What is tantrik monism

[Singhi Kaya]

I have some idea of Tantras - but not from scolarly standpoint. Tantra was defined to me as "Sanatana Sadhan Tantra". Sanatan Dharma being the philosphical and dharmic aspect while Tantra being the Upasana aspect. It's ture many tantra's (some I know with little knowledge like the mahanirvana) give philosophical discourses as well, but is it not primarily the sastras on "How to Worship?". ??

If there is a seperate philosophy in Tantra's how is it different from other's within Sanatan Dharma?

If someone with better knowledge of tantras (Arjuna??) than me can explain please ...

Btw, by Tantra I mean only hindu tantra.


PS:My first day here, and I'm on a roll. Better pack stuff for the day

[Arjuna]

Greetings!

1. In the sense used from at least 9th century e.v. word "Tantra" refers to the distinct trend in Hinduism, which is complete and perfect in itself. To be more precise we use the term "Kaula-tantrism" or "Shakta-tantrism".
(In ancient Vedic religion "tantra" meant ritual procedure, that's right. But Tantrism is a mystical tradition that has philosophy and pratical method of its own.)
Tantrism is "practical" not in the sense it is all about rituals etc, not at all. It is practical because it leads to live realisation of metaphisical Truth, to Moksha in the very normal life, to God-realisation being in the world.

2. Tantrism has a distinct, though not "separate" philosophy. There are some other schools similar to Tantrism is certain points. Of course, basic revelations of Upanishads and Gita are aqknowledged by Tantrism.
However, there are differences also. Tantric monism is called Paradvaita, "the highest monism". It is in fact the only pure monism, since so called avdaita of Shankara is not pure monism (not to mention other schools). Only some rare Shaiva and Vaishanava schools (original Nathism, Shuddhadhvaita of Vallabha) can be concidered to be monistic in proper sense — and these were influenced by Tantric doctrine.
Tantrism emphasised the necessity of Yoga — which is quiet different if not opposite to Patanjali and later Natha teaching. While the latter two schools in fact promote dualism, viyoga, separation of Purusha from prakriti (which naturally leads to asceticism), Tantrism states non-dualism, unification of Siva and Shakti (naturally leading to union of mukti and bhukti, consciousness and power, male and female).
Tantrism teachs that spiritual development is a result of Divine grace only. It rejects technical approach of modern "yoga" and "tantra". Essentially Tantrism is bhakti doctrine, but unlike Vaishnava schools, a monistic kind of it.

I could suggest U to read B. N. Pandit's book about principles of Kashmir Shaivism. It is very good and also written in a simple and easy-to-understand manner, which makes it more accessible than Tantra-sara in original
For some idea on Tantric philosophy U may also study Paramarthasara of Sri Abhinavagupta and Svatantrya-darpana by B. N. Pandit.

[Singhi Kaya]

Thanks for the information, will have to put some effort into studying the books.

Purusha and prakriti in sankhya are 2 entities in this creation.
Naturally in Shakta language they are 2 aspect/better 2 movements of mahashakti.
Iswara of Yoga is beyond pursha and prakriti. (That's what I though, sankhya coined purusha and prakriti, 2 aspects whcich keeps the word dynamic, it didn't accpt an Iswara beyond this).
Iswara is thus neither mahashakti nor purusha.

In all these conflict we have the vedas to fall back on, where brahma is described as being faster than mind yet unmoving. One aspect being mahashakti, other being unmoving brahma.

Same as Krishna suggests that he is the doer but in the last chapter says Atma doesn't do any work.

I'm not a scolar nor a student of philosophy, so I may be wrong in all this.

Only one aspect isn't clear to me:-

Originally Posted by Arjuna

Tantrism teachs that spiritual development is a result of Divine grace only. It rejects technical approach of modern "yoga" and "tantra".

But for tantras divine is the active brahma or mahashati, I can understand what it may be saying. But interpretated as a pure mental bhakti it render's tantrik kriyas which is the greatest gift of that wing to mankind meaningless. Why not spend all day in bhajan/kirtan. I'm sure it is not as simple as that.

