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

[Singhi Kaya]

There is nothing to mind here.

My ideas are quite different on some of the above points, but I don't belong to a known lineage. Maybe we follow many practices which are intrinsically tantrik, but doesn't belong to any tantrik sampradaya. The 5 Ma-kar's (you refer to 3, I see here) have quite a subtle meaning to me. But my knowldege of published tantras is limited to argue on this.

I know about bramhacharya in vedas, but it is the foundation to what follows next and hence so much stressed.
About my case I have studied what follows beyond the basic shakta diksha.
(since in this life I don't expect to go beyond the basic leve, and the lieage is dead). So I know brahmacharya is must from 1st to last. I think it is a seperate lineage and not a general kaula tradition. But since practices are tantrik, I was engaged in the discussion.

If you don't mind, are you a sadhak in the kaula tradition or a student/scolar? PM me if you don't want to disclose here. If don't want to disclose at all, then also ok

[Arjuna]

1. Here we have to see not our personal ideas (these are irrelevant to the topic) but truth. If one admits himself to be a Kaula he has to accept authority of Kaula tradition (including Agama, Guru and avadhuta).
There is no requirement of brahmacharya as celibacy in Kaula-tantra (in general case). I would say in any case — the only one exception (always individual) is prescription of one's Kaula-guru. This is no my opinion, but Dharma of Kula.
Pashu-sadhakas are not Kaulas proper, thus they may follow rules set by Smriti or by sect they belong to.

2. Brahmacharya became (note the word) stressed due to a confusion after time of Adi Shankara. Never before it was a rule for every upasaka. Celibacy in Hindu tradition is prescribed ONLY for vaidika sannyasins and brahmacharins (young people before marriage). This is laid down by Smriti-shastras. Those who state that Hinduism requires brahmacharya for married people simply lie against truth.
Mahanirvana-tantra says that in kaliyuga only two ashramas are present: grihastha and avadhuta. In this pattern only some types of avadhutas have to keep celibacy (those who are not Kaulas).

3. If U take celibacy (let me use this term, 'coz brahmacharya for Kaula is smth opposite) as a rule, U have to take vaidika sannyasa. Otherwise it is adharma. Of course, U cannot marry then and cannot go into Tantrism any further (beyond pashu level).
But what is the reason for that? The ONLY valid reason is individual prescription of Kaula-guru (another one — phisical incapability, which is anadhikara for Tantra).

4. What happenned to Ur guru? What is Ur exact sampradaya?
ALL Shakta-tantric schools are Kaula. U are from Bengal, so possibly belong to some branch of Kali-kula.
What do U mean by "lineage is dead"?

5. I am both, but upasaka in the first place. From my name U could have understood that i had purnabhisheka. My Parameshthi-guru in Tara-vidya is Sri Bamakhepa, whom U must have heard about.

[Singhi Kaya]

Many thanks for your replies. It has been quite insightful for me. In free time I must try to devote some time in studying the tantras and books. My ideas are still very vague it seems.

Originally Posted by Arjuna

1. Here we have to see not our personal ideas (these are irrelevant to the topic) but truth. If one admits himself to be a Kaula he has to accept authority of Kaula tradition (including Agama, Guru and avadhuta).
There is no requirement of brahmacharya as celibacy in Kaula-tantra (in general case). I would say in any case — the only one exception (always individual) is prescription of one's Kaula-guru. This is no my opinion, but Dharma of Kula.
Pashu-sadhakas are not Kaulas proper, thus they may follow rules set by Smriti or by sect they belong to.

Agreed. I agree our own idea will vary and what is generally accepted must be discussed here. Plus I'm not at all qualified to speak on Kaula tradition in general. But I accept the authoruty of the guru (param guru for that matter) and believe that brahmacharya is essential as a sadhak. This is my idea from my param guru. So may be it is wrong from a general kaula stand point. I don't think Anandamatha tradition is kaula tantra. It has it's own stages of initiations which is indeed very long and use of tantrik yoga is the main basis. But beyong Tantrik yoga, Tantra may have little influence on the path.

Originally Posted by Arjuna

2. Brahmacharya became (note the word) stressed due to a confusion after time of Adi Shankara. Never before it was a rule for every upasaka. Celibacy in Hindu tradition is prescribed ONLY for vaidika sannyasins and brahmacharins (young people before marriage). This is laid down by Smriti-shastras. Those who state that Hinduism requires brahmacharya for married people simply lie against truth.
Mahanirvana-tantra says that in kaliyuga only two ashramas are present: grihastha and avadhuta. In this pattern only some types of avadhutas have to keep celibacy (those who are not Kaulas).

