Shakti and Shâkta

The belief in Shakti or the Divine Power as distinguished from the Divine Essence (Svarupa), the former being generally imagined for purposes of worship as being in female form, is very ancient. The concept of Shakti in Chinese Taoism is not merely a proof of this (for the Shakti notion is much older) but is an indication of the ancient Indian character of the doctrine. There are some who erroneously think, the concept had its origin in "Sivaic mysticism," having its origin somewhere in the sixth century of our era. Lao-tze or the "old master" was twenty years senior to Confucius and his life was said to have been passed between 570-490 B.C. A date commonly accepted by European Orientalists as that of the death of Buddha (Indian and Tibetan opinions being regarded, as "extravagant") would bring his life into the sixth century s.c., one of the most wonderful in the world's history. Lao-tze is said to have written the Tao-tei-king, the fundamental text of Taoism. This title means Treatise on Tao and Tei. Tao which Lao-tze calls "The great" is in its Sanskrit equivalent Brahman and Tei is Its power or activity or Shakti. As Father P. L. Wieger, S. J., to whose work (Histoire des Croyances Religieuses et des Opinions Philosophiques en Chine, p. 143 et seg. 1917) I am here indebted, points out, Lao-tze did not invent Taoism no more than Confucius (557-419 B.C.) invented Confucianism. It is characteristic of these and other Ancient Eastern Masters that they do not claim to be more than "transmitters" of a wisdom older than themselves. Lao-tze was not the first to teach Taoism. He had precursors who, however, were not authors. He was the writer of the first book on Taoism which served as the basis for the further development of the doctrine. On this account its paternity is attributed to him. There was reference to this doctrine it is said in the official archives (p. 743). The pre-Taoists were the analysts and astrologers of the Tcheou. Lao-tze who formulated the system was one of them (ib. 69). The third Ministry containing these archives registered all which came from foreign parts, as Taoism did. For as Father Wieger says, Taoism is in its main lines a Chinese adaptation of the contemporary doctrine of the Upanishads ("or le Taoisme est dans ses grandes lignes une adaptation Chinoise de la doctrine Indienne contemporaine des Upanisads"). The actual fact of importation cannot in default of documents be proved but as the learned author says, the fact that the doctrine was not Chinese, that it was then current in India, and its sudden spread in China, creates in favor of the argument for foreign importation almost a certain conclusion. The similarity of the two doctrines is obvious to any one acquainted with that of the Upanishads and the doctrine of Shakti. The dualism of the manifesting Unity (Tao) denoted by Yin-Yang appears for the first time in a text of Confucius, a contemporary of Lao-tze, who may have informed him of it. All Chinese Monism descends from Lao-tze. The patriarchal texts were developed by the great Fathers of Taoism Lie-tzeu and Tchong-tzeu (see "Les Péres du systéme Taoiste" by the same author) whom the reverend father calls the only real thinkers that China has produced. Both were practically prior to the contact of Greece and India on the Indus under Alexander. The first development of Taoism was in the South. It passed later to the North where it had a great influence.

According to Taoism there was in the beginning, is now, and ever will be an ultimate Reality, which is variously called Huan the Mystery, which cannot be named or defined, because human language is the language of limited beings touching limited objects, whereas Tao is imperceptible to the senses and the unproduced cause of all, beyond which there is nothing: Ou the Formless, or Tao the causal principle, the unlimited inexhaustible source from which all comes, ("Tao le principe parceque tout derive de lui") Itself proceeds from nothing but all from It. So it is said of Brahman that It is in Itself beyond mind and speech, formless and (as the Brahmasutra says) That from which the Universe is born, by which it is maintained and into which it is dissolved. From the abyss of Its Being, It throws out all forms of Existence and is never emptied. It is an infinite source exteriorizing from Itself all forms, by Its Power (Tei). These forms neither diminish nor add to Tao which remains ever the same. These limited beings are as a drop of water in Its ocean. Tao is the sum of, and yet as infinite, beyond all individual existences. Like Brahman, Tao is one, eternal, infinite, self-existent, omnipresent, unchanging (Immutable) and complete (Purna). At a particular moment (to speak in our language for It was then beyond time) Tao threw out from Itself Tei Its Power (Vertu or Shakti) which operates in alternating modes called Yin and Yang and produces, as it were by condensation of its subtlety (Shakti ghanibhuta), the Heaven and Earth and Air between, from which come all beings. The two modes of Its activity, Yin and Yang, are inherent in the Primal That, and manifest as modes of its Tei or Shakti. Yin is rest, and therefore after the creation of the phenomenal world a going back, retraction, concentration towards the original Unity (Nivritti), whereas Yang is action and therefore the opposite principle of going forth or expansion (Pravritti). These modes appear in creation under the sensible forms of Earth (Yin) and Heaven (Yang). The one original principle or Tao, like Shiva and Shakti, thus becomes dual in manifestation as Heaven-Earth from which emanate other existences. The state of Jinn is one of rest, concentration and imperceptibility which was the own state (Svarupa) of Tao before time and things were. The state of fang is that of action, expansion, of manifestation in sentient beings and is the state of Tao in time, and that which is in a sense not Its true state ("L'etat Yin de concentration, de repos, d'imperceptibilité, qui fut celui du Principe avant le temps, est son êtat propre. L'etat Yang d'expansion et d'action, de manifestation dans les êtres sensibles, est son êtat dans le temps, en quelque sorte impropre"). All this again is Indian. The primal state of Brahman or Shiva-Shakti before manifestation is that in which It rests in Itself (Svarupa-vishranti), that is, the state of rest and infinite formlessness. It then by Its Power (Shakti) manifests the universe. There exists in this power the form of two movements or rhythms, namely, the going forth or expanding (Pravritti) and the return or centering movement (Nivritti). This is the Eternal Rhythm, the Pulse of the universe, in which it comes and goes from that which in Itself, does neither. But is this a real or ideal movement? According to Father Wieger, Taoism is a realistic and not idealistic pantheism in which Tao is not a Conscious Principle but a Necessary Law, not Spiritual but Material, though imperceptible by reason of its tenuity and state of rest. ("Leur systéme est un pantheisme realiste, pas ideâliste. Au commencement était un étre unique non pas intelligent mais loi fatale, non spirituel mais matériel, imperceptible a force de tenuité, d' abord immobile.") He also calls Heaven and Earth unintelligent agents of production of sentient beings. (Agent non-intelligents de la production de tous les étres sensibles.) I speak with all respect for the opinion of one who has made a special study of the subject which I have not so far as its Chinese aspect is concerned. But even if, as is possible, at this epoch the full idealistic import of the Vedanta had not been developed, I doubt the accuracy of the interpretation which makes Tao material and unconscious. According to Father Wieger, Tao prolongates Itself. Each being is a prolongation (Prolongement) of the Tao, attached to it and therefore not diminishing It. Tao is stated by him to be Universal Nature, the sum (Samashti) of all individual natures which are terminal points (Terminaisons) of Tao's prolongation. Similarly in the Upanishads, we read of Brahman producing the world from Itself as the spider produces the web from out of itself. Tao is thus the Mother of all that exists ("la mére de tout ce qui est"). If so, it is the Mother of mind, will, emotion and every form of consciousness. How are these derived from merely a" material" principle? May it not be that just as the Upanishads use material images to denote creation and yet posit a spiritual conscious (though not in our limited sense) Principle, Lao-tze, who was indebted to them, may have done the same. Is this also not indicated by the Gnostic doctrine of the Taoists? The author cited says that to the cosmic states of Yin and Yang correspond in the mind of man the states of rest and activity. When the human mind thinks, it fills itself with forms or images and is moved by desires. Then it perceives only the effects of Tao, namely, distinct sentient beings. When on the contrary the action of the human mind stops and is fixed and empty of images of limited forms, it is then the Pure Mirror in which is reflected the ineffable and unnamable Essence of Tao Itself, of which intuition the Fathers of Taoism speak at length. ("Quand an contraire l'esprit humain est arrêtê est vide et fixe, alors miroir net et pur, il mire l'essence ineffable et innomable du Principe lui-meme. Les Pêres nous parleront au long de cette intuition.") This common analogy of the Mirror is also given in the Kamakalavilasa (v. 4) where it speaks of Shakti as the pure mirror in which Shiva reflects Himself pratiphalati vimarsha darpane vishade). The conscious mind does not reflect a material principle as its essence. Its essence must have the principle of consciousness which the mind itself possesses. It is to Tei, the Virtue or Power which Tao emits from Itself ("ce Principe se mit a êmettre Tei sa vertu") that we should attribute what is apparently unconscious and material. But the two are one, just as Shiva the possessor of power (Shaktiman) and Shakti or power are one, and this being so distinctions are apt to be lost. In the same way in the Upanishads statements may be found which have not the accuracy of distinction between Brahman and its Prakriti, which we find in later developments of Vedanta and particularly in the Shakta form of it. Moreover we are here dealing with the One in Its character both as cause and as substance of the World Its effect. It is of Prakriti-Shakti and possibly of Tei that we may say that it is an apparently material unconscious principle, imperceptible by reason of its tenuity and (to the degree that it is not productive objective effect) immobile. Further Wieger assures us that all contraries issue from the same unchanging Tao and that they are only apparent ("Toute contrariété n'est qu' apparente"). But relative to what? He says that they are not subjective illusions of the human mind, but objective appearances, double aspects of the unique Being, corresponding to the alternating modalities of Yin and Yang. That is so. For as Shamkara says, external objects are not merely projections of the individual human mind but of the cosmic mind, the Ishvari Shakti.

We must not, of course, read Taoism as held in the sixth century B.C. as if it were the same as the developed Vedanta of Shamkara who, according to European chronology, lived more than a thousand years later. But this interpretation of Vedanta is an aid in enabling us to see what is at least implicit in earlier versions of the meaning of their common source -- the Upanishads. As is well known, Shamkara developed their doctrine in an idealistic sense, and therefore his two movements in creation are Avidya, the primal ignorance which produces the appearance of the objective universe, and Vidya or knowledge which dispels such ignorance, ripening into that Essence and Unity which is Spirit-Consciousness Itself. Aupanishadic doctrine may be regarded either from the world or material aspect, or from the non-world and spiritual aspect. Men have thought in both ways and Shamkara's version is an attempt to synthesize them.

The Taoist master Ki (Op. cit., 168) said that the celestial harmony was that of all beings in their common Being. All is one as we experience in deep sleep (Sushupti). All contraries are sounds from the same flute, mushrooms springing from the same humidity, not real distinct beings but differing aspects of the one universal "Being". "I" has no meaning except in contrast with "you" or "that". But who is the Mover of all? Everything happens as if there were a real governor. The hypothesis is acceptable provided that one does not make of this Governor a distinct being. He (I translate Father Wieger's words) is a tendency without palpable form, the inherent norm of the universe, its immanent evolutionary formula. The wise know that the only Real is the Universal Norm. The unreflecting vulgar believe in the existence of distinct beings. As in the case of the Vedanta, much misunderstanding exists because the concept of Consciousness differs in East and West as I point out in detail in the essay dealing with Cit-Shakti.

The space between Heaven and Earth in which the Power (Vertu, Shakti, Tei) is manifested is compared by the Taoists to the hollow of a bellows of which Heaven and Earth are the two wooden sides; a bellow which blows without exhausting itself. The expansive power of Tao in the middle space is imperishable. It is the mysterious Mother of all beings. The come and go of this mysterious Mother, that is, the alternating of the two modalities of the One, produce Heaven and Earth. Thus acting, She is never fatigued. From Tao was exteriorized Heaven and Earth. From Tao emanated the producing universal Power or Shakti, which again produced all beings without self-exhaustion or fatigue. The one having put forth its Power, the latter acts according to two alternating modalities of going forth and return. This action produces the middle air or Ki which is tenuous Matter, and through Yin and Yang, issue all gross beings. Their coming into existence is compared to an unwinding (Dévidage) from That or Tao, as it were a thread from reel or spool. In the same way the Shakta Tantra speaks of an "uncoiling." Shakti is coiled (Kundalini) round the Shiva-point (Bindu), one with It in dissolution. On creation She begins to uncoil in a spiral line movement which is the movement of creation. The Taoist Father Lieu-tze analyzed the creative movement into the following stages: "The Great Mutation" anterior to the appearance of tenuous matter (Movement of the two modalities in undefined being), "the Great Origin" or the stage of tenuous matter, "the Great Commencement" or the stage of sensible matter, "the Great Flux" or the stage of plastic matter and actual present material compounded existences. In the primitive stage, when matter was imperceptible, all beings to come were latent in an homogeneous state.

I will only add as bearing on the subject of consciousness that the author cited states that the Taoists lay great stress on intuition and ecstasy which is said to be compared to the unconscious state of infancy, intoxication, and narcosis. These comparisons may perhaps mislead just as the comparison of the Yogi state to that of a log (Kashthavat) misled. This does not mean that the Yogi's consciousness is that of a log of wood, but that he no more perceives the external world than the latter does. He does not do so because he has the Samadhi consciousness, that is, Illumination and true being Itself. He is one then with Tao and Tei or Shakti in their true state.

é INDEX é

A NOT uncommon modern criticism upon the Indian Shastras is that they mutually conflict. This is due to a lack of knowledge of the doctrine of Adhikara and Bhumika, particularly amongst Western critics, whose general outlook and mode of thought is ordinarily deeply divergent from that which has prevailed in India. The idea that the whole world should follow one path is regarded by the Hindus as absurd, being contrary to Nature and its laws. A man must follow that path for which he is fit, that is, for which he is Adhikari. Adhikara or competency literally means "spreading over" that is "taking possession of". What is to be known (Jñatavya), done (Kartavya), acquired (Praptavya) is determined not once and generally for all, but in each case by the fitness and capacity therefor of the individual. Each man can know, do, and obtain not everything, nor indeed one common thing, but that only of which he is capable (Adhikari). What the Jiva can think, do, or obtain, is his competency or Adhikara, a profound and practical doctrine on which all Indian teaching and Sadhana is based. As men are different and therefore the Adhikara is different, so there are different forms of teaching and practice for each Adhikara. Such teaching may be Srauta or Ashrauta. Dealing here with the first, it is said of all Vidyas the Lord is Ishana, and that these differing forms are meant for differing competencies, though all have one and the same object and aim. This has been well and concisely worked out by Bhaskararaya, the Commentator on Tantrik and Aupanishadic Texts in his Bhashya upon the Nityashodashikarnava, which is, according to him, a portion of the great Vamakeshvara Tantra. The second portion of the Nityasohdashkarnava is also known as the Yoginihridaya. These valuable Tantrik Texts have been published as the 56th Volume of the Poona Anandashrama Series which includes also (Vol. 69) the Jñanarnava Tantra. The importance of the Vamakeshvara is shown by the fact that Bhaskararaya claims for it the position of the independent 65th Tantra which is mentioned in the 31st verse of the Anandalahari. Others say that the Svatantra there spoken of, is the Jñanarnava Tantra, and others again are of the opinion that the Tantraraja is the great independent Tantra of which the Anandalahari (ascribed to Shrimadacaryabhagavatpada, that is, Shamkaracarya) speaks. Bhaskararaya who lived in the first half of the eighteenth century gives in his Commentary the following exposition:

In this world all long for happiness which is the sole aim of man. Of this there is no doubt. This happiness again is of two kinds, namely, that which is produced and transient (Kritrima) and that which is unproduced and enduring (Akritrima), called respectively Desire (Kama) and Liberation (Moksha). Dharma procures happiness of both kinds, and Artha helps to the attainment of Dharma. These therefore are desired of all. There are thus four aims of man (Purusharthas) which though, as between themselves, different, are yet intimately connected, the one with the other. The' Kalpasutra says that self-knowledge is the aim and end of man (Svavimarshah purusharthah). This is said of Liberation as being the highest end, since it alone gives real and enduring happiness. This saying, however, does not raise any contradiction. For, each of the four is to be had by the Jñana and Vijñana appropriate for such attainment. These (Purusharthas) are again to be attained according to the capacity of the individual seeking them (Tadrisa-tadrisha-cittaikasadhyani). The competency of the individual Citta depends again on the degree of its purity.

The very merciful Bhagavan Parameshvara desirous of aiding men whose mind and disposition (Citta) differ according to the results produced by their different acts, promulgated different kinds of Vidya which, though appearing to be different as between themselves, yet have, as their common aim, the highest end of all human life, that is, Liberation.

Shruti also says (Nrisimhapurvatapani Up. I-6; Mahanarayana Up. XVII-5): "Of all Vidyas the Lord is Ishana" (Ishanah sarvavidyanam) and (Sveta. Up. VI-18) "I who desire liberation seek refuge in that Deva who creates Brahma who again reveals the Vedas and all other learning" (Yo Brahmanam vidadhati purvam yo vai vedamshca prahinoti). The particle "ca" impliedly signifies the other Vidyas collectively. We also find it said in furtherance of that statement: "To him the first born He gave the Vedas and Puranas." Smriti also states that the omniscient Poet (Kavi), Carrier of the Trident (Shiva shulapani), is the first Promulgator of these eighteen Vidyas which take differing paths (Bhinnavartma). It follows that, inasmuch as Paramashiva, the Benefactor of the Worlds, is the Promulgator of all Vidyas, they are all authoritative, though each is applicable for differing classes of competency (Adhikaribhedena). This has been clearly stated in Sutasmhita and similar works.

Capacity (Adhikara) is (for example) of this kind. The unbeliever (Nastika i.e., in Veda) has Adhikara in Darshanas such as Arhata (Jaina) and the like. Men of the first three castes have Adhikara in the path of Veda. Similarly the Adhikara of an individual varies according to the purity of his Citta. For we see that the injunctions relating to Dharma vary according to Ashrama and caste (Varna-bheda). Such texts as praise any particular Vidya are addressed to those who are Adhikari therein, and their object is to induce them to follow it. Such texts again as disparage any Vidya are addressed to those who are not Adhikari therein, and their object is to dissuade them from it. Nor again should these words of blame (or praise) be taken in an absolute sense, that is otherwise than relatively to the person to whom they are addressed.

Yani tattad vidyaprashamsakani vacanani tani tattadadhikarinam pratyeva pravartakani.

Yani ca tannindakani tani tattadan-adhikarinam prati nivartakani. Na punarnahi nindanyayena vidheya-stavakani

(Bhaskararaya's Introductory Commentary to Nityasodashikarnava Tantra, p. 2).

In early infancy, parents and guardians encourage the play of the child in their charge. When the age of study is reached, the same parents and guardians chastise the child who inopportunely plays. This we all see. A male of the three higher castes should, on the passing of the age of play, learn his letters and then metre (Chhandas) in order to master language. The Agni Purana has many texts such as "Faultless is a good Kavya"; all of which encourage the study of Kavya. We also come across prohibitions such as "He who has mastered the subject should avoid all discussion relating to Kavya". When the object to be gained by the study of Kavya is attained and competency is gained for the next higher stage (Uttarabhumika), it is only a harmful waste of time to busy oneself with a lower stage (Purvabhumika), in neglect of that higher stage for the Sadhana of which one has become competent. This is the meaning of the prohibition. Again the injunction is to study Nyayashastra so as to gain a knowledge of the Atma as it is, and other than as it appears in the body and so forth. The texts are many such as "By reasoning (Shungga) seek the Atma". Shungga=Hetu=Avayavasamudayatmakanyaya, that is Logic with all its five limbs. When it is known that the Atma as such is other than the body, is separate from the body and so forth, and the means which lead to that knowledge are mastered, then man is prohibited from occupying himself with the subject of the former stage (Purvabhumika) by such texts as "Anvikshiki and Logic (Tarkavidya) are useless" (Anvikshikim tarkavidyamanurakto nirarthikam). Injunctions such as "The wise should practice Dharma alone (Dharmam evacaret prajnah)" urge man towards the next stage (Uttarabhumika). The study of the Purvamimamsa and the Karmakanda in the Vedas is useful for this purpose. When by this means Dharma, Artha and Kama are attained, there arises a desire for the fourth Purushartha (Liberation or Moksha). And therefore to sever men from the former stage (Purvabhumika) there are texts which deprecate Karma such as (Mund. Up. 1-2, 12) "By that which is made cannot be attained that which is not made" (Nastyakritah kritena). Vashishtha says that these (earlier stages) are seven and that all are stages of ignorance (Ajñanabhumika). Beyond these are stages of Jñana. For the attainment of the same there are injunctions relating to Brahmajñana which lead on to 'the next higher stage, such as (Mund. Up. I. 2, 12) "He should go to the Guru alone" (Sa gurum evabhigacchet), "Listen (Br. Ar. II. 4, 5, IV. 5, 6), oh Maitreyi, the Atma should be realized" (Atma va are drashtavyah). Some say that the Jñanabhumikas are many and rely on the text "The wise say that the stages of Yoga are many". The holy Vashishtha says that there are seven, namely, Vividisha (desire to know), Vicarana (reflection), Tanumanasa (concentration), Sattvapatti (commencement of realization), Asamshakti (detachment), Padarthabhavini (realization of Brahman only) and Turyaga (full illumination in the fourth state). The meaning of these is given in, and should be learnt from, the Jñanashastra of Vashishtha.

These terms are also explained in Brahmananda's Commentary on the Hathayoga Pradipika (1-3). His account differs from that of Bhaskararaya as regards the name of the first Bhumika which he calls Jñanabhumi or Subheccha and the sixth is called by him Pararthabhavini and not Padarthabhavini. The sense in either case is the same. According to Brahmananda, Jñanabhumi is the initial stage of Yoga characterized by Viveka, Vairagya, and the six Sadhanas beginning with Sama and leading to Mumuksha. Vicarana is Shravana and Manana (Shravanamananatmika). Tanuminasa=Nididhyasana when the mind, the natural characteristic of which is to wander, is directed towards its proper Yoga-object only. These three preliminary stage are known as Sadhanabhumika. The fourth stage Sattvapatti is Samprajñatayogabhumika. The mind having been purified by practice in the three preceding Bhumikas the Yogi commences to realize and is called Brahmavit. The last three stages belong to Asamprajñatayoga. After attainment of Sattvapatti Bhumika, the Yogi reaches the fifth stage called Asamshakti. Here he is totally detached and in the state of wakening (Vyuttishthate). As such he is called Brahmavid-vara. At the sixth, or Pararthabhavini Bhumika he meditates on nothing but Parabrahman (Parabrahmatiriktam na bhavayati). He is supremely awakened (Paraprabodhita) and is awake (Vyuttishta). He is then called Brahmavid-vanyan. In the last or seventh stage (Turyyaga) he is Brahmavidvarishta, and then truly attains illumination in itself (Svatahparato va vyutthanam prapnoti).

The Upanishads and Uttaramimamsa are helpful for this purpose (Upayogi) and should therefore be studied,

Brahmajñana again is of two kinds: namely, Seabed and Aparokshanubhavarupa. Understanding of the meaning of Shastra (Shashtradrishti), the word of the Guru (Gurorvakyam) and certainty (Nishcaya) of the unity of the individual self (Sva) and the Atma. are powerful to dispel inward darkness, but not the mere knowledge of words (Shabdabodha); (See Yogavashishtha, Utpatti, Kh. IX. 7-16). Therefore, when the Shabdabhumika is attained one should not waste one's time further at this stage, and there are texts which prohibit this. Thus (Br. Ar. III, 5-1) "Having become indifferent to learning let him remain simple as in childhood" (Pandityannirvidya balyena tishthaset).

Between the second and third of the seven stages (Bhumika) there is the great stage Bhakti. Bhaktimimamsa (e.g., Narada Sutra, Sanatsujatiya) is helpful and should be studied. Bhakti continues to the end of the fifth Bhumika. When this last is attained the Sadhaka gains the fifth stage which is Aparokshanubhavarupa. This is Jivanmukti; Following closely upon this is Videhakaivalya. In the text "From Jñana alone Kaivalya comes (Jñanad eva tu kaivalyam), the word Jñana signifies something other and higher than Anubhava (Anubhavaparatva). In Nyaya and other Shastras it is stated that Moksha will be attained by mastery in such particular Shastra, but that is merely a device by which knowledge of the higher stage is not disclosed. This is not blameworthy because its object is to remove the disinclination to study such Shastra by reason of the delay thereby caused in the attainment of Purushartha (which disinclination would exist if the Sadhaka knew that there was a higher Shastra than that which he was studying). There are texts such as "By Karma alone (eva) is achievement" (Karmanaiva tu samsiddhih); "Him whom he selects hp him he is attainable" (Yamevaisha vrinnute tena labhyah). The word "eva" refers to the Bhumika which is spoken of and prohibits Sadhana for the attainment of fruit which can only be gained by mastery of, or competency in (Adhikara), the next higher Bhumika (Uttarabhumika). The words do not deny that there is a higher stage (Bhumika). The word alone (eva) in "Jñanad eva tu" ("from Jñana alone") indicates, however, that there is a stage of Sadhana subsequent to that here spoken of. There is thus no conflict between the Rishis who are teachers of the different Vidyas. Each one of these Bhumikas has many sub-divisions (Avantara-bhumika) which cannot be altogether separated the one from the other, and which are only known by the discerning through experience (Anubhava). So it has been said: "Oh Raghava, I have spoken to thee of the seven States (Avastha) of ignorance (Ajñana). Each one is hundred fold (that is many) and yields many fruits (Nanavibhavarupim). Of these many Bhumikas, each is achieved by Sadhana through many births. When a man by great effort prolonged through countless lives, and according to the regular order of things (Kramena), gains a full comprehension of the Bhumika in which he has certain knowledge of the Shabdatattva of Parabrahman, he ceases to have any great attachment to or aversion for, Samsara and this is a form of excellent Cittashuddhi. Such an one is qualified for the path of Devotion (Bhakti)." For, it has been said: "Neither indifferent (Nirvinna) nor attached; for such an one Bhaktiyoga grants achievement (Siddhida)."

Bhakti again is of two kinds: Gauni (secondary) and Para (supreme). The first comprises Dhyana, Arcana, Japa, Namakirtana and the like of the Saguna Brahman. Parabhakti is special" state (Anuragavishesharupa) which is the product of these. The first division of Bhakti includes several others (Avantara-Cumika). The first of these is Bhavanasiddhi illustrated by such texts "Let him meditate on woman as fire" (Yoshamagnim dhyayita). The second is worship (Upasti') as directed in such texts (Chha. Up. III. 18-1) as "Mano brahmetyupasita". The third is Ishvaropasti (worship of the Lord). Since the aspects of the Lord vary according as He is viewed as Surya, Ganesha, Vishnu, Rudra, Parashiva and Shakti, the forms of worship belong to different Bhumikas. The forms of Shakti again are endless such as Chhaya, Ballabha, Lakshmi and the like. In this manner, through countless ages all these Bhumikas are mastered, when there arises Gaunabhakti for Tripurasundari. On perfection of this there is Parabhakti for Her. This is the end, for it has been said (Kularnava Tantra, III. 82): "Kaulajñana is revealed for him whose Citta has been fully purified, Arka, Ganapatya, Vaishnava, Shaiva, Daurga (Shakta) and other Mantras in their order." Bhaskararaya also quotes the statement in the Kularnava Tantra (II, 7, 8): "Higher than Vedacara is Vaishnavacara, higher than Vaishnavacara is Shaivacara, higher than Shaivacara is Dakshinacara, higher than Dakshinacara is Vamacara, higher than Vamacara is Siddhantacara, higher than Siddhantacara is Kaulacara than which there is nothing higher nor better."

Many original texts might be cited relative to the order of stages (Bhumikakrama) but which are not quoted for fear of prolixity. Some of these have been set out in Saubhagyabhaskara, (that is, Bhaskararaya's Commentary on the Lalitasahasranama). The Sundari tapanipancaka, Bhavanopanishad, Kaulopanishad, Guhyopanishad, Mahopanishad, and other Upanishads (Vedashirobhaga) describe in detail the Gauni Bhakti of Shri Mahatripurasundari and matter relating thereto. The Kalpasutras of Ashvalayana and others, the Smritis of Manu and others come after the Purvakanda) of the Veda. In the same way the Kalpasutras of Parashurama and others and the Yamalas and other Tantras belong to the latter part of the Veda or the Upanishadkanda. The Puranas relate to, and follow both, Kandas. Therefore the authority of the Smritis, Tantras, and Puranas is due to their being based on Veda (Smrititantra puranam vedamulakatvenaiva pramanyam). Those which seem (Pratyaksha) opposed to Shruti (Shrutiviruddha) form a class of their own and are without authority and should not be followed unless the Veda (Mulashruti) is examined (and their conformity with it established). There are some Tantras, however, which are in every way in conflict with Veda (Yanitu sarvamshena vedaviruddhanyeva). They are some Pashupata Shastras and Pañcaratra. They are not for those who are in this Bhumika (i.e., Veda Pantha). He who is qualified for rites enjoined in Shruti and Smriti (Shrautasmartakarmadhikara) is only Adhikari for these (Pashupata and Pañcaratra) if by reason of some sin (Papa) he falls from the former path. It has therefore been said: "The Lord of Kamala (Vishnu) spoke the Pañcaratras, the Bhagavata, and that which is known as Vaikhanasa (Vaikhanasabhidhama form of Vaishnavism) for those who have fallen away from the Vedas (Vedabhrashta)." The following Texts relate only to some of the Shastras of the classes mentioned. So we have the following: "He who has fallen from Shruti, who is afraid of the expiatory rites (Prayashcitta) prescribed therein, should seek shelter in Tantra so that by degrees he may be qualified for Shruti (Shruti-siddhyar-tham)." Though the general term "Tantra" is employed, particular Tantras (that is, those opposed to Shruti or Ashrauta) are here meant. The Adhikarana (Sutra) Patyurasamanjasyat (II: 2. 37) applies to Tantras of this class. The Agastya and other Tantras which describe the worship of Rama, Krishna, Nrisimha, Rudra, Parashiva, Sundari (Shakti) and others evidently derive from the Ramatapani and other Upanishads. There is therefore no reason to doubt but that they are authoritative.

Worship (Upasti) of Sundari Shakti is of two kinds: Bahiryaga or outer, and Antaryaga or inner, worship. Antaryaga is again of three kinds: Sakala, Sakala-Nishkala, and Nishkala, thus constituting four Bhumikas. As already stated, the passage is from a lower to a higher and then to a yet higher Bhumika. Five forms of Bahiryaga are spoken of, namely, Kevala, Yamala, Mishra, Cakrayuk and Virashamkara which have each five divisions under the heads Abhigamana and others and Daurbodhya and others in different Tantras. Bahiryaga with these distinctions belongs to one and the same Bhumika. Distinctions in the injunctions (Vyavastha) depend entirely on differences as to place, time, and capacity, and not on the degree of Cittashuddhi (Na punashcittashuddhibhedena). On the other hand injunctions given according to difference of Bhumika, which is itself dependent on the degree of purity of the Citta, are mandatory.

To sum up the reply to the question raised by the title of this paper: The Shastras are many and are of differing form. But Ishvara is the Lord of all the Vidyas which are thus authoritative and have a common aim. The Adhikara of men varies. Therefore so does the form of the Shastra. There are many stages (Bhumika) on the path of spiritual advance. Man makes his way from a lower to a higher Bhumika. Statements in any Shastra which seem to be in conflict with some other Shastra must be interpreted with reference to the Adhikara of the persons to whom they are addressed. Texts laudatory of any Vidya are addressed to the Adhikari therein with the object of inducing him to follow it. Texts in disparagement of any Vidya are addressed to those who are not Adhikari therein, either because he has not attained, or has surpassed, the Bhumika applicable, and their object is to dissuade them from following it. Neither statements are to be taken in an absolute sense, for what is not fit for one may be fit for another. Evolution governs the spiritual as the physical process, and the truth is in each case given in that form which is suitable for the stage reached. From step to step the Sadhaka rises, until having passed through all presentments of the Vaidik truth which are necessary for him, he attains the Vedasvarupa which is knowledge of the Self.

These ancient teachings are in many ways very consonant with what is called the "modernist" outlook. Thus, let it be noted that there may be (as Bhaskararaya says) Adhikara for Ashrauta Shastra such as the Arhata, and there is a Scripture for the Vedabhrashta. These, though non-Vaidik, are recognized as the Scriptures of those who are fitted for them. This is more than the admission, that they are the Scriptures in fact of such persons. The meaning of such recognition is brought out by an incident some years ago. An Anglican clergyman suggested that Mohamedanism might be a suitable Scripture for the Negro who was above "fetichism" but not yet fit to receive Christian teaching. Though he claimed that the latter was the highest and the most complete truth, this recognition (quite Hindu in its character) of a lower and less advanced stage, brought him into trouble. For those who criticized him gave no recognition to any belief but their own. Hinduism does not deny that other faiths have their good fruit. For this reason, it is tolerant to a degree which has earned it the charge of being "indifferent to the truth". Each to his own. Its principles admit q, progressive revelation of the Self to the self, according to varying competencies (Adhikara) and stages (Bhumika) of spiritual advance. Though each doctrine and practice belongs to varying levels, and therefore the journey may be shorter or longer as the case may be, ultimately all lead to the Vedasvarupa or knowledge of the Self, than which there is no other end. That which immediately precedes this complete spiritual experience is the Vedantik doctrine and Sadhana for which all others are the propaedeutic. There is no real conflict if we look at the stage at which the particular instructions are given. Thought moves by an immanent logic from a less to a more complete realization of the true nature of the thinker. When the latter has truly known what he is, he has known what all is. Vedayite iti Vedah. "Veda is that by which what is, and what is true, is made known."

Whilst the Smritis of the Seers vary and therefore only those are to be accepted which are in conformity with the Standard of true experience or Veda, it is to be remembered that because a Seer such as Kapila Adividvan (upon whose Smriti or experience that Samkhya is assumed to be founded) teaches Dvaitavada, it does not (in the Hindu view) follow that he had not himself reached a higher stage, such as Advaitavada is claimed to be. A Seer may choose to come down to the level of more ordinary people and teach a Dvaitavada suited to their capacity (Adhikara). If all were to teach the highest experience there would be none to look after those who were incapable of it, and who must be led up through the necessary preliminary stages. Samkhya is the science of analysis and discrimination, and therefore the preparation for Vedanta which is the science of synthesis and assimilation. Kapila, Gautama and Kanada mainly built on reason deepened and enlarged, it may be, by Smriti or subjective experience. We do not find in them any complete synthesis of Shruti. A general appeal is made to Shruti and a few texts are cited which accord with what (whether it was so in fact to them or not) is in fact a provisionally adopted point of view. They concentrate the thoughts and wills of their disciples on them, withholding (if they themselves have gone further) the rest, as not at present suited to the capacity of the Shishya, thus following what Shamkara calls Arundhatidarshana-nyaya. Nevertheless the higher truth is immanent in the lower. The Differential and Integral Calculus are involved in elementary Algebra and Geometry because the former generalize what the latter particularize. But the teacher of elementary Mathematics in the lower forms of a school would only confound his young learners if he were to introduce such a general theorem (as say Taylor's) to them. He must keep back the other until the time is ripe for them. Again the great Teachers teach whole-heartedness and thoroughness in both belief and action, without which the acceptance of a doctrine is useless. Hence a teacher of Dvaitavada, though himself Advaitadarshi, presents Dvaita to the Adhikari Shishya in such a forcible way that his reason may be convinced and his interest may be fully aroused. It is useless to say to a Sadhaka on the lower plane: "Advaita is the whole truth. Dvaita is not; but though it is not, it is suited to your capacity and therefore accept it." He will of course say that he does not then want Dvaita, and being incapable of understanding Advaita, will lose himself. This, I may observe, one of the causes of Skepticism to-day. In the olden time it was possible to teach a system without anything being known of that which was higher. But with printing of books some people learn that all is Maya, that Upasana is for the "lower" grades and so forth, and, not understanding what all this means, are disposed to throw Shastric teaching in general overboard. This they would not have done if they had been first qualified in the truth of their plane and thus become qualified to understand the truth of that which is more advanced. Until Brahma-sakshatkara, all truth is relative. Hence, Bhagavan in the Gita says: "Na buddhi-bhedam janayed ajñanam karma sanginam." Tradition supports these views. Therefore Vyasa, Kapila, Gautama, Jaimini, Kanada and others have differently taught, though they may have possibly experienced nearly similarly. Jaimini in his Purva Mimamsa differs in several respects from Vyasa or Badarayana in his Uttara-Mimamsa though he was the disciple of the latter. Vyasa is Advaita-darshi in Vedanta but Dvaita-darshi in Yoga-bhashya. Is it to be supposed, that the Shishya was Anadhikari, and that his Guru, therefore, withheld the higher truth from him, or was the Guru jealous and kept his Shishya in actions, withholding Brahma-jñana?

A Rishi who has realized Advaita may teach Ayurveda or Dhanuveda. He need not be Sthula-darshi, because he teaches Sthula-vishaya. Again Shastras may differ, because their standpoint and objective is different. Thus the Purva-mimamsa deals with Dharma-jignasa, stating that Veda is practical and enjoins duties, so that a Text which does not directly or indirectly mean or impose a duty is of no account. The Uttara-mimamsa, on the other hand, deals with Brahma-jignasa and therefore in the Sutra 'Tattu samanvayat' it is laid down that a Mantra is relevant, though it may not impose a duty ("Do this or do not do this") but merely produces a Jñana (Know this, "That Thou art"). The difference in interpretation is incidental to difference in standpoint and objective. The same remarks apply to the various forms of Advaita such as Vishishtadvaita, Shuddhadvaita; between the Shaktivada of the Shakta Agama and Vivarttavada. In some Shastras stress is laid on Karma, in others on Bhakti, and yet in others on Jñana as in the case of Mayavada. But though the emphasis is differently placed, each is involved in the other and ultimately, meet and blend. The Mahimnastava says: "Though men, according to their natures, follow differing paths, Thou art the end of all, as is the ocean of all the rivers which flow thereto." Madhusudana Sarasvati commenting on this, has written his Prasthanabheda, the reconciliation of varying doctrines. To-day the greatest need in these matters is (for those who are capable of understanding) the establishment of this intellectual and spiritual Whole (Purna). The Seers who live in the exalted Sphere of Calm, understand the worth and significance of each form of spiritual culture as also their Synthesis, and to the degree that lesser minds attain this level to this extent they will also do so. Whilst the lower mind lives in a section of the whole fact and therefore sees difference and conflict, the illumined who live in and have in varying degrees experience of the Fact itself, see all such as related parts of an Whole.

é INDEX é

The Sarvollasa, a copy of which came into my possession some three years ago, is a rare MS. It is a Samgraha by the Sarvavidyasiddha Sarvanandanatha who, though celebrated amongst the Bengal followers of the Agama, is I should think, almost unknown to the general public. There is a life in Sanskrit of Sarvanandanatha entitled Sarvanandataramgini by his son Shivanatha in which an account of the attainment of his Siddhi is given and I am indebted in respect of this article to a short unpublished memoir by Sj. Dinesha Candra Bhattacaryya, formerly Research Scholar, who as a native of Tipperah has had the desire to see Sarvanandanatha's place in the History of the so-called "Tantricism" in Bengal duly recognized.

It is said that Sarvananda had striven for Siddhi for seven previous births and a verse preserves the names of the places where he died in these successive lives. His grandfather Vasudeva originally lived at Purvasthali in the Burdwan district but was led by a divine call to Mehar in Tipperah where in ages past Matanga Muni had done Tapas. A deep hole is still shown as being of Matanga's time. It is also said that round about the place where Sarvanandanatha performed his Shavasadhana, adept Sadhakas even now discover the hidden Linga established by Matanga marked out by equally hidden barriers or Kilakas.

