself, as some of them have also since done, much perturbed by the fact "that for some time past a very unjust and unhappy impression appeared to have been made in the public mind by encomiums passed on the Hindu writings.”⁵ He was certainly not himself guilty of the offence he here deplored. For we are told by him that the "Hindu system is the most puerile, impure, and bloody of any system of idolatry that was ever established on earth "amongst" an idle, effeminate, and dissolute people of "disordered imaginations," who "frequent their temples, not for devotion, but for the satisfaction of their licentious appetites." The result of this alleged general depravity is stated in the extraordinary charge that °a chaste woman faithful to her husband is scarcely to be found in all the millions of Hindus," whose “notions of the evil of sin are so superficial" that "they cannot be expected to promulgate the doctrine" of endless punishment in Hell-fire.⁶

Given these circumstances, we are not surprised to find that he had only eyes for that which he understood to be bad. The good which is to be found in other religions is of no value to the mere controversialist. Thus, given the general brevity of his account, over-lengthy descriptions are set forth of such matters as how to kill an enemy by making his image in bull's-dung, taking it to a burning-ground, then boiling the flesh of a hawk with spirits in a skull, with invocations to Antaka; charms against snake-bite, and so forth. Ward, like many another who followed him (and I deal with his case as in many respects typical of the others), seems to have thought that the chief and practically the sole subjects of the Tantra were sensual rites and black magic. It does not seem to have occurred to either him or them that, apart from its manifold secular contents, the Sastra is the repository of a high philosophic doctrine, and of the means whereby its truth may through bodily psychic and spiritual development be realized. It is doubtless less easy to understand and describe these matters. The Scripture, however, is misjudged if we look merely to practices to be found therein similar to those contained in Western Grimoires, such as "Le Petit Albert," and other even less reputable works. A cursory glance, it is true, is thrown on higher matters, but with the same result. The lofty doctrines of Yoga, which the author of a quite recent work⁷ finds to be, "with its repulsive developments" "much the same as Shamanism," was long ago declared by his predecessor to be absurd, impious, and ridiculous". It is not surprising, therefore, to find that the more disputable theories and ill-famed practices of some of the Tantras are not accurately described, and are indeed misunderstood. Whatever we may think of such doctrines, they are not truly represented by the statement that a certain division of worshippers seek to "blunt the edge of the passions with excessive indulgence."

The later experience of Brian Hodgson, whose valued work in Nepal should be better known, led him to describe the Tantra as "lust, mum­mery, and black magic."

The work of H. H. Wilson, though stated to be based in part on the texts, is admitted by its author to be necessarily superficial, depending, on a cursory inspection of some of the documents.⁸ The account of the Tantras occupies but a small part of a description which purports to deal with all the Hindu sects. Of these Scriptures in particular he wrote what is as true now as then, "that they had been little examined by European scholars." He added, however, that such attention as had been paid to them was enough in his opinion to warrant the accusation that "they are authorities for all that is most abominable in the present state of the Hindu religion."⁹ His work is also written from the standpoint of one to whom all other systems are "shown to be fallacious and false by the Ithuriel spear of Christian truth," a standpoint which did not permit a countenance of either "devotees of superstition" on the one hand, for the men of learning on the other, "whose toleration," he complained, “is so comprehensive that it amounts to indifference to truth." The Tantrik ritual in particular is described to be "nonsensical extravagance," at which, he says, he is disposed to laugh. Nyasas¹⁰ are "absurd gesticulations," and so forth. H. H. Wilson was doubtless a distinguished Orientalist, and his work is in many respects of acknowledged value; but there are matters in his book which, from want of sympathy and knowledge, he wholly failed to understand, not only as regards general Hindu 'doctrines, but the specific teaching, and ritual which is to be found in the Tantra. Nyasa, for instance, is alleged to be absurd, but it does not appear that he or those who followed him really knew what it was, any more than he understood the nature of Bija. We learn nothing from his definition “monosyllabic ejaculations of imagined mysterious import" beyond this-that he had nothing else to say. His observation that the Abbe Dubois committed some egregious blunders may be applied to many others who have dealt with Hinduism, including himself.¹¹ Indeed if we are duly modest, we will all of us be ready to admit the possibility of going astray in what is to us both a difficult and alien subject. Thus he appears to think that the oft-quoted verse commencing with the words, "Pitva, pitva, punah pitva,"¹² a is a Tantrik counsel of drunkenness as a means to secure what we call salvation. Apart from any special knowledge on the point, it might have been reasonably supposed that such an interpretation was absurd. And if it be hardly credible that a celebrated Sanskritist and intelligent man thought otherwise, this only shows that more is required for the understanding of a Hindu Sastra than linguistic talent, however great. The verse is as little understood as some others (such as Matriyonium paritajya viharet sarvvayonishu") which, in the language of a recent work,¹³ are supposed to inculcate "the sacred duty to practise incest."