In this respect I (with ovious lack of knowledge in the subject) will accept your view point. Brahmacharya is a high virtue and foundation for a happy familiy life in a vedic society. That everyone must become a celebate came from shankara, which may be a tactics to weaken the buddhist society. Only I'll add that tantras generally speak in a very plain language, hence chance of miss-interpreting is easy as many western scholars have done. But since you are a sadhak I accept your point of view with regards to kaula tradition in general. I understand basic goal of any sadhana is to overcome the bondages in mind. One may choose the path of celibacy and shun the object of sensual bondage or may indulge in a controlled manner and be free from it's bondage. I'm no one to speak on this if non-celebacy an accepted method in the general kaula tradition. Only I was little apprehensive when you quoted that one who shuns himself from the triple pleasure of wine , sex and flesh (meat)..I knew 5 of them..is doing adharma. Those words may have a meaning for a sadhaka in a particular stage of vama-marga and as I say may have a subtle meaning which only a guru can reveal. But such phrases can be very easily mis-interpreted by the modern mind to think tantra as a erotic and mystic art of how to make love-which it is not. They have done some good harm for the tradtion in general. One has to go through pasu marga first to enter vama marga. pasu's must not be fed with such words.

Anandamatha tradition as I understand doesn't not involve any rituals of the bamamarga and borrows from yogic aspects of kaulachar . As per my param guru's writings this tradition is abyakta (hidden) and is more than 2000 years old. So it is well older than when many moder tantrik texts.

Originally Posted by Arjuna

3. If U take celibacy (let me use this term, 'coz brahmacharya for Kaula is smth opposite) as a rule, U have to take vaidika sannyasa. Otherwise it is adharma. Of course, U cannot marry then and cannot go into Tantrism any further (beyond pashu level).
But what is the reason for that? The ONLY valid reason is individual prescription of Kaula-guru (another one — phisical incapability, which is anadhikara for Tantra).

Since Anandamatha tradition was not tantrik in that respect -just a very old hidden mystic cult, I will have a different idea.

Originally Posted by Arjuna

4. What happenned to Ur guru? What is Ur exact sampradaya?
ALL Shakta-tantric schools are Kaula. U are from Bengal, so possibly belong to some branch of Kali-kula.
What do U mean by "lineage is dead"?

I'm a follwer of swami satyananda saraswati. You will find some writings in the website I linked in the appropiate sections. He died before I discovered the philosophy. I don't think it is any of the shakta-tantrik sampradays though the entire stages of initiation are all about tantrik yoga. The first guru in kali yuga was Guarapada swami. GovindaPada swami was the 2nd. acharya Shankaracharya (adi shakaracharya) was the 3rd. So this lineage is indeed very old, much before modern tantrik texts were written. Swami satyananda was 142nd in the line. He founded the shaktibad dharma, but didn't pass on the lineage (or nobody I heard completed all the levels of initiations) as he expressed at this juncture of yuga change, samaj dharma and preserving hinduism is more important than individual sadhana. We will perish anyway if we contnue in the manner we have lived for past 2000 years-anyways off topic.


A few of his follwers were empowered to give the first stage of the diksha - which is shakta diksha. So I received that from one of them. It is more of upasana at a social level. But I have found that even basic scientific upasana has a lot of power to make one self calm in life (not claiming I'm calm though ). I aspire to be a karma yogi. If I feel that more serious spiritual initiaon is required beyond the basic I'll have to search for a spiritual guru. Philosophically and mentally I'm a shaktibadi and it is a social dharma for the worker.

Originally Posted by Arjuna

5. I am both, but upasaka in the first place. From my name U could have understood that i had purnabhisheka. My Parameshthi-guru in Tara-vidya is Sri Bamakhepa, whom U must have heard about.

I just wanted to know because as I have said I feel that only scolars cannot be true to the description of our heritage. Yes I have been to tarapeeth at least twice very recently. From my study of anandamatha tradition purnabhisheka comes after krama diksha which is the 2nd step after the basic shakta diksha. But it may not be same. If it is, then quite interesting.

[Arjuna]

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

I don't think Anandamatha tradition is kaula tantra. It has it's own stages of initiations which is indeed very long and use of tantrik yoga is the main basis. But beyong Tantrik yoga, Tantra may have little influence on the path.