Also I think asceticism is very much an integral part of tantras when it comes to the divachari vehcle? It is aplauded as the highest path I think. I have heard most published tantras are of the Virachari wing. Is this true? And effort there was to build a system complete in itself?
Do you have any idea of published work of any divyachari sect?

As a modern day hindu, I think everything has to be founded in Vedas and the Gita. Those are our source of all inspirations. Brahmins made those their property and rest created their own sampradayas - the result from the colllective standpoint was disastrous.

[Arjuna]

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

Purusha and prakriti in sankhya are 2 entities in this creation.
Naturally in Shakta language they are 2 aspect/better 2 movements of mahashakti.
Iswara of Yoga is beyond pursha and prakriti. (That's what I though, sankhya coined purusha and prakriti, 2 aspects whcich keeps the word dynamic, it didn't accpt an Iswara beyond this).
Iswara is thus neither mahashakti nor purusha.

No U are wrong . In Sankhya Ishvara is a special kind of Purusha, but nothing like "beyond" (Sankhya simply has no tattva beyond Purusha) — same with Yoga of Patanjali. There is even atheistic school of Sankhya; in fact, Ishvara is unnecessary addition to Sankhya system as it is. Theory of Sankhya is close to Jainism in this matter.

While in Tantrism, which recognizes 36 tattvas, Ishvara is not Purusha (he is above the latter), but he is lower that Parashakti (in fact, he is one of Her aspects or powers).

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

In all these conflict we have the vedas to fall back on, where brahma is described as being faster than mind yet unmoving. One aspect being mahashakti, other being unmoving brahma.

This is correct.

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

Only one aspect isn't clear to me:-
But for tantras divine is the active brahma or mahashati, I can understand what it may be saying. But interpretated as a pure mental bhakti it render's tantrik kriyas which is the greatest gift of that wing to mankind meaningless. Why not spend all day in bhajan/kirtan. I'm sure it is not as simple as that.

Who said that love/devotion is equal to sentimental stuff like singing bhajans? Bhakti of Tantras is the total one, purna. It is all-including (and for sure not merely "mental"). Love is active side of Parabrahman, it is the essence of Chiti Herself.
In the Kaula mode of bhakti, one is making Ananda manifest on every plane including physical.
I am not sure what U personally mean by "tantric kriyas" — U may put it in more detail. But in any case Tantrism being dhrama of Love in its heart, incorporates every side of our being. Thus, in practical life it is karma-yoga, not bhajan singing (although beautiful and sincere singing is also yoga).

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

Also I think asceticism is very much an integral part of tantras when it comes to the divachari vehcle? It is aplauded as the highest path I think. I have heard most published tantras are of the Virachari wing. Is this true? And effort there was to build a system complete in itself?
Do you have any idea of published work of any divyachari sect?

What is referred to as divya-bhava is a summit of vira-bhava. While viras follow Vamachara, divyas follow Kaulachara (which is again SAME Vamachara but more deeply realised).
Highest path is Kaulachara, according to Tantras (kaulAt parataraM nahi). And in Kaulachara ascetisism is neither required nor advocated. Yes, Kaula is free to choose his path. If he wills, he may pretend to be an ascetic — while truely he is still bhogi, enjoyer. But more natural for him is to be bhogi in outer life as well.
There is NO "divyachari" sect existing. Divya-bhava is a state reached through practice of Virachara.

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

As a modern day hindu, I think everything has to be founded in Vedas and the Gita. Those are our source of all inspirations. Brahmins made those their property and rest created their own sampradayas - the result from the colllective standpoint was disastrous.

It is practically impossible to rely on Vedas (if we mean 4 samhitas by this word) nowadays. As it is said in Agamas, for kali-yuga the only way to Moksha is that which is given in Tantras.
And this is in fact true. All Hindu mystical traditions are Tantric in their essense (if not in form).