Since Wilson's time all who have dealt with the Tantras appear to have adopted second-hand the accounts given by him and Ward, but never, so far as I am aware, with the qualifications which Wilson thought in fairness should be added to his adverse judgment. Thus, to take but one instance, we find all authors up to the present time reproducing Wilson's erroneous statement that the Mudra of the Panchatattva are "mystical gesticulations," when in fact the term means parched cereal food of various kinds. The matter may appear to some a small one, even though accuracy is always important. But it is not the only instance of a repeated error; and how was it possible for those who have discoursed upon the Panchatattva of the Virachara ritual to have read the texts dealing with it, and not to have learnt what this particular Tattva means?

In the work last cited, and in a review of my Edition of the Mahanirvana, the opinion is expressed that there is in the body of Scripture called Tantra a nucleus only of Tantrik teaching properly so called, which nucleus is defined as "black art of the crudest and filthiest kind, with a rough background of the Siva Sakti cult." Round this nucleus, it is suggested, gathered a varying mass of Vaidik and "Brahmanic" ritual, together with a certain "quantum of Upanishadic idealism." "The Tantra" is itself said to be of two kinds. One of such classes is alleged to represent the "unvarnished" Tantrik teaching above stated. Of Scriptures representing this class it is said that they are not merely "full of silly and vulgar superstition and magic," but have the additional "spice of wickedness and obscenity." It is of them that the author cited says: "The highly coloured Yogic imagination pales beside the doctrines of the infamous Tantras in which a veritable Devil's mass is purveyed in various forms to a swarm of sects, mostly of the Sivaite persuasion." The alleged second class of Tantras are apparently those in which the original wickedness and obscenity has been removed or rendered innocuous, or at least comparatively so, with the result that, according to the author cited, the most that can be said of them is that they are "full of silly and vulgar superstition and magic."

I cannot within the limits of this Preface discuss these strongly worded appreciations. I would, however, like to add this much to what is stated in the Introduction which follows: Allegations as regards "the Tantra" ­ that is, as regards the whole body of existent Scripture which passes under that name - must be received with caution. There is no European scholar who has read "the Tantra" in this sense even approximately. The reasons for this are obvious. In the first place, a great deal of the Sastra has disappeared. Of the Tantras which survive, and which are still numerous, some are extremely rare and others are fragmentary. I have myself been endeavouring for some years past to secure MSS. of several Tantras, but without success. A few only have been printed and imperfectly edited, and even these are but little, if at all, known in Europe. The frequently erroneous character of current criticism of the Tantra leads me to suppose that its authors are, generally speaking, second-hand by report, and without a knowledge of the, actual texts. If this be in some cases not so, then it would seem that only portions of some Tantras have been read, and not infrequently ill-understood. The Tantra, in fact, contains many a technical term and secret doctrine which are not to be understood by the sole aid of a Sanskrit dictionary and grammar. When it is better known, some of the charges which have been made against it will have to be withdrawn. It has hitherto commonly been supposed that this Scripture is the expression in all its parts of all wickedness. The distinction above made, whether correct in itself or not, at least marks an advance¹⁴ towards a more correct appreciation of the Sastra, even though it renders the same kind of justice as that which is done when a not unintelligent man whom we have hitherto called a knave is charged with being merely a vulgar fool. It must, however, be now obvious that conclusions based on such fragmentary material, and without knowledge of the occult teachings, is without authoritative value. In the present state of our knowledge, generalizations concerning the Tantra are likely in important matters to be hazardous. They seem to me to be particularly valueless when they take the form of mere abuse.