I am not quiet sure what is meant by Anandamatha. Do U refer to Anandamarga, a sect recently founded by Sarkar (forgot his first name) and still existing in Bengal?
I saw some swamis from that organization in Kolkata. They aren't kaulas and the whole of Anandamarga teaching is a kind of mixture of yoga and politics. I heard some things about illegal dealings of Sarkar himself but not sure if these are true.
Please correct me if i am mistaken.
Or do U refer to some local bengali tradition "Anandamata" (teaching of bliss)?

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

Only I was little apprehensive when you quoted that one who shuns himself from the triple pleasure of wine , sex and flesh (meat)..I knew 5 of them..is doing adharma. Those words may have a meaning for a sadhaka in a particular stage of vama-marga and as I say may have a subtle meaning which only a guru can reveal.

That phrase refers specifically to Kaulas (not to every Shakta-upasaka of course).
The idea of 5 Makaras is a latter development, we do not find it in early Tantras. Tantraloka was written in 10th century e. v., while all bengali and other Kaula-tantras that mention 5M were written significantly later.
Of course, in current practice five dravyas are used — in my paramparas also.

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

But such phrases can be very easily mis-interpreted by the modern mind to think tantra as a erotic and mystic art of how to make love-which it is not. They have done some good harm for the tradtion in general. One has to go through pasu marga first to enter vama marga. pasu's must not be fed with such words.

That's true, but i think that those who just want to drink, eat meat and f##k can easily do that without alleging Tantra. Nowadays there is no such a problem, one doesn't have to hide his inclinations. In fact it's troublesome for pashu to go through rituals or dhyana in order to fill his stomach
However i agree that without pashu-bhava there is usually no vira-bhava (BTW this is a statement of Kalivilasa-tantra).

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

Anandamatha tradition as I understand doesn't not involve any rituals of the bamamarga and borrows from yogic aspects of kaulachar . As per my param guru's writings this tradition is abyakta (hidden) and is more than 2000 years old. So it is well older than when many moder tantrik texts.

Well, regarding 2000 years that cannot be proved. Personally i doubt any such teaching could survive from that time. And no evidences are there.
Even Vedism is finished (there are shrauta-brahmanas even now, but they are a small minority and do not follow THAT Vedic religion anyway), what to say of any marginal cults. Vratyas also didn't survive, although some sects go in their line.
While U mention writings of Ur Paramaguru, why don't U reveal his name? He is not a secret person if he published books. Of course, that's up to U.

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

I'm a follwer of swami satyananda saraswati. You will find some writings in the website I linked in the appropiate sections. He died before I discovered the philosophy. I don't think it is any of the shakta-tantrik sampradays though the entire stages of initiation are all about tantrik yoga. The first guru in kali yuga was Guarapada swami. GovindaPada swami was the 2nd. acharya Shankaracharya (adi shakaracharya) was the 3rd. So this lineage is indeed very old, much before modern tantrik texts were written. Swami satyananda was 142nd in the line. He founded the shaktibad dharma, but didn't pass on the lineage (or nobody I heard completed all the levels of initiations) as he expressed at this juncture of yuga change, samaj dharma and preserving hinduism is more important than individual sadhana. We will perish anyway if we contnue in the manner we have lived for past 2000 years-anyways off topic.

So U have got initiations into two lines, one of Swami Satyananda and another — that Anandamata U mentioned previously?
About Satyananda i heard of course, some of his books have been published here in Russia. He was not a Kaula teacher (i cannot say whether he was an adept; it's typical for India to teach openly pashu-dharma and keep inside Virachara) but gave a kind of kriya-yoga.

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

A few of his follwers were empowered to give the first stage of the diksha - which is shakta diksha. So I received that from one of them. It is more of upasana at a social level. But I have found that even basic scientific upasana has a lot of power to make one self calm in life (not claiming I'm calm though ). I aspire to be a karma yogi. If I feel that more serious spiritual initiaon is required beyond the basic I'll have to search for a spiritual guru. Philosophically and mentally I'm a shaktibadi and it is a social dharma for the worker.

I understood

Originally Posted by Singhi Kaya

I just wanted to know because as I have said I feel that only scolars cannot be true to the description of our heritage. Yes I have been to tarapeeth at least twice very recently. From my study of anandamatha tradition purnabhisheka comes after krama diksha which is the 2nd step after the basic shakta diksha. But it may not be same. If it is, then quite interesting.

Something like that
Although i am not sure the diksha system is everywhere the same even in Bengal. Usually purnabhisheka and kaulabhisheka are taken as synonims. And yes, it comes after initial diksha (samanya) and specific (vishesha).