Vasudeva then went to Kamakhya where he died after undergoing severe Tapas. He left his son at Mehar who himself afterwards had a son, the grandson of Vasudeva. In fact it is said that the grandfather Vasudeva was reborn as the son of his own son, that is, as Sarvananda. In early life the latter was stupid and illiterate. He was sharply rebuked by the local Rajah for his ignorance in proclaiming a New Moon day to be Full Moon day. Being severely punished by his relatives he determined to begin his letters and went out to search for the necessary palm-leaves. There in the jungle he met a Samnyasi, who was Mahadeva himself in that form and who whispered in his ears a Mantra and gave him certain instructions. His servant Puna was an advanced Sadhaka, who had been psychically developed under Vasudeva. Puna separating the subtle (Sukshmadeha) from the gross body, served as a corpse on the back of which Sarvananda performed Shavasadhana and attained Siddhi that same new moon night on which to the amazement of all a perfect moon shone over Mehar. This full moon episode is popularly the most famous of Sarvananda's wonders.

Some time after Sarvananda left Mehar after having given utterance to the curse that his own family would die out in the 22nd, and that of the local chief in the 15th generation. This last announcement is said to have come true as the Rajah's descendant in the fifteenth generation actually died without issue, though the family survives through his adopted son. Sarvananda started for Benares but stopped at Senhati in Jessore where he was compelled to marry again and where he lived for some years. His place of worship at Senhati is still shown. At the age of 50 he went to Benares with his servant Puna and nephew Sadananda. At Benares the Shaiva Dandins were then, as now, predominant. He quarreled with them, or they with him, on account of his doctrines and practice.

In return for their treatment of him, he to their awe and possibly disgust, converted (so it is said) their food into meat and wine. Of course the Benares Dandins, as is usual in such cases, give a different account of the matter. Their tradition is that, after a Shastric debate, Sarvananda was convinced by the Dandins that the Siddhi which he boasted of was no real Siddhi at all and was then made a convert to their own doctrines, which is the most satisfactory of all results for the men of piety who wrangle with others and try to make them come over to their views. It is worthy of note how quarrelsome in all ages many of the pious and wonder-workers have been. But perhaps we do not hear so much of the quieter sages who lived and let others live, diffusing their views not amongst those who were satisfied with what they knew or thought they knew, but among such as had not found and therefore sought.

After this event Sarvananda disappeared from Benares which rather points to the fact that the Dandins did not acquire a distinguished adversary for their community. Tradition is silent as to what happened to him later and as to the date and place of his end.

Sj. Dinesh Chandra Bhattacarya has made for me a calculation as to the date of Sarvananda's Siddhi which fell on a Pausha Samkranti corresponding to Caturdasi or Amavasya falling on a Friday. Between 1200 and 1700 A.D. there are three dates on which the above combination took place, viz., 1342, 1426 and 1548 A.D. The first date is toe early as 15 or 16 generations, to which his family descends at present, does not carry us so far back. The last date seems too late. For according to tradition Janakivallabha Gurvvacarya, himself a famous Siddha, and fifth in descent from Sarvananda, was a contemporary of one of the "twelve Bhuiyas" of Bengal late in the reign of Akbar (circ. 1600 A.D.). The date 1426 A.D. is therefore adopted. It will thus appear that he lived about a century before the three great Bengal Tantrikas, namely, Krishnananda, Brahmananda and Purnananda, all of whom are of the 16th century. But this calculation has still to be verified by data culled from an examination of the Sarvollasa such as the authorities which its author cites.

This last work, I am told, is that by which he is best known. Two other short Tantrika works are ascribed to a Sarvananda though whether it is the same Siddha is not certain. There is, I am told, a Navarnapujapaddhati by Sarvanandanatha in a MS dated 1668 Vikramabda in the Raghunath Temple Library in Kashmir, and another work the Tripurarcanadipika is reported from the Central Provinces.

As is usual in such cases there is a legend that Sarvananda is still living by Kayavyuha in some hidden resort of Siddha-purushas. The author of the memoir, from which I quote, tells of a Sadhu who said to my informant that some years ago he met Sarvanandanatha in a place called Campakaranya but only for a few minutes, for the Sadhu was himself miraculously wafted elsewhere.

Some very curious reading of deep interest to the psychologist, the student of psychic phenomena and the historian of religions is to be found in the stories which are told of Sadhus and Siddhas of Sarvananda's type who, whether they did all that is recounted of them or not, yet lived so strangely, as for instance, to take another case, that of Brahmananda the author of the Shaktanandatarangini who going in his youth in quest of a prostitute, found in the house he entered and in the woman who came to him his own mother, herself the victim of a Mussulman ravisher. It was the horror of this encounter which converted his mind and led him to become a Sadhu, during which life he did Dhyana in the body of a dead and rotting elephant and the other things related of him. They await collection. But when their value has been discovered possibly these traditions may have disappeared. Even if all the facts related of these Sadhus and Siddhas were the work of imagination (and whilst some of them may be so, others are in all probability true enough) they are worth preservation as such. The history of the human mind is as much a fact as anything which is reverenced because it is "objective". This last class of fact is generally only the common experience. It is attractive, yet sometimes fearsome, to follow the mind's wanderings both in the light and in that curious dark, which only explorers in these paths know. If one does not lose one's way (and in this lies a peril) we emerge with a confidence in ourselves at having passed a test -- a confidence which will serve our future. In any case as I have said there is an opportunity of research for those whose workings are in the outer crust of mere historical fact.

é INDEX é

Cit-Shakti is Cit, as Shakti, that is as Power, or that aspect of Cit in which it is, through its associated Maya-Shakti, operative to create the universe. It is a commonly accepted doctrine that the ultimate Reality is Samvid, Caitanya or Cit.

But what is Cit? There is no word in the English language which adequately describes it. It is not mind: for mind is a limited instrument through which Cit is manifested. It is that which is behind the mind and by which the mind itself is thought, that is created. The Brahman is mindless (Amanah). I f we exclude mind we also exclude all forms of mental process, conception, perception, thought, reason, will, memory, particular sensation and the like. We are then left with three available words, namely, Consciousness, Feeling, Experience. To the first term there are several objections. For if we use an English word, we must understand it according to its generally received meaning. Generally by "Consciousness" is meant self-consciousness, or at least something particular, having direction and form, which is concrete and conditioned; an evolved product marking the higher stages of Evolution. According to some, it is a mere function of experience, an epiphenomenon, a mere accident of mental process. In this sense it belongs only to the highly developed organism and involves a subject attending to an object of' which, as of itself, it is conscious. We are thus said to have most consciousness when we are awake (Jagrat avastha) and have full experience of all objects presented to us; less so when dreaming (Svapna avastha) and deep anesthesia in true dreamless sleep (Sushupti). I may here observe that recent researches show that this last state is not so common as is generally supposed. That is complete dreamlessness is rare; there being generally some trace of dream. In the last state it is commonly said that consciousness has disappeared, and so of course it has, if we first define consciousness in terms of the waking state and of knowledge of objects. According to Indian notions there is a form of conscious experience in the deepest sleep expressed in the well-known phrase "Happily I slept, I knew nothing". The sleeper recollects on waking that his state has been one of happiness. And he cannot recollect unless there has been a previous experience (Anubhava) which is the subject-matter of memory. In ordinary parlance we do not regard some low animal forms, plants or mineral as "conscious". It is true that now in the West there is (due to the spread of ideas long current in India) growing up a wider use of the term "consciousness" in connection not only with animal but vegetable and mineral life, but it cannot be said the term "consciousness" has yet generally acquired this wide signification. If then we use (as for convenience we do) the term "Consciousness" for Cit, we must give it a content different from that which is attributed to the term in ordinary English parlance. Nextly, it is to be remembered that what in either view we understand by consciousness is something manifested, and therefore limited, and derived from our finite experience. The Brahman as Cit is the infinite substratum of that. Cit in itself (Svarupa) is not particular nor conditioned and concrete. Particularity is that aspect in which it manifests as, and through, Maya-Shakti. Cit manifests as Jñana-Shakti which, when used otherwise than as a loose synonym for Cit, means knowledge of objects. Cit-Svarupa is neither knowledge of objects nor self-consciousness in the phenomenal sense. Waking, dreaming and dreamless slumber are all phenomenal states in which experience varies; such variance being due not to Cit but to the operation or cessation of particular operation of the vehicles of mind (Antahkarana) and sense (Indriya). But Cit never disappears nor varies in either of the three states, but remains one and the same through all. Though Cit-Svarupa is not a knowledge of objects in the phenomenal sense, it is not, according to Shaiva-Shakta views (I refer always to Advaita Shaiva-darshana), a mere abstract knowing (Jñana) wholly devoid of content. It contains within itself the Vimarsha-Shakti which is the cause of phenomenal objects, then existing in the form of Cit (Cidrupini). The Self then knows the Self. Still less can we speak of mere 'awareness" as the equivalent of Cit. A worm or meaner form of animal may be said to be vaguely aware. In fact mere "awareness" (as we understand that term) is a state of Cit in which it is seemingly overwhelmed by obscuring Maya-Shakti in the form of Tamoguna. Unless therefore we give to "awareness," as also to consciousness, a content, other than that with which our experience furnishes us, both terms are unsuitable. In some respects Cit can be more closely described by Feeling, which seems to have been the most ancient meaning of the term Cit. Feeling is more primary, in that it is only after we have been first affected by something that we become conscious of it. Feeling has thus been said to be the raw material of thought, the essential element in the Self, what we call personality being a particular form of feeling. Thus in Samkhya, the Gunas are said to be in the nature of happiness (Sukha), sorrow (Dukha) and illusion (Moha) as they are experienced by the Purusha-Consciousness. And in Vedanta, Cit and Ananda or Bliss or Love are one. For Consciousness then is not consciousness of being (Sat) but Being-Consciousness (Sat-Cit); nor a Being which is conscious of Bliss (Ananda) but Being-Consciousness-Bliss (Sacchidananda). Further, "feeling" has this advantage that it is associated with all forms of organic existence even according to popular usage, and may scientifically be aptly applied to inorganic matter. Thus whilst most consider it to be an unusual and strained use of language, to speak of the consciousness of a plant or stone, we can and do speak of the feeling or sentiency of a plant. Further the response which inorganic matter makes to stimuli is evidence of the existence therein of that vital germ of life and sentiency (and therefore Cit) which expands into the sentiency of plants, and the feelings and emotions of animals and men. It is possible for any form of unintelligent being to feel, however obscurely. And it must do so, if its ultimate basis is Cit and Ananda, however veiled by Maya-Shakti these may be. The response which inorganic matter makes to stimuli is the manifestation of Cit through the Sattvaguna of Maya-Shakti, or Shakti in its form as Prakriti-Shakti. The manifestation is slight and apparently mechanical because of the extreme predominance of the Tamoguna in the same Prakriti-Shakti. Because of the limited and extremely regulated character of the movement which seems to exclude all volitional process as known to us, it is currently assumed that we have merely to deal with what is an unconscious mechanical energy. Because vitality is so circumscribed and seemingly identified with the apparent mechanical process, we are apt to assume mere unconscious mechanism. But as a fact this latter is but the form assumed by the conscious Vital Power which is in and works in all matter whatever it be. To the eye, however, unassisted by scientific instruments, which extend our capacity for experience, establishing artificial organs for the gaining thereof, the matter appears Jada (or unconscious); and both in common English and Indian parlance we call that alone living or Jiva which, as organized matter, is endowed with body and senses. Philosophically, however, as well as scientifically, all is Jivatma which is not Paramatma: everything in fact with form, whether the form exists as the simple molecule of matter, or as the combination of these simple forms into cells and greater organisms. The response of metallic matter is a form of sentiency -- its germinal form -- a manifestation of Cit intensely obscured by the Tamoguna of Prakriti-Shakti.

In plants Cit is less obscured, and there is the sentient life which gradually expands in animals and men, according as Cit gains freedom of manifestation through the increased operation of Sattvaguna in the vehicles of Cit; which vehicles are the mind and senses and the more elaborate organization of the bodily particles. What is thus mere incipient or germinal sentiency, simulating unconscious mechanical movement in inorganic matter, expands by degrees into feeling akin, though at first remotely, to our own, and into all the other psychic functions of consciousness, perception, reasoning, memory and will. The matter has been very clearly put in a Paper on "The Four Cosmic Elements" by C. G. Sander which (subject to certain reservations stated) aptly describes the Indian views on the subject in hand. He rightly says that sentiency is an integrant constituent of all existence, physical as well as metaphysical and its manifestation can be traced throughout the mineral and chemical as well as vegetable and animal worlds. It essentially comprises the functions of relationship to environment, response to stimuli, and atomic memory in the lower or inorganic plane; whilst in the higher or organic planes it includes all the psychic functions such as consciousness, perception, thought, reason, volition and individual memory. Inorganic matter through the inherent element of sentiency is endowed with aesthesia or capacity of feeling and response to physical and chemical stimuli such as light, temperature, sound, electricity, magnetism and the action of chemicals. All such phenomena are examples of the faculty of perception and response to outside stimuli of matter. We must here include chemical sentiency and memory; that is the atom's and molecule's remembrance of its own identity and behavior therewith. Atomic memory does not, of course, imply self-consciousness, but only inherent group-spirit which responds in a characteristic way to given outside stimuli. We may call it atomic or physical consciousness. The consciousness of plants is only trance-like (what the Hindu books call 'Comatose') though some of the higher aspects of sentiency (and we may here use the word 'consciousness') of the vegetable world are highly interesting: such as the turning of flowers to the sun; the opening and shutting of leaves and petals at certain times, sensitiveness to the temperature and the obvious signs of consciousness shewn by the sensitive and insectivorous plants, such as the Sundew, the Venus Flytrap, and others. The micro-organisms which dwell on the borderland between the vegetable and animal worlds have no sense organs, but are only endowed with tactile irritability, yet they are possessed of psychic life, sentiency, and inclination, whereby they perceive their environment and position, approach, attack and devour food, flee from harmful substances and reproduce by division. Their movements appear to be positive, not reflex. Every cell, both vegetable and animal, possesses a biological or vegetative consciousness, which in health is polarized or subordinate to the government of the total organism of which it forms an integral part; but which is locally impaired in disease and ceases altogether at the death of the organism. In plants, however, (unlike animals) the cellular consciousness is diffused or distributed amongst the tissues or fibers; there being apparently no special conducting or centralizing organs of consciousness such as we find in higher evolutionary forms. Animal consciousness in its highest modes becomes self-consciousness. The psychology of the lower animals is still the field of much controversy; some regarding these as Cartesian machines and others ascribing to them a high degree of psychic development. In the animals there is an endeavor at centralization of consciousness which reaches its most complex stage in man, the possessor of the most highly organized system of consciousness, consisting of the nervous system and its centers and functions, such as the brain and solar plexus, the site of Ajña and upper centers, and of the Manipura Cakra. Sentiency or feeling is a constituent of all existence. We may call it consciousness however, if we understand (with the author cited) the term "consciousness" to include atomic or physical consciousness, the trance consciousness of plant life, animal consciousness and man's completed self-consciousness.

The term Sentiency or Feeling, as the equivalent of manifested Cit, has, however, this disadvantage: whereas intelligence and consciousness are terms for the highest attributes of man's nature, mere sentiency, though more inclusive and common to all, is that which we share with the lowest manifestions. In the case of both terms, however, it is necessary to remember that they do not represent Cit-Svarupa or Cit as It is in itself. The term Svarupa (own form) is employed to convey the notion of what constitutes anything what it is, namely, its true nature as it is in itself. Thus, though the Brahman or Shiva manifests in the form of the world as Maya-Shakti, its Svarupa is pure Cit.

Neither sentiency nor consciousness, as known to us, is Cit-Svarupa. They are only limited manifestations of Cit just as reason, will, emotion and memory, their modes are. Cit is the background of all forms of experience which are its modes, that is Cit veiled by Maya-Shakti; Cit-Svarupa is never to be confounded with, or limited to, its particular modes. Nor is it their totality, for whilst it manifests in these modes It yet, in Its own nature, infinitely transcends them. Neither sentiency, consciousness, nor any other term borrowed from a limited and dual universe can adequately describe what Cit is in Itself (Svarupa). Vitality, mind, matter are its limited manifestations in form. These forms are ceaselessly changing, but the undifferentiated substratum of which they are particularized modes is changeless. That eternal, changeless, substratum is Cit,, which may thus be defined as the changeless principle of all our changing experience. All is Cit, clothing itself in forms by its own Power of Cit-Shakti and Maya-Shakti: and that Power is not different from Itself. Cit is not the subject of knowledge or speech. For as the Varaha Upanishad (Chap. IV) says it is "The Reality which remains after all thoughts are given up." What it is in Itself, is unknown but to those who become It. It is fully realized only in the highest state of Ecstasy (Samadhi) and in bodiless liberation (Videha Mukti) when Spirit is free of its vehicles of mind and matter. A Modern Indian Philosopher has (See "Approaches to Truth" and the "Patent Wonder" by Professor Pramathanatha Mukhyopadhyaya) very admirably analyzed the notion of the universal Ether of Consciousness (Cidakasha) and the particular Stress formed in it by the action of Maya-Shakti. In the first place, he points out that logical thought is inherently dualistic and therefore pre-supposes a subject and object. Therefore to the pragmatic eye of the western, viewing the only experience known to him, consciousness is always particular having a particular form and direction. Hence where no direction or form is discernible, they have been apt to imagine that consciousness as such has also ceased. Thus if it were conceded that in profounded sleep there were no dreams, or if in perfect anesthesia it were granted that nothing particular was felt, it was thereby considered to be conceded that consciousness may sometimes cease to exist in us. What does in fact cease is the consciousness of objects which we have in the waking and dreaming states. Consciousness as such is neither subjective nor objective and is not identical with intelligence or understanding -- that is with directed or informed consciousness. Any form of unintelligent being which feels, however chaotically it may be, is yet, though obscurely so (in the sense here meant) conscious. Pure consciousness, that is consciousness as such, is the background of every form of experience.

In practical life and in Science and Philosophy when swayed by pragmatic ends, formless experience has no interest, but only certain forms and tones of life and consciousness. Where these are missed we are apt to fancy that we miss life and feeling-consciousness also. Hence the essential basis of existence or Cit has been commonly looked upon as a very much specialized and peculiar manifestation in nature.

On the contrary, Cit is Being or Reality itself. Cit as such is identical with Being as such. The Brahman is both Cit and Sat. Though in ordinary experience Being and Feeling-Consciousness are essentially bound up together, they still seem to diverge from each other. Man by his very constitution inveterately believes in an objective existence beyond and independent of his self. And this is so, so long as he is subject to the veil (Maya-Shakti). But in that ultimate basis of experience which is the Paramatma the divergence has gone; for the same boundless substratum which is the continuous mass of experience is also that which is experienced. The self is its own object. To the exalted Yogin the whole universe is not different from himself as Atma. This is the path of the "upward-going" Kundali (Urddhva-Kundalini).

Further, there has been a tendency in fact to look upon consciousness as a mere function of experience; and the philosophy of unconscious ideas and mind-stuff would even go so far as to regard it as a mere accident of mental process. This is to reverse the actual facts.

Consciousness should rather be taken as an original datum than as a later development and peculiar manifestation. We should begin with it in its lowest forms, and explain its apparent pulse-life by extending the principle of veiling (Maya-Shakti) which is ceaselessly working in man, reducing his life to an apparent series of pulses also. An explanation which does not start with this primordial extensity of experience cannot expect to end with it. For if it be not positive at the beginning, it cannot be derived at the end.

But what, it may be asked, is the proof of such pure experience? Psychology which only knows changing states does not tell us of it. This is so. Yet from those states, some of which approach indifferentiation, inferences may be drawn; and experience is not limited to such states, for it may transcend them.

It is true that ordinarily we do not meet with a condition of consciousness which is without a direction or form; but tests drawn from the incidents of ordinary normal life are insufficient, it has been argued, to prove that there is no consciousness at all when this direction and form are supposed to have gone. Though a logical intuition will not tell its own story, we can make reflection on intuition render us some sort of account, so that the intuitive fact appears in review, when it will appear that consciousness is the basis of, indeed, existence itself, and not merely an attendant circumstance. But the only proof of pure consciousness is an instance of it. This cannot be established by mere reflection. The bare consciousness of this or that, the experience of just going to sleep and just waking, and even the consciousness of being as such, are but approximations to the state of consciousness as such, that is pure consciousness, but are not identical with it. Then, what evidence, it may be asked, have we of the fact that pure consciousness is an actual state of being? In normal life as well as in abnormal pathological states, we have occasional stretches of experience in which simplicity of feature or determination has advanced near to indifferentiation, in which experience has become almost structureless. But the limit of pure experience is not there reached. On the other hand, there is no conclusive proof that we have ever had a real lapse of consciousness in our life, and the extinction of consciousness as such is inconceivable in any case. The claim, however, that consciousness as such exists, rests not so much on logical argument as on intuitive grounds, on revelation (Shruti) and spiritual experience of the truth of that revelation.

According to Indian Monism, a Pure Principle of Experience not only is, but is the one and only ultimate permanent being or reality. It does not regard Cit as a mere function, accident, or epiphenomenon, but holds it to be the ever existing plenum which sustains and vitalizes all phenomenal existence, and is the very basis on which all forms of multiple experience, whether of sensation, instinct, will, understanding, or reason, rest. It is, in short, the unity and unchanging Reality behind all these various changing forms which, by the veil or Maya-Shakti, Jiva assumes.

The Cit-Svarupa, inadequately described as mere blissful awareness of feeling, exists, as the basis and appears in the form of, that is clothed with, mind; a term which in its general sense is not used merely in the sense of the purely mental function of reason but in the sense of all the forms in which consciousness is displayed, as distinguished from Cit Itself, which is the unity behind all these forms whether reason, sensation, emotion, instinct, or will. All these are modes wherein the plastic unformed clay of life is determined. For every conception or volition is essentially an apparent circumscription or limitation of that Sat which is the basis of phenomenal life.

Professor P. N. Mukhyopadhyaya has described pure consciousness to be an infinitude of "awareness," lacking name and form and every kind of determination, which is a state of complete quiescence where the potential is zero or infinity -- a condition without strain or tension which is at once introduced when the slightest construction is put upon it, resulting in a consciousness of bare "this" and "that". It is not a consciousness of anything. It is an experience of nothing in particular. But this must not be confounded with no experience. The former is taken to be the latter because life is pragmatic, interest being shown in particular modes of awareness. To man's life, which is little else than a system of partialities, pure experience in which there is nothing particular to observe or shun, love or hate seems practically to be no experience at all. Pure Consciousness is impartial. There is no difference (Bheda) so far as pure Awareness is concerned. Pure Consciousness is a kind of experience which stands above all antithesis of motion and rest. It does not know Itself either as changing or statical, since it is consciousness as such without any determinations or mode whatever. To know itself as changing or permanent, it must conceal its illogical and unspeakable nature in a veil (Maya). Every determination or form makes experience a directive magnitude. Consciousness then assumes a direction or special reference. It is not possible to direct and refer in a special way without inducing such a feeling of strain or tension, whether the conditions be physiological or psychological. Pure consciousness has, thus, been compared to an equipotential surface of electrical distribution. There is no difference of potentials between any two points A and R over this surface. It is a stretch of consciousness, in which there is, apparently, no sensible diversity of features, no preference, no differential incidence of subjective regard. Like the equipotential surface, such consciousness is also quiescent. To secure a flow on it. there must be a difference of potentials between any two points. Similarly, to have a reference, a direction, a movement of attention, there must be a determination in the total experience of the moment in the given mass of consciousness. Absolute quiescence is a state of consciousness. which is pure being with no special subjective direction and reference; with no difference of level and potential between one part of the experience and another. Experience will show special subjective direction and reference if it assumes at least form or determination, such as "this" or "that"; to have no difference of level or potential, experience must be strictly undifferentiated -- that is to say, must not involve the least ideal or representative structure. Absolute quiescence exists only with that Consciousness which is pure Being, or Paramatma.

With regard, however, to all descriptions of this state, it must be borne in mind that they only negatively correspond with their subject-matter by the elimination of characteristics which are peculiar to, and constitute the human consciousness of, the Jiva, and are therefore alien to the Supreme Consciousness. They give us no positive information as to the nature of pure Cit, for this is only known in Yoga by the removal of ignorance (Avidya) under which all logical thinking and speaking is done. This "ignorance" is nothing but a term for those limitations which make the creature what he is. It is a commonplace in Indian religion and philosophy that the Brahman as It exists in itself is beyond all thought and words, and is known only by the Samadhi of Yoga. As the Mahanirvana Tantra says (III. V. 6 et seq.): "The Brahman is known in two ways: from His manifestations which are the object of Sadhana or as It is in itself in Samadhiyoga": for, as Ch. XIV, V. 135 Ibid., says, Atmajñana is the one means of liberation in which Its nature is realized. It is, perhaps in part at least, because the merely negative and imperfect character of such description is not sufficiently noted that pure consciousness, as the author cited points out, has in general awakened no serious interest in the practical West; though it has been the crown of glory for some of, what have been said to be, the stateliest forms of Eastern thought, which asserts itself to be in possession of an experimental method by which the condition of pure consciousness may be realized. The question is, thus, not one of mere speculation, but of demonstration. This state, again, is believed by the East to be not a dull and dreary condition, a dry abstraction or reductio ad absurdum of all which imparts to our living its worth and significance. Not at all; since it is the first Principle in which as Power all existence is potential and from which it proceeds. It is reasonable, therefore, it is contended, to assume that all which life possesses of real worth exists in the Source of life itself. Life is only a mode of infinite Supremacy with beatitude, which is Being and Consciousness in all its metaphysical grandeur, an absolutely understandable condition which no imagination can depict and no categories can reach and possess.

Owing to the necessarily negative character of some of the descriptions of the Supreme Brahman we find such questions "How can it differ from a nullity?" (Dialogues on Hindu Philosophy, 259, by Rev. K. M. Banerjee): and the statement of the English Orientalist Colonel Jacob (whose views are akin to those of others) that "Nirvana is an unconscious (sic) and stone-like (sic) existence". Such a misconception is the more extraordinary in that it occurs in the work of an author who was engaged in the translation of a Vedantic treatise. These and many similar statements seem to establish that it is possible to make a special study of Vedanta and yet to misunderstand its primary concepts. It is true that the Brahman is unconscious in the sense that It is not our consciousness; for, if so, It would be Jiva and not Paramatma. But this is only to say that it has not our limitations. It is unlimited Cit. A stone represents its most veiled existence. In its Self it is all light and self-illumining (Svaprakasha). As Shruti says (Katha Up. 5-15) "All things shed luster by His luster. All things shine because He shines." All things depend on It: but It has not to depend on anything else for Its manifestation. It is therefore better to say with the Hamsopanishad and the Christian Gospel that It is the Peace beyond all understanding. It has been dryly remarked that "The idea that Yoga means a dull state is due, perhaps, to the misunderstanding of Patañjali's definition of it.

Man, however, ordinarily and by his nature craves for modes and forms (Bhaumananda); and though all enjoyment comes from the pure Supreme Consciousness, it is supposed that dualistic variety and polarity are necessary for enjoyment. What, thus, in its plenitude belongs to the sustaining spirit of all life is transferred to life alone. All knowledge and existence are identified with variety, change, polarity. Whilst skimming over the checkered surface of the sea, we thus, it is said, ignore the unfathomed depths which are in respose and which nothing stirs, wherein is the Supreme Peace (Santa) and Bliss (Paramananda).

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says: "Other beings live on a fraction of this great Bliss." The Bliss of Shiva and Shakti are one, for they are inseparate. Hence she is called (Trishati II. 32) Ekabhoga: for Eka = Ishvara and Bhoga = Svasvarupananda.

Nyaya and Samkhya say that the chief end of man is the absolute cessation of pain, but Vedantins, going beyond this negative definition, say that, all pain having surceased on Unity with the Supreme, the chief end is that positive Bliss which is of its essence. The Devi Kalyani, the Mother of all, is Herself Bliss -- that is, all bliss from earthly bliss (Bhaumananda) to Brahman-Bliss (Brahmananda). As the Commentator Shamkara in his commentary on the Trishati says (citing Shruti): "Who else can make us breathe, who else can make us live, if this blissful Ether were not?"

If, further, it be asked what is pure Experience which manifests itself in all these diverse forms, it must be said that from Its very definition pure Cit, or the Supreme Brahman (Parabrahman), is that about which nothing in particular can be predicated: for predication is possible only in relation to determinations or modes in consciousness. And in this sense Yogatattva Upanishad says that those who seek a knowledge of it in Shastras are deluded; "How can that which is self-shining be illuminated by the Shastras? Not even the Devas can describe that indescribable state." The Mandukya Upanishad, speaking of the fourth aspect (Pada) of Atma, says that it is the non-dual Shiva which is not an object which can be sensed, used, taken, determined (by any marks), or of which an account can be given, but is unthinkable and knowable only by the realization of Atma. Negative predication may, however, clear away improper notions. It is really inscrutable Being upon which no category can be fastened. This must always be borne in mind in any attempted definition of this transcendent state. It is of a self-existent (Niradhara), unending (Nitya), changeless (Avikari), undifferentiated (Abhinna), spaceless (Purna), timeless (Shasvata), all-pervading (Sarvatravastha), self-illumining (Svayamjyotih), pure (Shuddha) experience. As the Kularnava Tantra says (I -- 6, 7): "Shiva is the impartite Supreme Brahman, the all-knowing Creator of all." He is the stainless One and the Lord of all. He is one without a second (Advaya). He is light itself. He changes not, and is without beginning or end. He is without attribute and above the highest. He is Being (Sat), Consciousness (Cit), and Bliss (Ananda). As Sat, It is unity of being beyond the opposites of "this" and "that". "here and there," "then and now". As Cit, It is an experiencing beyond the opposites of worldly knowledge and ignorance. As Supreme Ananda, It is the Bliss which is known upon the dissolution of the dualistic state which fluctuates between, and is composed of, happiness and sorrow; for created happiness is only an impermanent change of state (Vikara) or Becoming, but the Supreme Bliss (Paramananda) endures. Bliss is the very Nature (Svarupa) of this Supreme Consciousness, and not, as with the creature, a mere changing attribute of some form of Becoming. Supreme Being (Sat) is a unity without parts (Nishkala). Supreme Feeling-Consciousness (Cit) is immediacy of experience. In the Jiva, Consciousness of Self is set over against the not-Self; for logical thought establishes a polarity of subject. Thus the undifferentiated Supreme Consciousness transcends, and the Supreme Bliss (Paramananda) is beyond, the changing feelings of happiness and sorrow. It is the great Peace (Santa) which, in the words of the Hamsopanishad (V. 12, Ed. Anandashrama, XXIX, p. 593) as of the New Testament, passes all worldly understanding. Sacchidananda, or Pure Being, persists in all the states of Becoming which are its manifestation as Shakti. It may be compared to a continuous, partless, undifferentiated Unity universally pervading the manifested world like ether or space, as opposed to the limited, discontinuous, discrete character of the forms of "matter" which are the products of its power of Shakti. It is a state of quiescence free of all motion (Nishpanda), and of that vibration (Spandana) which operating as the Primordial Energy, evolves the phenomenal world of names and forms. It is, in short, said to be the innermost Self in every being -- a changeless Reality of the nature of a purely experiencing principle (Caitanyam Atma) as distinguished from whatever may assume the form of either the experienced, or of the means of experience. This Cit in bodies underlies as their innermost Self all beings. The Cit or Atma as the underlying Reality in all is, according to Vedanta, one, and the same in all: undivided and unlimited by any of them, however much they may be separated in time and space. It is not only all-pervading, but all-transcending. It has thus a two-fold aspect: an immanent aspect as Shakti (Power), in which It pervades the universes (Saguna Brahman); and a transcendental aspect, in which It exists beyond all Its worldly manifestations (Nirguna Brahman). Cit, as it is in itself, is spaceless and timeless, extending beyond all limitations of time and space and all other categories of existence. We live in the Infinite. All limits exist in Cit. But these limits are also another aspect of It that is Shakti. It is a boundless tranquil ocean on the surface of which countless varied modes, like waves, are rising, tossing and sinking. Though It is the one Cause of the universe of relations, in itself It is neither a relation nor a totality of relations, but a completely relationless Self-identity unknowable by any logical process whatever.

Cit is the boundless permanent plenum which sustains and vitalizes everything. It is the universal Spirit, all-pervading like the Ether, which is, sustains, and illumines all experience and all process in the continuum of experience. In it the universe is born, grows and dies. This plenum or continuum is as such all-pervading, eternal, unproduced, and indestructible: for production and destruction involve the existence and bringing together and separation of parts which in an absolute partless continuum is impossible. It is necessarily in itself, that is as Cit, motionless, for no parts of an all-filling continuum can move from one place to another. Nor can such a continuum have any other form of motion, such as expansion, contraction or undulation, since all these phenomena involve the existence of parts and their displacement. Cit is one undifferentiated, partless, all-pervading, eternal, spiritual substance. In Sanskrit, this plenum is called Cidakasha; that is, just as all material things exist in the all-pervading physical Ether, so do they and the latter exist in the infinitely extending Spiritual "Ether" which is Cit. The Supreme Consciousness is thought of as a kind of permanent spiritual "Space" (Cidakasha) which makes room for and contains all varieties and forms appearing and disappearing. Space itself is an aspect of spiritual substance. It is a special posture of that stress in life which takes place in unchanging consciousness (P. Mukhyopadhyaya "The Patent Wonder," 21 -- 24). In this Ocean of Being-Consciousness we live, move and have our being. Consciousness as such (that is as distinguished from the products of Its power or Shakti), is never finite. Like space, it cannot be limited, though, through the operation of its power of self-negation or Maya-Shakti, it may appear as determined. But such apparent determinations do not ever for us express or exhaust the whole consciousness, any more than space is exhausted by the objects in it. Experience is taken to be limited because the Experiencer is swayed by a pragmatic interest which draws his attention only to particular features in the continuum. Though what is thus experienced is a part of the whole experience, the latter is felt to be an infinite expanse of consciousness or awareness in which is distinguished a definite mass of especially determined feeling.

As Cit is the infinite plenum, all limited being exists in it, and it is in all such beings as the Spirit or innermost Self and as Maya-Shakti it is their mind and body. When the existence of anything is affirmed, the Brahman is affirmed, for the Brahman is Being itself. This pure Consciousness or Cit is the Paramatma Nirguna Shiva who is Being-Consciousness-Bliss (Sacchidananda). Consciousness is Being. Paramatma, according to Advaita Vedanta, is not a consciousness of being, but Being-Consciousness. Nor is it a consciousness of Bliss, but it is Bliss. All these are one in pure Consciousness. That which is the nature of Paramatma never changes, notwithstanding the creative ideation (Srishtikalpana) which is the manifestation of Shakti as Cit-Shakti and Maya-Shakti. It is this latter Shakti which, according to the Sakta Tantra, evolves. To adopt a European analogy which is yet not complete, Nishkala Paramatma is Godhead (Brahmatva), Sakala, or Saguna Atma, is God (Ishvara). Each of the three systems Samkhya, Mayavada Vedanta, and Sakta monism agrees in holding the reality of pure consciousness (Cit). The question upon which they differ is as to whether unconsciousness is a second independent reality, as Samkhya alleges; and, if not, how the admitted appearance of unconsciousness as the Forms is to be explained consistently with the unity of the Brahman.

Such then is Cit, truly known as it is in Itself only in completed Yoga or Moksha; known only through Its manifestations in our ordinary experience, just as to use the simile of the Kaivalya Kalika Tantra, we realize the presence of Rahu or Bhucchaya (the Eclipse) by his actions on the sun and moon. The Eclipse is seen but not the cause of it. Cit-Shakti is a name for the same changeless Cit when associated in creation with its operating Maya-Shakti. The Supreme Cit is called Parasamvit in the scheme of the Thirty-six Tattvas which is adopted by both the Shaiva and Shakta Agamas.

According to Shamkara, the Supreme Brahman is defined as pure Jñana without the slightest trace of either actual or potential objectivity. The Advaita Shaiva-Shaktas regard this matter differently in accordance with an essential principle of the Agamic School with which I now deal.

All occultism whether of East or West posits the principle that there is nothing in any one state or plane which is not in some other way, actual or potential, in another state or plane. The Western Hermetic maxim runs "As above, so below". This is not always understood. The saying does not mean that what exists in one plane exists in that form in another plane. Obviously if it did the planes would be the same and not different. If Ishvara thought and felt and saw objects, in the human way, and if he was loving and wrathful, just as men are, He, would not be Ishvara but Jiva. The saying cited means that a thing which exists on one plane exists on all other planes, according either to the form of each plane, if it be an intermediate causal body (Karanavantarasharira) or ultimately as the mere potentiality of becoming which exists in Atma in its aspect as Shakti. The Hermetic maxim is given in another form in the Visvasara Tantra: "What is here is elsewhere. What is not here is nowhere" (Yadihasti tad anyatra. Yannehasti na tat kvacit). Similarly the northern Shaiva Shastra says that what appears without only so appears because it exists within. One can only take out of a receptacle what is first assumed to be within it. What is in us must in some form be in our cause. If we are living, though finite forms, it is because that cause is infinite Being. If we have knowledge, though limited, it is because our essential substance is Cit the Illuminator. If we have bliss, though united with sorrow, it is because It is Supreme Bliss. In short, our experience must exist in germ in it. This is because in the Sakta Agama, there is for the worshipper a real creation and, therefore, a real nexus between the Brahman as cause and the world as effect. According to the transcendent method of Shamkara, there is not in the absolute sense any such nexus. The notion of creation by Brahman is as much Maya as the notion of the world created.

Applying these principles we find in our dual experience an "I" (Aham) or subject which experiences an object a "This" (Idam): that is the universe or any particular object of the collectively which composes it. Now it is said that the duality of "I" and "This" comes from the One which is in its essential nature (Svarupa) an unitary experience without such conscious distinction. For Vedanta, whether in its Mayavada or Sakta form, agrees in holding that in the Supreme there is no consciousness of objects such as exists on this plane. The Supreme does not see objects outside Itself, for it is the whole and the experience of the whole as Ishvara. It sees all that is as Itself. It is Purna or the Whole. How then, it may be asked, can a supreme, unchanging, partless, formless, Consciousness produce from Itself something which is so different from Itself, something which is changing, with parts, form and so forth. Shamkara's answer is that transcendentally, it does not produce anything. The notion that it does so is Maya. What then is his Maya? This I have more fully explained in my papers on "Maya-Shakti" and on "Maya and Shakti". I will only here say that his Maya is an unexplainable (anirvacaniya) principle of unconsciousness which is not real, not unreal, and partly either; which is an eternal falsity (Mithyabhuta sanatani), which, though not Brahman, is inseparably associated with It in Its aspect as Ishvara; which Maya has Brahman for its support (Maya Brahmashrita); from which support it draws appearance of separate independent reality which in truth it does not possess. The Parabrahman aspect of the One is not associated with Maya.