There is another important matter which is to be borne in mind, and which one of my Indian critics thinks that I have myself over­looked in my Edition of the Mahanirvana. He says that the account I have there given of Tantrik teaching is vitiated by the erroneous supposition that all the Tantrik works are complementary to each other, and that I have ignored the distinctions which exist between varying schools and traditions. I was not unaware of the alleged distinctions to which my critic refers, though their existence and nature have yet to be established. I, however, then expressly stated that I did not deal with these subjects, reserving as I did such observations as I had at present to make for this work. A number of questions present themselves for solution upon this difficult matter. What, for instance, are the specific characteristics of the various classes of Agamas known as Damara, Yamala, Uddisa, and Tantra, whether of the so-called Saiva (such as the Kamika, Dipta, Vijaya, etc.); Vaisnava (such as the Gandharva, Gautama, Radha, Brihadrudrayamala and others); or the Sakta, Kaula, or Devi type of Tantra? A similar question may be raised as to the sixty-four Tantras of the Three Krantas respectively. Again, what are the Tantras in force in the present Svetavaraha Kalpa? Again, what is the relation between all these Sastras as representing the specifically "Indian" Tantra and the "Buddhist" Tantra? Finally, what, if any, are the developments which have taken place as regards these Sastrik teachings? For Indian thought moves, even though some who write of it from books only think of it as something merely past. As H. H. Wilson says of the Hindu religion generally: "Its internal constitution has not been exempt from those varieties to which all human systems of belief are subject, and it has undergone great and frequent modifications, until it presents an appearance which there is great reason to suppose is very different from that which it originally wore."

Lastly, what (and this is my immediate subject) is the Tantrik doctrine and practice as it is at present understood and followed? When these and a number of other questions of great difficulty are resolved, we may permit ourselves a greater dogmatism than our present state of knowledge allows. I am more immediately concerned with another matter - namely, the present beliefs of the Indian peoples. In connection, however, with this purpose, I may here say this: if it is assumed that there are different schools, then Tantras of the same school may obviously be taken as complementary to one another. In respect of other Tantras, even if they do, as alleged, represent varying traditions, it will, I think, be found that there are in any case many common elements accompanying their own alleged distinctive differences which render them complementary to other Tantras to that extent. Take, for instance, the specific Tantrik Yoga, known as Satcakrabheda, which involves concentration on the lower centres. This is dealt with in Tantras which are alleged to be the expression of differing doctrine and practice in other respects. Similar observations may be made as regards the general worship (Upasana), and so forth.

As the foregoing observations may possibly be misunderstood by some to mean that I think that there is nothing in the Tantra which is likely to provoke dissent, and that nothing has been done in the name, or by followers, of the Sastra, which is in fact evil, it is necessary for me to say that that is not my opinion, though I think that the Sastra as a whole has not hitherto been understood - a fate which it has shared with many another Hindu doctrine and practice.

Looking at the matter from a purely objective standpoint, every Orientalist must admit that an accurate knowledge of this Sastra is of first-rate importance. But apart from this historical view, there are in the Tantra principles and practices which are of value in themselves. There is, for instance, a deep philosophic doctrine and a wonderful ritual which artistically shares with the Buddhist Tantras, though in a different way, the vehement splendour which has aptly been ascribed to the latter; a ritual which is at the same time, when rightly understood, singularly rational and psychologically profound. One of my English critics aptly appreciated this character of the Tantrik ritual when he said that "from one point of view it is perhaps the most elaborate system of auto-suggestion in the world;”¹⁵ a remark which, as well as the theory of auto-suggestion itself, will have a deeper content for those who are conversant with the Indian doctrine of the Atman and states of consciousness than for the ordinary English reader. It is necessary, however, that the ritual should be understood, otherwise it will not unlikely appear to be the "nonsensical extravagance" which H. H. Wilson called it. Disdain for "meaningless mystical syllables," "absurd gesticulations," and so forth, is often, after all, nothing but the rather foolish expression of annoyance which is felt at the presence of something not understood. These things, however, are not so senseless as some suppose.