[Singhi Kaya]

Let me make the word asceticism more clear. I meant brahmacharya, may not involve leaving as a complete ascetic. I know it was the foundation of vedic sadhana. I know it is non-negotiable (one has to be a brahmachari to be initiated) in at least some vehcle of divyahcara.

I have this vague idea that in virachara and paswachara brahmacharya is not stressed. Is this true? Since so much of mis-interpretation goes on this 2 traditions (google search tantra will take you to porn sites perhaves!), I can not put much weight to these ideas.

I'm only shakta-abhishiktya - initiated to the first dikshya of shakti sadhana.
Thus I can do kali puja, nothing beyond it. So my idea of tantrik kriya's was essentially bhutasuddhi and nasya.

I agree that all modern hindu sects and even normal daily rituals are totally influenced by the Tantra. Anyone who has perticipated in a hindu ritual and has some idea of Tantra will know this.

[Arjuna]

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

Let me make the word asceticism more clear. I meant brahmacharya, may not involve leaving as a complete ascetic. I know it was the foundation of vedic sadhana. I know it is non-negotiable (one has to be a brahmachari to be initiated) in at least some vehcle of divyahcara.

Again, this is wrong at every point.

1. Brahmacharya in Vedic sense was a stage of life (of youth who studied with guru), and not a "foundation of sadhana" at all. Nowhere Vedas require being a celibate. Vedic Rishis were usually married and had children. Vedas teach to view sex and sacred act pleasant to gods. Again, sex was a part of some Vedic major rituals.
For grihastha (married grown-up) celibate is not only unnatural, but adharma. It is AGAINST sadhana. To satisfy wife sexually is a dharma of every husband (of course if she wants that), be he common man or upasaka.

2. Again, there're no such specific Tantric sects which are divyachari. Divya-bhava is a STAGE of Kaula sadhana, reached through Vamachara — which involves necessarily sexual side. Thus, to become divya one HAS TO get initiation into Vama-marga. There is no other way. And no one (apart from Shiva Himself) will or can make U divya straighaway.
However for one who had reached a stage of divya (he became siddha or satkaula) every path is open and possible. He MAY live as a celibate or may not. His sexual union is permanent — with the Goddess.

3. Finally, in Kaula-tantra brahmacharya has different, specific meaning. It is revealed in Tantraloka of Sri Abhinavagupta, 29 Ahnika. There the Master says that there are three kinds of bliss present in body, all of which are forms of Brahman (as it is said, Anando brahmaNo rUpaM tachcha dehe vyavasthitam), one of these is essential and two additional. First one is bliss of sexual union, other two of wine and flesh. He who adheres to these three kinds of bliss is a true brahmachari. He who abstains from these three, has no adhikara for Tantric sadhana.

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

I have this vague idea that in virachara and paswachara brahmacharya is not stressed. Is this true? Since so much of mis-interpretation goes on this 2 traditions (google search tantra will take you to porn sites perhaves!), I can not put much weight to these ideas.

Brahmacharya (as a celibate) is nowhere required in the whole of Kaula-tantra. However in pashu-bhava more restrictions are there. For example, pashu cannot take part in chakranushthana, especially bhairavi- and other chakras. But in normal life he is free to have sex (if he is married, it is a must). According to Smriti he is supposed to have sex only in a case he is married — but this is general case for adult.

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

I'm only shakta-abhishiktya - initiated to the first dikshya of shakti sadhana.
Thus I can do kali puja, nothing beyond it. So my idea of tantrik kriya's was essentially bhutasuddhi and nasya.

Then how can U judge beyond Ur level of diksha and knowledge of Agama? That too if have no diksha into Vamachara, U are still on a level of pashu-sadhana. Prescriptions of pashu-bhava are not applicable to vira and moreover to divya.

Of course, in Ur personal practice U have to follow Ur guru. But if we discuss Kaula doctrine, i have a full right to correct U in a context of general discussion. Hope U don't mind this