According to the Sakta exposition of Advaitavada, Maya is not an unconscious (jada) principle but a particular Shakti of Brahman. Being Shakti, it is at base consciousness, but as Maya-Shakti it is Consciousness veiling Itself. Shakti and Shaktiman are one and the same: that is, Power and its Possessor (Shaktiman). Therefore Maya-Shakti is Shiva or Cit in that particular aspect which He assumes as the material cause (Upadanakarana) in creation. Creation is real; that is, there is a direct causal nexus between Shiva as Shakti (Cit-Shakti and Maya-Shakti) and the universe. In short Shiva as Shakti is the cause of the universe, and as Shakti, in the form of Jiva (all manifested forms, He actually evolves. Comparing these two views; -- Shamkara says that there is in absolute truth no creation and therefore there can be no question how it arose. This is because he views the problem from the transcendental (Paramarthika) standpoint of self-realization or Siddhi. The Sakta Shastra, on the other hand, being a practical Sadhana Shastra views the matter from our, that is the Jiva, standpoint. To us the universe and ourselves are real. And Ishvara the Creator is real. Therefore there is a creation, and Shiva as Shakti creates by evolving into the Universe, and then appearing as all Jivas. This is the old Upanishadic doctrine of the spider actually evolving the web from itself, the web being its substance in that form. A flower cannot be raised from seed unless the flower was in some way already there. Therefore as there is an "Aham" and "Idam" in our experience, in some way it is in the supreme experience of Parashiva or Parasamvit. But the Idam or Universe is not there as with us; otherwise It would be Jiva. Therefore it is said that there are two principles or aspects in the Brahman, namely, that Prakasha or Cit aspect, and Vimarsha Shakti, the potential Idam, which in creation explicates into the Universe. But in the supreme experience or Amarsha, Vimarsha Shakti (which has two states) is in Its supreme form. The subtler state is in the form of consciousness (Cidrupini); the gross state is in the form of the Universe (Vishvarupini). The former is beyond the universe (Vishvottirna). But if Vimarsha Shakti is there in the form of consciousness (Cidrupini), it is one with Cit. Therefore it is said that the Aham and Idam, without ceasing to be in the supreme experience, are in supreme Shiva in undistinguishable union as Cit and Cidrupini. This is the Nirguna state of Shivashakti. As She is then in undistinguishable union with Shiva, She is then also simple unmanifested Cit. She is then Caitanya-rupa or Cidrupini: a subtle Sanskrit expression which denotes that She is the same as Cit and yet suggests that though in a present sense She is one with Him, She is yet in a sense (with reference to Her potentiality of future manifestation) different from Him. She is Sacchidanandamayi and He is Sacchidananda. She is then the unmanifested universe in the form of undifferentiated Cit. The mutual relation, whether in manifestation or beyond it, whether as the imperfect or Ideal universe, is one of inseparable connection or inherence (Avinabhava-sambandha, Samanvaya) such as that between "I-ness" (Ahanta) and "I" (Aham), existence and that which exists (Bhava, Bhavat), an attribute and that in which it inheres (Dharma, Dharmin), sunshine and the sun and so forth. The Pañcaratra School of the Vaishnava Agama or Tantra, speaking of the Mahashakti Lakshmi says, that in Her supreme state She is undistinguishable from the "Windless Atmosphere" (Vasudeva) existing only as it were in the form of "darkness" and "emptiness" (that is of unmanifested formlessness). So the Mahanirvana Tantra speaks of Her "dark formlessness". In the Kulacudamani Nigama, Devi says (I. 16-24) -- "I, though in the form of Prakriti, rest in consciousness-bliss' (Aham prakritirupa cet cidanandaparayana). Raghava Bhatta in his commentary on the Sharada Tilaka (Ch. I) says, "She who is eternal existed in a subtle (that is unmanifested) state, as consciousness, during the final dissolution" (Ya anadirupa caitanyadhyasena mahapralaye sukshma sthita). It would be simpler to say that She is then what She is (Svarupa) namely Consciousness, but in creation that consciousness veils itself. These terms "formless," "subtle," "dark," "empty," all denote the same unmanifested state in which Shakti is in undistinguishable union with Shiva, the formless consciousness. The Pañcaratra (Ahirbudhnya Samhita, Ch. IV), in manner similar to that of the other Agamas, describes the supreme state of Shakti in the dissolution of the Universe as one in which manifested Shakti "returns to the condition of Brahman" (Brahmabhavam brajate). "Owing to complete intensity of embrace" (Atisankleshat) the two all-pervading ones, Narayana and His Shakti, become as it were a single principle (Ekam tattvam iva). This return to the Brahman condition is said to take place in the same way as a conflagration, when there is no more combustible matter, returns to the latent condition of fire (Vahni-bhava). There is the same fire in both cases but in one case there is the activity of combustion and in the other there is not. It follows from this that the Supreme Brahman is not a mere knowing with out trace of objectivity. In It the Aham is the Self as Cit and the Idam is provided by Cidrupini-shakti. There is Atmarama or play of the Self with the Self in which the Self knows and enjoys the Self, not in the form of external objects, but as that aspect of consciousness whose projection all objects are. Shakti is always the object of the Self and one with it. For the object is always the Self, since there is nothing but the Self. But in the supreme experience the object is one in nature with Shiva being Caitanya-rupa; in the universe the object seems to the Jiva, the creation of and subject to Maya, to be different from the Self as mind and matter.

The next point is the nature of creation or rather emanation (Abhasa) for the former term is associated with dualistic notions of an extra-Cosmic God, who produces a world which is as separate from Himself as is the pot from the potter. According to this doctrine there is an Evolution of Consciousness or Cit-Shakti (associated with Maya-Shakti) into certain forms. This is not to say that the Brahman is wholly transformed into its emanations, that is exhausted by them. The Brahman is infinite and can never, therefore, be wholly held in this sense in any form, or in the universe as a whole. It always transcends the universe. Therefore when Consciousness evolves, it nevertheless does not cease to be what it was, is, and will be. The Supreme Cit becomes as Shakti the universe but still remains supreme Cit. In the same way every stage of the emanation-process prior to the real evolution (Parinama of Prakriti) remains what it is, whilst giving birth to a new Evolution. In Parinama or Evolution as known to us on this plane, when one thing is evolved into another, it ceases to be what it was. Thus when milk is changed into curd, it ceases to be milk. The Evolution from Shiva-Shakti of the Pure Tattvas is not of this kind. It is an Abhasa or "shining forth," adopting the simile of the sun which shines without (it was supposed) change in, or diminution of, its light. This unaffectedness in spite of its being the material cause is called in the Pañcaratra by the term Virya, a condition which, the Vaishnava Lakshmi Tantra says, is not found in the world "where milk quickly loses its nature when curds appear." It is a process in which one flame springs from another flame. Hence it is called "Flame to Flame". There is a second Flame but the first from which it comes is unexhausted and still there. The cause remains what it was and yet appears differently in the effect. God is never "emptied" as it is said wholly into the world. Brahman is ever changeless in one aspect; in another It changes, such change being as it were a mere point of stress in the infinite Ether of Cit. This Abhasa, therefore, is a form of Vivartta, distinguishable however from the Vivartta of Mayavada, because in the Agama, whether Vaishnava, or Shakta, the effect is regarded as real, whereas according to Shamkara, it is only empirically so. Hence the latter system is called Sat-karanavada or the doctrine of the reality of the original source or basis of things, and not also of the apparent effects of the cause. This Abhasa has been called Sadrisha Parinama (See Introduction to Principles of Tantra, Part II), a term borrowed from the Samkhya but which is not altogether appropriate. In the latter Philosophy, the term is used in connection with the state of the Gunas of Prakriti in dissolution when nothing is produced. Here on the contrary we are dealing with creation and an evolving Power-Consciousness. It is only appropriate to this extent that, as in Shadrisa Parinama there is no real evolution or objectivity, so also there is none in the evolution of the Tattvas until Maya intervenes and Prakriti really evolves the objective universe.

This being the nature of the Supreme Shiva and of the evolution of consciousness, this doctrine assumes, with all others,. a transcendent and a creative or immanent aspect of Brahman. The first is Nishkala Shiva; the second Sakala Shiva; or Nirguna Saguna; Parama, Apara (in Shamkara's parlance); Paramatma, Ishvara; and Paramabrahman, Shabdabrahman. From the second or changing aspect the universe is born. Birth means 'manifestation'. Manifestation to what'? The answer is to consciousness. But there is nothing but Cit. Creation is then the evolution whereby the changeless Cit through the power of its Maya-Shakti appears to Itself in the form of limited objects. All is Shiva whether as subject or object.

This evolution of consciousness is described in the scheme of the Thirty-six Tattvas.

Shamkara and Samkhya speak of the 24 Tattvas from Prakriti to Prithivi. Both Shaivas and Shaktas speak of the Thirty-six Tattvas, showing, by the extra number of Tattvas, how Purusha and Prakriti themselves originated. The northern or Advaita Shaiva Agama and the Sakta Agama are allied, though all Shaiva Scriptures adopt the same Tattvas. In all the Agamas whether Vaishnava, Shaiva, or Shakta, there are points of doctrine which are the same or similar. The Vaishnava Pañcaratra, however, moves in a different sphere of thought. It speaks in lieu of the Abhasa here described of four Vyuha or forms of Narayana, viz., Vasudeva, Samkarshana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. The Thirty-six Tattvas are the 24 from Prithivi to Prakriti together with (proceeding upwards) Purusha, Maya and the five Kañcukas (Kala, Kala, Niyati, Vidya, Raga), Shuddhavidya (or Sad-vidya), Shakti, Shiva. These are divided into three groups named Shiva Tattva, Vidya Tattva, Atma Tattva, and Shuddha, Shuddhashuddha, Ashuddha Tattvas. The Shuddha or Pure Tattvas are all the Tattvas from Shiva-Shakti Tattvas to and including Sadvidya Tattva. The Pure-Impure or Mixed (Shuddha-ashuddha) Tattvas are those between the first and third group which are the Impure Tattvas (Ashuddha Tattva) of the world of duality, namely, the 24 Tattvas from Prakriti to Prithivi. The other group of three is as follows: Shiva Tattva includes Shiva Tattva and Shakti Tattva, Vidya Tattva includes all Tattvas from Sadashiva to Sadvidya, and Atma Tattva includes all Tattvas from Maya and the Kañcukas to Prithivi. The particular description here of the 36 Tattvas, held by both Shaivas and Shaktas, is taken from the northern Shaiva Kashmir philosophical school, itself based on the older Agamas such as Malinivijaya Tantra and others.

It is common doctrine of Advaitavada that the One is of dual aspect; the first static (Shiva) and the other kinetic (Shakti). This doctrine of aspects is a device whereby it is sought to reconcile the fact that there is changelessness and change. Philosophically it is an evasion of the problem and not a solution. The solution is to be found in revelation (Veda) and in direct Spiritual Experience (Samadhi). These states vary in different men and in different races and creeds. But in support of Advaitavada, reliance may be placed on the fact that Samadhi or ecstasy, in all parts of the world and in all faiths, tends towards some kind of unity, more or less complete. All seek union with God. But the dispute is as to the nature of that union. Pure Advaitavada is complete identity. The scheme now outlined shows how that unitary experience, without ceasing to be what it is, assumes limited forms.

[The reader is referred to the Diagram on the following page]

Parasamvit shown on top of the Diagram is Nishkala Shiva or the changeless Brahman aspect; and Shiva-Shakti below is the aspect of the supreme Brahman from which change comes and which appears as its products or changing forms. Both are Shiva-Shakti. When, however, Shiva is kinetic, He is called Shakti. Regarding the matter from the Shakti aspect both are Shakti. Neither ever exists without the other, though Shakti is in one aspect Cidrupini, and in the other in the form of the Universe (Vishvarupini). In themselves and throughout they are one. The divergence takes place in consciousness, after it has been subjected to the operation of Maya, the effect of which is to polarize consciousness into an apparently separate "I" and "This". Parasamvit is not accounted a Tattva, for It is beyond all Tattvas (Tattvatita). Shiva Tattva and Shakti Tattva are counted separately, though Shakti Tattva is merely the negative aspect of Shiva Tattva. Shiva Tattva and Shakti Tattva are not produced. They thus are, even in dissolution. They are Saguna-Brahman; and Parasamvit is the Nirguna-Brahman. The first evolved Tattva is Sadashiva of Sadakhya Tattva of which the meaning is Sat akhya yatah, or that state in which there is the first notion of Being; for here is the first incipiency of the world-experience as the notion "I am this" which ultimately becomes a separate "I" and "This". In my Garland of Letters I have with more technical detail described the evolution of Jiva-consciousness. Here I will only shortly summarize the process.

As already stated, the Aham and Idam exist in an unitary state which is indescribable in Parasamvit. Shakti Tattva is called negative because negation is the function of Shakti (Nishedha-vyapara-rupa Shaktih). Negation of what P The answer is negation of consciousness. The universe is thus a product of negation. Where there is pure experience there is no manifested universe. Shakti negates the pure experience or consciousness to the extent, that it appears to itself limited. Shakti disengages the unified elements (Aham and Idam) which are latent in the Supreme Experience as an undistinguishable unity. How? The answer is one of great subtlety.

Of the Shiva-Shakti Tattvas, Shiva represents the Prakasha and Shakti the Vimarsha aspect, which contains potentially within it, the seed of the Universe to be. The result is that the Prakasha aspect is left standing alone. The Shiva Tattva is Prakasha-matra, that is, to use the imagery of our plane, an "I" without a "This". This is a state in which the unitary consciousness is broken up to this extent, that it is no longer a Perfect Experience in which the Aham and Idam exist in undistinguishable union, but there is one Supreme Aham Consciousness only, which is the root of all limited subjectivity To this Aham or Shiva Tattva, Shakti gradually unveils Herself as the Idam or Vimarsha aspect of consciousness. The result is that from Shiva and Shakti (in which the latter takes the playful part) there is evolved the first produced consciousness called Sadakhya Tattva. There is then an Aham and Idam aspect of experience. But that experience is not like the Jiva's, which arises at a later stage after the intervention of Maya-Shakti. In the Jiva consciousness (Jivatma) the object (Idam) is seen as something outside and different from itself. In Sadakhya Tattva and all the subsequent pure Tattvas, that is Ishvara Tattva and Shuddhavidya Tattva, the "This" is experienced as part of the Self and not as separate from it. There is (as will appear from the Diagram) no outer and inner. The circle which represents the one Consciousness is. divided into "I" and "This" which are yet parts of the same figure. The "This" is at first only by degree and hazily (Dhyamala prayam) presented to the Aham like a picture just forming itself (Unmilitamatra-citrakalpam). For this reason it is said that there is emphasis on the Aham which is indicated in the Diagram by the arrow-head. This is called the "Nimesha" or "closing of the eyes" of Shakti. It is so called because it is the last stage in dissolution before all effects are withdrawn into their first cause. Being the last stage in dissolution it is the first in creation. Then the Idam side becomes clear in the next evolved Ishvara Tattva in which the emphasis is therefore said to be on the "This" which the Aham subjectifies. This is the "Unmesha" or "opening of the eyes" state of Shakti; for this is the state of consciousness when it is first fully equipped to create and does so. The result again of this is the evolved consciousness called Shuddhavidya Tattva in which the emphasis is equal on the "I" and "This". Consciousness is now in the state in which the two halves of experience are ready to be broken up and experienced separately. It is at this state that Maya-Shakti intervenes and does so through its power and the Kañcukas which are forms of it. Maya-Shakti is thus defined as the sense of difference (Bhedabuddhi); that is the power by which things are seen as different from the Self in the dual manifested world. The Kañcukas which are evolved from, and are particular forms of, the operation of Maya are limitations of the natural perfections of the Supreme Consciousness. These are Kala which produces division (Pariccheda) in the partless and unlimited; Niyati which affects independence (Svatantrata); Raga which produces interest in, and then attachment to, objects in that which wanted nothing (Purna); Vidya which makes the Purusha a "little knower" in lieu of being all-knower (Sarva-jñata) and Kala which makes Purusha a "little doer," whereas the Supreme was in its Kartrittva or power action of almighty. The result of Maya and its offshoots which are the Kañcukas is the production of the Purusha and Prakriti Tattvas. At this stage the Aham and Idam are completely severed. Each consciousness regards itself as a separate 'I' looking upon the "This" whether its own body or that of others as outside its consciousness. Each Purusha (and they are numberless) is mutually exclusive the one of the other. Prakriti is the collectivity of all Shaktis in contracted (Sankucadrupa) undifferentiated form. She is Feeling in the form of the undifferentiated mass of Buddhi and the rest and of the three Gunas in equilibrium. The Purusha or Self experiences Her as object. Then on the disturbance of the Gunas in Prakriti the latter evolves the Vikritis of mind and matter. The Purusha at this stage has experience of the multiple world of the twenty-four impure Tattvas.

Thus from the supreme "I" (Parahanta) which is the creative Shiva-Shakti aspect of Parasamvit which changelessly endures as Sacchidananda, Consciousness experiences Itself as object (Sadakhya, Ishvara, Sadvidya Tattvas) and then through Maya and the limitations or contractions which are the Kañcukas or Samkocas it loses the knowledge that it is itself its own object. It sees the separate "other"; and the one Consciousness becomes the limited experiencers which are the multiple selves and their objects of the dual universe. Shakti who in Herself (Svarupa) is Feeling-Consciousness (Cidrupini) becomes more and more gross until physical energy assumes the form and becomes embedded in the "crust" of matter vitalized by Herself as the Life-Principle of all things. Throughout all forms it is the same Shakti who works and appears as Cit-Shakti and Maya-Shakti, the Spirit and Matter aspect of the Power of the Self-Illumining Pure Super-Consciousness or Cit.

é INDEX é

Spirit, Mind and Matter are ultimately one, the two latter being the twin aspects of the Fundamental Substance or Brahman and Its Power or Shakti. Spirit is the substance of mind-matter, the Reality (in the sense of the lasting changelessness) out of which, by Its Power, all Appearance is fashioned not by the individual mind and senses but by the cosmic mind and senses of which they are but a part. What It creates It perceives. In the last chapter I dealt with the Spirit or Consciousness (Cit) aspect: in this I consider the mind-matter aspect in which Consciousness veils itself in apparent unconsciousness. These twin principles are called Purusha, Brahman, Shiva on the one hand and Prakriti, Maya, and Maya-Shakti on the other by the Samkhya Mayavada Vedanta and Shaktivada of the Shakta Agama respectively. The latter Shastra, however, alone treats them as aspects of the one Substance in the manner here described and thus most aptly in this respect accommodates itself to the doctrine of Western scientific monism. So, Professor Haeckel points out in conformity with Shakta Advaitavada that Spirit and Matter are not two distinct entities but two forms or aspects of one single Entity or fundamental Substance. According to him, the One Entity with dual aspect is the sole Reality which presents itself to view as the infinitely varied and wondrous picture of the universe. Whatever be the case transcendentally in what the Buddhist Tantra aptly calls "The Void" (Shunyata. In Tibetan sTongpa-nyid) which is not "nothing" as some have supposed, but That which is like nothing known to us; the ultimate formless (Arupa) Reality as contrasted with appearance (sNang-va-dang) or form (Rupa) of which the Prajñaparamita-hridaya-garbha says only "neti neti" can be affirmed,-- in this universe immaterial Spirit is just as unthinkable as spiritless matter. The two are inseparately combined in every atom which, itself and its forces, possess the elements of vitality, growth and intelligence in all their developments. In the four Atmas which are contemplated in the Citkunda in the Muladhara Cakra, Atma pranarupi represents the vital aspect, Jñanatma the Intelligence aspect, and Antaratma is that spark of the Paramatma which inheres in all bodies, and which when spread (Vyapta) appears as the Bhuta or five forms of sensible matter which go to the making of the gross body. These are all aspects of the one Paramatma (Jñanarnava Tantra, Ch. XXI, Vv. 1 -- 9).

The Vedanta recognizes four states of experience, Jagrat, Svapna, Sushupti and Turiya. These, as my friend Professor Pramathanatha Mukhyopadhyaya has, in his radical clear-thinking way, pointed out, may be regarded from two stand-points. We may, with Shamkara, from the standpoint of Siddhi alone, regard the last only, that is transcendental or pure experience (Nirvishesha-jñana), as the real Fact or Experience: or we may, with the Shakta Agama, looking at the matter from the standpoint of both Sadhana (that is practical experience) and Siddhi (or transcendental experience), regard not only the supreme experience as alone real, but the whole of experience without any reservation whatever -- the whole concrete Fact of Being and Becoming -- and call it the Real. This is the view of the Shaiva-Shakta who says that the world is Shiva's Experience and Shiva's Experience can never be unreal. The question turns upon the definition of "Real". Shamkara's conception of that term is that, That to which it is applied must be absolutely changeless in all the "three times". It is That which absolutely continues through and underlies all the changes of experience; being that which is given in all the four states, Jagrat and the rest. It is That which can never be contradicted (Vadhita) in all the three tenses of time and the four states of Experience. This is the Ether of Consciousness (Cidakasha) and none of Its modes. Our ordinary experience, it is claimed, as well as Supreme non-polar Nirvikalpa Samadhi proves this unchanging aspect of the ultimate Substance, as the changeless principle of all our modes of changing experience, which according to this definition are unreal. Thus Shamkara's Real = Being = Sat-Cit-Ananda: Unreal = Becoming = Vivartta = Jagat-Prapañca or universe. According to this view, there are three levels or planes of being (Satta), namely transcendental (Paramarthika), empirical (Vyavaharika) and illusory (Pratibhasika). The Real (Satya) is that which is given in all the three planes (Paramarthika Satya): the empirical (Vyavaharika Satya) is that which is given in the second and third planes but not in the first. It is worldly or dual experience, and not undual experience of Samadhi or Videha-Mukti which latter, however, underlies all states of experience, being the Ether of Consciousness Itself. The last (Pratibhasika Satya) is given or obtains only in the last plane, being only such reality as can be attributed to illusion such as "the rope-snake". A higher plane contradicts a lower: the third is contradicted by the second, the second by the first, and the first by nothing at all. Thus there is a process of gradual elimination from changing to changeless consciousness. Real change or Parinama is said by the Vedanta Paribhasha to exist when the effect or phenomenon and its ground (Upadana or material cause) belong to the same level or plane of existence; as in the case of clay and pot, milk and curd, which both belong to the Vyavaharika plane; milk being the Upadana and curd the effect or change appertaining it (Parinamo hi upadana-sama-sattaka-karya pattih). When, however, the effect's level of existence is different from (Vishama) and therefore cannot be equaled to that of its material cause or Upadana; when, for instance, one belongs to the Vyavaharika experience and the other to the Pratibhasika, there is Nivartta (Vivartto hi upadana-vishama-sattaka-karyapattih). Thus, in the case of the "rope-snake," the Satta of the rope is Vyavaharika, whilst that of the Rajju-sarpa is only Pratibhasika. For the same reason, the rope, and the whole Jagat-prapañca (universe) for the matter of that, is a Vivartta in relation to the Supreme Experience of pure Cit. On its own plane or level of Satta, every phenomenon may be a Parinama, but in relation to a higher level by which it becomes Vadhita, it is only a Vivartta.

The Shakta Agama differs in its presentment as follows. The Fact or Concrete Experience presents two aspects -- what professor Mukhyopadhyaya has aptly called in his work the "Patent Wonder" -- the Ether and the Stress -- the quiescent background of Cit and the sprouting and evolving Shakti. Agama takes this whole (Shiva-Shakti) embracing all the aspects as its real. If one aspect be taken apart from the others, we are landed in the unreal. Therefore, in the Shakta Agama, all is real; whether the transcendent real of' Shamkara (Turiya), or the empirical real waking (Jagrat, dreaming (Svapna) or dreamless sleep (Sushupti). If it is conceded that Real = Changelessness, then the last three states are not real. But this definition of Reality is not adopted. It is again conceded that the Supreme Substance (Paravastu) is alone real, in the sense of changeless, for the worlds come and go. But the Agama says with the Samkhya, that a thing is not unreal because it changes. The Substance has two aspects, in one of which It is changeless, and in the other of which It changes. It is the same Substance in both its Prakasha and Vimarsha aspects. Shamkara limits Reality to the Prakasha aspect alone. Agama extends it to both Prakasha and Vimarsha; for these are aspects of the one. As explained later, this divergence of views turns upon the definition of Maya given by Shamkara, and of Maya-Shakti given by the Agama. The Maya of Shamkara is a mysterious Shakti of Ishvara, by which Vivartta is sought to be explained and which has two manifestations, viz., Veiling (Avarana) and moving, changing and projecting (Vikshepa) power. Ishvara is Brahman reflected in Maya; a mystery which is separate, and yet not separate, from Brahman in Its Ishvara aspect. The Shakta Maya-Shakti is an aspect of Shiva or Brahman Itself.

Starting from these premises we must assume a real nexus between the universe and its ultimate cause. The creation is real, and not Maya in Shamkara's sense of Maya, but is the operation of and is Shakti Herself. The cause being thus real, the effect or universe is real though it changes and passes away. Even when it is dissolved, it is merged in Shakti who is real; withdrawn into Her as the Samkhyan tortoise or Prakriti withdraws its limbs (Vikriti) into itself. The universe either is as unmanifested Shakti, which is the perfect formless universe of Bliss, or exists as manifested Shakti, the limited and imperfect worlds of form. The assumption of such nexus necessarily involves that what is in the effect is in the cause potentially. Of course, the follower of Shamkara will say that if creation is the becoming patent or actual of what is latent or potential in Shiva, then Shiva is not really Nishkala. A truly Nirañjana Brahman cannot admit potential differentiation within Itself (Svagata-bheda.) Again, potentiality is unmeaning in relation to the absolute and infinite Being, for it pertains to relation and finite existence. If it is suggested that Brahman passes from one condition in which Maya lies as a seed in it, to another in which Maya manifests Herself, we are involved in the doctrine of an Absolute in the making. It is illogical to affirm that whilst Brahman in one aspect does not change, It in another aspect, that is as Shakti, does truly change. All such objections have alogical foundation and it is for this reason that Shamkara says that all change (Srishti, Sthiti, Laya) are only apparent, being but a Kalpana or imagination.

But an answer is given to these objections. The Shakta will say that the one Brahman Shiva has two aspects in one of which, as Shakti, It changes and in the other of which, as Shiva, It does not. Reality is constituted of both these aspects. It is true that the doctrine of aspects does not solve the problem. Creation is ultimately inscrutable. It is, however, he urges, better to hold both the reality of the Brahman and the world leaving spiritual experience to synthesize them, than to neglect one at the cost of the other. For this, it is argued, is what Shamkara does. His solution is obtained at the cost of a denial of true reality to the world which all our worldly experience affirms; and this solution is supported by the illogical statement that Maya is not real and is yet not unreal, not partly real and partly unreal. This also, flies in the face of the logical principle of contradiction. Both theories, therefore, it may be said in different ways, run counter to logic. All theories ultimately do. The matter is admittedly alogical, that is beyond logic, for it is beyond the mind and its logical forms of thinking. Practically, therefore, it is said to be better to base our theory on our experience of the reality of the world, frankly leaving it to spiritual experience to solve a problem for which all logic, owing to the very constitution of the mind, fails. The ultimate proof of authority is Spiritual Experience either recorded in Veda or realized in Samadhi.

As I have already said in my chapter on the spirit-aspect of the One Substance, all occultism, whether of East or West, posits the principle that there is nothing in any one state or plane which is not in some way, actual or potential, in another state or plane. The Western Hermetic maxim, "as above so below," is stated in the Visvasara Tantra in the form, "what is here is there. What is not here is nowhere" (Yad ihasti tad anyatra yan nehasti na tat kvacit); and in the northern Shaiva Scripture in the form, "that which appears without only so appears because it exists within", "Vartamanava-bhasanam bhavanam avabhasanam antahsthitavatam eva ghatate bahiratmana". For these reasons man is rightly called a microcosm (Kshudrabrahmanda; hominem quasi minorem quendam mundum. Firm. Maternus Math. III init.) So Caraka says that the course of production, growth, decay and destruction of the universe and of man are the same. But these statements do not mean that what exists on one plane exists in that form or way on another plane. It is obvious that if it did, the planes would be the same and not different. It means that the same thing exists on one plane and on all other levels of being or planes, according either to the form of that plane, if it be what is called an intermediate causal body (Karanavantara-sharira) or ultimately as mere formless potentiality. According to Shamkara all such argument is itself Maya. And it may be so to those who have realized true consciousness (Citsvarupa) which is beyond all causality. The Tantra Shastra is, however, a practical and Sadhana Shastra. It takes the world to be real and then applies, so far as it may, to the question of its origin, the logic of the mind which forms a part of it. It says that it is true that there is a Supreme or Perfect Experience which is beyond all worlds (Shakti Vishvottirna), but there is also a worldly or (relatively to the Supreme) imperfect (in the sense of limited) and partly sorrowful experience. Because the one exists, it does not follow that the other does not: though mere logic cannot construct an unassailable monism. It is the one Shiva who is Bliss itself, and who is in the form of the world (Vishvatmaka) which is Happiness-Unhappiness. Shiva is both changeless as Shiva and changeful as Shakti. How the One can be both is a mystery. To say, however, with Shamkara that it is Maya, and in truth Brahman does not change, is not to explain, in an ultimate sense, the problem but to eliminate some other possible cause and to give to what remains a name. Maya by itself does not explain the ultimate. What can? It is only a term which is given to the wondrous power of the Creatrix by which what seems impossible to us becomes possible to Her. This is recognized as it must be, by Shamkara who says that Maya is unexplainable (Anirvacaniya) as of course it is. To "explain" the Creator, one would have to be Creator Himself and then in such case there would be no need of any explanation. Looking, however, at the matter from our own practical standpoint, which is that which concerns us, we are drawn by the fore-going considerations to the conclusion that, what we call "matter," is, in some form, in the cause which according to the doctrine here described, produces it. But matter as experienced by us is not there; for the Supreme is Spirit only. And yet in some sense it is there, or it would not be here at all. It is there as the Supreme Shakti which is Being-Consciousness-Bliss (Cidrupini, Anandamayi) who contains within Herself the potentiality of all worlds to be projected by Her Shakti. It is there as unmanifested Consciousness Power (Cidrupini Shakti). It here exists as the mixed conscious-unconsciousness (in the sense of the limited consciousness) of the psychical and material universe. If the ultimate Reality be one, there is thus one Almighty Substance which is both Spirit (Shiva-Shakti Svarupa) and force-mind-matter (Shiva-Shakti-Vishvatmaka). Spirit and Mind-Matter are thus in the end one.

This ultimate Supreme Substance (Paravastu) is Power or Shakti, which is again, of dual aspect as Cit-Shakti which represents the spiritual, and Maya-Shakti which represents the material and mental aspects. The two, however, exist in inseparable connection (Avinabhava-sambandha); as inseparable to use a simile of the Shastra as the winds of heaven from the Ether in which they blow. Shakti, who is in Herself (Svarupa) Consciousness, appears as the Life-force, as subtle Mind, and as gross Matter. See sections in my World as Power dealing in detail with Life (Prana-Shakti), Mind (Manasi-Shakti) and Matter (Bhuta-Shakti). As all is Shakti and as Shakti-svarupa is Being-Consciousness-Bliss, there is, and can be, nothing absolutely unconscious. For Shakti-svarupa is unchanging Being-Consciousness beyond all worlds (Cidrupini Vishvottirna), the unchanging principle of experience in such worlds; and appears as the limited psychical universe and as the apparently unconscious material forms which are the content of man's Experience (Vishvatmika). The whole universe is Shakti under various forms. Therefore it is seen as commingled Spirit-Mind-Matter.

According to Shaiva-Shakta doctrine, Shiva and Shakti are one. Shiva represents the static aspect of the Supreme substance, and Shakti its kinetic aspect: the term being derived from the root "Sak" which denotes capacity of action or power. According to Shamkara, Brahman has two aspects, in one of which as Ishvara, it is associated with Maya and seems to change, and in the other dissociated from Maya (Parabrahman). In the Agama, the one Shiva is both the changeless Parashiva and Parashakti and really changing Shiva-Shakti or universe. As Shiva is one with Himself, He is never associated with anything but Himself. As, however, the Supreme He is undisplayed (Shiva-Shakti Svarupa) and as Shiva-Shakti He is manifest in the form of the universe of mind and matter (Vishvarupa).

Before the manifestation of the universe there was Mahasatta or Grand-being. Then also there was Shiva-Shakti, for there is no time when Shakti is not; though She is sometimes manifest and sometimes not. Power is Power both to Be and to Become. But then Shakti is not manifest and is in its own true nature (Svarupa); that is, Being, Feeling-Consciousness-Bliss (Cinmayi, Anandamayi). As Shiva is consciousness (Cit) and Bliss or Love (Ananda), She is then simply Bliss and Love. Then when moved to create, the Great Power or Megale Dunamis of the Gnostics issues from the depths of Being and becomes Mind and Matter whilst remaining what She ever was: the Being (Sat) which is the foundation of manifested life and the Spirit which sustains and enlightens it. This primal Power (Adya Shakti), as object of worship, is the Great Mother (Magna-Mater) of all natural things (Natura Naturans) and nature itself (Natura Naturata). In herself (Svarupa) She is not a person in man's sense of the term, but She is ever and incessantly personalizing; assuming the multiple masks (Persona) which are the varied forms of mind-matter. As therefore manifest, She is all Personalities and as the collectivity thereof the Supreme Person (Parahanta). But in Her own ground from which, clad in form, She emerges and personalizes, She is beyond all form, and therefore beyond all personality known to us. She works in and as all things; now greatly veiling Her consciousness-bliss in gross matter, now by gradual stages more fully revealing Herself in the forms of the one universal Life which She is.

Let us now first examine Her most gross manifestation, that is, sensible matter (Bhuta), then Her more subtle aspect as the Life-force and Mind, and lastly Her Supreme Shakti aspect as Consciousness. I here deal with the subject in a general way having treated of it in greater detail in the book just now cited (World as Power).

The physical human body is composed of certain compounds of which the chief are water, gelatin, fat, phosphate of lime, albumen and fibrin, and, of these, water constitutes some two-thirds of the total weight. These compounds, again, are composed of simpler non-metallic elements of which the chief are oxygen (to the extent of about two-thirds), hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus. So about two-thirds of the body is water and this is H₂O. Substantially then our gross body is water. But when we get to these simpler elements, have we got to the root of the matter P No. It was formerly thought that matter was composed of certain elements beyond which it was not possible to go, and that these elements and their atoms were indestructible. These notions have been reversed by modern science. Though the alleged indestructibility of the elements and their atoms is still said by some to present the character of a "practical truth," well-known recent discoveries and experiments go to re-establish the ancient doctrine of a single primordial substance to which these various forms of matter may be reduced, with the resultant of the possible and hitherto derided transmutation of one element into another; since each is but one of the many plural manifestations of the same underlying unity. The so-called elements are varied forms of this one substance which themselves combine to form the various compounds. The variety of our experience is due to permutation and combination of the atoms of the matter into which the primordial energy materializes. We thus find that owing to the variety of atomic combinations of H N O C there are differences in the compounds. It is curious to note in passing how apparently slight variations in the quantity and distribution of the atoms produce very varying substances. Thus gluten which is a nutrient food, and quinine and strychnine which are in varying degree poisons, are each compounds of C H N O. Strychnine, a powerful poison, is C₂₁H₂₂N₂O₂ and quinine is C₂₀H₂₄N₂O₂. N and 0 are the same in both and there is a difference of one part only of C and 2 of H. But neither these compounds nor the so-called elements of which they are composed are permanent things. Scientific matter is now found to be only a relatively stable form of cosmic energy. All matter dissociates and passes into the energy of which it is a materialized form and again it issues from it.

Modern Western Science and Philosophy have thus removed many difficulties which were formerly thought to be objections to the ancient Indian doctrine on the subject here dealt with. It has, in the first place. dispelled the gross notions which were hitherto generally entertained as to the nature of "matter." According to the notions of quite recent science, "matter" was defined to be that which has mass, weight and inertia. It must be now admitted that the two latter qualities no longer stand the test of examination, since, putting aside our ignorance as to the nature of weight, this quality varies, if we conceive matter to be placed under conditions which admittedly affect it; and the belief in inertia is due to superficial observation, it being now generally conceded that the final elements of matter are in a state of spontaneous and perpetual motion. In fact, the most general phenomenon of the universe is vibration, to which the human body as all else is subject. Various vibrations affect differently each organ of sensation. When of certain quality and number, they denote to the skin the degree of external temperature; others incite the eye to see different colors; others again enable the ear to hear defined sounds. Moreover "inertia", which is alleged to be a distinguishing quality of "matter," is said to be the possession of electricity, which is considered not to be "material". What, then, is that to which we attribute "mass" P In the first place, it is now admitted that "matter," even with the addition of all possible forces, is insufficient to explain many phenomena, such as those of light; and it has, accordingly, come to be for some an article of scientific faith that there is a substance called "Ether": a medium which, filling the universe, transports by its vibrations the radiations of light, heat, electricity, and perhaps action from a distance, such as the attraction exercised between heavenly bodies. It is said, however, that this Ether is not "matter," but differs profoundly from it, and that it is only our infirmity of knowledge which obliges us, in our attempted descriptions of it, to borrow comparisons from "matter," in its ordinary physical sense, which alone is known by our senses. But if we assume the existence of Ether, we know that "material" bodies immersed in it can change their places therein. In fact, to use an Indian expression, the characteristic property of the vibrations of the Akasha Tattva is to make the space in which the other Tattvas and their derivatives exist. With "Matter" and Ether as their materials, Western purely "scientific" theories have sought to construct the world. The scientific atom which Du Bois Raymond described as an exceedingly useful fiction -- "ausserst nutzliche fiction" -- is no longer considered the ultimate indestructible element, but is held to be, in fact, a kind of miniature solar system, formed by a central group or nucleus charged with positive electricity, around which very much smaller elements, called electrons or corpuscles, charged with negative electricity, gravitate in closed orbits. These vibrate in the etheric medium in which they and the positively charged nucleus exist, constituting by their energy, and not by their mass, the unity of the atom. But what, again, is the constitution of this "nucleus" and the electrons revolving around it? There is no scientific certainty that any part of either is due to the presence of "matter". On the contrary, if a hypothetical corpuscle consisting solely of an electric charge without material mass is made the subject of mathematical analysis, the logical inference is that the electron is free of "matter", and is merely an electric charge moving in the Ether; and though the extent of our knowledge regarding the positive nucleus which constitutes the remainder of the atom is small, an eminent mathematician and physicist has expressed the opinion that, if there is no "matter" in the negative charges, the positive charges must also be free from it. Thus, in the words of the author upon whose lucid analysis I have drawn, (Houllevigue's Evolution of Science) the atom has been dematerialized, if one may say so, and with it the molecules and the entire universe. "Matter" (in the scientific sense) disappears, and we and all that surround us are physically, according to these views, mere disturbed regions of the ether determined by moving electric charges -- a logical if impressive conclusion, because it is by increasing their knowledge of "matter" that physicists have been led to doubt its reality. But the question, as he points out, does not remain there. For if the speculations of Helmholtz be adopted, there is nothing absurd in imaging that two possible directions of rotation of a vortex formed within, and consisting of, ether correspond to the positive and negative electric charges said to be attached to the final elements of matter. If that be so, then the trinity of matter, ether, and electricity, out of which science has hitherto attempted to construct the world, is reduced to a single element, the ether (which is not scientific "matter") in a state of motion, and which is the basis of the physical universe. The old duality of force and matter disappears, these being held to be differing forms of the same thing. Matter is a relatively stable form of energy into which, on disturbance of its equilibrium, it disappears; for all forms of matter dissociate. The ultimate basis is that energy called in Indian philosophy Prakriti, Maya or Shakti.

Herbert Spencer, the Philosopher of Modern Science, carries the investigation farther, holding that the universe, whether physical or psychical, whether within or without us, is a play of Force, which, in the case of Matter, we experience as object, and that the notion that the ultimate realities are the supposed atoms of matter, to the properties and combinations of which the complex universe is due, is not true. Mind, Life and Matter are each varying aspects of the one cosmic process from the First Cause. Mind as such is as much a "material" organ as the brain and outer sense organs, though they are differing forms of force.

Both mind and matter derive from what Herbert Spencer calls the Primal Energy (Adya Shakti), and Haeckel the fundamental Spirit-Matter Substance. Professor Fitz Edward Hall described the Samkhya philosophy as being "with all its folly and fanaticism little better than a chaotic impertinence". It has doubtless its weaknesses like all other systems. Wherein, however, consists its "fanaticism," I do not know. As for "impertinence," it is neither more nor less so than any other form of Western endeavor to solve the riddle of life. As regards its leading concept, "Prakriti," the Professor said that it was a notion for which the European languages were unable to supply a name; a failure, he added, which was "nowise to their discredit". The implication of this sarcastic statement is that it was not to the discredit of Western languages that they had no name for so foolish a notion. He wrote before the revolution of ideas in science to which I have referred, and with that marked antagonism to things Indian which has been and to some extent still is so common a feature of the more ordinary type of the professional orientalist.