In the next place we have in the Tantra the recognition of the fine principle that this doctrine and its expression in ritual are (subject to their varying competencies) for all, whatever be their race, caste, or sex. This marks a great advance on the parochial restrictions of the Vedas, which are so often placed in favourable opposition to the Tantra by English writers. The Sudra and woman are under none of the Vaidik bans. What, again, can be finer than the high veneration of woman which the Tantra inculcates. The Sufi author of the Dabistan,¹⁶ describing, in the seventeenth century, the Saktas, speaks of the Mother of the World in the following charmful passage:¹⁷"This Maya is the maker of the productions of this world and of its inhabitants, and the Creator of the spirits and of the bodies: the universe and its contents are born from Her: from respect of the said production and of the mentioned effects She is entitled Jaga­damba, or Mother of the Universe. Nonentity finds no access to this Creator. The garment of perishableness does not sit right upon the body of this fascinating Empress. The dust of nothingness does not move round the circle of Her dominion. The real beings of heaven and the accidental creatures of the nether world are equally enamoured and intoxicated of desire before Her. Bound by these ties of deceit in this revolving world, whoever rebels feels the desire of Mukti - that is, of emancipation, independence, and happiness; nevertheless, from carelessness, he pays obedience and worship to this world-deceiving Queen, and never abandons the path of adoration of this bewitching Lady who, as the spiritual principle, exists in all living beings in the Six Circles." As women are the earthly incarnations of this great Queen he goes on then to say: "The Agama (Tantra) favours both sexes equally, and makes no distinction between women, for men and women compose equally humankind. This sect holds women in great esteem and calls them Saktis (powers), and to ill-treat a Sakti-that is, a woman - is held to be a crime." As H. H. Wilson also himself points out,¹⁸ women, as manifestations of the Great Cause of all, are entitled to respect and even to veneration. Whoever offends them incurs the wrath of Prakrti, the Mother of all, whilst he who propitiates them offers worship to Prakrti Herself.¹⁹

And so, at a time when, as some allege, in accordance with the Vedas,²⁰ the rite of Sati was being practised, and many a woman was being horribly oppressed, it was the Mahanirvana Tantra²¹ which forbade it on the grounds above stated. In conformity, also, with these views we find that, according to the Tantra, alone of the great Sastras, a woman may be a spiritual teacher (Guru), and initiation by her achieves increased benefit. Thus initiation by a mother of her son is eightfold more fruitful than any other. This, some may think, is not without example to us in the West, where, notwithstanding the increasing recognition of the place of woman, her right of spiritual teaching is still denied. There are other matters in the Tantra to which in this connection I might refer, such as true principles of Sadhana on the path of desire, were it not impossible to discuss such a subject shortly except at peril of misunderstanding.

Whatever we may think upon these matters, it will occur to everyone of experience and free from prejudice that there must be more in a Sastra which has obtained so great a credence and wide-spreading authority than the moral abuses and silly superstitions alone with which it is charged. From the purely objective and detached standpoint of the historical student, the whole of the Sastra is of value and interest. Historical research in itself is not concerned with moral values. Its subject is whatever man has taught, or said, or done. When we consider, however, these values, the case is, of course, different. From the latter point of view, the Tantra is an encyclopedic amalgam of elements of varying character and worth, extending from the doctrines of a lofty speculation to practices which to the higher occultism are suspect,²² and to prescriptions which may be used for the purposes of evil-intentioned magic. Here, therefore, we must distinguish. In short, we must first inquire and learn what, in fact, the Sastra is, and then understand and discriminate.

Up to the present, however, want of knowledge is responsible for an indiscriminating condemnation of the whole of an extensive literature, the cultural expression of the varied activities of a secular epoch. It is sufficient at present for practical purposes to say that (apart from magic) the ritual in the Sastra to which objection has been taken forms but one portion of the Scripture properly applicable to a select class of adepts, and that the remainder of its provisions deal with matters which are free from exception on the grounds on which the Tantra has been adversely criticized. It is unnecessary here to further develop a proposition of which the book now translated is itself the proof.

I had at first intended merely to draw upon the author's work and other sources for the purpose of a presentation in Western form of some of the fundamental principles of a Sastra which has been hitherto so little understood. The execution of this intention I defer to some future time, when I hope to deal in my own way with the metaphysical and psychological bases of Hindu worship, a subject, on its practical side, hitherto untouched. For the present, however, I present the subject in the words of an orthodox Hindu, who is an adherent of the Tantra Sastra, and whose work (Tantratattva) is here translated.²³ For those who might be disposed to accept the correctness of the views expressed by the Authors above cited would not unlikely entertain a suspicion of the genuineness of the Tantrik character of a work of the present description, if upon a reading they should find it to be neither silly, nor vulgarly superstitious, magical, wicked, or obscene. The exposition, therefore, here given is not mine, but the Pandit's.