The notion of Prakriti is not absurd. The doctrine of a Primordial Substance was held by some of the greatest minds in the past and has support from the most modern developments of Science. Both now concur to reject what the great Sir William Jones called the "vulgar notion of material substance" (Opera I. 36). Many people were wont, as some still are, to laugh at the idea of Maya. Was not matter solid, permanent and real enough? But according to science what are we (as physical beings) at base P The answer is, infinitely tenuous formless energy which materializes into relatively stable, yet essentially transitory, forms. According to the apt expression of the Shakta Shastra, Shakti, as She creates, becomes Ghanibhuta, that is, massive or thickened; just as milk becomes curd. The process by which the subtle becomes gradually more and more gross continues until it develops into what has been called the "crust" of solid matter (Parthiva bhuta). This whilst it lasts is tangible enough. But it will not last for ever, and in some radio-active substances dissociates before our eyes. Where does it go, according to Shakta doctrine, but to that Mother-Power from whose womb it came; who exists as all forms, gross and subtle, and is the formless Consciousness Itself. The poet's inspiration led Shakespeare to say, "We are such stuff as dreams are made of." It is a wonderful saying from a Vedantic standpoint, for centuries before him Advaitavada had said, "Yes, dreams; for the Lord is Himself the Great World-dreamer slumbering in causal sleep as Ishvara, dreaming as Hiranyagarbha the universe experienced by Him as the Virat or totality of all Jivas, on waking." Scientific revision of the notion of "matter" helps the Vedantic standpoint, by dispelling gross and vulgar notions upon the subject; by establishing its impermanence in its form as scientific matter; by positing a subtler physical substance which is not ponderable matter; by destroying the old duality of Matter and Force; and by these and other conclusions leading to the acceptance of one Primal Energy or Shakti which transforms itself into that relatively stable state which is perceived by the senses as gross "matter." As, however, science deals with matter only objectively, that is, from a dualistic standpoint, it does not (whatever hypotheses any particular scientist may maintain) resolve the essential problem which is stated in the world Maya. That problem is, "How can the apparent duality be a real unity? How can we bridge the gulf between the object and the Self which perceives it? Into whatever tenuous energy the material world is resolved, we are still left in the region of duality of Spirit, Mind and Matter. The position is not advanced beyond that taken by Samkhya. The answer to the problem stated is that Shakti which is the origin of, and is in, all things has the power to veil Itself so that whilst in truth it is only seeing itself as object, it does not, as the created Jiva, perceive this but takes things to be outside and different from the Self. For this reason Maya is called, in the Shastra, Bhedabuddhi or the sense of difference. This is the natural characteristic of man's experience.

Herbert Spencer, the Philosopher of Modern Science, carrying the investigation beyond physical matter, holds, as I have already said, that the universe, whether physical or psychical, whether as mind or matter, is a play of Force; Mind, Life and Matter being each varying aspects of the one cosmic process from the First Cause. This, again, is an Indian notion. For, the affirmation that "scientific matter" is an appearance produced by the play of Cosmic Force, and that mind is itself a product of the same play is what both Samkhya and Mayavada Vedanta hold. Both these systems teach that mind, considered in itself, is, like matter, an unconscious thing, and that both it and matter ultimately issue from the same single Principle which the former calls Prakriti and the latter Maya. Consciousness and Unconsciousness are in the universe inseparate, whatever be the degree of manifestation or veiling of Consciousness. For the purpose of analysis, Mind in itself -- that is, considered hypothetically as dissociated from Consciousness, which, in fact, is never the case, (though Consciousness exists apart from the Mind) -- is a force-process like the physical brain. Consciousness (Cit) is not to be identified with mind (Antahkarana) which is the organ of expression of mind. Consciousness is not a mere manifestation of material mind. Consciousness must not be identified with its mental modes; an identification which leads to the difficulties in which western metaphysics has so often found itself. It is the ultimate Reality in which all modes whether subjective or objective exist.

The assertion that mind is in itself unconscious may seem a strange statement to a Western reader who, if he does not identify mind and consciousness, at any rate, regards the latter as an attribute or function of mind. The point, however, is of such fundamental importance for the understanding of Indian doctrine that it may be further developed.

According to the Lokayata School of Indian Materialism, mind was considered to be the result of the chemical combination of the four forms of material substance, earth, water, fire and air, in organic forms. According to the Purva-Mimamsa and the Nyaya-Vaisheshika, the Self or Atma is in itself and that is by nature (Svabhavatah), unconscious (Jada, Acidrupa): for Atma is said to be unconscious (Acetana) in dreamless sleep (Sushupti); and consciousness arises as a produced thing, by association of the Atma with the mind, senses and body. The reader is referred to Pandit Chandra Kanta Tarkalamkara's Bengali Lectures on Hindu Philosophy. At p. 105 he cites Prabhakara Mimamsaka-carya, saying that Vaisheshika-Nyaya supports the view. Sacetanashcittayogat todyogena vina jadah. "Atma is conscious by union with knowledge (Jñana) which comes to it by association with mind and body. Without it, it is unconscious." Atma, according to this Darshana, is that in which (Ashraya) Jñana inheres. Kumarila Bhatta says Atma is partly Prakasha and partly Aprakasha, (luminous and non-luminous) like a fire-fly. But this is denied, as Atma is Niramsha (part-less). Knowledge thus arises from the association of mind (Manas) with Atma, the senses (Indriya) with Manas, and the senses with objects, that, is, worldly (Laukika) knowledge, which is the true -- that is, non-illusive -- apprehension of objects. Jñana in the spiritual Vedantic sense of Mayavada is Paramatma, or pure Consciousness realized. The former Jñana, in that it arises without effort on the presentation of the objects is not action (Kriya), and differs from the forms of mental action (Manasi Kriya), such as will (Iccha), contemplation and the like. Atma manasa samyujyate, mana indriyena, indriyam arthena, tato bhavati jñanam. Both these theories are refuted by Samkhya and Advaitavada Vedanta (as interpreted by Shamkara, to which unless otherwise stated I refer) which affirm that the very nature of Atma is Consciousness (Cit), and all else, whether mind or matter, is unconscious, though the former appears not to be so. The Jiva mind is not itself conscious, but reflects consciousness, and therefore appears to be conscious. Consciousness as such is eternal and immutable; Mind is a creation and changeable. Consciousness as such is unconditional. In the mind of the Jiva, Consciousness appears to be conditioned by that Maya-Shakti which produces mind, and of which Shakti, mind is a particular manifestation. Mind, however, is not the resultant of the operation of the Bhuta -- that is, of gross natural forces or motions -- but is, in Samhya and in Shakta monism, an evolution which is logically prior to them.

The mode of exposition in which Consciousness is treated as being in itself something apart from, though associated with, mind, is profound; because, while it recognizes the intermingling of Spirit and Matter in the embodied being (Jiva), it yet at the same time clearly distinguishes them. It thus avoids the imputation of change to Spirit (Atma). The latter is ever in Its own true nature immutable. Mind is ever changing, subject to sensations, forming ideas, making resolves, and so forth. Spirit in Itself is neither affected nor acts. Manifold change takes place, through motion and vibration in the unconscious Prakriti and Maya. Mind is one of the results of such motion, as matter is another. Each of them is a form of specific transformation of the one Principle whence unconsciousness, whether real or apparent, arises. That, however, mind appears to be conscious, the Mayavada Vedanta and Samkhya admit. This is called Cidabhasa -- that is, the appearance of something as Cit (Consciousness) which is not really Cit. This appearance of Consciousness is due to the reflection of Cit upon it. A piece of polished steel which lies in the sunshine may appear to be self-luminous, when it is merely reflecting the sun, which is the source of the light it appears to give out. Cit as such is immutable and never evolves. What do evolve are the various forms of natural forces produced by Prakriti or Maya. These two are, however, conceived as being in association in such a way that the result of such association is produced without Cit being really affected at all. The classical illustration of the mode and effect of such association is given in the Samkhyan aphorism, "Just like the jewel and the flower" -- Kusumavacca manih (Samkhya-Pravacana-Sutra, II, 35) -- that is, when a scarlet hibiscus flower is placed in contiguity to a crystal, the latter appears to be red, though it still in fact retains its pure transparency, as is seen when the flower is removed. On the other hand, the flower as reflected in the crystal takes on a shining, transparent aspect which its opaque surface does not really possess. In the same way Consciousness appears to be conditioned by the force of unconsciousness in the Jiva, but is really not so. "Changeless Cit-Shakti does not move towards anything, yet seems to do so" (Samkhya-pravacana-Sutra). And, on the other hand, Mind as one of such unconscious forces takes on the semblance of Consciousness, though this is borrowed from Cit and is not its own natural quality. This association of Unconscious Force with Consciousness has a two-fold result, both obscuring and revealing. It obscures, in so far as, and so long as it is in operation, it prevents the realization of pure Consciousness (Cit). When mind is absorbed pure Consciousness shines forth. In this sense, this Power or Maya is spoken of as a Veil. In another sense, it reveals -- that is, it manifests -- the world, which does not exist except through the instrumentality of Maya which the world is. Prakriti and Maya produce both Mind and Matter; on the former of which Consciousness is reflected (Cidabhasa). The human mind, then, appears to be conscious, but of its own nature and inherent quality is not so. The objective world of matter is, or appears to be, an unconscious reality. These alternatives are necessary, because, in Samkhya, unconsciousness is a reality; in Vedanta, an appearance. In the Shakta Tantra, apparent unconsciousness is an aspect (Avidya Shakti) of Conscious Shakti. Consciousness is according to Advaita Vedanta, the true existence of both, illumining the one, hidden in the other.

The internal instrument (Antahkarana) or Mind is one only, but is given different names -- Buddhi, Ahamkara, Manas -- to denote the diversity of its functions. From the second of these issue the senses (Indriya) and their objects, the sensibles (Mahabhuta), or gross matter with the super-sensibles (Tanmatra) as its intermediate cause. All these proceed from Prakriti and Maya.

Therefore, according to these systems, Consciousness is Cit, and Mind or Antahkarana is a transformation of Prakriti and Maya respectively. In itself, Mind is an unconscious specialized organ developed out of the Primordial Energy, Mulaprakriti or Maya. It is thus, not in itself, consciousness but a special manifestation of conscious existence, borrowing its consciousness from the Cit which is reflected on it. Shakta doctrine states the same matter in a different form. Consciousness at rest is Cit-Svarupa. Consciousness in movement is Cit-Shakti associated with Maya-Shakti. The Shiva-Shakti Svarupa is consciousness (Cit, Cidrupini). There is no independent Prakriti as Samkhya holds, nor an unconscious Maya which is not Brahman and yet not separate from Brahman, as Shamkara teaches. What there is, is Maya-Shakti; that is Consciousness (Shakti is in itself such) veiling, as the Mother, Herself to herself as Her creation, the Jiva. There is no need then for Cidabhasa. For mind is consciousness veiling itself in the forms or limitation of apparent unconsciousness.

This is an attractive exposition of the matter because in the universe consciousness and unconsciousness are mingled, and the abolition of unconscious Maya satisfies the desire for unity. In all these cases, however, mind and matter represent either the real or apparent unconscious aspect of things. If man's consciousness is, or appears to be, limited, such limitation must be due to some principle without, or attached to, or inherent in consciousness; which in some sense or other must ex hypothesi be really, or apparently different from the consciousness, which it seems to affect or actually affects. In all these systems, mind and matter equally derive from a common finitizing principle which actually or apparently limits the Infinite Consciousness. In all three, there is, beyond manifestation, Consciousness or Cit, which in manifestation appears as a parallelism of mind and matter; the substratum of which from a monistic standpoint is Cit.

Herbert Spencer, however, as many other Western Philosophers do, differs from the Vedanta in holding that the noumenon of these phenomena is not Consciousness, for the latter is by them considered to be by its very nature conditioned and concrete. This noumenon is therefore declared to be unknown and unknowable. But Force as such is blind, and can only act as it has been predetermined. We discover consciousness in the universe. The cause must, therefore, it is argued, be Consciousness. It is but reasonable to hold that, if the first cause be of the nature of either Consciousness or Matter, and not of both, it must be of the nature of the former, and not of the latter. An unconscious object may wall be conceived to modify Consciousness, but not to produce Consciousness out of its Self. According to Indian Realism, the Paramanus are the material (Upadana) cause (Karana), and Ishvara the instrumental (Nimitta) cause, for He makes them combine. According to Vedanta, Matter is really nothing but a determined modification of knowledge in the Ishvara Consciousness, itself unaffected by such determination. Ishvara is thus both the material and instrumental cause. A thing can only dissolve into its own cause. The agency (Kartritva) of Ishvara is in Mayavada attributed (Aupadika) only.

The Vedanta, therefore, in its Shakta presentment says, that the Noumenon is knowable and known, for it is the inner Self, which is not an unconscious principle but Being-Consciousness, which, as above explained, is not conditioned or concrete, but is the absolute Self-identity. Nothing can be more intimately known than the Self. The objective side of knowledge is conditioned because of the nature of its organs which, whether mental or material, are conditioned. Sensation, perception, conception, intuition are but different modes in which the one Consciousness manifests itself, the differences being determined by the variety of condition and form of the different organs of knowledge through which consciousness manifests. There is thus a great difference between the Agnostic and the Vedantist. The former, as for instance Herbert Spencer, says that the Absolute cannot be known because nothing can be predicated of it. Whereas the Vedantin when he says, that It cannot be known (in the ordinary sense) means that this is because It is knowledge itself. Our ordinary experience does not know a consciousness of pure being without difference. But, though it cannot be pictured, it may be apprehended. It cannot be thought because it is Pure Knowledge itself. It is that state which is realized only in Samadhi but is apprehended indirectly as the Unity which underlies and sustains all forms of changing finite experience.

What, lastly, is Life? The underlying substance is Being-in-itself. Life is a manifestation of such Being. If by Life we understand life in form, then the ultimate substance is not that; for it is formless. But in a supreme sense it is Life; for it is Eternal Life whence all life in form proceeds. It is not dead Being. If it were It could not produce Life. The Great Mother is Life; both the life of Her children and the Life of their lives. Nor does She produce what is without life or potency of life. What is in the cause is in the effect. Some Western Scientists have spoken of the "Origin of Life," and have sought to find it. It is a futile quest, for Life as such has no origin though life in form has. We cannot discover the beginnings of that which is essentially eternal. The question is vitiated by the false assumption that there is anything dead in the sense that it is wholly devoid of Life or potency of Life. There is no such thing. The whole world is a living manifestation of the source of all life which is Absolute Being. It is sometimes made a reproach against Hinduism that it knows not a "living God". What is meant I cannot say. For it is certain that it does not worship a "dead God," whatever such may be. Perhaps by "living" is meant "Personal". If so, the charge is again ill-founded. Ishvara and Ishvari are Rulers in whom all personalities and personality itself are. But in their ground they are beyond all manifestation, that is limitation which personality, as we understand it, involves. Man, the animal and the plant alone, it is true, exhibit certain phenomena which are commonly called vital. What exhibits such phenomena, we have commonly called "living". But it does not follow that what does not exhibit the phenomena which belong to our definition of life is itself altogether "dead". We may have to revise our definition, as in fact we are commencing to do. Until recently it was commonly assumed that matter was of two kinds: inorganic or "dead," and organic or "living". The mineral was "dead," the vegetable, animal and man were endowed with "life". But these living forms are compounded of so-called "dead" matter. How then, is it possible that there is life in the organic kingdom the parts of which are ultimately compounded of "dead" matter? This necessarily started the futile quest for the "origin of life". Life can only come from life: not from death. The greatest errors arise from the making of false partitions in nature which do not exist. We make these imaginary partitions and then vainly attempt to surmount them. There are no absolute partitions or gulfs. All is continuous, even if we cannot at present establish in each case the connection. That there should be such gulfs is unthinkable to any one who has even in small degree grasped the notion of the unity of things. There is a complete connected chain in the hierarchy of existence, from the lowest forms of apparently inert (but now held to be moving) matter, through the vegetable, animal, human worlds; and then through such Devatas as are super-human intelligences up to the Brahman. From the latter to a blade of grass (says the Shastra) all are one.

Western scientific notions have, however, in recent years undergone a radical evolution as regards the underlying unity of substance, destructive of the hitherto accepted notions of the discontinuity of matter and its organization. The division of nature into the animal, vegetable and mineral kingdoms is still regarded as of practical use; but it is now recognized that no such clear line of demarcation exists between them as has hitherto been supposed in the West. Between each of nature's types there are said to be innumerable transitions. The notion of inert, "dead" matter, the result of superficial observation, has given way upon the revelation of the activities at work under this apparent inertia -- forces which endow "brute substance" with many of the characteristics of living beings. It is no longer possible to dogmatically affirm where the inorganic kingdom ends and "life" begins. It must be rather asserted that many phenomena, hitherto considered characteristic of "life," belong to "inert matter," composed of molecules and atoms, as "animated matter" is of cells and micellae. It has been found that so-called "inert matter," possesses an extraordinary power of organization, and is not only capable of apparently imitating the forms of "living" matter, but presents in a certain degree the same functions and properties.

Sentiency is a characteristic of all forms of Existence. Physiologists measure the sensibility of a being by the degree of excitement necessary to produce in it a reaction. Of this it has been said (Le Bon Evolution of Matter, 250), "This sensibility of matter, so contrary to what popular observation seems to indicate, is becoming more and more familiar to physicists. This is why such an expression as the "life of matter," utterly meaningless twenty-five years ago has come into common use. The study of mere matter yields ever-increasing proofs that it has properties which were formerly deemed the exclusive appanage of living beings." Life exists throughout, but manifests in various ways. The arbitrary division which has been drawn between "dead" and "living" matter has no existence in fact, and speculations as to the origin of "life" are vitiated by the assumption that there is anything which exists without it, however much its presence may be veiled from us. Western science would thus appear to be moving to the conclusion that there is no "dead" matter, but that life exists everywhere, not merely in that in which, as in "organic matter," it is to us plainly and clearly expressed, but also in the ultimate "inorganic" atoms of which it is composed -- atoms which, in fact, have their organizations as have the beings which they go to build -- and that all, to the minutest particle, is vibrating with unending Energy (Tejas). (See Author's World as Power). Manifested life is Prana, a form of Kriya Shakti in, and evolved from, the Linga Sharira, itself born of Prakriti. Prana or the vital principle has been well defined (Hindu Realism, by J. C. Chatterji) to be, "the special relation of the Atma with a certain form of matter which, by this relation, the Atma organizes and builds up as a means of having experience." This special relation constitutes the individual Prana in the individual body. Just as in the West, "life" is a term commonly used of organized body only, so also is the term Prana used in the East. It is the technical name given to the phenomena, called "vital," exhibited by such bodies, the source of which is the Brahman Itself. The individual Prana is limited to the particular body which it vitalizes and is a manifestation in all breathing creatures (Prani), of the creative and sustaining activity of the Brahman. All beings exist so long as the Prana is in the body. It is as the Kaushitaki Upanishad says, "the life duration of all". The cosmic all-pervading Prana is the collectivity of all Pranas and is the Brahman as the source of the individual Prana. On the physical plane, Prana manifests as breath through inspiration, "Sa" or Shakti and expiration, "Ha" or Shiva. So the Niruttara Tantra (Chapter IV) says: "By Hamkara it goes out and by Sakara it comes in again. A Jiva always recites the Supreme Mantra Hamsa."

Breathing is itself the Ajapa Mantra. Prana is thus Shakti as the universally pervading source of life, organizing itself as matter into what we call living forms. When the Prana goes, the organism which it holds together disintegrates. Nevertheless each of the atoms which remain has a life of its own, existing as such separately from the life of the organized body of which they formed a part; just as each of the cells of the living body has a life of its own. The gross outer body is heterogeneous (Paricchinna) or made up of distinct or well-defined parts. But the Pranamaya Self which lies within the Annamaya Self is a homogeneous undivided whole (Sadharana) permeating the whole physical body (Sarvapindavyapin). It is not cut off into distinct regions (Asadharana) as is the Pinda or mircrocosmic physical body. Unlike the latter it has no specialized organs each discharging a specific function. It is a homogeneous unity (Sadharana), present in every part of the body which it ensouls as its inner vital Self. Vayu, as universal vital activity, on entry into each body, manifests itself in ten different ways. It is the one Prana, though different names are given according to its functions, of which the five chief are Appropriation (Prana), Rejection (Apana), Assimilation (Samana), Distribution (Vyana), and that vital function (Udana) which is connected with self-expression in speech. Prana in its general sense represents the involuntary reflex action of the organism; just as the Indriyas are one aspect of its voluntary activity. Breathing is a manifestation of the Cosmic Rhythm to which the whole universe moves and according to which it appears and disappears. The life of Brahma is the duration of the outgoing breath (Nisvasa) of Kala.

The Samkhya rejecting the Lokayata notion that Vayu is a mere biomechanical force or mechanical motion resulting from such a Vayu, holds, on the principle of the economy of categories, that life is a resultant of the various concurrent activities of other principles or forces in the organism. This, again, the Vedantists deny, holding that it is a separate, independent principle and material form assumed through Maya by the one Consciousness. In either case, it is an unconscious force, since everything which is not the Atma or Purusha, is, according to Mayavada and Samkhya, unconscious, or, in Western parlance, material (Jada).

If we apply Shakta principles, then Prana is a name of the general Shakti displaying itself in the organization of matter and the vital phenomena which bodies, when organized, exhibit. Manifest Shakti is vitality, which is a limited concrete display in forms of Her own formless Being or Sat. All Shakti is Jñana, Iccha, Kriya, and in its form as Prakriti, the Gunas Sattva, Rajas, Tamas. She desires, impelled by Her nature (Iccha), to build up forms; sees how it should be done (Jñana); and then does it (Kriya). The most Tamasic form of Kriya is the apparently mechanical energy displayed in material bodies. But this is itself the product of Her Activity and not the cause of it. Ultimately then Prana, like everything else, is consciousness which, as Shakti, limits Itself in form which it first creates and sustains; then builds up into other more elaborate forms and again sustains until their life-period is run. All creation and maintenance is a limiting power, with the appearance of unconsciousness, in so far as, and to the degree that, it confines the boundless Being-Consciousness-Bliss; yet that Power is nothing but Consciousness negating and limiting itself. The Great Mother (Sri Mata) limits Her infinite being in and as the universe and maintains it. In so far as the form and its life is a limited thing, it is apparently unconscious, for consciousness is thereby limited. At each moment there is creation, but we call the first appearance creation (Srishti), and its continuance, through the agency of Prana, maintenance (Sthiti). But both that which is apparently limited and that whose operation has that effect is Being-Consciousness. Prana Vayu is the self-begotten but limited manifestation of the eternal Life. It is called Vayu (Va -- to move) because it courses throughout the whole universe. Invisible in itself yet its operations are manifest. For it determines the birth, growth, and decay of all animated organisms and as such receives the homage of all created Being. For it is the Pranarupi Atma, the Prana Shakti.

For those by whom inorganic matter was considered to be "dead" or lifeless, it followed that it could have no Feeling-Consciousness, since the latter was deemed to be an attribute of life. Further, consciousness was denied because it was, and is indeed now, commonly assumed that every conscious experience pre-supposes a subject, conscious of being such, attending to an object. As Professor P. Mukhyopadhyaya (Approaches to Truth) has well pointed out, consciousness was identified with intelligence or understanding -- that is with directed consciousness; so that where no direction or form is discernible, Western thinkers have been apt to imagine that consciousness as such has also ceased. To their pragmatic eye consciousness is always particular having a particular direction and form.

According, however, to Indian views, there are three states of consciousness: (1) a supramental supreme consciousness dissociated from mind. This is the Paramatma Cit which is the basis of all existence, whether organic or inorganic, and of thought; of which the Shruti says, "know that which does not think by the mind and by which the mind itself is thought." These are then two main manifested states of consciousness: (2) consciousness associated with mind in organic matter working through its vehicles of mind and matter; (3) consciousness associated with and almost entirely veiled by inorganic gross matter (Bhuta) only; such as the muffled consciousness, evidenced by its response to external stimuli, as shown in the experiments with which Sir Jagadish Bose's name is associated. Where are we to draw the lowest limit of sensation; and if a limit be assigned, why there? As Dr. Ernst Mach has pointed out (Analysis of Sensations, 243) the question is natural enough if we start from the commonly current physical conception. It is, of course, not asserted that inorganic matter is conscious to itself in the way that the higher organized life is. The response, however, which it makes to stimuli is evidence that consciousness is there, though it lies heavily veiled in and imprisoned by it. Inorganic matter displays it in the form of that seed or rudiment of sentiency which enlarging into the simple pulses of feeling of the lowest degrees of organized life, at length emerges in the developed self-conscious sensations of human life. Owing to imperfect scientific knowledge, the first of these aspects was not in antiquity capable of physical proof in the same way or to the same extent, as Modern Science with its delicate instruments have made possible. Starting, however, from the revealed and intuitionally held truth that all was Brahman, the conclusion necessarily followed. All Bhuta is composed of the three Gunas or factors of Prakriti or the psycho-physical potentials. It is the Sattva or Principle of Presentation of Consciousness in gross matter (almost entirely suppressed by Tamas or the Principle of Veiling of Consciousness though it be) which manifests the phenomena of sensibility observed in matter. In short, nature, it has been well said, knows no sharp boundaries or yawning gulfs, though we may ignore the subtle connecting links between things. There is no break in continuity. Being and Consciousness are co-extensive. Consciousness is not limited to those centers in the Ether of consciousness which are called organized bodies. But just as life is differently expressed in the mineral and in man, so is Consciousness which many have been apt to think exists in the developed animal and even in man only.

Consciousness (Cit-Shakti) exists in all the hierarchy of Being, and is, in fact, Being. It is, however, in all bodies veiled by its power or Maya-Shakti which is composed of the three Gunas. In inorganic matter, owing to the predominance of Tamas, Consciousness is so greatly veiled and the life force is so restrained that we get the appearance of insensibility, inertia and mere mechanical energy. In organized bodies, the action of Tamas is gradually lessened, so that the members of the universal hierarchy become more and more Sattvik as they ascend in the scale of evolution. Consciousness itself does not change. It remains the same throughout. What does change is, its wrappings, unconscious or apparently so, as they may alternatively be called. This wrapping is Maya and Prakriti with their Gunas. The figure of "wrapping" is apt to illustrate the presentment of Samkhya and Mayavada. From the Shakta aspect we may compare the process to one in which it is assumed that in one aspect there is an unchanging light, in another it is either turned up or turned down as the case may be. In gross matter the light is so turned down that it is not ordinarily perceptible and even delicate scientific experiment may give rise to contending assertions. When the veiling by Tamas is lessened in organic life, and the Jiva is thus less bound in matter, the same Consciousness (for there is no other) which previously manifested as, what seems to us, a mere mechanical reaction, manifests in its freer environment in that sensation which we associate with consciousness as popularly understood. Shakti, who ever negates Herself as Maya-Shakti, more and more reveals Herself as Cit-Shakti. There is thus a progressive release of Consciousness from the bonds of matter, until it attains complete freedom or liberation (Moksha) when the Atma is Itself (Atma Svarupi) or Pure Consciousness. At this point, the same Shakti, who had operated as Maya, is Herself Consciousness (Cidrupini).

According to the Hindu books, plants have a sort of dormant Consciousness, and are capable of pleasure and pain. Cakrapani says in the Bhanumati that the Consciousness of plants is a kind of stupefied, darkened, or comatose Consciousness. Udayana also says that plants have a dormant Consciousness which is very dull. The differences between plant and animal life have always been regarded by the Hindus as being one not of kind, but of degree. And this principle may be applied throughout. Life and Consciousness is not a product of evolution. The latter merely manifests it. Manu speaks of plants as being creatures enveloped by darkness caused by past deeds having, however, an internal Consciousness and a capacity for pleasure and pain. And, in the Mahabharata, Bhrigu says to Bharadhvaja that plants possess the various senses, for they are affected by heat, sounds, vision (whereby, for instance, the creeper pursues its path to the light), odors and the water which they taste. I may refer also to such stories as that of the Yamalarjunavriksha of the Srimad Bhagavata mentioned in Professor Brajendra Nath Seal's learned work, The Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus, and Professor S. N. Das Gupta's scholarly paper on Parinama to which I am indebted for these instances.

Man is said to have passed through all the lower states of Consciousness and is capable of reaching the highest through Yoga. The Jiva attains birth as man after having been, it is said, born 84 lakhs (84,000,000) of times as plants (Vrikshadi), aquatic animals (Jalayoni), insects and the like (Krimi), birds (Pakshi), beasts (Pashvadi), and monkeys (Vanar). He then is born 2 lakhs of times (2,000,000) in the inferior species of humanity, and then gradually attains a better and better birth until he is liberated from all the bonds of matter. The exact number of each kind of birth is in 20, 9, 11, 10, 30 and 4 lakhs, respectively -- 84 lakhs. As pointed out by Mahamahopadhyaya Chandrakanta Tarkalankara Lectures on "Hindu Philosophy" (5th year, p. 227, Lecture VII), pre-appearance in monkey form is not a Western theory only. The Consciousness which manifests in him is not altogether a new creation, but an unfolding of that which has ever existed in the elements of which he is composed, and in the Vegetable and Animal through which prior to his human birth he has passed. In him, however, matter is so re-arranged and organized as to permit of the fullest rnanifestation which has hitherto existed of the underlying Cit. Man's is the birth so "difficult of attainment" (Durlabha). This is an oft-repeated statement of Shastra in order that he should avail himself of the opportunities which Evolution has brought him. If he does not, he falls back, and may do so without limit, into gross matter again, passing intermediately through the Hells of suffering. Western writers in general, describe such a descent as unscientific. How, they ask, can a man's Consciousness reside in an animal or plant'? The correct answer (whatever be popular belief) is that it does not. When man sinks again into an animal he ceases to be a man. He does not continue to be both man and animal. His consciousness is an animal consciousness and not a human consciousness. It is a, childish view which regards such a case as being the imprisonment of a man in an animal body. If he can go up he can also go down. The soul or subtle body is not a fixed but an evolving thing. Only Spirit (Cit) is eternal and unchanged. In man, the revealing constituent of Prakriti Shakti (Sattvaguna) commences to more fully develop, and his consciousness is fully aware of the objective world and his own Ego, and displays itself in all those functions of it which are called his faculties. We here reach the world of ideas, but these are a superstructure on consciousness and not its foundation or basis. Man's consciousness is still, however, veiled by Maya-Shakti. With the greater predominance of Sattvaguna in man, consciousness becomes more and more divine, until he is altogether freed of the bonds of Maya, and the Jiva Consciousness expands into the pure Brahman Consciousness. Thus life and Consciousness exist throughout. All is living. All is Consciousness. In the world of gross matter they seem to disappear, being almost suppressed by the veil of Maya-Sakti's Tamoguna. As however ascent is made, they are less and less veiled, and True Consciousness is at length realized in Samadhi and Moksha. Cit-Shakti and Maya-Shakti exist inseparable throughout the whole universe. There is therefore according to the principles of the Shakta Shastra not a particle of matter which is without life and consciousness variously displaced or concealed though they be. Manifest Maya-Shakti is the universe in which Cit-Shakti is the changeless Spirit. Unmanifest Maya-Shakti is Consciousness (Cidrupini). There are many persons who think that they have disposed of a doctrine when they have given it an opprobrious, or what they think to be an opprobrious, name. And so they dub all this "Animism," which the reader of Census Reports associates with primitive and savage tribes. There are some people who are frightened by names. It is not names but facts which should touch us. Certainly "Animism" is in some respects an incorrect and childlike way of putting the matter. It is, however, an imperfect presentment of a central truth which has been held by some of the profoundest thinkers in the world, even in an age in which we are apt to think to be superior to all others. Primitive man in his simplicity made the discovery of several such truths. And so it has been well said that the simple savage and the child who regard all existence as akin to their own, living and feeling like himself, have, notwithstanding their errors, more truly felt the pulse of being, than the civilized man of culture. How essentially stupid some of the latter can be needs no proof. For the process of civilization being one of abstraction, they are less removed from the concrete fact than he is. Hence their errors which seem the more contorted due to the mass of useless verbiage in which they are expressed. And yet, as extremes meet, so having passed through our present condition, we may regain the truths perceived by the simple, not only through formal worship but by that which consists of the pursuit of all knowledge and science, when once the husk of all material thinking is cast aside. For him, who sees the Mother in all things, all scientific research is wonder and worship. So Gratry said that the calculus of Newton and Leibnitz was a supralogical procedure, and that geometric induction is essentially a process of prayer, by which he evidently meant an appeal from the finite mind to the Infinite, for light on finite concerns. The seeker looks upon not mere mechanical movements of so-called "dead" matter, but the wondrous play of Her Whose form all matter is. As She thus reveals Herself She induces in him a passionate exaltation and that sense of security which is only gained as approach is made to the Central Heart of things. For, as the Upanishad says, "He only fears who sees duality". Some day may be, when one who unites in himself the scientific ardor of the West and the all-embracing religious feeling of India will create another and a modern Candi, with its multiple salutations to the sovereign World-Mother (Namastasyai namo namah). Such an one, seeing the changing marvels of Her world-play, will exclaim with the Yoginihridaya Tantra, "I salute Her the Samvid Kala who shines in the form of Space, Time and all Objects therein."

Deshakalapadarthatma yad yad vastu yatha yatha,

Tattadrupena ya bhati tam shraye samvidam kalam

This is, however, not mere Nature-worship as it is generally understood in the West, or the worship of Force as Keshub Chunder Sen took the Shakta doctrine to be. All things exist in the Supreme who in Itself infinitely transcends all finite forms. It is the worship of God as the Mother-Creatrix who manifests in the form of all things which are, as it were, but an atom of dust on the Feet of Her who is Infinite Being (Sat), Experience (Cit), Love (Ananda) and Power (Shakti). As Philibert Commerson said: "La vie d'un naturaliste est, je L'ose dire, une adoration presque perpétuelle."

I have in my paper Shakti and Maya (here reprinted from the Indian Philosophical Review, 1918, No. 2) contrasted the three different concepts of the Primal Energy as Prakriti, Maya and Shakti of Samkhya, Vedanta and the Agama respectively. I will not, therefore, repeat myself but will only summarize conclusions here. In the first place, there are features common to all three concepts. Hitherto, greater pains have been taken to show the differences between the Darshanas than to co-ordinate them systematically, by regarding their points of agreement or as regard apparent disagreement, their viewpoint. It has been said that Truth cannot be found in such a country as India, in which, there are six systems of philosophy disputing with one another, and where even in one system alone, there is a conflict between Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita and Advaita. One might suppose from such a criticism that all in Europe were of one mind, or that al least the Christian Community was agreed, instead of being split up, as it is, into hundreds of sects. An American humorist observed with truth that there was a good deal of human nature in man everywhere.

Of course there is difference which, as the Radd-ul-Muhtar says, is also the gift of God. This is not to deny that Truth is only one. It is merely to recognize that whilst Truth is one, the nature and capacities of those who seek it, or claim to possess it, vary. To use a common metaphor, the same white light which passes through varicolored glass takes on its various colors. All cannot apprehend the truth to the same extent or in the same way. Hence the sensible Indian doctrine of competency or Adhikara. In the Christian Gospel it is also said, "Throw not your pearls before swine lest they trample upon them and then rend you." What can be given to any man is only what he can receive.

The Six Philosophies represent differing standards according to the manner and to the extent to which the one Truth may be apprehended. Each standard goes a step beyond the last, sharing, however, with it certain notions in common. As regards the present matter, all these systems start with the fact that there is Spirit and Mind, Matter, Consciousness and Unconsciousness, apparent or real. Samkhya, Vedanta and the Shakta Agama called the first Purusha, Brahman, Shiva; and the second Prakriti, Maya, Shakti respectively. All agree that it is from the association together of these two Principles that the universe arises and that such association is the universe. All, again, agree that one Principle, namely, the first, is infinite, formless consciousness, and the second is a finitizing principle which makes forms. Thirdly, all regard this last as a veiling principle, that is, one which veils consciousness; and hold that it is eternal, all-pervading, existing now as seed (Mula-prakriti, Avyakta) and now as fruit (Vikriti), composed of the Gunas Sattva, Rajas and Tamas (Principles of presentation of Consciousness, Action, and Veiling of Consciousness respectively); unperceivable except through its effects. In all, it is the Natural Principle, the material cause of the material universe.

The word Prakriti has been said to be derived from the root "Kri," and the affix "Ktin," which is added to express Bhava or the abstract idea, and sometimes the Karma or object of the action, corresponding with the Greek affix Sis. Ktin inflected in the nominative becomes tis. Prakriti, therefore, has been said to correspond with Phusis (Nature) of the Greeks. In all three systems, therefore, it is, as the "natural," contrasted with the "spiritual" aspect of things.

The first main point of difference is between Samkhya, on the one hand, and the Advaita Vedanta, whether as interpreted by Shamkara or taught by the Shaiva-Shakta Tantra on the other. Classical Samkhya is a dualistic system, whereas the other two are non-dualistic. The classical Samkhya posits a plurality of Atmans representing the formless consciousness, with one unconscious Prakriti which is formative activity. Prakriti is thus a real independent principle. Vedantic monism does not altogether discard these two principles, but says that they cannot exist as two independent Realities. There is only one Brahman. The two categories of Samkhya, Purusha and Prakriti are reduced to one Reality, the Brahman; otherwise the Vakya, "All this is verily Brahman" (Sarvam khalvidam Brahma), is falsified.

But how is this effected? It is on this point that Mayavada of Shamkara and the Advaita of Shaiva-Shakta Agama differ. Both systems agree that Brahman has two aspects in one of which It is transcendent and in another creative and immanent. According to Shamkara, Brahman is in one aspect Ishvara associated with, and in another one dissociated from Maya which, in his system, occupies the place of the Samkhyan Prakriti, to which it is (save as to reality and independence) similar. What is Maya P It is not a real independent Principle like the Samkhyan Prakriti. Then is it Brahman or not'? According to Shamkara, it is an unthinkable, alogical, unexplainable (Anirvacantia) mystery. It is an eternal falsity (Mithyabhuta sanatani), owing what false appearance of reality it possesses to the Brahman, with which in one aspect it is associated. It is not real for there is only one such. It cannot, however, be said to be unreal for it is the cause of and is empirical experience. It is something which is neither real (Sat) nor unreal (Asat), nor partly real and partly unreal (Sadasat), and which though not forming part of Brahman, and therefore not Brahman, is yet, though not a second reality, inseparably associated and sheltering with (Maya Brahmashrita) Brahman in Its Ishvara aspect. Like the Samkhyan Prakriti, Maya (whatever it be) is in the nature of an unconscious principle. The universe appears by the reflection of consciousness (Purusha, Brahman) on unconsciousness (Prakriti, Maya). In this way the unconscious is made to appear conscious. This is Cidabhasa.

Maya is illusive and so is Shamkara's definition of it. Further, though Maya is not a second reality, but a mysterious something of which neither reality nor unreality can be affirmed, the fact of positing it at all in this form gives to Shamkara's doctrine a tinge of dualism from which the Shakta doctrine is free. For, it is to be noted that notwithstanding that Maya is a falsity, it is not, according to Shamkara, a mere negation or want of something (Abhava), but a positive entity (Bhavarupam ajñanam), that is in the nature of a Power which veils (Acchadaka) consciousness, as Prakriti does in the case of Purusha. Shamkara's system, on the other hand, has this advantage from a monistic standpoint, that whilst he, like the Shakta, posits the doctrine of aspects saying that in one aspect the Brahman is associated with Maya (Ishvara), and in another it is not (Parabrahman; yet in neither aspect does his Brahman change. Whereas, according to Shakta doctrine, Shiva does, in one aspect, that is as Shakti, change.

Whilst then Shamkara's teaching is consistent with the changelessness of Brahman, he is not so successful in establishing the saying,. "All this is Brahman". The position is reversed as regards Shaiva-Shakta Darshana which puts forth its doctrine of Maya-Shakti with greater simplicity. Shakta doctrine takes the saying, "All this is Brahman" (the realization of which, as the Mahanirvana Tantra states, is the aim and end of Kulacara) in its literal sense. "This" is the universe. Then the universe is Brahman. But Brahman is Consciousness. Then the universe is really That. But in what way P Shamkara says that what we sense with our senses is Maya, which is practically something, but in a real sense nothing; which yet appears to be something because it is associated with the Brahman which alone is Real. Its appearance of independent reality is thus borrowed and is in this sense said to be "illusory". When, therefore, we say, "All this is Brahman" -- according to Shamkara, this means that what is at the back of that which we see is Brahman; the rest or appearance is Maya. Again, according to Shamkara, man is spirit (Atma) vestured in the Mayik falsities of mind and matter. He, accordingly, can then only establish the unity of Ishvara and Jiva by eliminating from the first Maya, and from the second Avidya; when Brahman is left as a common denominator. The Shakta, however, eliminates nothing. For him, in the strictest sense, "All is Brahman." For him, man's Spirit (Atma) is Shiva. His mind and body are Shakti. But Shiva and Shakti are one. Paramatma is Shiva-Shakti in undistinguishable union. Jivatma is Shiva-Shakti in that state in which the Self is distinguished from the not-Self. Man, therefore, according to the Shakta Tantra, is not Spirit seemingly clothed by a non-Brahman falsity, but Spirit covering Itself with its own power or Maya-Shakti. All is Shakti whether as Cit-Shakti or Maya-Shakti. When, therefore, the Shakta Tantric says, "All this is Brahman," he means it literally. "This," here means Brahman as Shakti, as Maya-Shakti, and Cit-Shakti.

Shiva as Parabrahman is Shiva-Shakti in that state when Shakti is not operating and in which She is Herself, that is, pure consciousness (Cidrupini). Shiva as Ishvara is Shiva-Shakti in that state in which Shiva, associated with Maya-Shakti, is the source of movement and change; Shiva-Shakti as Jiva is the state produced by such action which is subject to Maya, from which Ishvara, the Mayin is free. The creative Shakti is therefore changeless Cit-Shakti and changing Maya-Shakti. Yet the One Shakti must never be conceived as existing apart from, or without the other, for they are only twin aspects of the fundamental Substance (Paravastu). Vimarsha-Shakti (See Kamakalavilasa, 3rd Edition, 1961, Verses 1-4) as Maya-Shakti produces the forms in which Spirit as Cit-Shakti inheres and which it illuminates (Prakasha). But Maya-Shakti is not unconscious. How can it be; for it is Shakti and one with Cit-Shakti. All Shakti is and must be Consciousness. There is no unconscious Maya which is not Brahman and yet not separate from Brahman. Brahman alone is and exists, whether as Cit or as manifestation of Maya. All is Consciousness, as the so-called "New Thought" of the West also affirms.

But surely, it will be said, there is an unconscious element in things. How is this accounted for if there be no unconscious Maya? It is conscious Shakti veiling Herself and so appearing as limited consciousness. In other words, whilst Shamkara says mind and matter are in themselves unconscious but appear to be conscious through Cidabhasa, the Shakta Agama reverses the position, and says that they are in themselves, that is in their ground, conscious, for they are at base Cit; but they yet appear to be unconscious, or more strictly limited consciousness, by the veiling power of Consciousness Itself as Maya-Shakti. This being so, there is no need for Cidabhasa which assumes, as it were, two things, the Brahman, and unconscious Maya in which the former reflects itself. Though some of the Shastras do speak of a reflection, Pratibimba is between Shiva and Shakti. Brahman is Maya-Shakti in that aspect in which it negates itself, for it is the function of Shakti to negate (Nishedhavyapararupa shaktih), as it is said by Yoga-Raja or Yoga-Muni (as he is also called) in his commentary on Abhinava Gupta's Paramarthasara. In the Shakta Tantras, it is a common saying of Shiva to Devi, "There is no difference between Me and Thee." Whilst Shamkara's Ishvara is associated with the unconscious Maya, the Shaiva Shakta's Ishvara is never associated with anything but Himself, that is as Maya-Shakti.

Whether this doctrine be accepted as the final solution of things or not, it is both great and powerful. It is great because the whole world is seen in glory according to the strictest monism as the manifestation of Him and Her. The mind is not distracted and kept from the realization of unity, by the notion of any unconscious Maya which is not Brahman nor yet separate from It. Next, this doctrine accommodates itself to Western scientific monism, so far as the latter goes, adding to it however a religious and metaphysical basis; infusing it with the spirit of devotion. It is powerful because its standpoint is the 'here' and 'now,' and not the transcendental Siddhi standpoint of which most men know nothing and cannot, outside Samadhi, realize. It assumes the reality of the world which to us is real. It allows the mind to work in its natural channel. It does not ask it to deny what goes against the grain of its constitution to deny. It is, again, powerful because we stand firmly planted on a basis which is real and natural to us. From the practical viewpoint, it does not ask man to eschew and flee from the world in the spirit of asceticism; a course repugnant to a large number of modern minds, not only because mere asceticism often involves what it thinks to be a futile self-denial; but because that mind is waking to the truth that all is one; that if so, to deny the world is in a sense to deny an aspect of That which is both Being and Becoming. It thinks also that whilst some natures are naturally ascetic, to attempt ascetic treatment in the case of most is to contort the natural being, and to intensify the very evils which asceticism seeks to avoid. Not one man in many thousands has true Vairagya or detachment from the world. Most are thoroughly even glued to it. Again, there are many minds which are puzzled and confused by Mayavada; and which, therefore, falsely interpret it,-- may be to their harm. These men, Mayavada, or rather their misunderstanding of it, weakens or destroys. Their grip on themselves and the world is in any case enfeebled. They become intellectual and moral derelicts who are neither on the path of power nor of renunciation, and who have neither the strength to follow worldly life, nor to truly abandon it. It is not necessary, however, to renounce when all is seen to be Her. And, when all is so seen, then the spiritual illumination which transfuses all thoughts and acts makes them noble and pure. It is impossible for a man, who in whatever sense truly sees God in all things, to err. If he does so, it is because his vision is not fully strong and pure; and to this extent scope is afforded to error. But given perfect spiritual eyesight then all "this" is pure. For, as the Greeks profoundly said, "panta kathara tois katharois," "To the pure all things are pure."

The Shakta doctrine is thus one which has not only grandeur but is greatly pragmatic and of excelling worth. It has always been to me a surprise that its value should not have been rightly appreciated. I can only suppose that its neglect is due to the fact that is the doctrine of the Shakta Tantras. That fact has been enough to warrant its rejection, or at least a refusal to examine it. Like all practical doctrines, it is also intensely positive. There are none of those negations which weaken and which annoy those who, as the vital Western mind does, feel themselves to be strong and living in an atmosphere of might and power. For power is a glorious thing. What is wanted is only the sense that all Power is of God and is God, and that Bhava or feeling which interprets all thoughts and acts and their objects in terms of the Divine, and which sees God in and as all things. Those who truly do so will exercise power not only without wrong, but with that compassion (Karuna) for all beings which is so beautiful a feature of the Buddha of northern and Tantrik Buddhism. For in them Shakti Herself has descended. This is Shaktipata, as it is technically called in the Tantra Shastra; the descent of Shakti which Western theology calls the grace of God. But grace is truly not some exterior thing, though we may pictorially think of it as 'streaming' from above below. Atma neither comes nor goes. To be in grace is that state in which man commences to realize himself as Shiva-Shakti. His power is, to use a Western phrase, "converted". It is turned from the husk of mere outwardness and of limited self-seeking, to that inner Reality which is the great Self which, at base, he (in this doctrine) is.

The principles of Shakta doctrine, which will vary according to race, are a regenerating doctrine, giving strength where there is weakness, and, where strength exists, directing it to right ends. "Shivo' ham," "I am Shiva," "Sha' ham," "I am She (the Devi)," the Tantras say. The Western may call It by some other name. Some call It this and some that, as the Veda says. "I am He," "I am She," "I am It," matters not to the Shakta so long as man identifies himself with the 'Oversoul,' and thus harmonizes himself with its Being, with Dharmic actions (as it manifests in the world) and therefore necessarily with Its true ends. In its complete form the Shakta doctrine is monistic. But to those to whom monism makes no appeal, the Shakta will say that by adopting its spirit, so far as the forms of their belief and worship allow, they will experience a reflection of the joy and strength of those who truly live because they worship Her who is Eternal life -- the Mother who is seated on the couch of Shivas (Mahapreta), in the Isle of Gems (Manidvipa), in the "Ocean of Nectar," which is all Being-Consciousness and Bliss.

This is the pearl which those who have churned the ocean of Tantra discover. That pearl is there in an Indian shell. There is a beautiful nacre on the inner shell which is the Mother of Pearl. Outside, the shell is naturally rough and coarse, and bears the accretions of weed and parasite and of things of all kinds which exist, good or bad as we call them, in the ocean of existence (Samsara). The Scripture leads man to remove these accretions, and to pass within through the crust, gross, though not on that account only, bad; for there is a gross (Sthula) and subtle (Sukshma) aspect of worship. Finally it leads man to seek to see the Mother of Pearl and lastly the Pearl which, enclosed therein, shines with the brilliant yet soft light which is that of the Moon-Cit (Cicchandra) Itself.

é INDEX é

The subject of my lecture to-day is Consciousness or Cit, and Matter or Unconsciousness, that is, Acit; the unchanging formlessness and the changing forms. According to Shakta Advaitavada, man is Consciousness-Unconsciousness or Cit-Acit; being Cit-Shakti as regards his Antaratma, and the particularized Maya-Shakti as to his material vehicles of mind and body. The reason that I have selected this subject, amongst the many others on which I might have addressed you, is that these two ideas are the key concepts of Indian Philosophy and religion. If they are fully understood both as to their definition and relations, then, all is understood so far as intellect can make such matters intelligible to us; if they are not understood then nothing is properly understood. Nor are they always understood even by those who profess to know and write on Indian Philosophy. Thus, the work on Vedanta, of an English Orientalist, now in its second edition, describes Cit as the condition of a stone or other inert substance. A more absurd error it is hard to imagine. Those who talk in this way have not learnt the elements of their subject. It is true that you will find in the Shastra, the state of the Yogi described as being like a log (Kashthavat). But this does not mean that his Consciousness is that of a piece of wood; but that he no more perceives the external world than a log of wood does. He does not do so because he has the Samadhi consciousness that is Illumination and true Being itself.

I can to-night only scratch at the surface of a profound subject. To properly expound it would require a series of lectures, and to understand it in its depths, years of thinking thereon. I will look at the matter first from the scientific point of view; secondly, state what those concepts mean in themselves; and thirdly, show how they are related to one another in the Samkhya and the Mayavada and Shaktivada presentments of Vedanta doctrine. The Shaktivada of which I deal to-night may be found in the Tantras. It has been supposed that the Agamas arose at the close of the age of the Upanishads. They are Shastras of the Upasana Kanda dealing with the worship of Saguna Ishvara. It has been conjectured that they arose partly because of the declining strength of the Vaidika Acara, and partly because of the increasing number of persons within the Hindu fold, who were not competent for the Vaidika Acara, and, for whom some spiritual discipline was necessary. One common feature distinguishes them; namely, their teaching is for all castes and all women. They express the liberal principle that whilst socially differences may exist, the path of religion is open to all, and that spiritual competency and not the external signs of caste determine the position of persons on that path. Ishvara in these Agamas is worshipped in threefold forms as Vishnu, Shiva, Devi. Therefore, the Agamas or Tantras are threefold, Vaishnava, Shaiva and Shakta, such as the Pañcaratra Agamas of the first group, the Shaiva Siddhanta (with its 28 Tantras), the Nakulisha Pashupata, and the Kashmirian Trika of the second group; and the alleged division into Kaula, Mishra, Samaya of the third group. I express no opinion on this last division. I merely refer to this matter in order to explain what I mean by the word Agama. The Shaktivada, however, which I contrast with Mayavada to-day, is taken from the Shakta Agama. By Mayavada I mean Shamkara's exposition of Vedanta.

Now, with reference to the scientific aspect of the subject, I show you that in three main particulars, modern western physics and psychology support Indian philosophy whatever such support may be worth. Indeed, Mr. Lowes Dickinson, in an acute recent analysis of the state of ideas in India, China and Japan observes that the Indian form of religion and philosophy is that which most easily accommodates itself to modern western science. That does not prove it is true, until it is established that the conclusions of western science to which it does conform, are true. But the fact is of great importance in countering those who have thought that eastern ideas were without rational foundation. It is of equal importance to those two classes who either believe in the ideas of India, or in the particular conclusions of science to which I refer. The three points on this head are firstly, that physicists, by increasing their knowledge of so-called "matter," have been led to doubt its reality, and have dematerialized the atom, and, with it, the entire universe which the various atoms compose. The trinity of matter, ether and electricity out of which science has hitherto attempted to construct the world, has been reduced to a single element -- the ether (which is not scientific "matter") in a state of motion. According to Samkhya, the objective world is composed of Bhutas which derive ultimately from Akasha. I do not say that scientific "ether" is Akasha, which is a concept belonging to a different train of thought. Moreover the sensible is derived from the supersensible Akasha Tanmatra, and is not therefore an ultimate. But it is important to note the agreement in this, that both in East and West, the various forms of gross matter derive from some single substance which is not "matter". Matter is dematerialized, and the way is made for the Indian concept of Maya. There is a point at which the mind cannot any longer usefully work outward. Therefore, after the Tanmatra, the mind is turned within to discover their cause in that Egoism which, reaching forth to the world of enjoyment produces sensorial, senses, and objects of sensation. That the mind and senses are also material has the support of some forms of western philosophy, such as that of Herbert Spencer, for he holds that the Universe, whether physical or psychical, is a play of force which in the case of matter we experience as object. Mind as such is, he says, as much a "material" organ as the brain and outer sense-organs, though they are differing forms of Force. His affirmation that scientific "matter" is an appearance produced by the play of cosmic force, and that mind itself is a product of the same play, is what Samkhya and Vedanta hold. The way again is opened for the concept, Maya. Whilst, however, Spencer and the Agnostic School hold that the Reality behind these phenomena is unknowable, the Vedanta affirms that it is knowable and is Consciousness itself. This is the Self than which nothing can be more intimately known. Force is blind. We discover consciousness in the Universe. It is reasonable to suppose that if the first cause is of the nature of either Consciousness or Matter, and not of both, it must be of the nature of the former and not of the latter. Unconsciousness or object may be conceived to modify Consciousness, but not to produce Consciousness out of its unconscious Self. According to Indian ideas, Spirit which is the cause of the Universe is pure Consciousness. This is Nishkala Shiva: and, as the Creator, the great Mother or Devi. The existence of pure consciousness in the Indian sense has been decried by some thinkers in the West, where generally to its pragmatic eye, Consciousness is always particular having a particular direction and form. It assumes this particularity, however, through Maya. We must distinguish between Consciousness as such and modes in consciousness. Consciousness is the unity behind all forms of consciousness, whether sensation, emotion, instinct, will or reason. The claim that Consciousness as such exists can only be verified by spiritual experience. All high mystic experiences, whether in East or West, have been experiences of unity in differing forms and degrees. Even, however, in normal life as well as in abnormal pathological states, we have occasional stretches of experience in which it becomes almost structure-less. Secondly, the discovery of the subliminal Consciousness aids Shastric doctrine, in so far as it shows that behind the surface consciousness of which we are ordinarily aware, there is yet another mysterious field in which all its operations grow. It is the Buddhi which here manifests. Well-established occult powers and phenomena now generally accepted such as telepathy, thought-reading, hypnotism and the like are only explainable on hypotheses which approach more nearly Eastern doctrine than any other theory which has in modern times prevailed in the West. Thirdly, as bearing on this subject, we have now the scientific recognition that from its materia prima all forms have evolved; that there is life or its potency in all things: and that there are no breaks in nature. There is the same matter and Consciousness throughout. There is unity of life. There is no such thing as "dead" matter. The well-known experiments of Dr. Jagadish Bose establish response to stimuli in inorganic matter. This response may be interpreted to indicate the existence of that Sattva Guna which Vedanta and Samkhya affirm to exist in all things organic or inorganic. It is the play of Cit in this Sattva, so muffled in Tamas as not to be recognizable except by delicate scientific experiment, which appears as the so-called "mechanical" response. Consciousness is here veiled and imprisoned by Tamas. Inorganic matter displays it in the form of that seed or rudiment of sentiency which, enlarging into the simple pulses of feeling of the lowest degrees of organized life, at length emerges in the developed self-conscious sensations of human life. Consciousness is throughout the same. What varies is its wrappings. There is, thus, a progressive release of Consciousness from gross matter, through plants and animals to man. This evolution, Indian doctrine has taught in its 84 lakhs of previous births. According to the Hindu books, plants have a dormant consciousness. The Mahabharata says that plants can see and thus they reach the light. Such power of vision would have been ridiculed not long ago, but Professor Haberlandt, the well-known botanist, has established that plants possess an organ of vision in the shape of a convex lens on the upper surface of the leaf. The animal consciousness is greater, but seems to display itself almost entirely in the satisfaction of animal's wants. In man, we reach the world of ideas, but these are a superstructure on consciousness, and not its foundation or basis. It is in this modeless basis that the various modes of consciousness with which we are familiar in our waking and dreaming states arise.

The question then arises as to the relation of this principle of Form with Formlessness; the unconscious finite with infinite consciousness. It is noteworthy that in the Thomistic philosophy, Matter, like Prakriti, is the particularizing or finitizing principle. By their definition, however, they are opposed. How then can the two be one?

Samkhya denies that they are one, and says they are two separate independent principles. This, Vedanta in its turn denies for it says that there is in fact only one true Reality, though from the empirical, dualistic standpoint there seem to be two. The question then is asked, Is dualism, pluralism, or monism to be accepted? For the Vedantist the answer of Shruti is that it is the last. But, apart from this, the question is, Does Shruti record a true experience, and is it the fact that spiritual experience is monistic or dualistic? The answer is, as we can see from history, that all high mystic experiences are experiences of unity in differing forms and degrees.

The question cannot be decided solely by discussion, but by our conclusion as to the conformity of the particular theory held with spiritual experience. But how can we reconcile the unity of pure consciousness with the plurality of unconscious forms which the world of experience gives us? Vedanta gives various intellectual interpretations, though experience alone can solve this question. Shamkara says there is only one Sadvastu, the Brahman. From a transcendental standpoint, It is, and nothing happens. There is, in the state of highest experience (Paramatma), no Ishvara, no creation, no world, no Jiva, no bondage, no liberation. But empirically he must and does admit the world or Maya, which in its seed is the cosmic Samskara, which is the cause of all these notions which from the highest state are rejected. But is it real or unreal? Shamkara says it is neither. It cannot be real, for then there would be two Reals. It is not unreal, for the world is an empirical fact -- an experience of its kind, and it proceeds from the Power of Ishvara. In truth, it is unexplainable, and as Sayana says, more wonderful than Cit itself.

But if it is neither Sat nor Asat, then as Maya it is not the Brahman who is Sat. Does it then exist in Pralaya and if so how and where? How can unconsciousness exist in pure consciousness? Shamkara calls it eternal, and says that in Pralaya, Mayasatta is Brahmasatta. At that time, Maya, as the power of the ideating consciousness, and the world, its thought, do not exist: and only the Brahman is. But if so how does the next universe arise on the assumption that there is Pralaya and that there is not with him as Maya the seed of the future universe? A Bija of Maya as Samskara, even though Avyakta (not present to Consciousness), is yet by its terms different from consciousness. To all such questionings, Shamkara would say, they are themselves the product of the Maya of the state in which they are put. This is true, but it is possible to put the matter in a simpler way against which there are not so many objections as may be laid against Mayavada.

It seems to me that Shamkara who combats Samkhya is still much influenced by its notions, and as a result of his doctrine of Maya he has laid himself open to the charge that his doctrine is not Shuddha Advaita. His notion of Maya retains a trace of the Samkhyan notion of separateness, though separateness is in fact denied. In Samkhya, Maya is the real Creatrix under the illumination of Purusha. We find similar notions in Shamkara, who compares Cit to the Ayaskantamani, and denies all liberty of self-determination in the Brahman which, though itself unchanging, is the cause of change. Jñana Kriya is allowed only to Ishvara, a concept which is itself the product of Maya. To some extent the distinctions made are perhaps a matter of words. To some extent particular notions of the Agamas are more practical than those of Shamkara who was a transcendentalist.

The Agama, giving the richest content to the Divine Consciousness, does not deny to it knowledge, but, in its supreme aspect, any dual knowledge; spiritual experience being likened by the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad to the union of man and wife in which duality exists as one and there is neither within nor without. It is this union which is the Divine Lila of Shakti, who is yet all the time one with Her Lord.

The Shakta exposition appears to be both simple and clear. I can only sketch it roughly -- having no time for its detail. It is first the purest Advaitavada. What then does it say? It starts with the Shruti, "Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma". Sarvam = world; Brahman = consciousness or Sacchidananda; therefore this world is itself Consciousness.

But we know we are not perfect consciousness. There is an apparent unconsciousness. How then is this explained? The unmanifested Brahman, before all the worlds, is Nirguna Shiva -- the Blissful undual consciousness. This is the static aspect of Shiva. This manifests Shakti which is the kinetic aspect of Brahman. Shakti and Shaktiman are one; therefore, Shiva manifests as Shiva-Shakti, who are one and the same. Therefore Shakti is consciousness.

But Shakti has two aspects (Murti), viz., Vidya Shakti or Cit-Shakti, and Avidya Shakti or Maya-Shakti. Both as Shakti (which is the same as Shaktiman) are in themselves conscious. But the difference is that whilst Cit-Shakti is illuminating consciousness, Maya is a Shakti which veils consciousness to itself, and by its wondrous power appears as unconscious. This Maya-Shakti is Consciousness which by its power appears as unconsciousness. This Maya-Shakti is Triguna Shakti, that is, Shakti composed of the three Gunas. This is Kamakala which is the Trigunatmaka vibhuti. These Gunas are therefore at base nothing but Cit-Shakti. There is no necessity for the Mayavadin's Cidabhasa, that is, the reflection of conscious reality on unconscious unreality, as Mayavada says. All is real except, in the sense that some things endure and are therefore truly real: others pass and in that sense only are not real. All is Brahman. The Antaratma in man is the enduring Cit-Shakti. His apparently unconscious vehicles of mind and body are Brahman as Maya-Shakti, that is, consciousness appearing as unconsciousness by virtue of its inscrutable power. Ishvara is thus the name for Brahman as Shakti which is conjoined Cit-Shakti and Maya-Shakti.

The Mother Devi is Ishvara considered in His feminine aspect (Ishvari) as the Mother and Nourisher of the world. The Jiva or individual self is an Amsha or fragment of that great Shakti: the difference being that whilst Ishvara is Mayavin or the controller of Maya, Jiva is subject to Maya. The World-thinker retains His Supreme undual Consciousness even in creation, but His thought, that is the forms created by His thinking are bound by His Maya that is the forms with which they identify themselves until by the power of the Vidya Shakti in them they are liberated. All is truly Sat -- or Brahman. In creation Shiva extends His power, and at Pralaya withdraws it into Himself. In creation, Maya is in itself Consciousness which appears as unconsciousness. Before creation it is as consciousness.

Important practical results follow from the adoption of this view of looking at the world. The latter is the creation of Ishvara. The world is real; being unreal only in the sense that it is a shifting passing thing, whereas Atma as the true Reality endures. Bondage is real, for Bondage is Avidyashakti binding consciousness. Liberation is real for this is the grace of Vidyashakti. Men are each Centers of Power, and if they would achieve success must, according to this Shastra, realize themselves as such, knowing that it is Devata which thinks and acts in, and as, them and that they are the Devata. Their world enjoyment is His, and liberation is His peaceful nature. The Agamas deal with the development of this Power which is not to be thought of as something without, but as within man's grasp through various forms of Shakti Sadhana. Being in the world and working through the world, the world itself, in the words of the Kularnava Tantra, becomes the seat of liberation (Mokshayate Samsara). The Vira or heroic Sadhaka does not shun the world from fear of it. But he holds it in his grasp and wrests from it its secret. Realizing it at length as Consciousness the world of matter ceases to be an object of desire. Escaping from the unconscious drifting of a humanity which has not yet realized itself, He is the illumined master of himself, whether developing all his powers, or seeking liberation at his will.

[As M. Masson-Oursel so well puts it (Esquisse dune histoire de la philosophie indienne, p. 257) "Dans le tantrisme triomphent une conception immanentiste de 1'intelligibilite, L'esprit s'assigne pour but, non de se laisser vivre mais de se créer une vie digne de lui, une existence omnisciente omnipotente, qu'il maitrisera parce qu'il en sera auteur" (by Sadhana).]

é INDEX é

In the Eighth Chapter of the unpublished Sammohana Tantra, it is said that Shamkara manifested on earth in the form of Shamkaracarya, in order to root out Buddhism from India. It compares his disciples and himself to the five Mahapreta (who form the couch on which the Mother of the Worlds rests), and identifies his maths with the Amnayas, namely, the Govardhana in Puri with Purvamnaya (the Sampradaya being Bhogavara), and so on with the rest. Whatever be the claims of Shamkara as destroyer of the great Buddhistic heresy, which owing to its subtlety was the most dangerous antagonist which the Vedanta has ever had, or his claims as expounder of Upanishad from the standpoint of Siddhi, his Mayavada finds no place in the Tantras of the Agamas, for the doctrine and practice is given from the standpoint of Sadhana. This is not to say that the doctrine is explicitly denied. It is not considered. It is true that in actual fact we often give accommodation to differing theories for which logic can find no living room, but it is obvious that in so far as man is a worshipper he must accept the world-standpoint, if he would not, like Kalidasa, cut from beneath himself the branch of the tree on which he sits. Next, it would be a mistake to overlook the possibility of the so-called "Tantrik" tradition having been fed by ways of thought and practice which were not, in the strict sense of the term, part of the Vaidic cult, or in the line of its descent. The worship of the Great Mother, the Magna Mater of the Near East, the Adya Shakti of the Shakta Tantras, is in its essentials (as I have elsewhere pointed out) one of the oldest and most widespread religions of the world, and one which in India was possibly, in its origins, independent of the Brahmanic religion as presented to us in the Vaidik Samhitas and Brahmanas. If this be so, it was later on undoubtedly mingled with the Vedanta tradition, so that the Shakta faith of to-day is a particular presentation of the general Vedantik teaching. This is historical speculation from an outside standpoint. As the Sarvollasa of Sarvanandanatha points out, and as is well-known to all adherents of the Shakta Agamas, Veda in its general sense includes these and other Shastras in what is called the great Shatakoti Samhita. Whatever be the origins of doctrine (and this should not be altogether overlooked in any proper appreciation of it), I am here concerned with its philosophical aspect, as shown to us to-day in the teachings and practice of the Shaktas who are followers of the Agama. This teaching occupies in some sense a middle place between the dualism of Samkhya, and Shamkara's ultra-monistic interpretation of Vedanta to which, unless otherwise stated, I refer. Both the Shaiva and Shakta schools accept the threefold aspect of the Supreme known as Prakasha, Vimarsha and Prakasha-Vimarsha called in Tantrik worship, "The Three Feet" (Caranatritaya). Both adopt the Thirty-six Tattvas, Shiva, Shakti, Sadashiva, Ishvara and Shuddhavidya, preceding the Purusha-Prakriti Tattvas with which the Samkhya commences. For whereas these are the ultimate Tattvas in that Philosophy, the Shaiva and Shakta schools claim to show how Purusha and Prakriti are themselves derived from higher Tattvas. These latter Tattvas are also dealt with from the Shabda side as Shakti, Nada, Bindu and as Kalas which are the Kriya of the various grades of Tattvas which are aspects of Shakti. The Shakta Tantras, such as the Saubhagyaratnakara and other works, speak of ninety-four of such Kalas appropriate to Sadashiva, Ishvara, Rudra, Vishnu, and Brahma, "Sun," "Moon,' and "Fire," (indicated in the form of the Ram Bija with Candrabindu transposed) of which fifty-one are Matrika Kalas, being the subtle aspects of the gross letters of Sanskrit alphabet. This last is the Mimamsaka doctrine of Shabda adapted to the doctrine of Shakti. Common also to both Shakta and Shaiva Sampradayas is the doctrine of the Shadadhva. (See my Garland of Letters).

I am not however here concerned with these details, but with the general concept of Shakti which is their underlying basis. It is sufficient to say that Shakta doctrine is a form of Advaitavada. In reply to the question what is "silent concealment" (Goptavyam), it is said: Atmaham-bhava-bhavanaya bhavayitavyam ityarthah. Hitherto greater pains have been taken to show the differences between the Darshanas than, by regarding their points of agreement, to co-ordinate them systematically. So far as the subject of the present article is concerned all three systems, Samkhya, Mayavada, Shaktivada, are in general agreement as to the nature of the infinite formless Consciousness, and posit therewith a finitizing principle called Prakriti, Maya and Shakti respectively. The main points on which Samkhya (at any rate in what has been called its classical form) differs from Mayavada Vedanta are in its two doctrines of the plurality of Atmans on the one hand, and the reality and independence of Prakriti on the other. When however we examine these two Samkhya doctrines closely we find them to be mere accommodations to the infirmity of common thought. A Vedantic conclusion is concealed within its dualistic presentment. For if each liberated (Mukta) Purusha is all-pervading (Vibhu), and if there is not the slightest difference between one and another, what is the actual or practical difference between such pluralism and the doctrine of Atma? Again it is difficult for the ordinary mind to conceive that objects cease to exist when consciousness of objects ceases. The mind naturally conceives of their existing for others, although, according to the hypothesis, it has no right to conceive anything at all. But here again what do we find? In liberation Prakriti ceases to exist for the Mukta Purusha. In effect what is this but to say with Vedanta that Maya is not a real independent category (Padartha)?

A critic has taken exception to my statement that the classical Samkhya conceals a Vedantic solution behind its dualistic presentment. I was not then, of course, speaking from historical standpoint. Shiva in the Kularnava Tantra says that the Six Philosophies are parts of His body, and he who severs them severs His body. They are each aspects of the Cosmic Mind as appearing in Humanity. The logical process which they manifest is one and continuous. The conclusions of each stage or standard can be shown to yield the material of that which follows. This is a logical necessity if it be assumed that the Vedanta is the truest and highest expression of that of which the lower dualistic and pluralistic stages are the approach.

In Samkhya, the Purusha principle represents the formless consciousness, and Prakriti formative activity. Shamkara, defining Reality as that which exists as the same in all the three times, does not altogether discard these two principles, but says that they cannot exist as two independent Realities. He thus reduces the two categories of Samkhya, the Purusha Consciousness and Prakriti Unconsciousness to one Reality, the Brahman; otherwise the Vakya, "All is Brahman" (Sarvam khalvidam Brahma) is falsified. Brahman, however, in one aspect is dissociated from, and in another associated with Maya, which in his system takes the place of the Samkhyan Prakriti. Rut, whereas, Prakriti is an independent Reality, Maya is something which is neither real (Sat) nor unreal (Asat) nor partly real and partly unreal (Sadasat), and which though not forming part of Brahman, and therefore not Brahman, is yet, though not a second reality, inseparably associated and sheltering with, Brahman (Maya Brahmashrita) in one of its aspects: owing what false appearance of reality it has, to the Brahman with which it is so associated. It is an Eternal Falsity (Mithyabhuta sanatani), unthinkable, alogical, unexplainable (Anirvacaniya). In other points, the Vedantic Maya and Samkhyan Prakriti agree. Though Maya is not a second reality, but a mysterious something of which neither reality nor unreality can be affirmed, the fact of positing it at all gives to Shamkara's doctrine a tinge of dualism from which Shakta theory is free. According to Samkhya, Prakriti is real although it changes. This question of reality is one of definition. Both Mulaprakriti and Maya are eternal. The world, though a changing thing, has at least empirical reality in either view. Both are unconsciousness. Consciousness is reflected on or in unconsciousness: that is to state one view for, as is known, there is a difference of opinion. The light of Purusha-Consciousness (Cit) is thrown on the Prakriti-Unconsciousness (Acit) in the form of Buddhi. Vijñanabhikshu speaks of a mutual reflection. The Vedantic Pratibimbavadins say that Atma is reflected in Antahkarana, and the apparent likeness of the latter to Cit which is produced by such reflection is Cidabhasa or Jiva. This question of Cidabhasa is one of the main points of difference between Mayavada and Shaktivada. Notwithstanding that Maya is a falsity, it is not, according to Shamkara, a mere negation or want of something (Abhava), but a positive entity (Bhavarupamajanam): that is, it is in the nature of a power which veils (Acchadaka) consciousness, as Prakriti does in the case of Purusha. The nature of the great "Unexplained" as it is in Itself, and whether we call it Prakriti or Maya, is unknown. The Yoginihridaya Tantra beautifully says that we speak of the Heart of Yogini who is Knower of Herself (Yogini svavid), because the heart is the place whence all things issue. "What man," it says, "knows the heart of a woman? Only Shiva knows the Heart of Yogini." But from Shruti and its effects it is said to be one, all-pervading, eternal, existing now as seed and now as fruit, unconscious, composed of Gunas (Guna-mayi); unperceivable except through its effects, evolving (Parinami) these effects which are its products: that is the world, which however assumes in each system the character of the alleged cause; that is, in Samkhya the effects are real: in Vedanta, neither real nor unreal. The forms psychic or physical arise in both cases as conscious-unconscious (Sadasat) effects from the association of Consciousness (Purusha or Ishvara) with Unconsciousness (Prakriti or Maya), Miyate anena iti Maya. Maya is that by which forms are measured or limited. This too is the function of Prakriti. Maya as the collective name of eternal ignorance (Ajñana), produces, as the Prapañcashakti, these forms, by first veiling (Avaranashakti) Consciousness in ignorance and then projecting these forms (Vikshepashakti) from the store of the cosmic Samskaras. But what is the Tamas Guna of the Samkhyan Prakriti in effect but pure Avidya? Sattva is the tendency to reflect consciousness and therefore to reduce unconsciousness. Rajas is the activity (Kriya) which moves Prakriti or Maya to manifest in its Tamasik and Sattvik aspect. Avidya means "na vidyate," "is not seen," and therefore is not experienced. Cit in association with Avidya does not see Itself as such. The first experience of the Soul reawakening after dissolution to world experience is, "There is nothing," until the Samskaras arise from out this massive Ignorance. In short, Prakriti and Maya are like the materia prima of the Thomistic philosophy, the finitizing principle; the activity which "measures out" (Miyate), that is limits and makes forms in the formless (Cit). The devotee Kamalakanta lucidly and concisely calls Maya, the form of the Formless (Shunyasya akara iti Maya).

In one respect, Mayavada is a more consistent presentation of Advaitavada, than the Shakta doctrine to which we now proceed. For whilst Shamkara's system, like all others, posits the doctrine of aspects, saying that in one aspect the Brahman is associated with Maya (Ishvara), and that in another it is not (Parabrahman); yet in neither aspect does his Brahman truly change. In Shakta doctrine, Shiva does in one aspect (Shakti) change. Brahman is changeless and yet changes. But as change is only experienced by Jivatma subject to Maya, there is not perhaps substantial difference between such a statement, and that which affirms changelessness and only seeming change. In other respects, however, to which I now proceed, Shakta doctrine is a more monistic presentation of Advaitavada. If one were asked its most essential characteristic, the reply should be, the absence of the concept of unconscious Maya as taught by Shamkara. Shruti says, "All is Brahman". Brahman is consciousness: and therefore all is consciousness. There is no second thing called Maya which is not Brahman even though it be "not real", "not unreal"; definition obviously given to avoid the imputation of having posited a second Real. To speak of Brahman, and Maya which is not Brahman is to speak of two categories, however much it may be sought to explain away the second by saying that it is "not real" and "not unreal"; a falsity which is yet eternal and so forth. Like a certain type of modern Western "New Thought," Shakta doctrine affirms, "all is consciousness," however much unconsciousness appears in it. The Kaulacarya Sadananda says in his commentary on the 4th Mantra of Isopanishad (Ed. A. Avalon): "The changeless Brahman, which is consciousness appears in creation as Maya which is Brahman, (Brahmamayi), consciousness (Cidrupini) holding in Herself unbeginning (Anadi) Karmik tendencies (Karmasamskara) in the form of the three Gunas. Hence, She is Gunamayi, despite being Cinmayi. As there is no second principle these Gunas are Cit-Shakti." The Supreme Devi is thus Prakashavimarshasya-rupini, or the union of Prakasha and Vimarsha.

According to Shamkara, man is Spirit (Atma) vestured in the Mayik 'falsities' of mind and matter. He, accordingly, can only establish the unity of Ishvara and Jiva by eliminating from the first Maya, and from the second Avidya, when Brahman is left as common denominator. The Shakta eliminates nothing. Man's spirit or Atma is Shiva, His mind and body are Shakti. Shakti and Shiva are one. The Jivatma is Shiva-Shakti. So is the Paramatma. This latter exists as one: the former as the manifold. Man is then not a Spirit covered by a non-Brahman falsity, but Spirit covering Itself with Its own power or Shakti.

What then is Shakti, and how does it come about that there is some principle of unconsciousness in things, a fact which cannot be denied. Shakti comes from the root "shak," "to be able," "to have power". It may be applied to any form of activity. The power to see is visual Shakti, the power to burn is Shakti of fire, and so forth. These are all forms of activity which are ultimately reducible to the Primordial Shakti (Adya Shakti) whence every other form of Power proceeds. She is called Yogini because of Her connection with all things as their origin. It is this Original Power which is known in worship as Devi or Mother of Many Names. Those who worship the Mother, worship nothing "illusory" or unconscious, but a Supreme Consciousness, whose body is all forms of consciousness-unconsciousness produced by Her as Shiva's power. Philosophically, the Mother or Daivashakti is the kinetic aspect of the Brahman. All three systems recognize that there is a static and kinetic aspect of things: Purusha, Brahman, Shiva on the one side, Prakriti, Maya, Shakti on the other. This is the time-honored attempt to reconcile the doctrine of a changeless Spirit, a changing Manifold, and the mysterious unity of the two. For Power (Shakti) and the possessor of the Power (Shaktiman) are one and the same. In the Tantras, Shiva constantly says to Devi, "There is no difference between Thee and Me." We say that the fire burns, but burning is fire. Fire is not one thing and burning another. In the supreme transcendental changeless state, Shiva and Shakti are one, for Shiva is never without Shakti. The connection is called Avinabhavasambandha. Consciousness is never without its Power. Power is active Brahman or Consciousness. But, as there is then no activity, they exist in the supreme state as one Tattva (Ekam tattvam iva); Shiva as Cit, Shakti as Cidrupini. This is the state before the thrill of Nada, the origin of all those currents of force which are the universe. According to Shamkara, the Supreme Experience contains no trace or seed of' objectivity whatever. In terms of speech, it is an abstract consciousness (Jñana). According to the view here expressed, which has been profoundly elaborated by the Kashmir Shaiva School, that which appears "without" only so appears because it, in some form or other, exists "within". So also the Shakta Visvasara Tantra says, "what is here is there, what is not here is nowhere." If therefore we know duality, it must be because the potentiality of it exists in that from which it arises. The Shaivashakta school thus assumes a real derivation of the universe and a causal nexus between Brahman and the world. According to Shamkara, this notion of creation is itself Maya, and there is no need to find a cause for it. So it is held that the supreme experience (Amarsha) is by the Self (Shiva) of Himself as Shakti, who as such is the Ideal or Perfect Universe; not in the sense of a perfected world of form, but that ultimate formless feeling (Bhava) of Bliss (Ananda) or Love which at root the whole world is. All is Love and by Love all is attained. The Shakta Tantras compare the state immediately prior to creation with that of a grain of gram (Canaka) wherein the two seeds (Shiva and Shakti) are held as one under a single sheath. There is, as it were, a Maithuna in this unity of dual aspect, the thrill of which is Nada, productive of the seed or Bindu from which the universe is born. When the sheath breaks and the seeds are pushed apart, the beginning of a dichotomy is established in the one consciousness, whereby, the "I", and the "This" (Idam or Universe) appear as separate. The specific Shiva aspect is, when viewed through Maya, the Self, and the Shakti aspect the Not-Self. This is to the limited consciousness only. In truth the two, Shiva and Shakti, are ever one and the same, and never dissociated. Thus each of the Bindus of the Kamakala are Shiva-Shakti appearing as Purusha-Prakriti. At this point, Shakti assumes several forms, of which the two chief are Cit-Shakti or as Cit as Shakti, and Maya-Shakti or Maya as Shakti. Maya is not here a mysterious unconsciousness, a non-Brahman, non-real, non-unreal something. It is a form of Shakti, and Shakti is Shiva who is Consciousness which is real. Therefore Maya Shakti is in itself (Svarupa) Consciousness and Brahman. Being Brahman, It is real. It is that aspect of conscious power which conceals Itself to Itself. "By veiling the own true form (Svarupa = Consciousness), its Shaktis always arise", (Svarupavarane casya shaktayah satatotthitah) as the Spandakarika says. This is a common principle in all doctrine relating to Shakti. Indeed, this theory of veiling, though expressed in another form, is common to Samkhya and Vedanta. The difference lies in this that in Samkhya it is a second, independent Principle which veils; in Mayavada Vedanta it is the non-Brahman Maya (called a Shakti of Ishvara) which veils; and in Shakta Advaitavada (for the Shaktas are nondualists) it is Consciousness which, without ceasing to be such, yet veils Itself. As already stated, the Monistic Shaivas and Shaktas hold certain doctrines in common such as the thirty-six Tattvas, and what are called Shadadhva which also appear as part of the teaching of the other Shaiva Schools. In the thirty-six Tattva scheme, Maya which is defined as "the sense of difference" (Bhedabuddhi), for it is that which makes the Self see things as different from the Self, is technically that Tattva which appears at the close of the pure creation, that is, after Shuddhavidya. This Maya reflects and limits in the Pashu or Jiva, the Iccha, Jñana, Kriya Shaktis of Ishvara. These again are the three Bindus which are "Moon," "Fire," and "Sun". (See Author's Garland of Letters.) What are Jñana and Kriya (including Iccha its preliminary) on the part of the Pati (Lord) in all beings and things (Bhaveshu) which are His body: it is these two which, with Maya as the third, are the Sattva, Rajas and Tamas Gunas of the Pashu. This veiling power explains how the undeniable element of unconsciousness which is seen in things exists. How, if all be consciousness, is that principle there '? The answer is given in the luminous definition of Shakti; "It is the function of Shakti to negate" (Nishedhavyapararupa Shaktih), that is, to negate consciousness and make it appear to Itself as unconscious (Karika 4 of Yogaraja or Yogamuni's Commentary on Abhinava Gupta's Paramarthasara). In truth the whole world is the Self whether as "I" (Aham) or "This" (Idam). The Self thus becomes its own object. It becomes object or form that it may enjoy dualistic experience. It yet remains, what it was in its unitary blissful experience. This is the Eternal Play in which the Self hides and seeks itself. The formless cannot assume form unless formlessness is negated. Eternity is negated into finality; the all-pervading into the limited; the all-knowing into the "little knower"; the almighty into the "little doer," and so forth. It is only by negating Itself to Itself that the Self becomes its own object in the form of the universe.

It follows from the above that, to the Shakta worshipper, there is no unconscious Maya in Shamkara's sense, and therefore there is no Cidabhasa, in the sense of the reflection of consciousness on unconsciousness, giving the latter the appearance of consciousness which it does not truly possess. For all is Consciousness as Shakti. "Aham Stri," as the Advaitabhavopanisad exclaims. In short, Shamkara says there is one Reality or Consciousness and a not-real not-unreal Unconsciousness. What is really unconscious appears to be conscious by the reflection of the light of Consciousness upon it. Shakta doctrine says consciousness appears to be unconscious, or more truly, to have an element of unconsciousness in it (for nothing even empirically is absolutely unconscious), owing to the veiling play of Consciousness Itself as Shakti.

As with so many other matters, these apparent differences are to some extent a matter of words. It is true that the Vedantists speak of the conscious (Cetana) and unconscious (Acetana), but they, like the Shakta Advaitins, say that the thing in itself is Consciousness. When this is vividly displayed by reason of the reflection (Pratibimbha) of consciousness in Tattva, (such as Buddhi), capable of displaying this reflection, then we can call that in which it is so displayed conscious. Where, though consciousness is all-pervading, Caitanya is not so displayed, there we speak of unconsciousness. Thus, gross matter (Bhuta) does not appear to reflect Cit, and so appears to us unconscious. Though all things are at base consciousness, some appear as more, and some as less conscious. Shamkara explains this by saying that Caitanya is associated with a non-conscious mystery or Maya which veils consciousness, and Caitanya gives to what is unconscious the appearance of consciousness through reflection. "Reflection" is a form of pictorial thinking. What is meant is that two principles are associated together without the nature (Svarupa) of either being really affected, and yet producing that effect which is Jiva. Shakta doctrine says that all is consciousness, but this same consciousness assumes the appearance of changing degrees of unconsciousness, not through the operation of anything other than itself (Maya), but by the operation of one of its own powers (Mayashakti). It is not unconscious Maya in Shamkara's sense which veils consciousness, but Consciousness as Shakti veils Itself, and, as so functioning, it is called Mayashakti. It may be asked how can Consciousness become Unconsciousness and cease to be itself '? The answer is that it does not. It never ceases to be Consciousness. It appears to itself, as Jiva, to be unconscious, and even then not wholly: for as recent scientific investigations have shown, even so-called "brute matter" exhibits the elements of that which, when evolved in man, is self-consciousness. If it be asked how consciousness can obscure itself partially or at all, the only answer is Acintya Shakti, which Mayavadins as all other Vedantists admit. Of this, as of all ultimates, we must say with the Western Scholastics, "omnia exeunt in mysterium".

Prakriti is then, according to Samkhya, a real independent category different from Purusha. This both Mayavada and Shaktivada deny. Maya is a not-real, not-unreal Mystery dependent on, and associated with, and inhering in Brahman; but not Brahman or any part of Brahman. Maya-Shakti is a power of, and, in its Svarupa, not different from Shiva: is real, and is an aspect of Brahman itself. Whilst Brahman as Ishvara is associated with Maya, Shiva is never associated with anything but Himself. But the function of all three is the same, namely to make forms in the formless. It is That, by which the Ishvara or Collective Consciousness pictures the universe for the individual Jiva's experience. Shakti is three-fold as Will (Iccha), Knowledge (Jñana), and Action (Kriya). All three are but differing aspects of the one Shakti. Consciousness and its power or action are at base the same. It is true that action is manifested in matter, that is apparent unconsciousness, but its root, as that of all else is consciousness. Jñana is self-proved and experienced (Svatahsiddha), whereas, Kriya, being inherent in bodies, is perceived by others than by ourselves. The characteristic of action is the manifestation of all objects. These objects, again, characterized by consciousness-unconsciousness are in the nature of a shining forth (Abhasa) of Consciousness. (Here Abhasa is not used in its sense of Cidabhasa, but as an intensive form of the term Bhasa.) The power of activity and knowledge are only differing aspects of one and the same Consciousness. According to Shamkara, Brahman has no form of self-determination. Kriya is a function of unconscious Maya. When Ishvara is said to be a doer (Karta), this is attributed (Aupadhika) to Him by ignorance only. It follows from the above that there are other material differences between Shakta doctrine and Mayavada, such as the nature of the Supreme Experience, the reality and mode of creation, the reality of the world, and so forth. The world, it is true, is not; as the Mahanirvana Tantra says absolute reality in the sense of unchanging being, for it comes and goes. It is nevertheless real, for it is the experience of Shiva and Shiva's experience is not unreal. Thus again the evolution of the world as Abhasa, whilst resembling the Vivarta of Mayavada, differs from it in holding, as the Samkhya does, that the effect is real and not unreal, as Shamkara contends. To treat of these and other matters would carry me beyond the scope of this essay which only deals, and that in a summary way, with the essential differences and similarities in the concept Prakriti, Maya and Shakti.

I may however conclude with a few general remarks. The doctrine of Shakti is a profound one, and I think likely to be attractive to Western minds when they have grasped it, just as they will appreciate the Tantrik watchword, Kriya or action, its doctrine of progress with and through the world and not against it, which is involved in its liberation-enjoyment (Bhukti-mukti) theory and other matters. The philosophy is, in any case, not, as an American writer, in his ignorance, absurdly called it, "worthless," "religious Feminism run mad," and a "feminization of Vedanta for suffragette Monists". It is not a "feminization" of anything, but distinctive, original and practical doctrine worthy of a careful study. The Western student will find much in it which is more acceptable to generally prevalent thought in Europe and America -- than in the "illusion" doctrine (in itself an unsuitable term), and the ascetic practice of the Vedantins of Shamkara's school. This is not to say that ways of reconciliation may not be found by those who go far enough. It would not be difficult to show ground for holding that ultimately the same intellectual results are attained by viewing the matter from the differing standpoints of Sadhana and Siddhi.

The writer of an interesting article on the same subject in the Prabuddha Bharata (August 1916) states that the Samnyasi Totapuri, the Guru of Sri Ramakrishna, maintained that a (Mayavadin) Vedantist could not believe in Shakti, for if causality itself be unreal there is no need to admit any power to cause, and that it is Maya to apply the principle of causation and to say that everything comes from Shakti. The Samnyasi was converted to Shakta doctrine after all. For as the writer well says, it is not merely by intellectual denial, but by living beyond the "unreal," that Real is found. He, however, goes on to say, "the Shaktivada of Tantra is not an improvement on the Mayavada of Vedanta, (that is the doctrine of Shamkara) but only its symbolization through the chromatics of sentiment and concept." It is true that it is a form of Vedanta, for all which is truly Indian must be that. It is also a fact that the Agama as a Shastra of worship is full of Symbolism. Intellectually, however, it is an original presentment of Vedanta, and from the practical point of view, it has some points of merit which Mayavada does not possess. Varieties of teaching may be different presentations of one truth leading to a similar end. But one set of "chromatics" may be more fruitful than another for the mass of men. It is in this that the strength of the Shakta doctrine and practice lies. Moreover (whether they be an improvement or not) there are differences between the two. Thus the followers of Shamkara do not, so far as I am aware, accept the thirty-six Tattvas. A question, however, which calls for inquiry is that of the relation of the Shakta and Shaiva (Advaita) Schools Mayavada is a doctrine which, whether true or not, is fitted only for advanced minds of great intellectuality, and for men of ascetic disposition, and of the highest moral development. This is implied in its theory of competency (Adhikara) for Vedantic teaching. When, as is generally the case, it is not understood, and in some cases when it is understood, but is otherwise not suitable, it is liable to be a weakening doctrine. The Shakta teaching to be found in the Tantras has also its profundities which are to be revealed only to the competent, and contains a practical doctrine for all classes of worshippers (Sadhaka). It has, in this form, for the mass of men, a strengthening pragmatic value which is beyond dispute. Whether, as some may have contended, it is the fruit of a truer spiritual experience I will not here discuss, for this would lead me into a polemic beyond the scope of my present purpose, which is an impartial statement of the respective teachings, on one particular point, given by the three philosophical systems here discussed.

é INDEX é

I have often been asked -- In what consists the difference between Vedanta and 'Tantra'. This question is the product of substantial error, for it assumes that Tantra Shastra is not based on Vedanta. I hope that, after many years of work, I have now made it clear that the Tantra Shastra or Agama (whatever be its ultimate origin as to which little is known by anybody) is now, and has been for centuries past, one of the recognized Scriptures of Hinduism, and every form of Hinduism is based on Veda and Vedanta. Another erroneous question, though less so, is -- In what consists the difference between Advaita Vedanta and 'Tantra' Shastra. But here again, the question presupposes a misunderstanding of both Vedanta and Agama. There are, as should be well known, several schools of Advaita Vedanta, such as Mayavada (with which too commonly the Advaita Vedanta is identified), such as the schools of the Northern Shaivagama, and Shuddhadvaita of Vallabhacarya. In the same way, there are different schools of doctrine and worship in what are called the 'Tantras', and a grievous mistake is committed when the Tantra is made to mean the Shakta Tantra only, such as is prevalent in Bengal and which, according to some, is either the product of, or has been influenced by Buddhism. Some English-speaking Bengalis of a past day, too ready to say, "Aye aye," to the judgments of foreign critics, on their religion as on everything else, and in a hurry to dissociate themselves from their country's "superstitions," were the source of the notion which has had such currency amongst Europeans that, "Tantra" necessarily meant drinking wine and so forth.

A legitimate and accurate question is -- In what consists the difference between, say, the Mayavadin's Vedanta and that taught by the Shakta Sampradaya of Bengal. One obviously fundamental difference at once emerges. The Agamas being essentially ritual or Sadhana Shastras are not immediately and practically concerned with the Yoga doctrine touching Paramarthika Satta taught by Shamkaracarya. A Sadhaka ever assumes the reality of the Universe, and is a practical dualist, whatever be the non-dual philosophical doctrines to which he may be intellectually attracted. He worships, that is assumes the being of some Other who is worshipped, that is a Real Lord who really creates, maintains, and really dissolves the Universe. He himself, the object of his worship and the means of worship are real, and his Advaita views are presented on this basis. It is on this presentment then that the next class of differences is to be found. What are they? The essence of them lies in this that the Sadhaka looks at the Brahman, through the world, whereas to the Mayavadin Yogi, placing himself at the Brahman standpoint, there is neither creation nor world but the luminous Atma. The Clear Light of the Void, as the Mahayanists call it, that alone is. Nevertheless, both the Advaita Sadhaka and the Advaita Yogi are one in holding that the Brahman alone is. Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma is the great saying (Vakya) on which all Shakta Tantra Shastra rests. The difference in interpretation then consists in the manner in which this Mahavakya is to be explained. Does it really mean what it says, or does it mean that the saying applies only after elimination of Maya and Avidya. Here there is the necessary difference because, in the case of the Sadhaka, the Vakya must be explained on the basis of his presuppositions already given, whereas the Yogi who has passed the stage in which he became Siddha in Sadhana surpasses, by auto-realization, all dualism. The vast mass of men are better warned off discussions on Paramarthika Satta. Whether the concept be true or not, it only leads in their case to useless argument (Vicara), and thus enfeebles them. Shakta doctrine, as its name implies, is a doctrine of power. It is true that Yoga is power, indeed the highest form of it (Yogabala). But it is a power only for those qualified (Adhikari), and not for the mass. I am not therefore here adversely criticizing Mayavada. It is a pity that this country whose great glory it is to have preached Abheda in varying forms, and therefore tolerance, is to-day full of hateful Bheda of all kinds. I say "hateful", for Bheda is a natural thing, only hateful when accompanied by hate and intolerance. Profoundly it is said in Halhed's Gentoo laws that, "contrarieties of religion and diversity of belief are a demonstration of the power of the Supreme. Differences and varieties of created things are rays of the Glorious Essence, and types of His wonderful attributes whose complete power formed all creatures." There is also the saying attributed to the Apostle of God, Mohammed, in the Radd-ul-Muhtar and elsewhere -- "difference of opinion is also the gift of God". In these sayings speaks the high spirit of Asia. There may be political remedies for sectarian ill-feeling, but a medicine of more certain effect in this country is the teaching, "Rama Rahim ek hai". Let us then not only objectively, but in all amity, examine the two great systems mentioned.

We all know what is normal world-experience in the Samsara. Some through auto-realization have super-normal or "mystic" experience. This last is of varying kinds, and is had in all religions. The highest form of it, according to Mayavada, is Nirvana Moksha, but there are many degrees short of this complete self-realization as the Whole (Purna). But the great majority of men are not concerned directly with such high matters, but with a realization of power in the world. World-experience is called ignorance, Ajñana. This may confuse. It is ignorance only in this sense, that whilst we have normal experience, we are by that very fact ignoring, that is, not having super-normal experience. In super-normal experience again there is no finite world-experience. The Lord Himself cannot have man's experience except as and through man. Avidya means Na Vidyate, that is, which is not seen or experienced. Some speak in foolish disparagement of the world which is our very close concern. As a link between Yoga and Bhoga, the Shakta teaches, Yogo Bhogayate. I am now dealing with Mayavada. Whence does this ignorance in the individual or Avidya, come? The world is actually ignorant and man is part of it. This ignorance is the material cause of the world. This is not ignorance of the individual (Avidya), for then, there would be as many worlds as individuals; but the collective ignorance or Maya. Avidya exists to provide happiness or pain (Bhoga) for individuals, that is normal world-experience. Stated simply, ignorance in the sense of Maya has no beginning or end, though worlds appear and go. What is this but to say that it is in the nature (Svabhava) of the Real which manifests to do so, and the nature of its future manifestation proceeds upon lines indicated by the past collective Karma of the world.

Now, enjoyment and suffering cannot be denied, nor the existence of an element of unconsciousness in man. But the Paramatma, as such, does not, it is said, suffer or enjoy, but is Pure Consciousness. What consciousness then does so? Shamkara, who is ever solicitous to preserve purity of the Supreme unchanging Self, says that it is not true consciousness, but a false image of it reflected in ignorance and which disappears when the latter is destroyed. This is in fact Samkhyan Dualism in another form, and because of this Shaktivada claims to have a purer Advaita doctrine. In Samkhya the Purusha, and in Mayavada the Atma illumine Prakriti and Maya respectively, but are never in fact bound by her. What is in bondage is the reflection of Purusha or Atma in Prakriti or Maya. This is Cidabhasa or the appearance of consciousness in a thing which is in fact not conscious; the appearance being due to the reflection of consciousness (Cit), or ignorance (Ajñana), or unconsciousness (Acit). The false consciousness as Jivatma, suffers and enjoys. According to the Shakta view there is, as later explained, no Cidabhasa.

Now, is this Ajñana independent of Atma or not? Its independence, such as Samkhya teaches, is denied. Ignorance then, whether collective or individual, must be traced to, and have its origin in, and rest on Consciousness as Atma. How this is so, is unexplained, but the unreal which owes its existence in some inscrutable way to Reality is yet, it is said, in truth no part of it. It is Brahman then, which is both the efficient and material cause of ignorance with its three Gunas, and of Cidabhasa, Brahma is the cause through its inscrutable power (Acintyashaktitvat) or Maya-Shakti,

Now, is this Shakti real or unreal? According to the transcendent standpoint (Paramarthika) of Mayavada it is unreal. The creative consciousness is a reflection on ignorance or Maya. It is Brahman seen through the veil of Maya. This is not a denial of Brahman, but of the fact that it creates. A true consciousness, it is said, can have no incentive to create. From the standpoint of the Supreme State nothing happens. Both the consciousness which as Ishvara creates, and as Jiva enjoys are Cidabhasa, the only difference being that the first is not, and the second is under the influence of Maya. Then it is asked, ignorance being unconscious and incapable of independent operation, true consciousness being inactive (Nishkriya), and Cidabhasa being unreal, how is ignorance capable of hiding true consciousness and producing the world out of itself ? To this the only reply is Svabhava that is, the very nature of ignorance makes it capable of producing apparently impossible effects. It is inscrutable (Anirvacaniya).

The Shakta then asks whether this Shakti is real or unreal, conscious or unconscious, Brahman or not Brahman? If it be a Shakti of Brahman, it cannot be unreal, for there is no unreality in Brahman. It must be conscious for otherwise unconsciousness would be a factor in Brahman. It is Brahman then; for power (Shakti) and the possessor of power (Shaktiman) are one and the same.

Therefore, the Shakta Tantra Shastra says that Shakti which, operating as Cit and Maya, is Cit-Shakti and Maya-Shakti, is real, conscious and Brahman itself (Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma). It follows that Shakti which is Brahman in its aspect as Creator is, in fact, both the efficient and material cause of the world. If the first or cause is real, so is the second or world. If the first be the cause of unreality, it is in itself unreal. But what is real is Brahman. Therefore, the world has a real cause which is not unreal unconsciousness or ignorance composed of three Gunas, but conscious Shakti and Brahman. It, therefore, does away with the necessity for Cidabhasa; for, if real conscious Shakti is the cause of the world, then there is no need for unreal unconsciousness which Mayavada is driven to posit to secure the absolute purity of the Brahman Consciousness.

From the standpoint of Mayavada, the objection to the exclusion of Cidabhasa lies in the fact that, if the world is derived direct from conscious Shakti (as Shaktas hold), then the Supreme Consciousness is made both enjoyer and object of enjoyment. But it holds that, Paramatma does not enjoy and has no need to do so; whilst the object of enjoyment is unconscious. Hence, the trace of Samkhyan dualism, the Atma exerting an influence over Maya by virtue of its proximity only (Sannidhimatrena Upakari). Pure Atma is not itself concerned. Maya receives its influence. This is analogous to what is called in Chemistry catalytic action. The catalytic substance influences another by its mere presence, but remains itself apparently unchanged. Atma is in this sense an efficient but not instrumental or material cause of the world.

As Atma is only Sacchidananda, the world, so long as it is considered to exist, must exist in Pure Consciousness (Atmastha), though essentially it is different from it (Atmavilakshana), and does not exist for its purpose. In Mayavada, the world, from the transcendental standpoint, does not exist and Atma is not cognizant of it. Hence, the question of the cause of Creation is bred of ignorance. So also, is the idea of efficient cause, for it proceeds from a search for the cause of Creation which does not exist. Mayavada, from the standpoint of normal conventional experience (Vyavaharika Satta), speaks of the Shakti of Atma as a cause of Creation, simply to provide the empirical world of the worldly man with a worldly interpretation of its worldly existence. From this point of view, Brahman is looked at through the world, which is the natural thing for all who are not liberated. From the other end or Brahman, there is no Creation nor world, and Atma alone is.

The Shakta may reply to this: Is not your Paramarthika standpoint in fact empirical, arrived at by argument (Vicara) with a limited intellect? If inscrutable power is a cause of the world, it is inscrutable, because the intellect cannot grasp it, though it is known to be Atma. If the latter can show inscrutable power, how can you say that it is incapable of appearing as enjoyer and object of enjoyment? To deny this is to deny the unlimited character of inscrutable power. If it be objected, that Atma cannot be object of enjoyment, because, the former is conscious and the latter unconscious, what proof is there, that such an object is essentially unconscious? It may be, that consciousness is not perceived in it, that is, the material world appears to be unconscious, and therefore unconsciousness comes in somewhere, otherwise it could not be perceived as unconscious. Thus, a school of European idealists hold the Universe to be a society of Spirits of all kinds and degrees, human, animal, and vegetable and even inorganic objects. All are minds of various orders. Even the last are an order, though yet so low that they are in practice not apprehended as minds. The material world is merely the way in which these lower kinds of mind appear to our senses. The world of objects are (to use Berkely's word) "signs" of Spirit, and the way in which it communicates itself to us. Thus, to the Hindu, the Bhargah in the Sun is the Aditya Devata, and the planets are intelligences. The physical sun is the body of the Surya Devata. The whole Universe is an epiphany of Spirit. Matter is Cit as object to the mind, as mind is Cit as the Knower of such object. It is not, however, denied that there is an element of unconsciousness in the material world as it appears to us. But the Shakta says, that Shakti has the power of hiding its consciousness, which is exercised to varying extent; thus, to a greater extent in the case of inorganic matter than in the case of the plant, and the less in the latter than in man, in whom consciousness is most manifest.

This power is Her Avidya Murti, just as consciousness is her Vidya Murti. Nothing then in the material world is absolutely unconscious, and nothing is perfectly conscious. The Vidya Murti ever is because as consciousness it is the own nature or Svarupa of Shakti. The Avidya Murti which conceals consciousness, appears in Creation and disappears in dissolution.

The Mayavadin may however ask, whether this Avidya-shakti is conscious or unconscious. It cannot, he says, be the latter, for it is said to be Atma which is conscious. How then can it conceal itself and appear as unconscious P For, nothing can be, what it is not, and the nature of consciousness is to reveal and not to conceal. If, again, consciousness on account of its concealment, is incapable of knowing itself, it ceases to be consciousness. The reply is again that this also is empirical argument, based upon an imperfect idea of the nature of things. Every one knows that there is consciousness in him, but at the same time he recognizes, that it is imperfect. The Mayavadin seeks to explain this by saying, that it is a false consciousness (Cidabhasa), which is again explained by means of two opposites, namely, unconsciousness, which is an unreality to which Cidabhasa adheres, and true consciousness or Atma, which, by virtue of its inscrutable power, acts as efficient cause in its production. This theory compels its adherent to ignore the world, the limited consciousness and Shastra itself in order that the perfection of Atma may be maintained, though at the same time, Shakti is admitted to be unlimited and inscrutable. The Shakta's answer on the other side is, that there is in fact no false consciousness, and essentially speaking, no unconsciousness anywhere, though there appears to be some unconsciousness. In fact, Mayavada says, that the unconscious appears to be conscious through the play of Atma on it, whilst the Shakta says that, really and at base, all is consciousness which appears to be unconsciousness in varying degrees. All consciousness, however imperfect, is real consciousness, its imperfection being due to its suppressing its own light to itself, and all apparent unconsciousness is due to this imperfection in the consciousness which sees it. Mayavada seeks to explain away the world, from which nevertheless, it derives the materials for its theory. But it is argued that it fails to do so. In its attempt to explain, it brings in a second principle namely unconsciousness, and even a third Cidabhasa. Therefore, the theory of Shaktivada which posits nothing but consciousness is (it is contended) a truer form of non-dualism. Yet we must note, that the theories of both are made up with the imperfect light of man's knowledge. Something must then remain unexplained in all systems. The Mayavada does not explain the character of the Shakti of Atma as Efficient cause of creation, and the Shakta does not explain the character of the Shakti of Atma which, in spite of being true consciousness, hides itself. But whilst the Shakta difficulty stands alone, the other theory brings, it is said, in its train a number of others. The Mayavadin may also ask, whether Avidya Murti is permanent or transient. If the latter, it cannot be Atma which eternally is, whereas if it is permanent, liberation is impossible. It may be replied that this objection does not lie in the mouth of Mayavada which, in a transcendental sense, denies creation, world, bondage and liberation. The latter is a transition from bondage to freedom which presupposes the reality of the world and a connection between it and that, which is beyond all worlds. This, Shamkara denies, and yet acknowledges a method of spiritual culture for liberation. The answer of course is, that transcendentally Atma is ever free, and that such spiritual culture is required for the empirical (Vyavaharika) need of the empirical self or Cidabhasa, for empirical liberation from an empirical world. But, as all these conventional things are in an absolute sense "unreal," the Mayavada's instructions for spiritual culture have been likened to consolations given to soothe the grief of a sterile woman who has lost her son. (See J. N. Mazumdar's paper read before the Indian Research Society on the Philosophical, Religious and Social Significance of the Tantra Shastra (July 31, 1915), to which I am here indebted.)

Theoretically the answer may be sufficient, though this may not be allowed, but the method can in any case, have full pragmatic value only, in exceptional cases. Doubtless to the unliberated Mayavadin Sadhaka, the world is real, in the sense, that it imposes its reality on him, whatever his theories may be. But it is plain, that such a system does not ordinarily at least develop the same power as one, in which doubt as to the reality of things does not exist. In order that instruction should work, we must assume a real basis for them. Therefore, the Tantra Shastra here spoken of, deals with true bondage in a true world, and aims at true liberation from it. It is Shakti, who both binds and liberates, and Sadhana of Her is the means of liberation. Nothing is unreal or false. Shakti is and Shakti creates and thus appears as the Universe. In positing an evolution (Parinama), the Shastra follows Samkhya, because, both systems consider the ultimate source of the world to be real, as unconscious Prakriti or conscious Shakti respectively. The Shakta takes literally the great saying, "All the (Universe) is Brahman" -- every bit of it. Mayavada achieves its unity by saying, that Jivatma = Para matma after elimination of Avidya in the first and Maya in the second. Ignorance is something neither real nor unreal. It is not real in comparison with the supreme unchanging Brahman. It is not unreal, for we experience it as real, and it is for the length of the duration of such experience. Again, Shaktivada assumes a real development (Parinama), with this proviso that the cause becomes effect, and yet remains what it was as cause. Mayavada says that there is transcendentally no real change but only the appearance of it; that is, the notion of Parinama is Maya like all the rest.

The Tantra Shastra deals with true bondage in a true world, and aims at true liberation from it. Atma binds itself by the Avidya Murti of its Shakti, and liberates itself by its Vidya Murti. Sadhana is the means whereby bondage becomes liberation. Nothing is unreal or false. Atma by its Shakti causes the play in itself of a Shakti which is essentially nothing but itself but operates in a dual capacity, namely as Avidya and Vidya. Creation is thus an epiphany of the Atma, which appears and is withdrawn from and into itself like the limbs of a tortoise. The All-Pervading Atma, manifests itself in many Jivas; as the world which supplies the objects of their enjoyment; as the mind and senses for the attainment of the objects; as ignorance which binds; as knowledge which liberates when Atma ceases to present itself; as Avidya; and as Shastra which provides the means for liberation. Shaktivada affirms reality throughout, because, it is a practical Scripture for real men in a real world. Without such presupposition, Sadhana is not possible. When Sadhana has achieved its object -- Siddhi -- as Auto-realization -- no question of the real or unreal arises. In the Buddhacarita-kavya it is said (cited in Hodgson "Nepal," 45) that Sakya being questioned on an abstruse point, is reported to have said, "For myself I can tell you nothing on these matters. Meditate on Buddha and when you have obtained the supreme experience (Bodhijñana) you will know the truth yourself." In these high realms we reach a point at which wisdom is silence.

After all man in the mass is concerned with worldly needs, and there is nothing to be ashamed of in this. One of the greatest doctrines in the Shakta Tantra is its Bhukti Mukti teaching, and it is not less great because it may have been abused. All systems are at the mercy of their followers. Instead of the ascetic method of the Mayavadin suited for men of high spiritual development, whose Ascesis is not something labored but an expression of their own true nature, the Kaula teaches liberation through enjoyment, that is the world. The path of enjoyment is a natural one. There is nothing bad in enjoyment itself if it be according to Dharma. It is only Adharma which is blamed. Liberation is thus had through the world (Mokshayate Samsara). In the natural order of development, power is developed in worldly things, but the power is controlled by a religious Sadhana, which both prevents an excess of worldliness, and molds the mind and disposition (Bhava) into a form which, at length and naturally, develops into that knowledge which produces dispassion (Vairagya) for the world. The two paths lead to the same end. But this is itself too big a subject to be developed here. Sufficient be it to repeat what I have said elsewhere.

"The Vira does not shun the world from fear of it. He holds it in his grasp and wrests from it its secret. Then escaping from the unconscious driftings of a humanity which has not yet realized itself, he is the illumined master of himself, whether developing all his powers or seeking liberation at his will."

As regards the state of dissolution (Pralaya) both systems are at one. In positing an evolution Tantra follows Samkhya because both the two latter theories consider the ultimate source of the world to be real; real as unconscious Prakriti (Samkhya); real as conscious Shakti (Shakta Tantra). In the Mayavada scheme, the source of the world is an unreal ignorance, and reveals itself first as Tanmatras which gradually assume the form of senses and mind in order to appear before Cidabhasa as objects of enjoyment and suffering. The Tantra Shastra again, subject to modifications in consonance with its doctrine, agrees with Nyaya-Vaisheshika in holding that the powers of consciousness which are Will (Iccha), Knowledge (Jñana) and Action (Kriya) constitute the motive power in creation. These are the great Triangle of Energy (Kamakala) from which Shabda and Artha, the forces of the psychic and material worlds, arise.

é INDEX é

A Psychological analysis of our worldly experience ordinarily gives us both the feeling of persistence and change. This personal experience expresses a cosmic truth. An examination of any doctrine of creation similarly reveals two fundamental concepts, those of Being and Becoming, Changelessness and Change, the One and the Many. In Sanskrit, they are called the Kutastha and Bhava or Bhavana. The first is the Spirit or Purusha or Brahman and Atman which is unlimited Being (Sat), Consciousness (Cit) and Bliss (Ananda). According to Indian notions the Atman as such is and never becomes. Its Power (Shakti) manifests as Nature, which is the subject of change. We may understand Nature in a two-fold sense: first, as the root principle or noumenal cause of the phenomenal world, that is, as the Principle of Becoming and secondly, as such World. Nature in the former sense is Mulaprakriti, which means that which exists as the root (Mula) substance of things before (Pra), creation (Kriti), and which, in association with Cit, either truly or apparently creates, maintains and destroys the Universe. This Mulaprakriti the Sharada Tilaka calls Mulabhuta Avyakta, and the Vedanta (of Shamkara to which alone I refer) Maya.

Nature, in the second sense, that is the phenomenal world, which is a product of Mulaprakriti is the compound of the evolutes from this root substance which are called Vikritis in the Samkhya and Tantra, and name and form (Namarupa) by the Vedantins, who attribute them to ignorance (Avidya). Mulaprakriti as the material and instrumental cause of things is that potentiality of natural power (natura naturans) which manifests as the Universe (natura naturata).

Touching these two Principles, there are certain fundamental points of agreement in the three systems which I am examining -- Samkhya, Vedanta and the Advaitavada of the Tantra. They are as follows. According to the first two systems, Brahman or Purusha as Sat, Cit and Ananda is Eternal Conscious Being. It is changeless and has no activity (Kartrittva). It is not therefore in Itself a cause whether instrumental or material; though in so far as Its simple presence gives the appearance of consciousness to the activities of Prakriti, It may in such sense be designated an efficient cause. So, according to Samkhya, Prakriti reflects Purusha, and in Vedanta, Avidya of the three Gunas takes the reflection of Cidananda. On the other hand, the substance or factors of Mulaprakriti or Maya are the three Gunas or the three characteristics of the principle of Nature, according to which it reveals (Sattva) or veils (Tamas), Consciousness (Cit) and the activity or energy (Rajas) which urges Sattva and Tamas to operation.

It also is Eternal, but is unconscious (Acit) Becoming. Though it is without consciousness (Caitanya) it is essentially activity (Kartrittva) motion and change. It is a true cause instrumental and material of the World. But notwithstanding all the things to which Mulaprakriti gives birth, Its substance is in no wise diminished by the production of the Vikritis or Tattvas: the Gunas which constitute it ever remaining the same. The source of all becoming is never exhausted, though the things which are therefrom produced appear and disappear.

Passing from the general points of agreement to those of difference, we note firstly, those between the Samkhya and the Vedanta. The Samkhya is commonly regarded as a dualistic system, which affirms that both Purusha and Prakriti are real, separate and independent Principles. The Vedanta, however, says that there cannot be two Principles which are both absolutely real. It does not, however, altogether discard the dual principles of the Samkhya, but says that Mulaprakriti which it calls Maya, while real from one point of view, that is empirically, is not real from another and transcendental standpoint. It affirms therefore that the only Real (Sadvastu) is the attributeless (Nirguna Brahman). All else is Maya and its products. Whilst then the Samkhyan Mulaprakriti is an Eternal Reality, it is according to the transcendental method of Shamkara an eternal unreality (Mithyabhuta Sanatani). The empirical reality which is really false is due to the Avidya which is inherent in the nature of the embodied spirit (Jiva). Maya is Avastu or no real thing. It is Nishtattva. As Avidya is neither real nor unreal, so is its cause or Maya. The kernel of the Vedantik argument on this point is to be found in its interpretations of the Vaidik Mahavakya, "That thou art" (Tat tvam asi). Tat here is Ishvara, that is, Brahman with Maya as his body or Upadhi. Tvam is the Jiva with Avidya as its body. It is then shown that Jiva is only Brahman when Maya is eliminated from Ishvara, and Avidya from Jiva. Therefore, only as Brahman is the Tvam the Tat; therefore, neither Maya nor Avidya really exist (they are Avastu), for otherwise the equality of Jiva and Ishvara could not be affirmed. This conclusion that Maya is Avastu has far-reaching consequences, both religious and philosophical, and so has the denial of it. It is on this question that there is a fundamental difference between Shamkara's Advaitavada and that of the Shakta Tantra, which I am about to discuss.

Before, however, doing so I will first contrast the notions of creation in Samkhya and Vedanta. It is common ground that creation is the appearance produced by the action of Mulaprakriti or principle of Nature (Acit) existing in association with Cit. According to Samkhya, in Mulaprakriti or the potential condition of the Natural Principle, the Gunas are in a state of equality (Samyavastha), that is, they are not affecting one another. But, as Mulaprakriti is essentially movement, it is said that even when in this state of equality the Gunas are yet continually changing into themselves (Sarupaparinama). This inherent subtle movement is the nature of the Guna itself, and exists without effecting any objective result. Owing to the ripening of Adrishta or Karma, creation takes place by the disturbance of this equality of the Gunas (Gunakshobha), which then commence to oscillate and act upon one another. It is this initial creative motion which is known in the Tantra as Cosmic Sound (Parashabda). It is through the association of Purusha with Mulaprakriti in cosmic vibration (Spandana) that creation takes place. The whole universe arises from varied forms of this grand initial motion. So, scientific "matter" is now currently held to be the varied appearance produced in our minds by vibration of, and in the single substance called ether. This new Western scientific doctrine of vibration is in India an ancient inheritance. "Hring, the Supreme Hangsa dwells in the brilliant heaven." The word "Hangsa" comes, it is said, from the word Hanti, which means Gati or Motion. Sayana says that It is called Aditya, because It is in perpetual motion. But Indian teaching carries the application of this doctrine beyond the scientific ether which is a physical substance (Mahabhuta). There is vibration in the causal body that is of the Gunas of Mulaprakriti as the result of Sadrishaparinama of Parashabdasrishti; in the subtle body of mind (Antahkarana); and in the gross body, compounded of the Bhutas which derive from the Tanmatras their immediate subtle source of origin. The Hiranyagarbha and Virat Sound is called Madhyama and Vaikhari. If this striking similarity between ancient Eastern wisdom and modern scientific research has not been recognized, it is due to the fact that the ordinary Western Orientalist and those who take their cue from him in this country, are prone to the somewhat contemptuous belief that, Indian notions are of "historical" interest only, and as such, a welcome addition possibly for some intellectual museum, but are otherwise without value or actuality. The vibrating Mulaprakriti and its Gunas ever remain the same, though the predominance of now one, and now another of them, produces the various evolutes called Vikritis or Tattvas, which constitute the world of mind and matter. These Tattvas constitute the elements of the created world. They are the well-known Buddhi, Ahamkara, Manas (constituting the Antahkarana), the ten Indriyas, five Tanmatras and five Mahabhutas of "ether", "air", "fire", "water" and "earth", which of course must not be identified with the notions which the English terms connote. These Tattvas are names for the elements which we discover as a result of a psychological analysis of our worldly experience. That experience ordinarily gives us both the feeling of persistence and change. The former is due to the presence of the Atma or Cit-Shakti, which exists in us in association with Mulaprakriti or Maya-Shakti. This is the Caitanya in all bodies. Change is caused by Mulaprakriti or Maya-Shakti, and its elements may be divided into the subjective and objective Tattvas, or what we call mind and matter. Analyzing, again, the former, we discover an individuality (Ahamkara) sensing through the Indriyas, a world which forms the material of its precepts and concepts (Manas and Buddhi). The object of thought or "matter' are the varied compounds of Vaikrita creation, which are made up of combinations of the gross elements (Mahabhuta), which themselves derive from the subtle elements or Tanmatras. Now, according to Samkhya, all this is real, for all are Tattvas. Purusha and Prakriti are Tattvas, and so are Vikritis of the latter.

According to the Vedanta also, creation takes place through the association of the Brahman, then known as the Lord or Ishvara (Mayopadhika-Caitanyam Ishvarah), with Maya. That is, Cit is associated with, though unaffected by Maya which operates by reason of such association to produce the universe. The unchanging Sad-vastu is the Brahman. The ever-changing world is, when viewed by the spiritually wise (Jñani), the form imposed by Avidya on the Changeless Sat. It is true, that it has the quality of being in accordance with the greatest principle of order, namely, that of causality. It is the Sat however, which gives to the World the character of orderliness, because it is on and in association with that pure Cit or Sat that Maya plays. It is true, that behind all this unreal appearance there is the Real, the Brahman. But the phenomenal world has, from the alogical standpoint, no real substratum existing as its instrumental and material cause. The Brahman as such, is no true cause, and Maya is unreal (Avastu). The world has only the appearance of reality from the reflection which is cast by the real upon the unreal. Nor is Ishvara, the creative and ruling Lord, in a transcendental sense real. For, as it is the Brahman in association with Maya, which Shamkara calls Ishvara, the latter is nothing but the Brahman viewed through Maya. It follows that the universe is the product of the association of the real and the unreal, and when world-experience ends in liberation (Mukti), the notion of Ishvara as its creator no longer exists. For His body is Maya and this is Avastu, So long however as there is a world, that is, so long as one is subject to Maya that is embodied, so long do we recognize the existence of Ishvara. The Lord truly exists for every Jiva so long as he is such. But on attainment of bodiless liberation (Videha Mukti), the Jiva becomes himself Sacchidananda, and as such Ishvara does not exist for him, for Ishvara is but the Sat viewed through that Maya of which the Sat is free. "The Brahman is true, the world is false. The Jiva is Brahman (Paramatma) and nothing else."

The opponents of this system or Mayavada have charged it with being a covert form of Buddhistic nihilism (Maya-vadam asacchastram pracchannam bauddham). It has, however, perhaps been more correctly said that Sri Shamkara adjusted his philosophy to meet the Mayavada of the Buddhists, and so promulgated a new theory of Maya without abandoning the faith or practice of his Shaiva-Shakta Dharma.

All systems obviously concede at least the empirical reality of the world. The question is, whether it has a greater reality than that, and if so, in what way? Samkhya affirms its reality; Shamkara denies it in order to secure the complete unity of the Brahman. Each system has merits of its own. Samkhya by its dualism is able to preserve in all its integrity the specific character of Cit as Nirañjana. This result, on the other hand, is effected at the cost of that unity for which all minds have, in some form or other, a kind of metaphysical hunger. Shamkara by his Mayavada secures this unity, but this achievement is at the cost of a denial of the ultimate reality of the world whether considered as the product (Vikriti) of Mulaprakriti, or as Mulaprakriti itself.

There is, however, another alternative, and that is the great Shakta doctrine of Duality in Unity. There is, this Shastra says, a middle course in which the reality of the world is affirmed without compromising the truth of the unity of the Brahman, for which Shamkara by such lofty speculation contends. I here shortly state what is developed more fully later. The Shakta Advaitavada recognizes the reality of Mulaprakriti in the sense of Maya-Shakti. Here in a qualified way it follows the Samkhya. On the other hand, it differs from the Samkhya in holding that Mulaprakriti as Maya-Shakti is not a principle separate from the Brahman, but exists in and as a principle of the one Brahman substance. The world, therefore, is the appearance of the Real. It is the Brahman as Power. The ground principle of such appearance or Maya-Shakti is the Real as Atma and Power. There is thus a reality behind all appearances, a real substance behind the apparent transformations. Maya-Shakti as such is both eternal and real, and so is Ishvara. The transformations are the changing forms of the Real. I pass now to the Advaitavada of the Shakta Tantra.

The Shakta Tantra is not a formal system of philosophy (Darshana). It is, in the broadest sense, a generic term for the writings and various traditions which express the whole culture of a certain epoch in Indian History. The contents are therefore of an encyclopedic character, religion, ritual, domestic rites, law, medicine, magic, and so forth. It has thus great historical value, which appears to be the most fashionable form of recommendation for the Indian Scriptures now-a-days. The mere historian, I believe, derives encouragement from the fact that out of bad material may yet be made good history. I am not here concerned with this aspect of the matter. For my present purpose, the Shakta Tantra is part of the Upasana kanda of the three departments of Shruti, and is a system of physical, psychical and moral training (Sadhana), worship and Yoga. It is thus essentially practical. This is what it claims to be. To its critics, it has appeared to be a system of immoral indiscipline. I am not here concerned with the charge but with the doctrine of creation to be found in the Shastra. Underlying however, all this practice, whatever be the worth or otherwise which is attributed to it, there is a philosophy which must be abstracted, as I have here done for the first time, with some difficulty, and on points with doubt, from the disquisitions on religion and the ritual and Yoga directions to be found in the various Tantras. The fundamental principles are as follows.

It is said that equality (Samya) of the Gunas is Mulaprakriti, which has activity (Kartrittva), but no consciousness (Caitanya). Brahman is Sacchidananda who has Caitanya and no Kartrittva. But this is so only if we thus logically differentiate them. As a matter of fact, however, the two admittedly, ever and everywhere, co-exist and cannot, except for the purpose of formal analysis, be thought of without the other. The connection between the two is one of unseparateness (Avinabhava Sambandha). Brahman does not exist without Prakriti-Shakti or Prakriti without the Brahman. Some call the Supreme Caitanya with Prakriti, others Prakriti with Caitanya. Some worship It as Shiva; others as Shakti. Both are one and the same. Shiva is the One viewed from Its Cit aspect. Shakti is the One viewed from Its Maya aspect. They are the "male" and "female" aspects of the same Unity which is neither male nor female. Akula is Shiva. Kula is Shakti. The same Supreme is worshipped by Sadhana of Brahman, as by Sadhana of Adyashakti. The two cannot be separated, for Brahman without Prakriti is actionless, and Prakriti without Brahman is unconscious. There is Nishkala Shiva or the transcendent, attributeless (Nirguna) Brahman; and Sakala Shiva or the embodied, immanent Brahman with attributes (Saguna).

Kala or Shakti corresponds with the Samkhyan Mula-prakriti or Samyavastha of the three Gunas and the Vedantic Maya. But Kala which is Mulaprakriti and Maya eternally is, and therefore when we speak of Nishkala Shiva it is not meant that there is then or at any time no Kala, for Kala ever is, but that Brahman is meant which is thought of as being without the working Prakriti (Prakriteranyah), Maya-Shakti is then latent in it. As the Devi in the Kulacudamani says, "Aham Prakritirupa chet Cidanandaparayana". Sakala Shiva is, on the other hand, Shiva considered as associated with Prakriti in operation and manifesting the world. In one case, Kala is working or manifest, in the other it is not, but exists in a potential state. In the same way the two Shivas are one and the same. There is one Shiva who is Nirguna and Saguna. The Tantrik Yoga treatise Satcakranirupana describes the Jivatma as the Paryyaya of, that is another name for, the Paramatma; adding that the root of wisdom (Mulavidya,) is a knowledge of their identity. When the Brahman manifests, It is called Shakti, which is the magnificent concept round which Tantra is built. The term comes from the root "Sak," which means "to be able". It is the power which is the Brahman and whereby the Brahman manifests itself; for Shakti and possessor of Shakti (Shaktiman) are one and the same. As Shakti is Brahman, it is also Nirguna and Saguna. Ishvara is Cit-Shakti, that is, Cit in association with the operating Prakriti as the efficient cause of the creation; and Maya-Shakti which means Maya as a Shakti that is in creative operation as the instrumental (Nimitta) and material (Upadana) cause of the universe. This is the Shakti which produces Avidya, just as Mahamaya or Ishvari is the Great Liberatrix. These twin aspects of Shakti appear throughout creation. Thus in the body, the Cit or Brahman aspect is conscious Atma or Spirit, and the Maya aspect is the Antahkarana and its derivatives or the unconscious ( Jada) mind and body. When, however, we speak here of Shakti without any qualifications, what is meant is Cit-Shakti in association with Maya-Shakti that is Ishvari or Devi or Mahamaya, the Mother of all worlds. If we keep this in view, we shall not fall into the error of supposing that the Shaktas (whose religion is one of the oldest in the world; how old indeed is as yet little known) worship material force or gross matter. Ishvara or Ishvari is not Acit, which, as pure sattva-guna is only His or Her body. Maya-Shakti in the sense of Mulaprakriti is Cit. So also is Avidya Shakti, though it appears to be Acit, for there is no Cidabhasa.

In a certain class of Indian images, you will see the Lord, with a diminutive female figure on His lap. The makers and worshippers of those images thought of Shakti as being in the subordinate position which some persons consider a Hindu wife should occupy. This is however not the conception of Shakta Tantra, according to which, She is not a handmaid of the Lord, but the Lord Himself, being but the name for that aspect of His in which He is the Mother and Nourisher of the worlds. As Shiva is the transcendent, Shakti is the immanent aspect of the one Brahman who is Shiva-Shakti. Being Its aspect, It is not different from, but one with It. In the Kulacudamani Nigama, the Bhairavi addressing Bhairava says, "Thou art the Guru of all, I entered into Thy body (as Shakti) and thereby Thou didst become the Lord (Prabhu). There is none but Myself Who is the Mother to create (Karyyavibhavini). Therefore it is that when creation takes place Sonship is in Thee. Thou alone art the Father Who wills what I do (Karyyavibhavaka; that is, She is the vessel which receives the nectar which flows from Nityananda). By the union of Shiva and Shakti creation comes (Shiva-Shakti-sama-yogat jayate srishtikalpana). As all in the universe is both Shiva and Shakti (Shivashaktimaya), therefore Oh Maheshvara, Thou art in every place and I am in every place. Thou art in all and I am in all." The creative World thus sows Its seed in Its own womb.

Such being the nature of Shakti, the next question is whether Maya as Shamkara affirms is Avastu. It is to be remembered that according to his empirical method it is taken as real, but transcendentally it is alleged to be an eternal unreality, because, the object of the latter method is to explain away the world altogether so as to secure the pure unity of the Brahman. The Shakta Tantra is however not concerned with any such purpose. It is an Upasana Shastra in which the World and its Lord have reality. There cannot be Sadhana in an unreal world by an unreal Sadhaka of an unreal Lord. The Shakta replies to Mayavada: If it be said that Maya is in some unexplained way Avastu, yet it is admitted that there is something, however unreal it may be alleged to be, which is yet admittedly eternal and in association, whether manifest or unmanifest, with the Brahman. According to Shamkara, Maya exists as the mere potentiality of some future World which shall arise on the ripening of Adrishta which Maya is. But in the Mahanirvana Tantra, Shiva says to Devi, "Thou art Thyself the Para Prakriti of the Paramatma" (Ch. IV, v. 10). That is Maya in the sense of Mulaprakriti, which is admittedly eternal, is not Avastu, but is the Power of the Brahman one with which is Cit. In Nishkala Shiva, Shakti lies inactive. It manifests in and as creation, though Cit thus appearing through its Power is neither exhausted nor affected thereby. We thus find Ishvari addressed in the Tantra both as Sacchidanandarupini and Trigunatmika, referring to the two real principles which form part of the one Brahman substance. The philosophical difference between the two expositions appears to lie in this. Shamkara says that there are no distinctions in Brahman of either of the three kinds: svagata-bheda, that is, distinction of parts within one unit, svajatiya-bheda or distinction between units of one class, or vijatiya-bheda or distinction between units of different classes. Bharati, however, the Commentator on the Mahanirvana (Ch. II, v. 34) says that Advaita there mentioned means devoid of the last two classes of distinction. There is, therefore, for the purposes of Shakta Tantra, a svagata-bheda in the Brahman Itself namely, the two aspects according to which the Brahman is, on the one hand, Being, Cit and on the other, the principle of becoming which manifests as Nature or seeming Acit. In a mysterious way, however, there is a union of these two principles (Bhavayoga), which thus exist without derogation from the partless unity of the Brahman which they are. In short, the Brahman may be conceived of as having twin aspects, in one of which, It is the cause of the changing world, and in the other of which It is the unchanging Soul of the World. Whilst the Brahman Svarupa or Cit is Itself immutable, the Brahman is yet through its Power the cause of change, and is in one aspect the changeful world

But what then is "real"; a term not always correctly understood. According to the Mayavada definition, the "real" is that which ever was, is and will be (Kalatrayasattvavan); in the words of the Christian liturgy, "as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be world without end"; therefore that which changes, which was not, but is, and then ceases to be is according to this definition "unreal," however much from a practical point of view it may appear real to us. Now Mayavada calls Mulaprakriti in the sense of Maya the material cause of the world, no independent real (Avastu). The Shakta Tantra says that the Principle, whence all becoming comes, exists as a real substratum so to speak below the world of names and forms. This Maya-Shakti is an eternal reality. What is "unreal" (according to the above definition), are these names and forms (Avidya), that is, the changing worlds (asat-triloki-sadbhavam svarupam Brahmanah smritam, Ch. III, v. 7, Mahanirvana Tantra). These are unreal however only in the sense that they are not permanent, but come and go. The body is called Sharira, which comes from the root Sri -- "to decay", for it is dissolving and being renewed at every moment until death. Again, however real it may seem to us, the world may be unreal in the sense that it is something other than what it seems to be. This thing which I now hold in my hands seems to me to be paper, which is white, smooth and so forth, yet we are told that it really is something different, namely, a number of extraordinarily rapid vibrations of etheric substance, producing the false appearance of scientific "matter". In the same way (as those who worship Yantras know), all nature is the appearance produced by various forms of motion in Prakritic substance. (Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma.) The real is the Brahman and its Power. The Brahman, whether in Its Cit or Maya aspect, eternally and changelessly endures, but Avidya breaks up its undivided unity into the changing manifold world of names and forms. It follows from the above that Brahman and Ishvara are two co-being aspects of the One ultimate Reality, as Power to Be and to Become. For as Shamkara points out (Comm. Svetasvatara Up. I. 2) Devatmashakti, the cause of the world, is not separate from the Paramatma, as Samkhya alleges its Pradhana to be. And thus it is that Shiva in the Kularnava Tantra (I. 110) says, "some desire dualism (Dvaitavada), others monism (Advaitavada). Such however know not My truth, which is beyond both monism and dualism (Dvaitadvaitavivarjita)." This saying may doubtless mean that to "the knower (Jñani) the arguments of philosophical systems are of no account, as is indeed the case." It has also a more literal meaning as above explained. The Shastra in fact makes high claims for itself. The Tantra, it has been said, takes into its arms as if they were its two children, both dualism and monism affording by its practical method (Sadhana) and the spiritual knowledge generated thereby the means by which their antinomies are resolved and harmonized. Its purpose is to give liberation to the Jiva by a method according to which monistic truth is reached through the dualistic world; immersing its Sadhakas in the current of Divine Bliss, by changing duality into unity, and then evolving from the latter a dualistic play, thus proclaiming the wonderful glory of the Spouse of Paramashiva in the love embrace of Mind-Matter (Jada) and Consciousness (Caitanya). It therefore says that those who have realized this, move, and yet remain unsoiled in the mud of worldly actions which lead others upon the downward path. It claims, therefore, that its practical method (Sadhana) is more speedily fruitful than any other. Its practical method is an application of the general principles above described. In fact, one of its Acaras which has led to abuse is an attempt to put into full practice the theory of Advaitavada. Shamkara has in his transcendental method dealt with the subject as part of the Jñana Kanda. Though the exponent of the Mayavada is esteemed to be a Mahapurusha, this method is not in favor with the Tantric Sadhaka who attributes much of the practical atheism which is to be found in this country, as elsewhere, to a misunderstanding of the transcendental doctrines of Mayavada. There is some truth in this charge, for, as has been well said, the vulgarization of Shamkara's "Higher Science" which is by its nature an esoteric doctrine destined for a small minority, must be reckoned a misfortune in so far as it has, in the language of the Gita, induced many people to take to another's Dharma instead of to their own, which is the "Lower Science" of the great Vedantin followed in all Shastras of worship. Such a Shastra must necessarily affirm God as a real object of worship. Dionysius, the Areopagite, the chief of the line of all Christian mystics said that we could only speak "apophatically" of the Supreme as It existed in Itself, that is, other than as It displays Itself to us. Of It nothing can be affirmed but that It is not this and not that. Here he followed the, "neti neti," of the Vedanta. Ishvari is not less real than the things with which we are concerned every day. She is for the Indian Sadhaka the highest reality and what may or may not be the state of Videha Mukti has for him, no practical concern. Those only who have attained it will know whether Shamkara is right or not; not that they will think about this or any other subject; but in the sense that when the Brahman is known all is known. A friend from whom I quote, writes that he had once occasion to learn to what ridiculous haughtiness, some of the modern "adepts" of Sri Shamkara's school are apt to let themselves be carried away, when one of them spoke to him of the personal Ishvara as being a "pitiable creature". The truth is that such so-called "adepts" are no adepts at all, being without the attainment, and far from the spirit of Shamkara -- whose devotion and powers made him seem to his followers to be an incarnation of Shiva Himself. Such a remark betrays a radical misunderstanding of the Vedanta. How many of those, who to-day discuss his Vedanta from a merely literary standpoint, have his, or indeed any faith'? What some would do is, to dismiss the faith and practice of Shamkara as idle superstition, and to adopt his philosophy. But what is the intrinsic value of a philosophy which emanates from a mind which is so ignorant as to be superstitious P Shamkara, however, has said that faith and Sadhana are the preliminaries for competency (Adhikara) for the Jñanakanda. He alone is competent (Adhikari) who possesses all good moral and intellectual qualities, faith (Shraddha), capacity for the highest contemplation (Samadhi), the Samkhyan discrimination (Viveka), absence of all desire for anything in this world or the next, and an ardent longing for liberation. There are few indeed who can claim even imperfectly all such qualifications. But what of the rest? There is no Vaidik Karmakanda in operation in the present age, but there are other Shastras of worship which is either Vaidik, Tantrik or Pauranik. These provide for those who are still, as are most, on the path of desire. The Tantra affirms that nothing of worth can be achieved without Sadhana. Mere speculation is without result. This principle is entirely sound whatever may be thought of the mode in which it is sought to be applied. Those to whom the questions here discussed are not mere matters for intellectual business or recreation will recall that Shamkara has said that liberation is attained not merely by the discussion of, and pondering upon revealed truth (Vicara), for which few only are competent, but by the grace of God (Ishvara Anugraha), through the worship of the Mother and Father from whom all creation springs. Such worship produces knowledge. In the Kulacudamani, the Devi says: Oh all-knowing One, if Thou knowest Me then of what use are the Amnayas (revealed teachings) and Yajanam (ritual)? If Thou knowest Me not, then again, of what use are they?" But neither are, in another sense, without their uses for thereby the Sadhaka becomes qualified for some form of Urddhvamnaya, in which there are no rites (Karma).

With this short exposition of the nature of Shaktitattva according to Shakta Tantra I pass to an equally brief account of its manifestation in the Universe. It is sufficient to deal with the main lines of the doctrine without going into their very great accompanying detail. I here follow, on the main theme, the account given in the celebrated Sharada Tilaka a work written by Lakshmanacarya, the Guru of Abhinava Gupta, the great Kashmirian Tantrik, about the commencement of the eleventh century, and its Commentary. by the learned Tantrik Pandit Raghava Bhatta which is dated 1454 A.D. This work has long been held to be of great authority in Bengal.

Why creation takes place cannot in an ultimate sense be explained. It is the play (Lila) of the Mother. Could this be done the Brahman would be subject to the law of causality which governs the Universe but which its Cause necessarily transcends.

The Tantra, however, in common with other Indian Shastras recognizes Adrishta Srishti, or the doctrine that the impulse to creation is proximately caused by the Adrsta or Karma of Jivas. But Karma is eternal and itself requires explanation. Karma comes from Samskara and Samskara from Karma. The process of creation, maintenance and dissolution, according to this view, unceasingly recurs as an eternal rhythm of cosmic life and death which is the Mother's play (Lila). And so it is said of Her in the Lalita Sahasranamam that, "the series of universes appear and disappear with the opening and shutting of Her Eyes". The existence of Karma implies the will to cosmic life. We produce it as the result of such will. And when produced it becomes itself the cause of it.

In the aggregate of Karma which will at one period or another ripen, there is, at any particular time, some which are ripe and others which are not so. For the fruition of the former only creation takes place. When this seed ripens and the time therefore approaches for the creation of another universe, the Brahman manifests in Its Vishvarupa aspect, so that the Jiva may enjoy or suffer therein the fruits of his Karma and (unless liberation be attained) accumulate fresh Karma which will involve the creation of future worlds. When the unripened actions which are absorbed in Maya become in course of time ripe, the Vritti of Maya or Shakti in the form of desire for creation arises in Paramashiva, for the bestowal of the fruit of this Karma. This state of Maya is variously called by Shruti, Ikshana, Kama, Vicikirsha.

It is when the Brahman "saw," "desired," or "thought" "May I be many," that there takes place what is known as Sadrishaparinama in which the Supreme Bindu appears. This, in its triple aspect, is known as Kamakala, a manifestation of Shakti whence in the manner hereafter described the Universe emanates. This Kamakala is the Mula or root of all Mantras. Though creation takes place in order that Karma may be suffered and enjoyed, yet in the aggregate of Karma which will at one time or another ripen, there is at any particular period some which are ripe and others which are not so. For the fruition of the former only creation takes place. As creation will serve no purpose in the case of Karma which is not ripe, there is, after the exhaustion by fruition of the ripe Karma, a dissolution (Pralaya). Then the Universe is again merged in Maya which thus abides until the ripening of the remaining actions. Karma, like everything else, re-enters the Brahman, and remains there in hidden potential state as it were a seed. When the seed ripens creation again takes place.

With Ikshana, or the manifestation of creative will, creation is really instantaneous. When the "Word" went forth, "Let there be light", there was light, for the ideation of Ishvara is creative. Our mind by its constitution is however led to think of creation as a gradual process. The Samkhya starts with the oscillation of the Gunas (Gunakshobha) upon which the Vikritis immediately appear. But just as it explains its real Parinama in terms of successive emanations, so the Shakta Tantra describes a Sadrishaparinama in the body of Ishvara their cause. This development is not a real Parinama, but a resolution of like to like, that is, there is no actual change in the nature of the entity dealt with, the various stages of such Parinama being but names for the multiple aspects to us of the same unchanging Unity.

Shakti is one. It appears as various by its manifestations. In one aspect there is no Parinama, for Sacchidananda is as such immutable. Before and after and in creation It remains what It was. There is therefore no Parinama in or of the Aksharabrahman as such. There is Parinama, however, in its Power aspect. The three Gunas do not change, each remaining what it is. They are the same in all forms but appear to the Jiva to exist in different combinations. The appearance of the Gunas in different proportions is due to Avidya or Karma which is this apparent Gunakshobha. It is Samskara which gives to the Samya Prakriti, existence as Vaishamya. What the Tantra describes as Sadrishaparinama is but an analysis of the different aspects of what is shortly called in other Shastras, Ikshana. This Sadrishaparinama is concerned with the evolution of what is named Para Sound (Parashabdasrishti). This is Cosmic Sound; the causal vibration in the substance of Mulaprakriti which gives birth to the Tattvas which are its Vikritis: such Cosmic Sound being that which is distinguished in thought from the Tattvas so produced.

The Sharada says that from the Sakala Parameshvara who is Sacchidananda issued Shakti that is, that power which is necessary for creation. God and His power are yet more than the creation which He manifests. Shakti is said to issue from that which is already Sakala or associated with Shakti, because as Raghava Bhatta says, She who is eternal (Anadi-rupa) was in a subtle state as Caitanya during the great dissolution (Pralaya), (Ya Anadirupa Caitanyadhyasena Mahapralaye Sukshma Sthita).

With however the disturbance of the Gunas, Prakriti became inclined (Ucchuna) to creation, and in this sense, is imagined to issue. Shakti, in other words, passes from a potential state to one of actuality. The Parameshvara is, he adds, described as Sacchidananda in order to affirm that even when the Brahman is associated with Avidya, its own true nature (Svarupa) is not affected. According to the Sharada, from this Shakti issues Nada and from the latter Bindu (known as the Parabindu). The Sharada thus enumerates seven aspects of Shakti. This it does, according to Raghava Bhatta, so as to make up the seven component parts of the Omkara. In some Shakta Tantras this first Nada is omitted and there are thus only six aspects. The Shaiva Tantras mention five. Those which recognize Kala as a Tattva identify Nada with it. In some Tantras, Kala is associated with Tamoguna, and is the Mahakala who is both the child and spouse of Adyashakti; for creation comes from the Tamasic aspect of Shakti. In the Saradatilaka, Nada and Bindu are one and the same Shakti, being the names of two of Her states which are considered to represent Her as being more prone to creation (Ucchunavastha). There are two states of Shakti-bindu suitable for creation (Upayogavastha). As there is no mass or Ghana in Nishkala Shiva, that Brahman represents the Aghanavastha. The Prapañcasara Tantra says that She, who is in the first place Tattva (mere "thatness"), quickens under the influence of Cit which She reflects; then She longs to create (Vicikirshu) and becomes massive (Ghanibhuta) and appears as Bindu (Parabindu). Ghanibhuta means that which was not dense or Ghana but which has become so (Ghanavastha). It involves the notion of solidifying, coagulating, becoming massive. Thus milk is said to become Ghanibhuta when it condenses into cream or curd. This is the first gross condition (Sthulavastha); the Brahman associated with Maya in the form of Karma assumes that aspect in which It is regarded as the primal cause of the subtle and gross bodies. There then lies in it in a potential, undifferentiated mass (Ghana), the universe and beings about to be created. The Parabindu is thus a compact aspect of Shakti wherein action or Kriya Shakti predominates. It is compared to a grain of gram (Canaka) which under its outer sheath (Maya) contains two seeds (Shivashakti) in close and undivided union. The Bindu is symbolized by a circle. The Shunya or empty space within is the Brahmapada. The supreme Light is formless, but Bindu implies both the void and Guna, for, when Shiva becomes Bindurupa He is with Guna. Raghava says, "She alone can create. When the desire for appearance as all Her Tattvas seizes Her, She assumes the state of Bindu whose characteristic is action" (Kriyashakti). This Bindu or Avyakta, as it is the sprouting root of the universe, is called the supreme Bindu (Parabindu), or causal or Karana Bindu, to distinguish it from that aspect of Itself which is called Bindu (Karya), which appears as a state of Shakti after the differentiation of the Parabindu in Sadrishaparinama. The Parabindu is the Ishvara of the Vedanta with Maya as His Upadhi. He is the Saguna Brahman, that is, the combined Cit-Shakti and Maya-Shakti or Ishvara with undifferentiated Prakriti as His Avyaktasharira. Some call Him Mahavishnu and others the Brahmapurusha. He is Paramashiva. "Some call the Hamsa, Devi. They are those who are filled with a passion for Her lotus feet." As Kalicarana the Commentator of the Shatcakranirupana says, it matters not what It is called. It is adored by all. It is this Bindu or state of supreme Shakti which is worshipped in secret by all Devas. In Nishkala Shiva, Prakriti exists in a hidden potential state. The Bindu Parashaktimaya (Shivashaktimaya) is first movement of creative activity which is both the expression and result of the universal Karma or store of unfulfilled desire for cosmic life.

It is then said that the Parabindu "divides" or "differentiates". In the Satyaloka is the formless and lustrous One. She exists like a grain of gram (Canaka) surrounding Herself with Maya. When casting off (Utsrijya) the covering (Bandhana.) of Maya, She, intent on creation (Unmukhi), becomes twofold (Dvidha bhittva), or according to the account here given threefold, and then on this differentiation in Shiva and Shakti (Shiva-Shakti-vibhagena) arises creative ideation (Srishtikalpana). As so unfolding the Bindu is known as the Sound Brahman (Shabdabrahman). "On the differentiation of the Parabindu there arose unmanifested sound" (Bhidyamanat parad bindoravyaktatma ravo, 'bhavat). Shabda here of course does not mean physical sound, which is the Guna of the Karyakasha or atomic Akasha. The latter is integrated and limited and evolved at a later stage in Vikriti Parinama from Tamasika Ahamkara. Shabdabrahman in the undifferentiated Cidakasha or Spiritual Ether of philosophy, in association with its Kala, or Prakriti or the Sakala Shiva of religion. It is Cit-Shakti vehicled by undifferentiated Prakriti, from which is evolved Nadamatra ("Sound only" or the "Principle of Sound") which is un-manifest (Avyakta), from which again is displayed (Vyakta) the changing universe of names and forms. It is the Pranavarupa Brahman or Om which is the cosmic causal principle and the manifested Shabdartha. Avyakta Nada or unmanifested Sound is the undifferentiated causal principle of Manifested Sound without any sign or characteristic manifestation such as letters and the like which mark its displayed product. Shabdabrahman is the all-pervading, impartite, unmanifested Nadabindu substance, the primary creative impulse in Parashiva which is the cause of the manifested Shabdartha. This Bindu is called Para because It is the first and supreme Bindu. Although It is Shakti like the Shakti and Nada which precede It, It is considered as Shakti on the point of creating the world, and as such It is from this Parabindu that Avyakta Sound is said to come.

Raghava Bhatta ends the discussion of this matter by shortly saying that the Shabdabrahman is the Caitanya in all creatures which as existing in breathing creatures (Pram) is known as the Shakti Kundalini of the Muladhara. The accuracy of this definition is contested by the Compiler of the Pranatoshini, but if by Caitanya we understand the Manifested Cit, that is, the latter displayed as and with Mulaprakriti in Cosmic vibration (Spandana), then the apparently differing views are reconciled.

The Parabindu on such differentiation manifests under the threefold aspects of Bindu, Nada, Bija. This is the fully developed and kinetic aspect of Parashabda. The Bindu which thus becomes threefold is the Principle in which the germ of action sprouts to manifestation producing a state of compact intensive Shakti. The threefold aspect of Bindu, as Bindu (Karyya), Nada and Bija are Shivamaya, Shivashaktimaya, Shaktimaya; Para, Sukshma, Sthula; Iccha, Jñana, Kriya; Tamas, Sattva, Rajas; Moon, Fire and Sun; and the Shaktis which are the cosmic bodies known as Ishvara, Hiranyagarbha, and Virat. All three, Bindu, Bija, Nada are the different phases of Shakti in creation, being different aspects of Parabindu the Ghanavastha of Shakti. The order of the three Shaktis of will, action and knowledge differ in Ishvara and Jiva. Ishvara is a11-knowing and therefore the order in Him, is Iccha, Jñana, Kriya. In Jiva, it is Jñana, Iccha, Kriya. Iccha is said to be the capacity which conceives the idea of work or action; which brings the work before the mind and wills to do it. In this Bindu, Tamas is said to be predominant, for there is as yet no stir to action. Nada is Jñana Shakti, that is, the subjective direction of will by knowledge to the desired end. With it is associated Sattva. Bija is Kriya Shakti or the Shakti which arises from that effort or the action done. With it Rajoguna or the principle of activity is associated. Kriya arises from the combination of Iccha and Jñana. It is thus said, "Drawn by Icchashakti, illumined by Jñana shakti, Shakti the Lord appearing as Male creates (Kriyashakti). From Bindu it is said arose Raudri; from Nada, Jyeshtha; and from Bija, Vama. From these arose Rudra, Brahma, Vishnu." It is also said in the Goraksha Samhita, "Iccha is Brahmi., Kriya is Vaishnavi and Jñana is Gauri. Wherever there are these three Shaktis there is the Supreme Light called Om." In the Sakala Parameshvara or Shabdabrahman in bodies (that is, Kundalini Shakti), Bindu in which Tamas prevails is, Raghava says, called Nirodhika; Nada in which Sattva prevails is called Ardhendhu, and Bija the combination of the two (Iccha and Jñana) in which Rajas as Kriya works is called Bindu. The three preceding states in Kundalini are Shakti, Dhvani, and Nada. Kundalini is Cit-Shakti into which Sattva enters, a state known as the Paramakashavastha. When She into whom Sattva has entered is next pierced by Rajas, She is called Dhvani which is the Aksharavastha. When She is again pierced by Tamas, She is called Nada. This is the Avyaktavastha, the Avyakta Nada which is the Parabindu. The three Bindus which are aspects of Parabindu constitute the mysterious Kamakala triangle which with the Harddhakala forms the roseate body of the lovely limbed great Devi Tripurasundari who is Shivakama and manifests the universe. She is the trinity of Divine energy of whom the Shritattvarnava says: "Those glorious men who worship in that body in Samarasya are freed from the waves of poison in the untraversable sea of the Wandering (Samsara)". The main principle which underlies the elaborate details here shortly summarized, is this. The state in which Cit and Prakriti-Shakta are as one undivided whole, that is, in which Prakriti lies latent (Nishkala Shiva), is succeeded by one of differentiation, that is, manifestation of Maya (Sakala Shiva). In such manifestation it displays several aspects. The totality of such aspects is the Maya body of Ishvara in which are included the causal, subtle and gross bodies of the Jiva. These are, according to the Sharada, seven aspects of the first or Para state of sound in Shabdasrishti which are the seven divisions of the Mantra Om, viz.: A, U, M, Nada, Bindu, Shakti, Santa. They constitute Parashabdasrishti in the Ishvara creation. They are Ishvara or Om and seven aspects of the cosmic causal body; the collectivity (Samashti) of the individual (Vyashti), causal, subtle and gross bodies of the Jiva

Before passing to the manifested Word and Its meaning (Shabdartha), it is necessary to note what is called Arthasrishti in the Avikriti or Sadrishaparinama: that is the causal state of Sound called Parashabda; the other three states, viz.: Pashyanti, Madhyama and Vaikhari manifesting only in gross bodies. As Parabindu is the causal body of Shabda, It is also the causal body of Artha which is inseparately associated with It as the combined Shabdartha. As such, He is called Shambhu who is of the nature of both Bindu and Kala and the associate of Kala. From Him issued Sadashiva, "the witness of the world," and from Him Isha, and then Rudra, Vishnu and Brahma. The six Shivas are various aspects of Cit as presiding over (the first) the subjective Tattvas and (the rest) the elemental world whose centers are five lower Cakras. These Devatas when considered as belonging to the Avikriti Parinama are the Devata aspect of apparently different states of causal sound by the process of resolution of like to like giving them the semblance of all-pervasive creative energies. They are Sound powers in the aggregate (Samashti). As appearing in, that is, presiding over, bodies they are the ruling Lords of the individual (Vyashti) evolutes from the primal cause of Shabda.

The completion of the causal Avikriti Parinama with its ensuing Cosmic vibration in the Gunas is followed by a real Parinama of the Vikritis from the substance of Mula-prakriti. There then appears the manifested Shabdartha or the individual bodies subtle or gross of the Jiva in which are the remaining three Bhavas of Sound or Shaktis called Pashyanti, Madhyama, Vaikhari. Shabda literally means sound, idea, word; and Artha its meaning; that is, the objective form which corresponds to the subjective conception formed and language spoken of it. The conception is due to Samskara. Artha is the externalized thought. There is a psycho-physical parallelism in the Jiva. In Ishvara thought is truly creative. The two are inseparable, neither existing without the other. Shabdartha has thus a composite meaning like the Greek word "Logos," which means both thought and word combined. By the manifested Shabdartha is meant what the Vedantins call Namarupa, the world of names and forms, but with this difference that according to the Tantrik notions here discussed there is, underlying this world of names and forms, a real material cause that is Parashabda or Mulaprakriti manifesting as the principle of evolution.

The Sharada says that from the Unmanifested Root-Avyakta Being in Bindu form (Mulabhuta Bindurupa) or the Paravastu (Brahman), that is, from Mulaprakriti in creative operation there is evolved the Samkhyan Tattvas.

Transcendentally, creation of all things takes place simultaneously. But, from the standpoint of Jiva, there is a real development (Parinama) from the substance of Mula-bhuta Avyakta Bindurupa (as the Sharada calls Mulaprakriti) of the Tattvas, Buddhi, Ahamkara, Manas, the Indriyas, Tanmatras and Mahabhutas in the order stated. The Tantra therefore adopts the Samkhyan and not the Vedantic order of emanation which starts with the Apancikrita Tanmatra, the Tamasik parts of which, on the one hand, develop by Pancikarana into the Mahabhuta, and on the other, the Rajasik and Sattvik parts of which are collectively and separately the source of the remaining Tattvas. In the Shakta Tantra, the Bhutas derive directly and not by Pancikarana from the Tanmatras. Pancikarana exists in respect of the compounds derived from the Bhutas. There is a further point of detail in the Tantrik exposition to be noted. The Shakta Tantra, as the Puranas and Shaiva Shastras do, speaks of a threefold aspect of Ahamkara, according to the predominance therein of the respective Gunas. From the Vaikarika Ahamkara issue the eleven Devatas who preside over Manas and the ten Indriyas; from the Taijasa Ahamkara are produced the Indriyas and Manas; and from the Bhutadika Ahamkara the Tanmatras. None of these differences in detail or order of emanation of the Tattvas has substantial importance. In one case start is made from the knowing principle (Buddhi), on the other from the subtle object of knowledge the Tanmatra.

The abovementioned creation is known as Ishvara Srishti. The Vishvasara Tantra says that from the Earth come the herbs (Oshadhi), from the latter food, and from food seed (Retas). From the latter living beings are produced by the aid of sun and moon. Here what is called Jiva Srishti is indicated, a matter into which I have no time to enter here.

To sum up, upon this ripening of Karma and the urge therefrom to cosmic life, Nishkala Shiva becomes Sakala. Shakti manifests and the causal body of Ishvara is thought of as assuming seven causal aspects in Sadrishaparinama which are aspects of Shakti about to create. The Parabindu or state of Shakti thus developed is the causal body of both the manifested Shabda and Artha. The Parabindu is the source of all lines of development, whether of Shabda, or as Shambhu of Artha, or as the Mulabhuta of the Manifested Shabdartha. On the completed ideal development of this causal body manifesting as the triple Shaktis of will, knowledge and action, the Shabdartha in the sense of the manifested world with its subtle and gross bodies appears in the order described.

From the above description, it will have been seen that the creation doctrine here described is compounded of various elements, some of which it shares with other Shastras, and some of which are its own, the whole being set forth according to a method and terminology which is peculiar to itself. The theory which is a form of Advaita-vada has then some characteristics which are both Samkhyan and Vedantic. Thus it accepts a real Mulaprakriti, not however as an independent principle in the Samkhyan sense, but as a form of the Shakti of Shiva. By and out of Shiva-Shakti who are one, there is a real creation. In such creation there is a special Adrishta-Srishti up to the transformation of Shakti as Parabindu. This is Ishvara Tattva of the thirty-six Tattvas, a scheme accepted by both Advaita Shaivas and Shaktas.

Then by the operation of Maya-Shakti it is transformed into Purusha-Prakriti and from the latter are evolved the Tattvas of the Samkhya. Lastly, there is Yaugika Srishti of the Nyaya Vaisheshika in that the world is held to be formed by a combination of the elements. It accepts, therefore, Adrsta Srishti from the appearance of Shakti, up to the complete formation of the Causal Body known in its subtle form as the Kamakala; thereafter Parinama Srishti of the Vikritis of the subtle and gross body produced from the causal body down to the Mahabhutas; and finally Yaugika Srishti in so far as it is the Bhutas which in varied combination go to make up the gross world.

There are (and the doctrine here discussed is an instance of it) common principles and mutual connections existing in and between the different Indian Shastras, notwithstanding individual peculiarities of presentment due to natural variety of intellectual or temperamental standpoint or the purpose in view. Shiva in the Kularnava says that all the Darshanas are parts of His body, and he who severs them severs His limbs. The meaning of this is that the six Darshanas are the Six Minds, and these, as all else, are parts of the Lord's Body.

Of these six minds, Nyaya and Vaisheshika teach Yaugika Srishti; Samkhya and Patañjali teach Yaugika Srishti and Parinama Srishti; Mayavada Vedanta teaches Yaugika Srishti, Parinamasrishti according to the empirical method and Vivartta according to the transcendental method. According to the Vivartta of Mayavada, there is no real change but only the appearance of it. According to Shakta-vada, Ultimate Reality does in one aspect really evolve but in another aspect is immutable. Mayavada effects its synthesis by its doctrine of grades of reality, and Shakta-vada by its doctrine of aspects of unity and duality, duality in unity and unity in duality. Ultimate Reality as the Whole is neither merely static nor merely active. It is both. The Natural and the Spiritual are one. In this sense the Shakta system claims to be the synthesis of all other doctrines.

é INDEX é

Introductory
On the last occasion that I had the honor to address you, I dealt with the subject of the psychology of Hindu religious ritual from the particular standpoint of the religious community called Shaktas, or Worshippers of the Supreme Mother. To-day I speak of the Supreme Mother Herself as conceived and worshipped by them.

The worship of the Great Mother as the Grand Multiplier is one of the oldest in the world. As I have elsewhere said, when we throw our minds back upon the history of this worship, we discern even in the most remote and fading past the Figure, most ancient, of the mighty Mother of Nature. I suspect that in the beginning the Goddess everywhere antedated, or at least was predominant over, the God. It has been affirmed (Glotz: Ægean Civilization, 243) that in all countries from the Euphrates to the Adriatic, the Chief Divinity was at first in woman form. Looking to the east of the Euphrates we see the Dusk Divinity of India, the Adya-Shakti and Maha-Shakti, or Supreme Power of many names -- as Jagadamba, Mother of the World, which is the Play of Her who is named Lalita, Maya, Mahatripurasundari and Maha-kundalini, as Maha-Vaishnavi, the Sapphire Devi who supports the World, as Mahakali who dissolves it, as Guhyamahabhairavi, and all the rest.

This Supreme Mother is worshipped by Her devotees from the Himalayas, the "Abode of Snow," the northern home of Shiva, to Cape Comorin in the uttermost south -- for the word Comorin is a corruption of Kumart Devi or the Mother. Goddesses are spoken of in the Vedas as in the later Scriptures. Of these latter, the Shakta Tantras are the particular repository of Mother-worship.

To the Shakta, God is his Supreme Mother. In innumerable births he has had countless mothers and fathers, and he may in future have many, many more. The human, and indeed any, mother is sacred as the giver (under God) of life, but it is the Divine Mother of All (Shrimata), the "Treasure-House of Compassion", who alone is both the Giver of life in the world and of its joys, and who (as Tarini) is the Saviouress from its miseries, and who again is, for all who unite with Her, the Life of all lives -- that unalloyed bliss named Liberation. She is the Great Queen (Maharajni) of Heaven and of yet higher worlds, of Earth, and of the Underworlds. To Her both Devas, Devis, and Men give worship. Her Feet are adored by even Brahma, Vishnu, and Rudra.

The Shakta system, in its origin possibly Non-Vaidik, is in several respects an original presentment, both as regards doctrine and practice, of the great Vedantic Theme concerning the One and the Many. As an organic and dynamic system it interprets all in terms of Power, from the atom of Matter, which is said by modern science to be a reservoir of tremendous energy, to the Almighty, which is the commonest name in all Religions for God. It is the cult of Power both as the Partial and as the Whole, as the worshipper may desire. God is here regarded under twin aspects; as Power-Holder or the "male" Shiva, and as Power or Shakti, the Divine Spouse and Mother.

The symbolism of the Shaktas' "Jeweled Tree of Tantra" is brilliant, and meets the demand of Nietzsche that the abstract should be made attractive to the senses. It is largely of the so-called "erotic" type which is to be found to some and varying degree in Hinduism as a whole.

The symbols employed are either geometric -- that is, Yantric -- or pictorial. A Yantra is a diagrammatic presentation of Divinity, as Mantra is its sound-expression. The former is the body of the latter. The higher worship is done with Yantra.

Pictorial symbolism is of higher and lower types. The former is popular, and the latter may be described by the French term peuple.

I will now describe a Yantra and the greatest of Yantras, namely the Shriyantra. We have no longer to deal with pictures of persons and their surroundings, but with lines, curves, circles, triangles, and the Point.

The great symbol of the Mother is the Shriyantra, from the center of which She arises like the solar orb at morn, but in a blaze of light excelling the brilliance of countless midday suns and the coolness of innumerable moons. The center is the Point, or Bindu -- that is, the Mother as Concentrated Power ready to create. Around Her is the Universe, together with its Divinities or Directing Intelligences. From the Point the World issues. Into it on dissolution, it enters. The extended Universe then collapses into an unextended Point, which itself then subsides like a bubble on the surface of the Causal Waters, which are the Immense.

The Real as Shiva-Shakti may be regarded from three aspects -- namely, as Universe, as God, and as Godhead. The Real is the World, but the Real is more than the World. The Real is God. The Real is God, but it is also more than what we understand by the word God. The Real is, as it were, beyond God as Godhead. This does not mean, as some have supposed, that God is a "fiction," but that the Real as it is in its own alogical being is not adequately described in terms of its relation to the world as God. I will deal, then, first with its aspect as Godhead, then as the Supreme Self, or Person, or God, and thirdly, with Shiva-Shakti as the manifest and limited Universe.

Pervading and transcending the Existent is the "Spiritual Ether," also called the "Immense" in which is the Measurable, which Immense is also called the "Fact" (Sat), in which are the Fact-Sections (Kala) which Fact is also called alogical Experience-Whole (Purna), in which are all Experience-Modes (Vritti) of the limited Selves.

The ultimate that is Irreducible Real is, in the system, not mere undetermined Being, but Power which is the source of all Determinations. This Power is both to Be, to self-conserve, and to resist change, as also to be the efficient cause of change, and as material cause to Become and suffer change. Relatively to the World, Immutable Being is as Divinity called Shiva the Power-Holder, and His Power is Shakti or the Mother Shiva, but in the supreme alogical state, Power to Be and Being-Power-Holder are merged in one another.

What is the nature of the Alogical Experience? In the Yoginihridaya Tantra it is asked. "Who knows the heart of a woman? Only Shiva knows the heart of Yogini" -- that is, the Divine Mother so called, as being one with, that is in the form of, all that exists, and as being in Herself the One in which they are.

Since the Irreducible Real is the Whole, it cannot be conceived or described. It is neither Father nor Mother, for it is beyond Fatherhood and Motherhood and all other attributes. It is alogical.

Though it cannot be conceived or put into words, some concepts are held to be more appropriate to it than others. And thus it is approximately said to be infinite undetermined Being, mindless Experiencing, and Supreme Bliss unalloyed with pain and sorrow. As Being and Power are merged in this alogical state, Power, in its form as Power to Be (Cidrupini ), is also Being-Consciousness and Bliss. Shiva-Shakti, the "two in one," are here the Nameless One.

The experience of this alogical state is not, however, that of an "I" (Aham) and "This" (Idam). The next or causal aspect of the Real is a Supreme Self. Its third and effectual aspect is the limited selves or Universe.

The physical Ether is a symbol of this alogical state, in which the twofold Shiva-Shakti are the One in the unitary state, which is called the "Ether of Consciousness" (Cidakasha).

Physical Ether is the all-extending, homogeneous, relative Plenum in which the Universe of particulars exists. The "Spiritual Ether," or "Ether of Consciousness," is the undetermined, all-diffusive, though inextended, absolute Plenum (Purna), in which both these particulars and the physical Ether itself exists. Ether is the physical counterpart of Consciousness, just as the Notion of Space is its psychical counterpart. These are such counterparts because Consciousness becomes through its Power as material cause both Matter and Mind. Each is a manifested form of Spirit in Time and Space. The shoreless Ocean of Nectar or Deathlessness is another symbol of the alogical Whole.

We now pass to a consideration of the same Real in its aspect as related to the Universe, which is the appearance of the Immense as the Measurable or Form. The Real is here related to the Universe as the Cause, Maintainer, and Directing Consciousness. Form is Maya, which, however, in this system (whatever be its meaning in Mayavada) does not mean "Illusion". All is power. All is real

The alogical One is here of dual aspect as Shiva and Shakti. The two concepts of Being and Power are treated as two Persons. Shiva is the Power-Holder, who is Being-Consciousness-Bliss, and Shakti is Power and the Becoming. She, in the alogical state, is also Being-Consciousness-Bliss. Without ceasing to be in Herself what She ever was, is, and will be, She is now the Power of Shiva as efficient and material cause of the Universe and the Universe itself. Whilst Shiva represents the Consciousness aspect of the Real, She is its aspect as Mind, Life, and Matter. He is the Liberation (Moksha) aspect of the Real. S4>e is in the form of the Universe or Samsara. As Shiva-Shakti are in themselves one, so Moksha and Samsara are at root one.

Shiva, in the Kularnava Tantra, says that His doctrine is neither non-dualist nor dualist, but beyond both. We have here a non-dualistic system as regards its teaching concerning the Alogical Whole, in which Shiva-Shakti are fused in one. We have again a kind of Duo-Monotheism. It is Monotheistic because Shiva and Shakti are two aspects of one and the same Reality. It is dual because, these two aspects are worshipped as two Persons, from whose union as Being and Power the Universe evolves.

The experience of this state, relative to the Alogical Whole, is a disruption of unitary alogical experience. I say "relative" because the Whole is always the Whole. Such disruption is the work of Power. She, as it were, disengages Herself as Power, from the embrace in which Power-Holder and Power are fused in one, and then represents Herself to Him. On this representation, Consciousness-Power assumes certain postures (Mudra) preparatory to the going forth as Universe, and then, when Power is fully concentrated, manifests as the World.

The term Consciousness, which is inadequate to describe the alogical state, is here approximately appropriate, for the experience of this state is that of an "I" and "This". But it is to be distinguished from man's Consciousness. For the experiencer as man is a limited (and not, as here, a Supreme Self ) and the object is experienced as separate from, and outside, the Self (and not, as in the case of the Lord and Mother, as one with the experiencing Self). The experience of Shiva as the Supreme Self, viewing the Universe is, "All this, I am".

As contrasted with the alogical, all-diffusive, Spiritual Ether, the symbol of the second aspect of Shiva-Shakti, as the Supreme Self and Cause of the Universe is the metaphysical Point (Bindu) or Power as a Point. What, then is the meaning of the latter term? In Being-Power about to evolve there is a stressing of Power which gathers itself together to expand again as Universe. When it has become concentrated and condensed (Ghanibhuta Shakti) it is ready to evolve. Bindu, or the Point, is, therefore, Power in that Concentrated state in which it is ready and about to evolve the Universe. Though infinitely small, as the Absolute Little, when compared with the Absolute Great or Spiritual Ether, it is yet a source of infinite energy as (to borrow an example from modern science) the relatively Little or Atom, or other unit of matter, existing in the relatively Great or the physical Ether, is said to be a source of tremendous energy. Just as, again, the relative point or atom is as a fact in the relative Ether, so the Absolute Point is conceived to be in the Absolute Ether. I say "conceived," because, as both Spiritual Point and Spiritual Ether are each absolute, it is only figuratively that the one can be said to be "within" the other. The "Isle of Gems" (Manidvipa) in the "Ocean of Nectar" (Amritarnava) is another symbol of this state.

There is a painting that exhibits both the Alogical Immense and the Point of Power or Bindu "in" it. The former is here symbolized by the shoreless "Ocean of Nectar" (Amritarnava) -- that is, Immortality. This symbol of all-diffusive Consciousness is similar to that of the all-spreading Ether. In the blue, tranquil Waters of Eternal Life (Amritarnava) is set the Isle of Gems (Manidvipa). This Island is the Bindu or metaphysical Point of Power. The Island is shown as a golden circular figure. The shores of the Island are made of powdered gems. It is forested with blooming and fragrant trees -- Nipa, Malati, Champaka, Parijata, and Kadamba. There, too is the Kalpa tree laden with flower and fruit. In its leaves the black bees hum, and the Koel birds make love. Its four branches are the four Vedas. In the center there is a house made of Cintamani stone which grants all desires. In it is a jeweled Mandapa or awning. Under it and on a gemmed and golden throne there is the Mother Mahatripurasundari as the Deity of the Bindu, which as shown later, becomes the three Bindus or Puras. Hence Her name "Three Puras" or Tripura. She is red, for red is the active color, and She is here creative as Vimarsha Shakti, or, the "This" of the Supreme Experiencer, which through Maya becomes the Universe. What man calls Matter is first experienced by mindless Consciousness as a "This," which is yet though the "Other" one with the Self. Then, by the operation of Maya, the "This" is experienced by mind as separate and different from and outside the Self, as complete "otherness". She holds in Her four hands, bows and arrows, noose and goad, which are explained later. She sits on two inert male figures which lie on a six-sided throne. The upper figure is Shiva (Sakala), who is awake, because, he is associated with his Power as efficient and material cause. On His head is the crescent Digit of the Moon, called Nada, the name for a state of stressing Power, His Shakti being now creative. He lies inert, for He is Immutable Being. He is white because he is Consciousness and Illumination (Prakasha). Consciousness illuminates and makes manifest the forms evolved by its Power, which in its turn by supplying the form (as object unconscious) helps Shiva to display Himself as the Universe which is both Being and Becoming. Under him is another male figure, darker in color, to represent colorlessness (vivarna), with closed eyes. This mysterious figure (Nishkala Shiva) is called Shava or the Corpse. It illustrates the doctrine that Shiva without his Power or Shakti can do and is, so far as the manifested is concerned, nothing. There is profundity in the doctrine of which this Corpse is a symbol. To those who have understood it a real insight is given into the Kaula Shakta system.

This representation of Shiva and Shakti as of the same size, but the former lying inert, is perhaps peculiar to the Kaula Shaktas, and is the antithesis of the well-known "Dancing Shiva".

I will here note some other symbolism, pictorial and geometric or Yantric.

Pictorially, Shakti is shown either as the equal of Her Spouse -- that is, as an Androgyne figure in which the right half is male and the left female -- or as two figures, male and female, of equal size. Inequality is indicated where the Shakti is smaller than the male Divinity. The meaning of this difference in dimension of the figures of Shakti lies in a difference of theological and philosophical concepts which may yet be reconciled. In the Shakta view, the Power-Holder and His Power as She is in Herself, that is, otherwise than as the manifested form, are one and equal. But He is recumbent. Alternatively, Shakti is the Mother as the Warrior Leader or Promachos with Shiva under Her feet. Where the figures are unequal it is meant to assert (a fact which is not denied) that Supreme Power as manifested is infinitely less than Power unmanifest. That Power is in no wise exhausted in the manifestation of the Worlds which are said to be as it were but dust on the feet of the Mother.

Passing to Yantric symbols, the Male Power-Holder Shiva is represented by a triangle standing on its base. A triangle is selected as being the only geometric figure which represents Trinity in Unity -- the many Triads such as Willing, Knowing, and Acting in which the one Consciousness (Cit) displays itself. Power or the feminine principle or Shakti is necessarily represented by the same figure, for Power and Power-Holder are one. The Triangle, however, is shown reversed -- that is standing on its apex. Students of ancient symbolism are aware of the physical significance of this symbol. To such reversal, however, philosophic meaning may also be given, since all is reversed when reflected in the Waters of Maya.

Why, it may now be asked, does the Shakta lay stress on the Power or Mother aspect of Reality? Like all other Hindus, he believes in a Static Real as Immutable Being-Consciousness, which is the ground of and serves to maintain that which, in this system, is the Dynamic Real. He will point out, however, that the Mother is also in one of Her aspects of the same nature as Shiva, who is such Static Real. But it is She who does work. She alone also moves as material cause. He as Immutable Being does and can do nothing without Her as His Power. Hence the Kaula Shakta. symbolism shows Shiva as lying inert and to be, if deprived of His Power, but a corpse (Shava).

Even when associated with his Shakti as efficient cause, Shiva does not move. A not uncommon picture, counted obscene, is merely the pictorial symbol of the fact that Being, even when associated with its active Power, is Immutable. It is She as Power who takes the active and changeful part in generation, as also in conceiving, bearing, and giving birth to the World-Child. All this is the function of the divine, as it is of the human, mother. In such work the male is but a helper (Sahakari) only. In other systems it is the Mother who is the Helper of Shiva. It is thus to the Mother that man owes the World of Form or Universe. Without Her as material cause, Being cannot display itself. It is but a corpse (Shava). Both Shiva and Shakti give that supreme beyond-world Joy which is Liberation (Mukti, Paramananda). They are each Supreme Consciousness and Bliss. The Mother is Anandalahari or Wave of Bliss. To attain to that is to be liberated. But Shakti the Mother is alone the Giver of World-Joy (Bhukti, Bhaumananda), since it is She who becomes the Universe. As such She is the Wave of Beauty (Saundaryalahari). Further, it is through her Form as World that She, as also Shiva, are in their Formless Self attained. If, however, union is sought directly with Reality in its non-world aspect, it must necessarily be by renunciation. Liberation may, however be attained by acceptance of, and through the World, the other aspect of the Real. In the Shakta method, it is not by denial of the World, but, by and through the World, when known as the Mother that Liberation is attained. World enjoyment is made the means and instrument of Liberation (Mokshayate Samsara). The Shakta has both (Bhukti, Mukti). This essential unity of the World and Beyond World, and passage through and by means of the former to the latter is one of the most profound doctrines of the Shakta, and is none-the-less so because their application of these principles has been limited to man's gross physical functions, and such application has sometimes led to abuse. For these and other reasons primacy is given to the Mother, and it is said: "What care I for the Father if I but be on the lap of the Mother?"

I note here in connection with primacy of the Mother-God that in the Mediterranean (Ægean) Civilization the Male God is said to have been of a standing inferior to the Mother, and present only to make plain Her character as the fruitful womb whence all that exists springs (Glotz, 243, et seq.).

Such, then, is the great Mother of India in Her aspect as She is in Herself as the alogical world-transcending Whole (Purna), and secondly, as She is as the Creatrix of the World. It remains now but to say a word of Her as She exists in the form of the universe.

The psycho-physical universe is Maya. The devotee Kamalakanta lucidly defines Maya as the Form (Akara) of the Void (Sunya) or formless (not Nothingness). Is it Real? It is real, because Maya, considered as a Power, is Devi Shakti, and She is real. The effect of the transformation of that Power must also be real. Some make a contrast between Reality and Appearance. But why, it is asked (apart from persistence), should appearance be unreal, and that of which it is such appearance alone be real? Moreover, in a system such as this, in which Power transforms itself, no contrast between Reality and Appearance in the sense of unreality emerges. The distinction is between the Real as it is its formless Self and the same Real as it appears in Form. Moreover, the World is experienced by the Lord and Mother, and their experience is never unreal. We are here on a healthy level above the miasma of Illusion. The experience of man (to take him as the highest type of all other selves) is not the Experience-Whole. He knows the world as the other than Himself, just because Power has made him man -- that is, a limited Experiencer or center in the Whole. That is a fact, and no Illusion or Deceit. When He realizes Himself as "All this I am" that is, as an "I" which knows all form as Itself -- then Consciousness as man expands into the Experience-Whole which is the Fact (Sat).

Man is Shakti, or the Mother, in so far as he is Mind, Life in Form, and Matter. He is Shiva. in so far as his essence is Consciousness as It is in Itself, which is also the nature of the Mother in Her own alogical Self.

This union is achieved by rousing the sleeping Power in the lowest center of solid and leading it upwards to the cerebrum as the center Consciousness.

I now pass to the second part of my paper, which deals with the cosmic evolution of Power -- that is, the "going forth" of the Supreme Self upon its union with its Power in manifestation. As the result of such evolution we have Shiva-Shakti as the limited selves. Shiva-Shakti are not terms limited to God only, but the forms into which Power evolves are also Shiva-Shakti. God as the Mother-Father is supreme Shiva-Shakti. The Limited Selves are Shiva-Shakti appearing as Form in Time and Space. The Measurable or World (Samsara) and the Immense Experience-Whole (Moksha) are at root one. This is fundamental doctrine in the community to whose beliefs reference is now made.

Shiva and Shakti as the Causal Head (Shiva-Shakti Tattvas) of the world-evolution are called Kameshvara and Kameshvari. Kama is Desire. Here it is Divine Desire, or (to use a Western term) the Libido, which in the Veda is expressed as the wish of the One, "May I be many". So also the Veda says: "Desire first arose in it the primal germ." The form of this wish tells us what Libido, in its Indian sense, means. In its primary sense, it does not mean sensuous desire, but the will to, and affirmance of, "otherness" and differentiation, of which sensuous desire is a later and gross form in the evolutionary series. Procreation is the individual counterpart of Cosmic Creation.

Why were the worlds (for there are many) evolved? The answer given is because it is the nature (Svabhava) of almighty formless Being-Power, whilst remaining what it is, to become Form -- that is, to exist. The Svabhava, or nature of Being-Power, is Lila, or Play, a term which means free spontaneous activity. Hence Lalita, or "Player," is a name of the Mother as She who Plays and whose Play is World-Play. She is both Joy (Ananda-mayi) and Play (Lila-mayi). The action of man and of other selves is, in so far as they are the psycho-physical, determined by their Karma. The Mother's play is not idle or meaningless so far as man is concerned, for the world is the field on and means by which he attains all his worths, the greatest of which is Union with the Mother as She is in Herself as Highest Being. The Player is Power. How does it work?

The Whole (Purna), which means here, the Absolute Spiritual Whole, and not the relative Whole or psychophysical universe, cannot as the Whole change. It is Immutable. Change can then take place only in It. This is the work of Power which becomes limited centers in the Whole, which centers, in relation to, and compared with, the Whole, are a contraction of it.

Power works by negation, contraction, and finitization. This subtle doctrine is explained profoundly and in detail in the scheme of the thirty-six Tattvas accepted by both non-dualists, Shaivas and Shaktas, and is also dealt with in the Mantra portion of their Scriptures. A Tattva is a Posture (Mudra) of Power -- that is, Reality-Power defined in a particular way, and, therefore the alogical aspect is that which is beyond all Tattvas (Tattvatita). A Tattva is then a stage in the evolutionary process. Mantra is a most important subject in the Tantra Scriptures which treat of Sound and Movement, for the one implies the other. Sound as lettered speech is the vehicle of thought, and Mind is a vehicle of Consciousness for world-experience. The picture of Shiva riding a bull is a popular presentation of that fact. Bull in Sanskrit is "Go", and that word also means "sound". Nada as inchoate stressing sound is shown in the form of a crescent-moon on His head. The cult of the Bull is an ancient one, and it may be that originally the animal had no significance as Sound, but subsequently, owing to the sameness of the Sanskrit term for Bull and Sound, the animal became a symbol for sound. Sometimes, however, a more lofty conception is degraded to a lower one. It is here noteworthy that the crescent-moon worn by Diana and used in the worship of other Goddesses is said to be the Ark or vessel of boat-like shape, symbol of fertility or the Container of the Germ of all life.

I can only in the most summary manner deal with the subject of the Evolution of Power, illustrating it by Yantric symbolism.

The Shiva and Shakti triangles are ever united. To represent the alogical state, we may place one triangle without reversal upon the other, thus making one triangular figure. This will give some idea of the state in which the two triangles as "I" and "This" are fused in one as Being-Consciousness-Bliss.

Here, however, we are concerned with the causal state which is the Supreme Self in Whose experience there is an "I" and a "This", though the latter is experienced as the Self. There is, therefore, a double triangular figure; Shiva and Shakti are in union, but now not as the alogical Whole, but as the Supreme Self experiencing His object or Shakti as one with Himself. The marriage of the Divine couple, Kameshvara and Kameshvari -- that is, Being and Power to Become -- is the archetype of all generative embraces.

To represent this aspect, the triangles are placed across one another, so as to produce a Hexagon, in which one triangle represents the "I", or Shiva and the other the "This," or object, as Power and its transformations -- that is, Shakti.

As the result of this union, Power assumes certain Postures (Mudra) in its stressing to manifest as Universe. The first of such produced stresses is, from the Tattva aspect, Sadashiva, and, from the Mantra aspect, inchoate sound or movement called Nada. The state is shown by the Hexagon with a crescent-moon, the symbol of Nada, in its center. This Nada is not manifested sound or movement, but an inchoate state of both.

In the next Mantric stage (corresponding to the Tattvas, Ishvara and Shuddhavidya) the crescent-moon enlarges into the full moonlike Bindu. This also is stressing Power as inchoate sound and movement, but is now such Power ready to evolve into manifested sound and movement. The word Bindu also means seed, for it is the seed of the universe as the result of the union of its ultimate principles as Shiva and Shakti. The Point, or Bindu, is shown as a circle, so as to display its content and a line divides the Point, one half representing the "I", and the other, the "This" aspect of experience. They are shown in one circle to denote that the "This," or object, is not yet outside the self as non-self. The Bindu is compared in the Tantras to a grain of gram (Canaka), which contains two seeds (Aham and Idam) so close to one another within their common sheath as to seem to be one seed.

At the stage when Consciousness lays equal emphasis on the "I" and "This" of experience, Maya-Shakti and its derivative powers called sheaths (Kañcuka) and contractions (Samkoca) operate to disrupt the Bindu, which comes apart in two. Now the "I" and "This" are separated, the latter being experienced as outside the self or as non-self. The former becomes limited as "Little Knower" and "Little Doer". This is the work of Maya-Shakti. Power again (as Prakriti-Shakti) evolves the psycho-physical organs of this limited Self, as Mind, Senses, and Body.

I have spoken of two Bindus standing for Shiva and Shakti. Their inter-relation and its product is another form of Nada. These then make three Bindus, which are a grosser form of the Kamakala. The Divinity of the three Bindus is the Mother as Mahatripurasundari, "the Beauteous One in whom are the three Puras," or Bindus.

The Mantra equivalent of the state in which the Bindu divides and becomes threefold is the first manifested sound, which is the Great Mantra Om. As the Supreme Bindu bursts there is a massive, homogeneous, vibratory movement, as it were a cosmic thrill (samanya spandana) in psychophysical Substance the sound of which to man's gross ears is Om. The original sound of Om is that which was heard by the Absolute Ears of Him and Her who caused that movement. Om is the ground-sound and ground movement of Nature. The Mundakopanishad says that the Sun travels the universe chanting the mantra Om. From Om are derived all special (vishesha spandana) movements, sounds, and Mantras. It is itself threefold, since it is constituted by the union of the letters A, U, M. The Divinities of these three letters are Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, and their Shaktis. These, together with Sadashiva and Isha, are the Five Shivas to whom reference is made in the ritual, and who are pictured in the Shakta symbolism as the Five who are Dead (Preta).

Power, after involving itself in solid matter, technically called "Earth," then rests in this last-named element.

The evolution of the Tattvas is not a temporal process. Time only comes in with sun and moon, on the completion of the evolution of the Tattvas as constituent elements of the universe. The Tattvas are given as the results of an analysis of experience, in which the Prius is logical not temporal. For these reasons a Causal Tattva does not cease to be what it is as Cause when it is transformed into its effect, which is not the case in the manifested world wherein, as the Lakshmi-Tantra says, "Milk when it becomes curd ceases to be milk". Reality does not cease to be the Alogical Whole because it is from the Causal aspect a Supreme Self. It does not cease to be the Cosmic Cause because it evolves as the Universe its effect. Nor in such evolution does any Tattva cease to be what it is as cause because it is transformed into its effect.

I am now in the position to explain the great Yantra or diagram which is used in the worship of the Mother and which is called the Shri Yantra, a symbol of both the Universe and its Cause.

I have not the time to describe it at length, but its meaning may be generally stated.

It is composed of two sets of Triangles. One set is composed of four male or Shiva triangles called Shrikanthas denoting four aspects (Tattva) of evolved or limited Consciousness-Power, and the five female or Shakti triangles (Shivayuvatis) denote the five vital functions, the five senses of knowledge, the five senses of action, and the five subtle and the five gross forms of matter. The place of the psychic element as Mind and the Psycho-physical Substance of both Mind and Matter, I will indicate later.

These two sets of triangles are superimposed to show the union of Shiva and Shakti. As so united they make the figure within the eight lotus petals in the full Yantra. Outside these eight lotuses there are sixteen other lotuses. There are then some lines, and a surround with four gates or doors, which surround is found in all Yantras, and is called Bhupura. It serves the purpose of what in Magic is called a Fence.

This Yantra has nine Cakras, or compartments, formed by the intersection of the Triangles.

There is first a red central point or Bindu, the Cakra of Bliss. The central point or Bindu is Supreme Divinity -- the Mother as the Grand Potential whence all the rest which this diagram signifies proceed. It is red, for that is the active color, and thus the color of Vimarsha Shakti, or Evolving Power.

The second Cakra is the white inverted Triangle, or "Cakra of All Accomplishment". In the corners of this white Triangle are the Divinities of the General Psychophysical Substance and its first two evolutes as Cosmic Mind. Outside the Cakra is Kama, the Divinity of Desire, with His Bow of Sugar-Cane, which is the Mind as director of the senses; with its Five Arrows, which are the five forms of subtle matter, which in their gross form are perceived by these senses; with his Noose, which is Attraction, and his Goad, which is Repulsion. Another version (taking the Bow and Arrow as one symbol) makes the three implements, the Powers of Will, Knowledge and Action.

The third Cakra is eight red Triangles, and is called "Destroyer of all Disease", a term which means lack of that Wholeness (Apurnam-manyata) which is Spiritual Health.

The fourth Cakra is ten blue Triangles. The fifth is ten red Triangles. The sixth is fourteen blue Triangles. The seventh is eight red petals. The eighth is sixteen blue petals, and the ninth is the yellow surround. Each of these Cakras has its own name. In them there are a number of lesser Divinities presiding over forms of Mind, Life and Body, and their special functions.

Those who hear the Devas spoken of as "Gods" are puzzled by their multitude. This is due to the ill-rendering of the terms Devas and Devis as Gods and Goddesses. God is the Supreme Mother and Father, the "Two in One," who are alone the Supreme Self, and as such receive supreme worship. All forms -- whether of Devas, or men, or other creatures -- in so far as they are the psycho-physical forms, subtle or gross, are manifestations of the Power of their Immanent Essence, which is Spirit or Infinite Consciousness. That Essence is in itself one and changeless, but as related to a particular psycho-physical form as its cause and Director of its functions it is its Presiding Consciousness. Mind and Matter are not, as such, self-guiding. They are evolved and directed by Consciousness. The presiding consciousness of the Form and its functions is its presiding Devata. A Deva is thus the consciousness aspect of the psycho-physical form. So the Deva Agni is the one Consciousness in its aspect as the Lord of Fire. A Devata may also mean an aspect as the Causal Consciousness itself. And so Mahatripurasundari is the name given to the creative aspect of such Consciousness-Power, as Mahakali is that aspect of the same Consciousness-Power which dissolves all worlds.

The object of the worship of the Yantra is to attain unity with the Mother of the Universe in Her forms as Mind, Life, and Matter and their Devatas, as preparatory to Yoga union with Her as She is in herself as Pure Consciousness. The world is divinized in the consciousness of the Worshipper, or Sadhaka. The Yantra is thus transformed in his consciousness from a material object of lines and curves into a mental state of union with the Universe, its Divinities and Supreme Deity. This leads to auto-realization as Mindless Consciousness. The Shri Yantra is thus the Universe and its one Causal Power of various aspects. The worshipper, too, is a Shri Yantra, and realizes himself as such.

I have dealt with the nature of Shiva-Shakti and the evolution of power as the Universe, and now will say a word as to the relative ending of the world on its withdrawal to reappear again, and as to the absolute ending for the individual who is liberated.

In Hindu belief, this Universe had a beginning, and will have an end. But it is only one of an infinite series in which there is no absolutely first Universe. These Universes come and go with the beating of the Pulse of Power now actively going forth, now returning to rest. For the World has its life period, which, reckoning up to the Great Dissolution, is the duration of an outgoing "Breath of Time". In due course another Universe will appear, and so on to all eternity. This series of Worlds of Birth, Death, and Reincarnation is called by the Hindus the Samsara, and was named by the Greeks the Cycle of the Becoming (kuklos ton geneson). All selves which are withdrawn at the end of a world-period continue to reappear in the new worlds to be until they are liberated therefrom.

The picture now described depicts the Mother-Power which dissolves -- that is, withdraws the World into Herself. This is another aspect of one and the same Mother. As such She is Mahakali, dark blue like a rain cloud. Nada is in Her head-dress. She is encircled by serpents, as is Shiva. She holds in Her hands, besides the Lotus and two weapons, a skull with blood in it. She wears a garland of human heads which are exotically the heads of conquered Demons, but are esoterically the letters of the alphabet which as well as the Universe of which they are the seed-mantras, are dissolved by Her. She stands on the white, inert Shiva, for it is not He but His power who withdraws the Universe into Herself. He lies on a funeral pyre, in the burning-ground, where jackals -- favorite animals of Kali -- and carrion birds are gnawing and pecking at human flesh and bone. The cremation ground is a symbol of cosmic dissolution.

In a similar picture, we see the Mother standing on two figures, the Shiva, and Shava previously explained. On the Corpse the hair has grown. The Devas, or "Gods," as they are commonly called, are shown making obeisance to Her on the left, for She is their Mother as well as being the Mother of men. There are some variations in the imagery. Thus Kali, who is commonly represented naked -- that is, free of her own Maya -- is shown clad in skins. Her function is commonly called Destruction, but as the Sanskrit saying goes, "the Deva does not Destroy". The Supreme Self withdraws the Universe into Itself. Nothing is destroyed. Things appear and disappear to reappear.

To pass beyond the Worlds of Birth and Death is to be Liberated. Human selves alone can attain liberation. Hence the supreme worth of human life. But few men understand and desire Liberation, which is the Experience-Whole. They have not reached the stage in which it is sought as the Supreme Worth. The majority are content to seek the Partial in the satisfaction of their individual interests. But as an unknown Sage cited by the Commentators on the Yoginihridaya and Nityashodasika Tantras has profoundly said, "Identification of the Self with the Non-Whole or Partial (Apurnam-manyata) is Disease and the sole source of every misery". Hence one of the Cakras of the Shri Yantra which I have shown you is called "Destroyer of all Disease". Eternal Health is Wholeness which is the Highest Worth as the Experience-Whole. The "Disease of the World" refers not to the World in itself, which is the Mother in form, but to that darkness of vision which does not see that it is Her. As Upanishad said, "He alone fears who sees Duality." This recognition of the unity of the World and the Mother has its degrees. That Whole is of varying kinds. It is thus physical or bodily health as the physical Whole which is sought in Hathayoga. Man, as he develops, lives more and more in that Current of Energy, which, having immersed itself in Mind and Matter for the purpose of World-Experience, returns to itself as the Perfect Experience, which is Transcendent Being-Power. With the transformation of man's nature his values become higher. At length he discerns that his Self is rooted in and is a flowering of Supreme Being-Power. His cramped experience, loosened of its limitations, expands into fullness. For, it must be ever remembered, that Consciousness as it is itself never evolves. It is the Immutable Essence, and Shakti the "Wave of Bliss' as they each are in themselves. Evolution is thus a gradual release from the limitations of Form created by Being-Power. Interest in the Partial and Relative Wholeness gives way to a striving towards the Mother as the Absolute Whole (Purna) which She is in Her own spaceless, and timeless, nature.

This complete Liberation is the Perfect Experience in which the Self, cramped in Mind and Body, overcomes its mayik bonds and expands into the Consciousness-Whole. The practical question is therefore the conversion of Imperfect (Apurna) into Perfect (Purna) Experience. This last is not the "standing aloof" (Kaivalya) "here" from some discarded universe "over there," upon the discovery that it is without reality and worth. For the World is the Mother in Form. It is one and the same Mother-Power which really appears as the psycho-physical universe, and which in itself is Perfect Consciousness. Liberation is, according to this system, the expansion of the empirical consciousness in and through and by means of the world into that Perfect Consciousness which is the Experience-Whole. This can only be by the grace of the Mother, for who otherwise can loosen the knot of Maya which She Herself has tied ?

The state of Liberation can only be approximately described. Even those who have returned from ecstasy cannot find words for that which they have in fact experienced. "A full vessel," it is said, "makes no sound". It is not in this system an experience of mere empty "being," for this is an abstract concept of the intellect produced by the power of Consciousness. It is a concrete Experience-Whole of infinitely rich "content". The Mother is both the Whole and, as Samvid Kala, is the Cause and archetype of all Partials (Kala). She is Herself the Supreme Partial as She is also the Whole. So, She is the Supreme Word (Paravak), Supreme Sound and Movement (Parashabda Paranada), Supreme Space (Paravyoma),Supreme or Transcendental Time (Parakala) the infinite "limit" of that which man knows on the rising of Sun and Moon. She is again the Life of all lives (pranapranasya). She thus contains within Herself in their "limit" all the realities and values of worldly life which is Her expression in Time and Space. But over and beyond this, She is also the alogical Experience-Whole. This experience neither supersedes nor is superseded by experience as the Supreme Self. This Alogical Experience is only approximately spoken of as Infinite Being, Consciousness and Joy which is the seamless (akhanda) Experience-Whole (Purna). Relative to the Supreme Self the Perfect Experience, She as His Power is the Perfect Universe. In the alogical transcendent state in which Shiva and Shakti are mingled as the One, She is the Massive Bliss (Ananda-ghana) which is their union, of which it has been said: Niratishaya premaspadatvam anandatvam, which may be translated: "Love in its limit or uttermost love is Joy". This is the love of the Self for its Power and for the Universe as which such Power manifests.

She is called the Heart of the Supreme Lord (Hridayam Parameshituh), with whom the Shakta unites himself as he says Sa'ham -- "She I am".

If we analyze this description we find that it can be summed up in the single Sanskrit term Anandaghana, or Mass of Bliss. The essence of the Universe is, to the Shakta, nothing but that. Mystical states in all religions are experiences of joy. As I have elsewhere said, the creative and world-sustaining Mother, as seen in Shakta worship (Hadimata), is a Joyous Figure crowned with ruddy flashing gems, clad in red raiment Lauhityam etasya sarvasya vimarshah, more effulgent than millions of red rising suns, with one hand granting all blessings (varamudra), and with the other dispelling all fears (abhaya-mudra). It is true that She seems fearful to the uninitiated in Her form as Kali, but the worshippers of this Form (Kadimata) know Her as the Wielder of the Sword of Knowledge which, severing man from ignorance -- that is, partial knowledge -- gives him Perfect Experience. To such worshipper the burning ground -- with its corpses, its apparitions, and haunting malignant spirits -- is no terror. These forms, too, are Hers.

Hinduism has with deep insight seen that Fear is an essential mark of the animal, and of man in so far as he is an animal (Pashu). The Shakta unites himself with this joyous and liberating Mother, saying Sa'ham -- "She I am". As he realizes this he is the fearless Hero, or Vira. For he who sees Duality, he alone fears. To see Duality means not merely to see otherness, but to see that other as alien non-self. The fearless win all worldly enterprises, and fearlessness is also the mark of the Illuminate Knower. Such an one is also in his degree independent of all outward power, and Mrityuñjaya, or Master of Death. Such an one is not troubled for himself by the thought of Death. In the apt words of a French author (L'Ame Paienne, 83), he no more fears than do the leaves of the trees, yellowing to their fall in the mists of autumn. An imperishable instinct tells him that if he, like the leaves, is about to fall he is also the tree on which they will come out again, as also the Earth in which both grow, and yet again (as the Shakta would say) he is also, in his Body of Bliss, the Essence which as the Mother-Power sustains them all. As that Essence is imperishable, so in the deepest sense is its form as Nature. For whatever exists can never altogether cease to be. Either man's consciousness expands into that Lordliness which sees all as Itself, or he and all lower beings are withdrawn into the Womb of Power, in which they are conserved to reappear in that Sphurana or Blossoming which is the Springtide of some new World.

é INDEX é

Tweet