His work is, however, in no sense complete, but deals in a popular style with some portions only of the subject-matter. After I had written the Introduction which follows, I received a letter from him in which he explains that his book was published over twenty years ago, with a view to combating both the errors of what is called "Reformed" or "Pro­testant" Hinduism, and the mistakes of some incompetent defenders of orthodoxy; and that therefore both the matter and form of his work were determined by the arguments of those whom he controverted. As a result, his reply, which is presented in a somewhat discursive manner, does not treat of some subjects with which he desired to deal. He writes, therefore, to me to say that he has in preparation a third part, in which he proposes to give an exposition of the philosophy of the Tantra. The two Parts, now published, treat of (to use our parlance) the religious side of certain portions of the subject, though in India philosophy and religion are mingled in a way which the West has not known since the age when philosophy was held to be Ancilla Theologiæ. This third Part, when ready, I hope to publish in continuation of the volume now issued.

Further, there are certain matters of doctrine and practice which are, as the Author states, for the initiate alone, and of which, therefore, he treats either cursorily or not at all. What, however, he does say will effect more than a mere acquittal of his system of the wholesale charges of absurdity and vice so commonly made against it. Referring to what is blameworthy, the Pandit himself says: "We know that there are reasons for saying some hard things"; though he adds: "But how are Kali or Siva or Tantra to blame? "As regards the likelihood of abuse in any system, there is more to be said for the Hindu view of the naturally crooked influence of time than for the notion of "progress" from moment to moment which some of us in the West would seem to entertain. But for all that, it would indeed be a phenomenon of strange degeneracy if India, which has thought the deepest thoughts of the world, and which has been marked by the intensity of its religious feelings, should, even in its most unfortunate days, have produced a system of extensive influence and authority which is intellectually nothing but "brainless hocus-pocus," and morally a mere facile reversal of the high notions of Dharma,²⁴ which have distinguished its peoples beyond all the races. As a matter of fact, and to my knowledge, even at the present day some of the most learned Pandits and the greatest Sadhakas esteem and follow this Scripture, which they regard as the treasure of their heart. How comes this to be if it is merely, as alleged, the debased product of the Hindu spirit "at its lowest and very worst"? Whether particular portions of its teachings or practice should be generally approved is another matter. The difficulties, however, which attend an exposition of even such parts of the Sastra as seem to be at first view readily exposed to attack are such that those who have any real knowledge concerning them will be the first to abstain from hasty generalizations, particularly when they take the form of mere abuse.

As regards such portions of doctrine as are here exposed, the Author in the course of the defence of his own beliefs has in many an instance severely castigated his opponents for their inaccurate statements and loose thinking. For reasons, however, which I give in the Introduction which follows, views more favourable to the Author's position now more generally prevail in India than was the case when his work was first written. Many even of those who nowadays are not prepared to accept orthodox doctrine in its entirety are yet disposed to think that the beliefs of their fathers were not, after all, quite so foolish as under the first influences of the English "Illumination" they considered them to be. But this change of view is not peculiar to India only. We ourselves have also recently experienced something of the same kind. An intelligent understanding of Christian ideas and Catholic ritual has dispelled many a shallow criticism to which they have been subjected by a narrow sectarianism on the one hand, and an equally narrow "rationalism" on the other. By this, however, it is not meant that no adverse criticisms in either of these matters have had force, or that in some Indian quarters the Sastra is not still regarded as (to use the words of an Indian writer “mines of superstition ".

Though the Pandit's work is issued in two parts,²⁵ I have, for the benefit of the readers of the first volume, given the table of contents of the second part now in the press, which will be ready for publication this year. This will be preceded by an Introductory essay from the pen of Sj. Barada Kanta Majumdar.

Later I hope to make up for the deficiencies in the present work by others dealing with the ritual in greater detail. Thus the Pandit in the second part refers to, but does not treat of, the Tantrik yoga process, known as Satcakrabheda. This I have dealt with in the work now in the press,²⁶ entitled "The Six Centres and the Serpent Force," being a translation from the Sanskrit, with Introduction, commentary, and plates of the Satcakranirupana of Purnananda Svami, the Sanskrit treatise itself forming part of the extensive Sritattvacintamani, which is also being prepared for publication in the series of "Tantrik Texts."

The references to the "Introduction " are to the Introduction of my Edition of the Mahanirvana Tantra.²⁷ References to "Introduction, ante," are to the Introduction which follows this Preface.

Benares, December 28, 1913
Arthur Avalon

Footnotes

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE