chapter viii — Principles Of Tantra — Collected Works of Sri Aurobindo

chapter viii

WHAT IS Śākti ? (Contd.)

In the case of the ordinary followers of the theories that Śākti is unconscious or that She is a great Vaisnavi, we entrust judgement upon their opinions to the Sadhakas of these communities respectively.¹ Let them consider whether the above two classes adopt their respective conclusions because there is Sastrik evidence in their support, or because of their inability to enter into the deep and weighty truth which the Śāstra reveals in the Slokas above quoted, or because they have not seen or heard of all this Sastrik evidence, or lastly because, even if they have so seen or heard it, they do not, through vanity, care to take note of it. The above-quoted Sastrik evidence proves that Śākti-tattva is divided into two parts—first, māyāŚākti, that is, Śākti whose substance is gunas, and second, citŚākti, which is above gunas and is massive bliss. By māyāŚākti has this vast and variegated dRāma of samsāra been composed. In this dRāma citŚākti appears as Purusa and Prakrti who, though free from all attachment in their real aspects, as Jivas perform this vast Bharmāņda play. Giving birth to all things from Bharmā, Visnu, and Mahesvara, to the minutest insect, and spreading the manifestations² of Herself both as gross and intelligent substance,³ She pervades the world. If you and I were to understand the Mother's māyā, which charms the minds of even munis, with whom will that Anandamayi play the play of the unconscious world ? Blind man ! should you be proud of your philosophical knowledge ? False devotee ! If, in spite of your being an enemy of Śāktas,⁴ you deem yourself to be a learned

¹ That is, the Sadhakas of the same communities to which these theorists belong are a superior order of men, not likely to be swayed by such foolish ideas. To their judgement, therefore, the question may be safely left. The theorists are those who form the bulk of the Nastika and Vaisnava communities. Nastika as here used means a person who thinks that Śākti

² Vibhuti. ³ Jada and Caitanya. ⁴ Worshippers of Śākti.

devotee, it is not the glory of the Śāstra which will be in any way dimmed, but it is you who will be liable to punishment. You and I may hate or be malicious towards Śāktas and yet not consider ourselves sinners, but Hiranyagarbha Bharmā¹ becomes a Sakta, and says:

"O Thou who art all things, how canst Thy greatness be hymned² when Thou art the Śākti in everything, asat or sat,³which is anywhere in the world ? Who can hymn Thee by whom even Bhagavan, the creator, preserver, and destroyer of the world, has been overcome through sleep ? From Thee, Visnu, Myself, and Isana⁴ have derived our bodies. Who is, therefore, capable of making hymn to Thee who art the origin of even Bharmā and others ? Devī of unspeakable power, Thy own vast powers be praised: and do Thou charm these two indomitable Asuras, Madhu and Kaitabha."

Again, Visnu says: "Devī, I know not any form in which Thou appeareth, be it with attributes or attributeless. How, then, can I know the innumerable aspects of Her of whose form even I am ignorant ? "

After the war with Mahisasura, all Devas, descendants of Devas, and Maharsis⁵ stood before Katyayani, who visibly appeared to them, and said:

"We bow with reverence to the lotus feet, worshipped of all Devas and Maharsis, of the Mother who has assumed form by the withdrawal of all the Śāktis from the bodies of Devas, and who has, by Her own Śākti, created this world consisting of things moving and non-moving. May She grant us good things ! May Candika, whose incomparable power and strength even Bhagavan, Ananta, Bharmā, and Mahesvara are unable to describe, resolve to maintain all this world and destroy pernicious fear ! Mother of the world ! Thou art the cause of all this world, but still Thou containeth three gunas. From Bharmā to Bharmāņda everything is covered with these gunas so that

¹ Bharmā, who sprang from the effulgent or golden womb.

² Stava or hymn in which the powers and doings of the Deity adored are lauded.

³That is, jada or caitanya (ante).

not even Hari, Hara, and others are able to penetrate this covering and know Thy true reality. For Thy greatness is unfathomable. Thou art the shelter of all things. All this world is derived from a part¹ of Thee and yet Thou art above this world. Thou art unchanged,² primal, Supreme Prakrti."

Advocate of the theory that Śākti is unconscious gross matter or force !³ O man ! blundering Jiva as you are, will not your tongue become void of strength before it enounces your conclusions that that Śākti is unconscious² whose nature even Bharmā Visnu, and Mahesvara have described to be indefinable and beyond the reach of mind and speech ? By constantly thinking of Prakrti-tattva as "Prakrti of the world" your mind has become void of understanding,⁴ who is Herself existence, consciousness, and bliss. But have you ever considered Prakrti-tattva in the light that "the world is of Prakrti" instead of Prakrti being of the world ? Had you done that you would not have fallen into such a gross blunder as to the true nature of Prakrti. Leaving aside philosophical theorems,⁶ if your knowledge extends to even the root meanings of words I ask you, do the expressions "Prakrta-tattva" and "Prakrta-tathyam"⁷ which you are wont to use, signify things false ? Or do they signify things true ? If the meaning of Prakrta be "not true", what will you call Vikrta?⁸In the Samsāra there are two things; one, Prakrti, and another Vikrti. That which is instinct with Prakrti is Prakrta, and the rest Vikrta. Leaving out of consideration differences of gender due to suffixes, Prakrti and prakara⁹ are one and the same thing. What is one's svarupa¹⁰ is one's prakara; as, for instance, the expression "Of what prakara is such and such a thing ?"means "What is its svarupa?" Svarupa is nothing but another name for

¹ That is, God, though in the world, is yet more than the world.

² Avikrta: that is, Prakrti in the state in which no vikara (change) has occurred as opposed to the evolving state of Prakrti,

³Jada. ⁴ Lit.: "become jada."

⁵Jada. ⁶Tattva. ⁷ Real truth.

⁸ Untrue; that which is changed, transformed, or, as it is some times said, corrupted. " ⁹ Kind; nature.

¹⁰ Own form; what a thing or person really is. The thing or person in itself or himself.

Prakrti. For this reason, to explain a thing as what it is, an idea of its Prakrti has to be given. In common parlance, therefore, what is a thing's Prakrti is called that thing's svabhava.' Analyzing the word svabhava we get sva, signifying self, and bhava, signifying substance,² Svarupa, Prakrti, or Śākti. In conclusion, therefore, that which is the Svarupa of Self is svabhava or Prakrti. Now, tell me, O philosophical advocate of the theory that Śākti is unconscious,³ is Bharmān's Bharmā hood, Śākti, Prakrti, or Svarupa false? If not, on what authority do you call Śākti unconscious ?³ Bharmān of eternal consciousness is, as you say, truth in substance.⁴ Unless Śākti be false, it can never be separate from Bharmān who is truth in substance; and unless it be something separate from Bharmān, who is all consciousness, it can never be called unconscious.³ The ultimate conclusion, therefore, of this theory is that it is the svarupa tattva of Bharmān who is all consciousness which is unconscious.³Philosopher! praised be your knowledge of Śākti! Wonderful is your faith in the Supreme! It is from seeing and hearing all this that a Sadhaka has said: "Who knows that Kali, the dar-Sana^s of whom the six Darsanas⁶ do not obtain?"

It is by trying to understand Prakrti-tattva, according to the notion that "Prakrti is of the world," that Carvakas⁷ have become sceptics. Different is the method of understanding for the faithful.

The faithful will understand that Prakrti is not of the world, but the world is of Prakrti.

The expression "Prakrti of the world" conveys no idea to a man; for the world is of infinite extent and destined to last till the end of the Kalpa,⁸ while the longest stretch of longevity for man is one lakh of years.⁹ And he, although superior to all other worldly Jivas, is yet liable to mistakes and blunders. The only wealth of man is his little intelligence and he is, moreover, oppressed by hunger and thirst, boyhood, youth and age, disease,

¹ Own nature. ² Sattva.

³Jada. ⁴Satyasvarupa. ⁵Sight. ⁶Systems of Philosophy.

⁷ Followers of the athiest Carvaka. ⁸

sorrow, and fear. For man to judge of the substance of the Bharmāņda is tantamount to the acquisition of a thorough knowledge of the sea by a shallow-water fish (that is to say, both are equally impossible). An Aryan Sadhaka desiring to understand the Prakrti-tattva of the world will have to become a slave of the Mother of the world instead of the world itself. He must adore Her world-embracing form by seeing Her reflection in the mirror of the Śāstra. He must form an idea of the appearance of the son by seeing the appearance of the mother; to know the truth¹ concerning the Bharmāņda by sinking into the self of Bharmāmayi. Those who have known the matter in this fashion have earned immortality in mortal life and laid down their lives as an offering to the lotus-feet of Paramesvari! To say that Prakrti is of the world first of all gives rise to the suspicion, in an ordinary mind, that if the world be nothing else than a composition of the five elements,² then Isvara, Devata, Bharmā, Prakrti, or Śākti—in short, nothing superior to gunas, māyā, and the world—can exist; for Prakrti is then what the world is. Thus scepticism slowly appears in the field, and to a sceptic's eye the samsāra appears full of only such things as are perceptible to the senses.³ But if, with the vision of the faithful, it is realized that "the world is of Prakrti," no danger of such doubts exists, for whether made of five elements, or unconscious (whatever the world may be), there is no possibility of such qualities being necessarily attached to the self of Prakrti, because of the mere fact of Her being known through the world. It is not necessary that the mother's body should resemble the son's body limb per limb. On the contrary, there must be some resemblance of the mother in the son. Similarly, whether the Mother of the world has anything in Her of the world or not, the world has surely some Śākti of the Mother in it. This is the method of understanding for those who are subject to differentiating knowledge,⁴although, according to the spiritual vision of adepts in spiritual science,¹ there is no difference between the world and the Mother of the world. Again, to know the world merely in relation to

¹ Tattva. ² Bhutas; elements—earth, air, water, fire, ether.

³ Pratyaksa. ⁴ Bhedajñāna, vide ante.

itself we have to know the world and the world's Śākti, but to know the world in relation to the Mother of the world, we have to know the world, the world's Śākti, and the great Śākti superior to the world. Although I am imperfect in the world, the Mother of the world is perfect, eternal Bharmān. Consequently in order to know Her I must rise above the imperfect existence of the imperfect world and reach that most perfect existence in which all things besides Herself are imperfect and yet all such imperfect things are full of Her perfection. For this reason Aryan worshippers, the best of faithful men, are averse to respect imperfect knowledge at the cost of a disregard for perfection, or to discuss created things in disregard of the supreme subject for our thought—the Creatrix of the Creator of all created things.

Another thing. It is indeed a terrible mystery that you should, through perceiving the visible world to be unconscious,¹have come to think that the great Śākti who has created that world is also so. If you consider the world to be unconscious,¹I do not want to dispute the matter with you for the present; but I wish to know on what authority you consider the Śākti who works the world to be unconscious.¹ On the one hand, philosophers say that "although the Śākti of the world is unconscious ¹ it appears as conscious owing to the reflection of the Śākti of consciousness² in it." On the other hand, Bharmā himself says: "Thou art the Śākti in everything, asat (jada) or sat (Caitanya)."³ In each of these statements both the states of Śākti have been demonstrated but with this difference, that while philosophers say that it appears as conscious on account of its reflecting consciousness thrown upon it, Bharmā says that it seems to be unconscious¹ because unconsciousness appears in it (otherwise nothing is so).⁴ According to philosophers, the Śākti of the world is in reality unconscious, but appears as conscious because it reflects the Śākti of consciousness; and according

¹Jada. ²Cit.

³ That is, in gross and intelligent substance.

⁴ That is, asat: that is otherwise nothing in the world would be unconscious.

to Bharmā, the Śākti of the world is in reality conscious, but seems to be unconscious because that state appears in it.¹

Now, whether the Śākti of the world reflects consciousness or unconsciousness, each of these views admits the existence of both consciousness and unconsciousness at least in the ordinary state of things, if not in the state of spiritual vision. It is admitted on all hands in the community of the faithful that unconsciousness²has come out of consciousness,³ and that the Śākti of the world has its origin in the Śākti of consciousness. "The world is all full of Bharmān." "One alone exists and no second." "The world is all full of Vasudeva." "The universe is all full of Śiva and Śākti." "There is no difference between Thee and the universe." "Hari is the world and the world is Hari." "When Hari is both within and without, what is the use of performing austerities ?" If all these great sayings of the Śāstra be true, if He alone exists and no second thing, whence have come this unconscious² world and the Śākti of the world? In reply to this question, it must either be said that the world and the Śākti of the world are the Bharmāvibhutis⁴ of that great Śākti, or that the world and the Śākti of the world have no existence. Otherwise, the singleness of Bharmān or Śākti cannot be maintained. It can by no means be said that the world does not exist and again it is not the view of the Arya Śāstra that anything besides and second to Bharmān exists. It must, therefore, be said that the world, the Śākti of the world, or whatever else they may be, all are nothing but the pure display⁵ of that great Śākti; or, in other words, nothng really exists but the Śākti of consciousness.⁶ All which is seen as unconscious matter in the world, full of māyā, although it appears to be true, is not in reality so, but is only a display of error.⁷ Again, that error itself is a manifestation⁵ of BharmāŚākti and that manifestation⁵ is called māyā.

¹ The meaning of these passages is as follows: Bharmā has said that Śākti is in everything, conscious and unconscious. On the next page it is said that unconsciousness is a false or mayik manifestation. Hence it follows that Śākti is in reality conscious, but sometimes appears as unconscious on account of the play of māyā in it, and which māyā also is itself nothing but a peculiar aspect of Śākti. Thus unconsciousness is but a mayik phase of conscious Śākti, and in this sense a thing which really exists; otherwise Bharmā's word that Śākti is in unconscious things is meaningsless.

²Jada. ³ Caitanya. ⁴ Bharmā manifestations (see posi).

⁵Vibhuti (see post). ⁶ Citsikti. ⁷Bhranti.

Of that māyā, consisting of three gunas, the part in which the rajas and tamas gunas predominate is called avidya; the state which includes everything from pure sattva guna to the attri-buteless Bharmān is called vidya; in that vidya. again, She who is turiya Śākti above all,¹ and whose substance is pure bliss, is called Mahavidya. Overpowered with joy in love for Her who is pure existence, consciousness and bliss, the ever-joyful Isvara of all has said in the Camunda Tantra:

"Kālī and Tārā are Mahavidyas; Sodasi, Bhuvanesvari, Bhairavi, Chhinnamasta, and Dhumavati are vidyas; Bagala, Matangi and Kamala are Siddhavidyas." These ten Maha-iaktis are Mahavidyas, Vidyas, and Siddhavidyas in order. That is to say, in these ten MahaŚāktis which embody perfect manifestations of the Śāktitattva must be sought the harmonious setting forth of Mahavidyas, Vidyas, and Siddhavidyas, in the above order. This is the meaning of the above quotation as it appears from the wording of the Slokas. In the Śyāmā-Rahasya, however, all the ten Śāktis have been called Mahavidyas. "Kālī, Tārā, Sodasi, Bhuvanesvarl, Bhairavi, Chhinnamasta, Matangi, Kamala, Dhumavati, and Bagala are called Mahavidyas." In another place of the same treatise it has been said: "In the Kālī age Siddhi in all the Mahavidyas is the best." Here the word "all," which expresses combination, and the use of the plural number, signify that all the ten are called Mahavidyas. Besides this, in the Vilvasara Tantra it has been clearly stated that "Mahavidya is preceded by the prefix maha." For this reason all Tāntrik teachers are of opinion that in the last line—"eta. dasa mahavidyah siddhavidyah praklrtitah"—of the above quotation from the Camunda Tantra all the ten have been indirectly called by the general names of mahavidya and siddhavidya. Hence, according to Visvasara Tantra, Kālī and Tārā. are Mahamaha-siddhavidyas, SodaSi, Bhuvanesvari, Bhairavi, Chhinnamasta, and Dhumavati are Mahasiddhavidyas, and Bagala, Matangi, and Kamala are Siddhamahasiddha-vidyas.

¹ Literally, "above all Tattva".

In the Chapter on the play of Śākti, we shall attempt to show, so far as it will lie in our power, what appearances of massive Bliss they have in the aspect of turiya consciousness. At present we shall discuss, according to Śāstra, whether She is māyā or māyā is Hers.

The Mother's name is Mahamāyā, and this, too, is a maha (great) māyā of Hers. Blinded by this māyā pandits of unripe intelligence fall into the pit of erroneous inferences, and losing themselves in it, think that māyā is nothing but the material of the gross unconscious¹ world and that She, too, is māyā by whom that māyā is held, and who is primal, eternal, and perfect Bharmān. If She too is māyā, then why has She the name Mahamāyā ? If māyā and the person possessing māyā are one and the same thing, if the seed and the tree are one and the same thing, then why should there be difference of conditions of names and aspects? In fact, wherever Śāstra has made mention of that MahaŚākti, with reference to the part of Her which is māyā, it has given Her the name of Mahamāyā; and again, wherever it has made mention of Her with reference to Her Bharmā-aspect, there also it has called Her Mahamāyā. In both places the root-word mahat is the adjective of muya with this difference that in the place where reference is made to māyā the samsasa²is Karmadharaya³—that is to say, She who is mahati (great) māyā is Mahamāyā, while in the place where reference is made to the Bharmā-aspect the samasa is Bahubrihi⁴—that is to say, She who has mahati (great) māyā is Mahamāyā. Just as the larva of a silkworm is both the instrumental and the material cause of the production of thread—instrumental because threads are produced by its will, and material because they are produced from its body—so MahaŚākti is both the instrument and the material cause of the work of the world. She is the instrumental cause because, being will itself, She has willed to create the world in Her blissful true resolve, and She is the material cause because She has spread māyā which is her own vibhiiti,⁵ and out of it fashioned all things both moving and non-moving.

¹ Jada. ² Compound. ³ Descriptive.

⁴ Possessive. ³ Manifestation.

That instrumental aspect is Śākti or Bharmān, and this material aspect is māyā.

In the process of creation also, in the body of the Jiva, the Bharmā-aspect is Atma and the māyā aspect is antahkarana.¹In the illustration of the larva of the silkworm itself there appears another phase of māyā. Imprisoned in the web of threads produced by itself, which it thinks belongs to itself, it remains for some time bound by them and yet does not feel itself to be so. In course of time its aspect undergoes a change under that covering of threads, and after a while that very larva assumes the form of a butterfly, rends the sheath formed of its own threads, and with its sublimely beautiful body flies forth, spreading its fine and transparent wings in the infinite sky, in perfect bliss, with an unfettered life and a free heart, leaving behind on earth only its rent sheath of threads. Similarly, the māyā aspect, mind, which is bound by the self-created threads of samsāra and is attracted to and crushed by that samsāra, controls, by means of self-restraint, all affection, attraction, and attachment of and to the samsāra, and is even while confined in the womb of samsāra, absorbed in the thought of the beauteous lotus-feet of Her who holds the universe in Her womb and dwells in the heart of VilvesVara. Thus absorbed, its form changes of itself, unknown to the three worlds; then, in the fullness of time, it rends, with its own strength, the māyā-sheath of samsāra. Blessed with the merciful regard of the Charmer of Mahākāla² and dispeller of the fear of death, it spreads its two wings of discrimination³ and dispassion,⁴ and taking with it the brilliant and shining Atma. which then forms its body, the pure and sattvika māyā, which is mind, becomes a Prajapati (Lord of the Universe through Śākti). As Vidya⁵ it rises above the universe and soars high in the infinite expanse of heaven towards the seat of existence, consciousness and bliss, which belongs to Mahavidya.. The flame of the forest fire is lost in the orb of the sun; lightning shot

¹ Mind, etc. (see Introduction to Tantra Śāstra). ² The Devī.

³ Viveka, the power to distinguish the real and the unreal.

⁴ Vairagya, indifference to worldly things.

⁵ Spiritual knowledge; as the soul which knows (vide post).

from its region is lost in the body of the cloud of massive bliss.¹ The broken cage of mind—that is to say, the body composed of five elements—is alone left behind in the samsāra.

It is this phase of māyā consisting of spiritual knowledge which is called vidya. By virtue of this vidya. one reaches Her, the Mahavidya, who is adored of all the world, and is the object of śadhana. Sadhaka, he alone in the world has acquired useful knowledge whose knowledge is employed not to earn worldly riches, but spiritual wealth or Mahavidya. In this vast sea of samsāra he alone is past master of the art of sailing across the world who has moored his vessel in the port of Kulakundalim. Thus, O Sadhaka, the Mother is yours. Am I, then, motherless? Have I no mother, although the three worlds have their mother? Say then, O Mother, that you are the Sadhaka's Mother. Extremely ignorant and devoid of siddhi and śadhana as I am, what will become of me? Although a son of Mahavidya, I have, O Mother, been blinded and benighted by deep avidya.²

What, then, will be my fate ? This vessel of mine is drifting down the stream of samsāra with the ebb of pravrtti³ I cannot hold it back; I have not the power to stay it with nivrtti.⁴ Nay, Mother, the vessel is unable even to drift on any longer. It is a small craft, and has moreover, nine openings in it.⁵ The sea has, by constantly breaking over it, filled it with its salt waters, and has left not even standing-room. Now I shall sink, and that not to rise. Daughter of the earth's supporter,⁶ hold me, hold me, O Mother, There is no strength left in these my weak arms. Extend for once, O Mother, your two hands of blessing and assurance.⁷ Merciful Mother, turn once and look at me. My Mother, in this vast sea this witless, helpless child of yours has none else whom he can call his own. O Mother, Mother Kula-kundalim, be a mother and take me up once into your

¹ Anandaghana.

² Ignorance. ³ The path of desire. See Introduction to Tantra nostra.

⁴ Cessation of desire.

⁵ The vessel is the body. The nine openings are the two eyes, the two ears, the two nostrils, the mouth, the genitals, and the anus.

⁶ DhaRādhāra, the mountain.

⁷ The Devī's hands make the mudrās, vara and abhaya.

bosom. Let this vessel sink for good.¹ The Śāstra says that you are Mahavidya, because you can be reached through vidya. But, I ask, how are you Mahavidya unless you can save the child of yours who is destitute of vidya ? Through my vidya. I sink.²Now through your vidya save me, and prove that you are rightly called Mahavidya. Let the vanity which this sinner entertains of having acquired vidya, such a vidya as has led to his downfall, be destroyed. Glory to you, Mother Mahavidya! Whether I have the power or not, you are the wealth which the world seeks in śadhana.

Sadhaka, just as mental Śākti, which is manifested māyā, is called vidya when it becomes free from the bonds of samsāra and rushes towards the MahaŚākti with dishevelled hair; so it is called avidya when it forgets Her and is intoxicated by the things of the world—wife, children, and the like. In this connection we may cite the following from the Markandeya Purana:

"That Devī Bhagavati Mahamāyā forcibly draws the mental faculties of even the wise, and gives them over to delusion. By Her is created all the world, consisting of things moving and non-moving, and She alone, the dispenser of blessings, when pleased, grants salvation to Jiva. That eternal supreme Vidya is the cause of liberation. She, again, is the cause of Jiva's bondage in samsāra. She is the Īśvarī of all Isvaras."

Again: "King! although eternal, that Devī Bhagavati incarnates Herself again and again in the manner aforesaid, and maintains the world. By Her is this universe deluded, and She gives birth to the universe. If pleased, She grants wealth and knowledge to all who beg it of Her. Lord of men! at the time of the great Dissolution³ this entire universe is pervaded by that MahaKālī in the form of a great destructive power.⁴ She it is who at times appears as a destructive power; She it is who again appears as the creation; and, again, it is that unborn eternal

¹ That is, let the vessel sink for good so that it may not have to struggle again on the surface of the worldly ocean of samsāra. Let it sink in Her bosom where there is no such struggle.

² This vidya is "my vidya" which is really avidya.

³ Mahapralaya.

⁴ Mahamari, which generally means a great plague.

Devī who at times preserves all things. In prosperity She is Lakşmī in the houses of men, granting increase. In adversity She becomes ALakşmī for their ruin. (Here it may be objected, why, then, worship Her, if, according to men's lot, She appears as Lakşmī and ALakşmī in prosperity and adversity in order to do service or disservice to them? In answer to this question the following is said): When duly prayed to and worshipped with flowers, incense and the like, She grants wealth, progeny, and other things to the Sadhaka who desires such things, and beneficial attachment to dharma' to him who does not desire them."

Again, in the following Chapter it is said: "Oh King, I have thus related to you the greatness of the Devī, which is the best of all things which man can relate. So wonderful is the power of the Devī who supports the world. Even as She holds the world under the spell of māyāmoha,² so also the same Bhagavati Visnu-māyā provides it with vidya.³ That māyā has deluded and deludes you, this, VaiSya, and all other people who have the faculty of discrimination," and will delude all such people born in future. Great King, seek the protection of that Para-mesvari. Being worshipped, She grants worldly happiness, heaven,⁵ and liberation⁶ to men." Here too, the Rsi has in view two aspects of Śākti. In relation to the bondage of samsāra, He speaks of the māyā aspect, and, again, for liberation from that bondage he points out the Bharmā aspect for worship, and says: "Seek the protection of Paramesvari." "She alone, the Dispenser of blessings, grants liberation to Jlva when pleased." "O Devī, a spell of delusion spreads over all this world. Being pleased, Thou alone in the world can grant liberation."

It is when the Mother of the world, in the aspect of māyā, appears as the deluder of the world that She assumes various forms, the variety of which is due to differences in sattva, rajas,

¹ Duty, religion (see Introduction to Tantra Sastrd).

² The delusion which is caused by māyā.

³ Spiritual knowledge.

⁴ Literally, "possessing viveka". This is ordinary discrimination which distinguishes one thing from another in the common world of appearance, as, for instance, happiness from sorrow, and not the higher form of discrimination, which distinguishes the "real" from that which appears to be such.

⁵ Svarga.

⁶ Mukti.

and tamas gunas in them, and it is then that She plays the Acts and the Scenes of the dRāma of Samsāra. Such forms are intelligence, sleep, hunger, chhaya,¹ power, thirst, forbearance, caste and class, shame, peace, reverence, beauty, wealth, function,²memory, mercy, contentment (inclination), error, intellect, earth, nourishment, brilliance, restraint, and other innumerable Śāktis. At the root of all these forms lies She who is eternal consciousness, and who, again, is, as māyā, known in the three worlds by the name of Visnu-mayS. It is a sight fit only for the divine vision of Devas. When, therefore, through fear of Sumbha and Nisumbha, they began to worship Her who dwells in the heart of Sambhu, they first of all showed that She was the Ordainer of the universe as māyā, and then made prayer to Her by calling Her "Saviour". So at the beginning of the hymn it is said:

"To the Devī who is Visnu-māyā in all things, obeisance, obeisance, obeisance to Her, obeisance, obeisance. To the Devī who is called consciousness in all things, obeisance, obeisance to Her, obeisance to Her, obeisance, obeisance. To the Devī who exists in all things as intelligence, obeisance, obeisance to Her, obeisance to Her, obeisance, obeisance," and so forth.

It is here that the philosophers who advocate the theory that Śākti is unconscious³ have given supreme evidence of their intelligence and learning. They think that all these Śāktis held in the body of the Jiva are gross³ Śāktis. The Devas have said: "The Devī who is called the Śākti of consciousness in all things," "who pervades this entire universe as consciousness, obeisance, obeisance to Her." The Devas say that She is consciousness itself, but the philosophers possessing so-called acute vision, think that She is unconscious. For this we cannot blame the philosophers, for of course nothing that they say is unsupported by reason. And the reason here is this: If She is not unconscious,⁴whence have the philosophers got such an idea, notwithstanding Her being intelligence, memory, and the like? What they say

¹ Lit: shadow or reflection. (See A. and E. Avalon's "Hymns to the Goddess.")

² Vrtti. The vrtti of a thing is the work that it does, and therefore function.

³Jada.

⁴Jada.

is, therefore, true. What difference would there be between Deva, Danava, and man, if what Devas see as conscious does not appear as unconscious to the eyes of men ? Whilst the sight of a lovely child makes the milk flow from a mother's breast it causes the lolling tongue of a wolf to quickly waggle. The form in which She appears before a person depends on the peculiar tendencies with which he is endowed by Her. Moved by fear for Madhu and Kaitabha, Bhagavan Bharmā made prayer to the tamasi jada-Śākti,¹ appearing as sleep, and instantly that sleep, which robs people of consciousness, became consciousness itself, and, assuming the aspect of a four-armed Devī riding a lion, stood forth in the firmament. Philosopher, if you are a believer, if you have faith in the words of Devas, explain to me by means of reasoning and arguments why you understand this Śākti to be unconscious Śākti. What shall I say to you? To Her alone I say, O Mother, in the Satya age you destroyed the Daityas Sumbha and Nisumbha by first spreading your vibhuti Śāktis² and then withdrawing them, but how much longer will you allow these Daityas of the Kālī age to live! Or who is such a Sadhaka in this Kālī age as can, like the Devas, bring You to earth with his prayer? I, therefore, ask, O Mother, when will such a powerful Sadhaka be born as will be able to sacrifice these Daityas before You, and with their blood make the current of your worship again flow strong in India ?

So much about what philosophers have understood. What Sadhakas will next hear will astound them. The very remembrance of the thing makes me feel as if the gates of hell are opening under me. The Bharmādaityas³ of the nineteenth century have arrived at still another conclusion. They say that the Sakta-Dharma⁴ is a result of the coalescence between Hinduism and Buddhism.⁵

¹ The unconscious Śākti, whose substance was the tamas guna.

² Kausiki, Kālī, and so forth.

³ The sect of Brahmos, against whom the book wars, and who are called demons of the nineteenth century.

⁴ The religion of the worshippers of Śākti.

⁵ See Introduction to this book.

shine in the sky, lights show their power in every house, and even the tiny young of glow-worms spread their lustre in every direction." There is nothing in what they (the Brahmos) say which deserves a reply rather than mere ridicule. To-day the sun of Bharata's¹ Dharma has, in circling round Bharata-Sumeru,² disappeared on one side, and in the darkness which has ensued Daityas, Danavas and Pisacas³ have made their appearance. Community of Sadhakas! this state of things will not last much longer. Ruddy rays of the young sun have become visible on the summit of the Sumeru. She who grants all desires Herself stands forth to reply, and, with high arms outstretched, says: "Fear not, fear not, Sit for one more moment on the vira's seat of Sava-śadhana in this great cremation ground and firmly continue the japa⁴ of the great mantra of the great Śākti. The sun of siddhi for the Tāntrik world is about to rise. She to whom the Tantra belongs says: 'No Pasus⁵

Even here the trouble does not end. Towards the close of the abovementioned saying of the Devas relating to the aspects of the Devī, and while dealing with the māyā-vibhutis⁶ of the māyāmayi, they say: "To the Devī who exists in all things as error, obeisance, obeisance to Her, obeisance to Her, obeisance, obeisance.' But this expression of truth from the small hearts of Devas has found no place in the large heart of this little religion. A thief's wife may enter into the apartments of a queen and steal her ornaments, but on reaching home she is at her wits' end to know which ornament to put on which part of her body.

Similarly, the eclectic fraternity, which is bent on establishing concordance between all schools of thought, has, by purloining this statement of the aspects of māyā-Bharmān from the Mar-kandeya-Candi, put it on the head of the new Bharmān of theirs, which is partly with and partly without attributes, and have at last found, with utter astonishment, that "The Devī exists in

¹ India. ² Mount Meru.

³ Demons and filthy and malignant spirits.

⁴ An allusion to the Tāntrik rite in which the sadhaka recites mantras seated on a corpse.

⁵ See Introduction to Tantra Sistra.

⁶ māyā-manifestations.

all things as error." Horror of horrors! This cannot be. The Merciful Father can never exist as error; for everyone professing the "little religion",¹ is unerring and above all error. The Brahmo has, therefore, substituted the expression "as good" (mangala-rupena) for the expression "as error" (bhrantirupena). O what depth of learning! His knowledge of versification is commensurate with his knowledge of Bharmān! The Bharmān who is supposed to be formless, taintless, and made of all sorts of negation, has nothing to do with whatever is frightful, horrible, oppressive, and dangerous, or with the darkness, sorrow, grief, disease, dirt, abomination, damnation, and sin which there are in the world, but sits still and alone in a formless abode of peace, selecting and gathering by Its side only such things as are good according to Brahmos. Around It the infinite multitude of Jivas inhabiting the infinite universe are consumed in the fire of sin, trouble, grief, sorrow, disease, and suffering. But Bharmān who is Isvara and Bhagavan, and aware of their existence, takes no heed of them, but in hatred and disgust turns His face against them. Tell me, brother Bharmājnani,² does not this bespeak onesidedness on the part of the universe-pervading Creator of the Universe ? Brother, you take pride in your knowledge of Bharmān. But what is the meaning of the word Bharmān? The verbal root "bringha" means pervasion. What is all-pervading is called Bharmān. Is it possible for Bharmān who is all-pervading to be so one-sided as to be associated with what is good to the exclusion of what is bad, with smiles and not with tears, with heaven and not with hell—to be in virtue and not in sin ? Our Bharmān is a quite different thing; the Bharmān of the AryaŚāstra, from which you have obtained the name of Bharmān, exists as well in heaven as in hell, as well in virtue as in sin, as well in desire as in cessation of desire,³ as well in good as in evil, as well in creation as in destruction, as well during awaking as in sleep, as well in Atma as in mind, as well in prana as in the senses. It exists the same everywhere, in every molecule

¹ Upadharma—that, is, Brahmoism.

² Knower of Bharmān; here, a Brahmo.

³ Nivrtti.

and atom¹ of the innumerable millions of universes,² consisting each of fourteen worlds;³ It exists everywhere in unconsciousness,⁴ consciousness,⁵ and in the play of consciousness. It is She who causes bondage, and it is She, again, who brings about liberation. For this reason, after the killing of Mahisa, the Asura, the Devas understood that just as the worshipping propensity in their hearts came from Her, so the fighting propensity in the hearts of Asuras also came from Her. Just as She provided the Devas with SvargaLakşmī⁶ for their prosperity, so also She was the cause of the fatal night of Asura Mahisa's death. When the Devas perceived this, they said:

"Oh Devī, who art Lakşmī⁷ in the houses of virtuous men, ALakşmī⁸ in the houses of sinful men, intelligence in the hearts of cultured men, reverence in the hearts of pious men, and shame in men born of good families, I bow to Thy lotus-feet. O Devī, maintain the universe." It is because, as avidya, which is error,⁹She can bind, that as vidya, which is knowledge,¹⁰She can again remove the bondage. Otherwise, who is She to liberate who has not the power to bind ? It can never be that while the judge will order imprisonment, the jailer will give release. Just as the judge's order is necessary for imprisonment, so it is also necessary for release. The AryaŚāstra is not so blind, so foolish, and so erring, as to be terrified on hearing that "She exists as error." The Śāstra therefore says: "That eternal supreme Vidya is the cause of liberation. She, again, is the cause of Jiva's bondage in samsāra. She is the Īśvarī of the Isvaras of all! Although, according to prison rules, a prisoner can sometimes obtain temporary freedom to walk in the prison yard, such freedom cannot give him permanent release, for his hands and feet remain still firmly bound by iron chains. Similarly, although one can live in heaven¹¹ and similar regions¹² in consequence of having performed works of high religious merit,

¹ Ami and paRāmanu. ² Bharmāņdas.

³ Bhuvanas. ⁴ Jada. ⁵ Caitanya.

⁶ The tutelary Devī of Svarga, or Heaven. ⁷ Devī of prosperity.

⁸ The opposite of Lakşmī. ⁹ Bhranti.

¹⁰jñāna. ¹¹ Svarga, one of the fourteen regions (lokas).

¹² Loka (see post and Introduction to Tantra Śāstra.)

one does not thereby become free from the bondage of māyā. Unless Mahamāyā, in whom are the three gunas and who holds in Her hand the cords of the three gunas constituting the bondage of māyā, Herself removes the bonds, who else in the world can grant release? The Śāstra has, therefore, said, "She is the Īśvarī of the ISvaras of all"—that is to say, although Bharmā and other Devas are Isvaras of all, they have to pray to Her, the supreme Īśvarī, for the removal of their bondage and liberation. She is the sole Īśvarī of the Isvaras of all.

The aforesaid physical Śāktis—intelligence, sleep, hunger, thirst, beauty, memory, intellect, restraint, etc.—which appear unconscious¹ to us in our ordinary vision, are not in reality unconscious. Just as light cannot be dark, so Śākti cannot be unconscious. Different parts of the māyā-Śākti which consists of the three gunas, sattva, rajas, and tamas, can only differ from each other in so far as one or other of the gunas predominate; for instance, the sattva guna predominates in Śāktis like mercy, peace, beauty, shame, forgiveness, and reverence; the rajas guna predominates in Śāktis of passion like desire, anger, greed, effort, intoxication of mind² and vanity; and the tamas guna predominates in Śāktis like delusion, lethargy, error, drowsiness, and sleep.

Of these, the sattvik Śāktis are always naturally manifest and conscious; the tamasik Śāktis are always unmanifest and seemingly unconscious, full of delusion, and insensible; and the rajasik Śāktis are partly manifest and partly unmanifest, partly conscious and partly unconscious. On seeing the tamasik Śāktis above-mentioned, a person may easily arrive at the conclusion that they are unconscious. But does he never ask himself, whence have these Śāktis come ? According to Jiva's destiny, from the very time that he takes a body, an inseparable relationship is established between him and the enjoyment of happiness and suffering of sorrow. The senses, the mind, the function of life and the whole of the Jiva's body are made in such a manner as to be suitable for this enjoyment and suffering. For this reason sleep is as much necessary to him as food. And according

¹ Jada. ² Mada.

to this necessity She, as Jiva, appears both as enjoyment and suffering as well as sleep. If She does not exist as consciousness at the root of sleep, who, then, is its cause ? Light in the moon, radiance in the sun, power of burning in fire, motion in air, coolness in water, smell in earth—these Śāktis may ordinarily appear to be unconscious, but in reality they are not so. They merely seem to be unconscious. To admit that all these Śāktis are really unconscious is almost to accept the atheistic¹ principle; for self-origination of material Śākti is the same thing as creation, preservation, and destruction of the world by Nature. In the eyes of the faithful there is nothing really unconscious in the dominion of the Mother, who is made of consciousness. All the things which we know to be unconscious are, to the sight of wise men, nothing but emanations of consciousness from Her whose substance is consciousness; only by reason of the incapacity of the world which is composed of the three gunas to manifest pure consciousness, they are darkened just as are the suns

In the root She is all-Bharmān; in the stem She is all-māyā; in the flower She is all-world, and in the fruit She is all-liberation. Bharmān, Isvara, māyā, and Avidya.—these are Her four aspects. Dividing Herself into these four parts, the Player of the blissful play throughout the world becomes Herself mad in the intoxication of Her own joy—Herself taking birth Herself, dying, Herself dancing in Her own cremation ground, and Herself becoming Śiva in Her own corpse. She Herself enjoys the play. She is Herself Purusa,² Herself Prakrti, Herself the spouse of Mahākāla, Herself attachment, inclination, and goal, and Herself the daughter of Supreme bliss. She is Herself māyā, Herself non-māyā, and Herself She who yields māyā. She is Herself vidya, Herself avidya and Herself the eternal Devī who is the object of sadhana. Ask the Vedas, the Vedantas, the Puranas, or the Tantras, and every one of these Śāstras will

¹ Nastika.

² See Introduction to Tantra Śāstra.

bear unmistakable testimony to this Her (monistic) character. In this Sastrik vision of faith, a sadhaka sees the Bharmāņda-play in both Her aspects of vidya and avidya, and sits on the Mother's lap in both bondage and liberation. The world regards the bondage as due to māyā, but he sees it to be caused by the Mother. It then inspires him with love and a feeling of wounded pride. Softened by that love, and hardened by that feeling of wounded pride, he sits lovingly on the lap of the Mother, holding Her hand with his hands, which are bound with the bonds of māyā, and, overwhelmed with tender feeling, says: "Mother, what a mad¹ girl you are!" The mad Sadhak Vilambara has therefore said, addressing the mad mother, "Is it for nothing that I tell you, O Kālī, that you were a magician's daughter ? Otherwise, why should you have enchanted the whole world with māyā-magic? "

Again, the peaceful Sadhaka Kamalakanta has sung: "Tell me, what is bad and what is good in you. Some you save by granting them knowledge in the form of vidya. Others you cover with avidya and draw down into the pit of delusion. Many people say that every Jiva is Śiva. Why, then, does He who is ever joyful become destitute of joy ? Mother Kālī, I, Kamalakanta, tell you my mind. Some enjoy happiness followed by happiness, while others pass their lives in sorrow." After seeing, hearing, and thinking over all this, one can only say: "I always seek Thee who art above māyā, full of māyā, universal māyā, eternal, pure, blameless, one without a second, and, again, the cause of the world's liberation through māyā,² the bridge over the sea of existence."

Those who, on merely hearing the name of Śākti, leap to the conclusion that Śākti is māyā without understanding the three-fold

¹ As pointed out by Babu Dinesh Chandra Sen ("History of Bengali Language and Literature," p. 119), the English word "mad" does not convey the meaning of the word "pagla," for in Bengali it is tinged with a feeling of tenderness, and persons so called are greatly loved. The term denotes rather a person of amiable and eccentric character, and is akin to the Persian dewana.

² māyā is here both the binder and the liberator (see post). As binder She is universal māyā, and as liberator She is above māyā. In what sense māyā can liberate, is explained, see post.

division of Śākti-tattva¹ into vidya, avidya, and paRāma, and without knowing the difference between māyā-Śākti and Bharmā-Śākti—to them it is needless to show any evidence other than the words of that māyā and professor of māyā; for these words are sufficient. When the Mother of the world was born of the womb of Menaka in the house of Himalaya, the King of mountains was astonished at the sight of Her form possessing the lustre of a crore² of suns, bearing on Her head the crescent moon, large-eyed, and eight-armed and, bowing down to the earth before Her, with folded hands, and voice trembling with reverence, said:³

"Mother, who are you of wonderful form, possessing large eyes and auspicious marks? My child, I fail to discover who you really are. Yourself tell me the truth about Yourself."

In reply to this question put by Himalaya, the Devī said:

"Know Me to be (supreme) Śākti, the Genitrix of the world, under whose protection Mahesvara lives, whose substance is all aisvaryas⁴ and knowledge, and who is the cause of all activities and the ordainer of creation, preservation, and destruction. I dwell in the hearts of all things; I carry men across the sea of samsāra; I am eternal bliss; I am eternal, Bharmān in substance and Īśvarī.⁵ Father, pleased with the austerities⁶ practised by you and mother MenakS, and worshipped as daughter by you both, I have, through your wonderful good fortune, taken birth in your house." Here, also, She has described Herself as paRāma-Śākti,⁷ above māyā.

Again, in the same book,⁸ where reincarnation is dealt with, She says:

"On coming out of the mother's womb, Jiva is deluded by my māyā, and forgets the pains it suffered therein."

"Father, for his liberation from the chains of body a seeker of salvation should contemplate me as blameless, subtle, beyond the reach of speech, pure, attributeless, transcendently luminous,

¹ Here meaning Śākti.

² 10,000,000. ³ Bhagavatigita, in the Mahabhagavata.

⁴ Qualities of lordship of Isvara (see post).

⁵ Ruler. ⁶ Tapas (see Introduction to Tantra Śāstra).

⁷ Supreme Śākti.

all-pervading, the sole cause of creation, preservation, and destruction, without a second, without beginning, whose substance is existence, consciousness and bliss."

"Great King, deluded by my māyā, Jivas fail to know that supreme and undecreasing form of mine which is in everything and is without a second. But those who worship Me with devotion cross the great sea of this māyā."

Himalaya also himself says: "Do not delude me any longer with Thy supreme māyā. O Īśvarī of the universe, I bow to Thee."

In the Devī Bhagavata, and other books also, the same thing has been said. Now tell me, O advocate of the māyā theory! If Śākti Herself is nothing but māyā, what is that other māyā. which She specifies as "my māyā" ?

The following appears in the Mahānirvāna Tantra:¹

"The Devī asked: What is the form of MahaKālī who is the origin of mahat² and other tattvas; who is subtler than the subtlest, greatly luminous, and the primal Śākti ? Form is possible in only such things as are the work of Prakrti. But She is above Prakrti, and supreme beyond all. Deva, be pleased to dispel thoroughly this doubt from my mind."

Now, if She is merely Prakrti, why, then, does the Devī say that it is not possible for Her to have a form originated from Prakrti ?³

In the Kularnava Tantra, Mahadeva says to the Devī: "He who is deluded by Thy māyā sees not while he sees, understands not while he hears, and knows not the truth⁴ while he reads."

(Here, also, if the Devī is only māyā, why, then, does Mahadeva say "Thy māyā?") The Śāstra says that She is māyā, whose substance is māyā, and who is yet above māyā. Advocate of the māyā-theory! forget for once the māyā of māyā and be charmed by the māyā of the Mother. Know this māyā to be

¹ 13^th ullasa.

² Buddhi (see Introduction to Tantra Śāstra).

³ That is, if MahaKālī is, in substance, nothing but Prakrti, then it is but natural that She should arise out of Prakrti and have a form. The very fact that the Devī thinks it impossible for MahaKālī to have a form arising out of Prakrti proves that She is more than Prakrti.

⁴ Tattva.

not māyā. only, but the Mother's māyā—seeing the māyā-play of the Mother sink in the sweetness of māyā. It is because this māyā exists that as children of the Mother we strive to sit on the lap of the Mother. It is with reference to this māyā-theory that in Gitanjali¹ it is said: "The Vedas say that all efforts are in vain; for, O brother, everything is māyā. The Tantras say that Mahamāyā smiles through māyā, for it is the Mother's māyā."

Viewed with a little discrimination, the very māyā which is nothing but the cause of bondage in samsāra appears as attractive as an elysiom of bliss. Cannot the very same māyā, by the influence of which we become attached and bound in love to father, mother, wife, children, etc., also liberate us, if through it we become attached by love to the Mother who is all full of māyā ? It is because this māyā exists that there exists the difference between the worshipper and the worshipped. Once the tie of this māyā is broken, the relation between the worshipper and the worshipped will cease, as much as that between father, mother, wife, children, and the like. A devotee is, therefore, afraid lest māyā. should disappear, and he should thus be debarred from taking the name of Mother. Although a jnani² desires to be altogether free from māyā, a bhakta,³ while he throws off māyā so far as samsāra is concerned, secretly and carefully nourishes māyā for the Mother in the core of his heart. Leaving the samsāra of māyā, he enters into the samsāra of the Mother. All who live in this samsāra of the Mother constantly sing: "Parvati is our Mother, Deva Mahesvara is our Father, the Bhairavas are our brothers, and the three worlds are our home."

But lest, through the influence of the Mother's name, which is antagonistic to māyā, this māyā should disappear, leaving no means of protecting the self, I desire, while there is yet time, to take the name of the Mother to my heart's content; lest, when the Mother and the son will meet, there should be left no opportunity for the son to take! the Mother's name; lest there should be for the rest of my existence an end to my taking the name of Mother—the Gitanjali mournfully says:

¹ The author's work of that name.

² He who follows the path of jñāna, or knowledge.

³ He who follows the path of bhakti, or devotion.

"The day passes; it will last no longer. How much longer, O Mother, shall I bear the torments of the bondage of existence ?"

"To this samsāra full of māyā. you make me return time after time, under the influence of māyā. My heart is rent; I can bear it no longer."

"If everything in samsāra is possessed of māyā, then grant me, O Mother, that māyā in which the son knows none but the Mother."

"Untie the cords of the present māyā, and tie, O Mother, the cord of that māyā by virtue of which the fire of māyā will not touch me."¹

"Putting away from me the three-fold fire,² take me up, O Mother, on Thy lap. Let me, for the last time in my life, call 'Mother, Mother,' and then I shall call no more."

"My life burns with an intense hunger. Give me, O Mother, the nectar of Thy milk to drink. The fire of woes burns constant and furious. It will not be extinguidhed but by¹ that nectar."

"O Spouse of Śiva, do not fear that if once I get that nectar

I shall not seek it any more. Simple child! do you not know that the thirst for nectar is not satiated with the drinking of it ?"

Such Pauranik evidence as has so far been produced on the subject of Śākti-tattva proves that it is from Śākti that the entire and universal Bharmāņda takes its birth; that She alone creates, preserves, and destroys it, and that She alone is the highest and the best, and the object of worship to even the Devas whom the world worships. Because of this Saivas, Vaisnavas, Sauras, and Ganapatyas³ should not think that Śiva, Visnu, the Sun and Ganapati avail nothing. As a matter of fact, all the Devas who are worshipped according to the five forms of worship (pancopa-sana)⁴ are equally instinct with Śākti; none is superior or inferior to another. When Rsis have had it in mind to intensify the piety and devotion of a class of Sadhakas, they have described the character and play of a particular Devata in a Purana, and shown that Devata of that Purana to be the highest of all Devatas. So

¹ That is, instil vidya in order that avidya may be dispelled.

² That is, the three-fold sorrows (tapatraya).

³ Worshippers of Śiva, Visnu, the Sun, and Ganesa respectively.

⁴ That is the four Devas above mentioned and the Devī.

much is this so that in books like the Devī Bhagavata, the Skanda Purana, the Kālīka Purana, and the Kurma Puranas, the greatness of Śiva, Visnu, or Śākti has been described in such a way in one part, and in such another way in a subsequent part, that the two parts seem to be mutually contradictory. The contradiction, however, lies in our human vision, full of differentiating ideas. It did not in the least exist in the divine vision of the great Rsis, who were endowed with the non-differentiating faculty.¹ They say that the Devata. whose greatness they were describing in one place under the name of Kali or Śiva, was Visnu Himself, and that the Devata whose greatness they are describing in another place under the name of Visnu was none other than Kali or Śiva. Questions of inconsistency, superiority, exaggeration, or false imputation, did not, therefore, at all arise in their minds. They revealed for the liberation and benefit of the followers of the five forms of worship, the manifestations²of Bharmān (of which great Rsis, possessed of divine virtue, had direct knowledge), in the course of their description of the play of the particular Devatas the latter individually worshipped. This point will be more elaborately explained in the section on "Concordance between the five forms of worship". Sadhakas will, on inquiry, find that Devatas like Śiva, Visnu, and others, have been extolled immediately before or after the places from which we have quoted evidence on the subject of Śākti-tattva. There is scarce room in the small volume of the Tantra-tattva for illustrations of every instance of this kind. It is only with the object of acquainting Sadhakas with the learning and intelligence of this class of precocious, avidya-born, and matricidal monsters, who give expression to their malice against Mahavidya by calling Her māyā, jada, avidya, a great Vaisnavi,³ and so on, that we have said a few words concerning the Mother of the world.

"O Devī, nirvana cannot be attained without a knowledge of Śākti"—this is the conclusion of the Tantra Śāstra. At first sight it would seem to mean that no Devata other than Śākti has the power to grant nirvana salvation. But if this matter¹

¹ Tattva.

² Vibhutis.

³ As explained in preceding pages.

is understood in accordance with the purpose for which, and the manner in which, it has been explained in the Tantra Sàstra, there will remain no ground for any such conclusion.

We shall therefore quote here what the Tantra Śāstra itself has said in brief about Śākti-tattva:

"Brahmānī creates, and not Brahmā. So, O MahesVari, Brahmā is undoubtedly a mere preta.¹ Vaisnavī preserves, and not Visnu. So, O MahesVari, Visnu is undoubtedly a mere prêta. Rudrànī destroys, and not Rudra. So, O MahesVari, Rudra is undoubtedly a mere preta. Without the part of Śākti which they possess, Bharmā, Visnu, Mahesvara, abd other Devas are all without power,² for it is beyond all doubt that without Prakrti they are unable to do anything by their own efforts."³

Now it remains to be considered what is the true nature of that which is called Śākti. But here we are in a difficulty. All Śāstras have at the conclusion of their specification of all aspects of Her nature, merely said the term "Śākti," and, after a low obeisance, retired from the field. How can it then be possible for us to specify the nature of that Śākti who is Herself Herself?⁴The juice of the sugar-cane when boiled becomes molasses,⁵the molasses when boiled becomes uncrystallized sugar,⁶ the uncrystallized sugar when boiled becomes crystallized sugar,⁷and the crystallized sugar when boiled becomes sugar-candy.⁸After the state of sugar-candy, the juice admits of no more condensation. Similarly, the consequence of Bharmān is the Brah-mānda; of Brahmāndamāyā; ofmāyā Isvara; and of Isvara Śākti; that is to say, in order to know what there is in the cause it should first of all be seen what there is in the effect. To understand the truth⁹ concerning Bharmān, it is necessary to understand, first of all, that concerning the Brahmānda.¹⁰ If the beginning,

¹ This term literally means the human spirit after death and before the performance of the Sràddha; in the general sense, a ghost. Here used in the sense of a dead body.

² Jada. ³ The above is from the Kubjikā Tantra.

⁴Svarupa: who is Herself Herself. ⁶ Sarkara sikata, called dalo. ⁸ Sitopala, called miŚrī . ¹⁰ The universe, or "egg of Bharmā".

⁵ Guda. ⁷ Sītā sarkara. ⁹ Tattva.

middle, and end of the Bharmāņda is considered, the sole and final conclusion is māyā. In order to understand the fundamental truth" concerning māyā, it is necessary to fix the mind on IsVara, the possessor of māyā. And in order to know the fundamental nature of Isvara, it is necessary to fix the mind on Śākti. Beyond Śākti there can be no discussion of anything.¹Śākti is the real nature of all things,² but the nature of Śākti is nothing but Śākti Herself. The sun reveals all things, but nothing reveals the sun save itself. However that may be, just as the Śākti of the seed can be guessed by observing the fruits, flowers, leaves, branches, roots, stem of the tree, so we shall proceed to open the Tantra-door of the temple of Śākti-tattva by observing the process of creation, preservation, and destruction of Bharmāņda , the seat of Her eternal play.

May the Mother of the universe hold the lamp of Self-revelation in Her hand, and showing to Her children, who are living separate from their Mother, the path leading to Her own Self, ultimately take them up on Her lap.

The word "Śākti" is formed by adding the suffix "kti" to the verbal root "sak" in the passive voice. The verbal root "sak" means "Śākti" just as the word "gam" means "gati" (motion). The philosopher would explain "Śākti-tattva" by means of discussion.

This method, however, has little pertinency. At the very outset the grammarian has, in trying to define the term "Śākti", found himself at sea, and left the matter exactly where he found it. The root "Sak" means "Śākti"; the passive voice means the same thing as does the root—that is to say, "Śākti"; and the word that is formed by adding the suffix to the root is also "Śākti". It therefore comes to this, that the grammarian has explained the word "Śākti" as Śākti, Śākti, Śākti; as if he has sworn thrice and said: "In the name of dharma, the word 'Śākti' means 'Śākti, Śākti, Śākti'."

Sadhakas will here see that, if the interpretation of the word itself has led to such difficulty, how much more difficult must

¹ Tattva.

² Śākti is the svarupa, or thing in itself.

be the interpretation of the thing denoted by the word. In the opinion of philosophers "mutual dependence" is a fault, but grammarians adopt it as the fundamental principle for safe guidance. The object of grammarians is to state the true nature of a thing in conformity with its use, while the object of philosophers is to explain a thing with a show of learning and intelligence. A grammarian will plainly say, The root "gam" means "gati" (motion); but a man, if a philosopher, will, with a show of keen intelligence, explain the same thing as: "Going is that particular form of action in which there is produced a cessation of touch confined to one place with a view to establish at the same time a touch confined to another place."¹ The word "gati," consisting of two syllables only is thus explained by thirty-five syllables. And one can easily increase this number by adding to the interpretation a few more "tva-tva-avacchhinna."² But what is the result of so much labour? If a grammarian asks a philosopher, "Have you eaten?" the latter will most probably reply, "I have made food to go"—that is to say, "I have made food to leave the plate and be deposited in my stomach." Again, when the same food leaves the stomach and returns to the earth as in vomitting, a great difficulty arises if this action, too, has to be named according to the definition of leaving one place and establishing touch with another. After all the trouble taken over the interpretation, eating, going, and vomiting become one and the same thing.

To avoid this difficulty the clever philosopher has added the expression "a particular form of action," meaning thereby that every act of abandoning one place and establishing touch with another place is not going, but that a particular form only of such action is called going. Now, if it is asked, What is this particular form of action which is called going? the philosopher will reply: "It is touching another place with the feet." But in that case kicking also becomes going. One is therefore at

¹ Puivadesavacchinnasamyoga bhavasahakrtotTārādesavacchhirtnasamyo-ganukulavyaparaviiesogamanam.

² Limitations, such as "ness," "ness," "confined to," etc., for which the Nava Nyaya school here satirized displays such predilection. It is commonly believed that a logician will in his next birth be born a jackass.

last obliged to say that "going" is the name of that action which people call "going". It thus comes to this: "gamana" (going) means "gati" (motion), and "gati" (motion) means "gamana" (going). It is because he will, after all, have to die this death that the old and intelligent grammarian has at the outset accepted the death, and said in plain terms that "gamana" means "gati". But the philosopher will not easily accede to this. He will die the same death at last, but with a frown on his brow. This is what is called having too much intelligence. A philosopher's wisdom consists in puzzling the intelligence with a voluminous combination of words while he knows full well that there is no other means than "mutual dependence". It must therefore be understood that the loquacious philosopher and the sadhaka who knows the truth¹ concerning things are not one and the same person. The fundamental principle of a śadhana Śāstra is attainment of siddhi, while the fundamental principle of philosophy is merely looking abroad with the eyes wide open. In the present discussion of Śākti-tattva we shall therefore depend entirely on śadhana-Śāstra,² and have nothing to do with philosophy; for millions of systems of philosophy may disappear from view, but not the least change can occur in a śadhana-Śāstra.²However that may be, what we understand from grammar is that, as in the case of "gati", there is no means of understanding Śākti with the help of any term expressive of quality other than the same word "Śākti". Considering the manner in which the word "Śākti" is ordinarily used, it appears from the adjuncts of Śākti in such expressions as intellectual Śākti, mental Śākti mnemonic Śākti, visual Śākti, aural Śākti, active Śākti, vital Śākti, etc., that Śākti merely takes different names according as it manifests itself in different places while, in reality the thing Śākti is everywhere the same. What is the root of the Śāktis which are in the branch, the leaf, the fruit, and the flower? What is that Śākti under the influence of which these Śāktis disappear ? And what, again, is that Śākti under the influence of which they appear ? It is universally admitted that the answer to this question

¹ Tattva.

² Tantra.

is, that Atma. is at the root of all these Śāktis. Now we must understand what this Atma is.

There is a class of believers who, when they hear the Upa-nisads taking the name of Atma, become senseless with emotion, and say that Atma is "attributeless and omnipresent". On the other hand, there is a class of sceptics who take up the sword at the very mention of the name of Atma, saying that it is "a false and fanciful thing". Put under the edges of the saws applied by these two classes of people, Atma has, in the nineteenth century, become finer and finer, and has ended in being something almost non-existent. It is only because Atma has an Atma of its own that it has not altogether ceased to exist. For this reason, in order now to find out the true nature of Atma, it must be rescued from the hands of both these classes of people, kept in a separate place, and viewed from there.

In dualistic vision cause and effect are two different things, but looked at from the monistic point of view, they are the same. That which is the effect is also the cause, and that which is the cause is also the effect; for what did not exist in the cause cannot exist in the effect, and what does not exist in the effect cannot have existed in the cause. The Śākti which does not exist in the seed can never appear in the tree, and the Śākti which does not appear in the tree cannot have existed in the seed. A consideration of the similarity between the seed and the tree leads to the conclusion that the seed is the latent state of Śākti while the tree is in its patent state. Similarly, all the Śāktis which appear manifest in life¹ —the senses, the body; and the mind-are but patent states of Atma, that great Śākti of the seed. To say that Śākti resides in Atma is to present the thing in the form in which it may be understood by means of ordinary intelligence. The final decision of the Śāstra, however, is that in reality Śākti is Atma and Atma is Śākti. It is but a mode of speech to say that fire has the power (Śākti) of burning. The truth is that fire exists as power of burning and the power of burning appears as fire. We in our ordinary vision see only the material and gross aspect of fire.

¹ Prana.

The Śāstra has therefore called that easily perceptible aspect by the name of fire, and designated the power of burning as its Śākti (power). But leaving the material aspect aside, spiritually speaking fire is nothing but Śākti. Although the expression "My Atma," used in ordinary parlance by worldly people, means, in reality, "What is Atma that I am," yet, by falsely considering the physical body to be the person (Atma) we are wont to say "my Atma" in the sense that Atma exists in this my physical body. Here, also, if we leave out of consideration the physical side, Atma becomes nothing but Śākti, because no such thing exists in the world as the Śākti of Atma. That which is Atma is Śākti, and that which is Śākti is Atma. In many places in the Śāstra there is mention of the Śākti of Atma, but in all such places it is Atma alone which has really been spoken of, just as people speak of the water of the Ganges, the head of Rahu,¹ the refulgence of the sun, the light of the moon, etc., although, in reality, the water is Ganges, the head is Rahu, the refulgence is the sun, the light is the moon, and so on. Just as, in order to express the power of Śākti, a distinction has to be imagined in ordinary usage, and expressions like "the water of the Ganges" have to be used; so although what is Śākti is Atma, yet authors of Śāstras have, in order to enable people to understand the Śākti-tattva,²often spoken of the Śākti of Atma; but in conclusion they have unanimously, and with one voice, said: "There is no distinction between Śākti and the possessor of Śākti." In spite, however, of this absence of distinction, they have had, even while establishing such absence, to speak of two—namely, Śākti and the possessor of Śākti—in order to explain the matter to people whose knowledge consists of distinctions. Without two there can be no distinction, and without distinction there can be no establishment of the absence of distinction.

There is yet something more for consideration. What is the true nature of that Atma over which there is so much quarrel, dispute, and discussion ? Why do we admit its existence ? Looking at this part of the question we see that the body of the Jiva is

¹ One of the navagrahas (planets).

² Subject of or principle concerning Śākti.

unconscious, his senses are unconscious, and even his mind is almost so, for although the mind possesses a little of consciousness, it cannot exist independently and supported by itself. It is, therefore, a subject for consideration under whose subjection all these dependent things exist. This matter has been very clearly decided in the form of a question in the Kena Upanisad. There it is asked, By what are the senses of work, the senses of knowledge, mind, intellect, etc., able to perform their respective functions? What is the true nature of Him who is the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, the life of the life, the mind of the mind? He has been called "the eye of the eye, the ear of the ear, the life of the life," but not the Atma of the Atma; because if the nature¹ of Atma. is decided first of all, the question "By what?" cannot at all arise. For that is the final point, the ultimate goal. However that may be, after all these questions the Kena Upanisad goes on to say: "Indra, Candra,² Vayu,³ Varuna,⁴ Agni,⁵ and other Devas who preside over the senses in the Jiva's body were directing the working of the universe with their various powers and boasting of their victory over Asuras, when suddenly a mass of indescribable brilliance⁶ appeared before them. Unable to make out what that enormously powerful mass of light was, Agni and other Devas, deputed by Indra, went over one by one to It and were asked by It who they were. First of all Agni said that he was Agni (fire) and Jataveda,⁸ and that he could burn the whole world. Thereupon that Devata made of fight placed before Agni a blade of grass and said, "Burn it." Agni tried his best but failed to burn the grass.

Subsequently, after Vayu and other Devas had been equally put to shame and had returned, Indra himself went, but in an instant that Devata, the refulgent mass of light, disappeared. Seeing the mass of light disappear, Indra understood that It had disappeared because, although He was the ruler of the three worlds, He was yet not a fit person even to approach that Devata.

¹ Tattva. ² Moon. ³ Air.

⁴ Water. ⁵ Fire. ⁶ Tejas.

⁷ A Vaidik name for Agni. The word means "known by all things that are born," or "known as it is born" (spreads) (Sayana's commentary on Rgveda).

Thus shattering the pride of Indra, She, who is perfect Bharmān and eternal, assumed the fairest form of Gauri and appeared before the Devas, illumining the firmament with Her lustre. Then, when the Lord of Devas¹ questioned Her about Her real nature, She replied.......

We are unable to divulge Her reply to the public, for that is Upanisad. We shall, however, quote, from the elaborate account of this subject given in the Devī Bhigavata, that portion in which the Devī's reply is contained. From this sadhakas will know Her real nature.

The Devī said: "This aspect of mine is Bharmān in reality, the cause of all causes, the seat of māyā, witness to all and free from all defect. Divided into two parts, I create the entire world. One of these parts is Sacchidananda-Prakrti and the other is māyā-Prakrti. That māyā is my PaRāma² Śākti, and I am the Īśvarī who possesses that Śākti. But just as moonlight is not distinct from the moon, so I am not distinct from māyā. Ī Lord of Devas! during the dissolution³ of the whole world this māyā exists inseparate from me in a state of equilibrium, and again, in consequence of the past karma of Jivas, this un-manifested māyā becomes manifest. The aspect of Śākti, in which She is inward looking, is called 'māyā', and that in which She is outward looking is called 'avidya'. It was from tamas, the outward-looking avidya, that sattva, rajas, and tamas, the three gunas, appeared at the beginning of creation, and from that threefold division appeared Bharmā-, Visnu, and Mahesvara. The rajas guna predominates in Bharmā, the sattva guna in Visnu, and the tamas guna in Rudra, who is the embodiment of all causes.⁴

"In this Bharmāņda (which is but a manifestation of avidya consisting of tamas) Bharmā is like my gross⁵ body, Visnu is like my linga⁶ body, Rudra is like my causal⁷ body, and I myself

¹ Indra. ² Supreme. ³ Pralaya.

⁴The Bengali word is "Karana". All effects lie in a potential state in their causes. This potential state represents tamas guna. Rudra, in whom tamas predominates, thus holds all effects in him as their cause.

⁵ Sthula.

am turiya caitanya.¹ It is in my state of equipoise that I reside in all things. Beyond that, I am ParaBharmān, devoid of form. I have two aspects, according as I am with and without attributes. The aspect which is above māyā is attributeless, and the aspect with māyā is with attributes. Thus, possessing two aspects, I create the world as māyā, enter into it as Bharmān, and send Jivas along their respective paths, whether good or bad, according to law and karma."²

"It is I, again, who appoint Bharmā, Visnu, and Mahesvara to do the work of creation, preservation, and destruction of the three worlds. It is out of fear of me³ that the wind blows, the sun rises and sets, Indra gives rain, fire burns, and death takes the lives of Jivas. For this reason I am called 'the best of all' (sarvottama), 'the ruler of all' (sarvesvari). It is through my grace that ye triumph in all things. Ye are but puppets in my hand. Being will in substance, I ever act according to my own will, and according to your karma I grant victory at one time to you, and at another to Asuras. Through pride, and overpowered by intense delusion, you forgot me, the dweller in all things. For this reason, in order to favour ye, my energy,⁴ the Śākti, which is 'the best of all,' emerged from out of your bodies and appeared before you as what you thought to be a Yaksa."⁵ (That is to say, separated from that great Śākti, you failed to recognize your individual Śāktis and also were unable to do the works for which you are appointed in the world.)

"Henceforward, by all means shake off pride and seek the protection of me, who am existence, consciousness, and bliss." (That is to say, knowing me to be the controller of all, attribute the fruits of all works, done or undone, to the full exercise of my great Śākti, and be gratified on thus resigning yourselves to me.)

Adya-Śākti (primal Śākti) says: "Divided into two parts I create. One of these parts is Sacchhidananda-Prakrti, and the other is māyā-Prakrti." Again, when māyā is Her Śākti She

¹ Consciousness in its fourth state (see Introduction to Tantra nostra).

² See Introduction to Tantra nostra.

³ That is, in obedience to me. ⁴Tejas.

⁵ That is, as some being of a high order deserving honour and adoration.

is the Īśvarī possessing Śākti. Spiritually speaking, Śākti is not different from Her, just as moonlight is not different from the moon. It is the said part which is pure Sacchhidananda which has been designated as Atma

Just as the sun is the only source of all light during the day, so Atma is the only source of all physical consciousness. As the sun is not a different thing from its light, so Atma is not a different thing from Śākti or consciousness. The ultimate point to which atma-tattva¹ leads is, therefore, CitŚākti.² What we know as consciousness is called Śākti. In explaining the word Śākti it may finally be said that Śākti is that thing which makes able— that is to say, that power by virtue of which the body, the senses, the mind, and the prana,³ which are all unconscious,⁴ become able to act like conscious things. It is because Śākti is universe-pervading that its other name is Atma. What pervades is Atma; He who pervades all is called Atma.

In the driving of a carriage we see that the carriage, the driver of the carriage, the person driven, and the horse, all four in fact, are in motion. Of these four, only one is independent and conscious, two are dependent and conscious, and the remaining one, though itself unconscious, is drawn like a conscious thing. The horse, though conscious, is under the control of the driver; the driver, though conscious is under the control of the person driven; and the carriage, though itself unconscious, is successively under the control of all three—viz., the person driven, the driver, and the horse. Sadhakas constantly see such a carriage-driving within their bodies. The body composed of five elements is nothing but a carriage for carrying a person in and out on this journey of samsāra. The ten senses are its ten horses, the mind is its driver, and Atma, that great Śākti, is the person driven.

¹ The discussion of the Atma—spiritual science.

² Consciousness is the ultimate Śākti.

³ Vital principle.

⁴ That is when dualistically considered as separate things.

Just as the driver guides the horses according to the directions of the person driven, so the mind also, urged by the Śākti of Atma, sends the senses to their individual pursuits.

As the carriage runs drawn by the horse, the body moves drawn by the senses. The mind and the senses are both conscious under the influence of the consciousness of Atma. In all the pursuits of the senses the body appears as conscious. The body is subordinate to the senses, the senses are subordinate to the mind, the mind is subordinate to Atma. Of the four, therefore, three are dependent, and only Atma is independent, all the others being subordinate to Him. There is, however, this peculiarity here, that, unlike the ordinary person, seated in a carriage, the person who is driven in the carriage of the body does not travel along any path fixed by Him; He simply orders the driver to drive the carriage and then retires. The driver is left to choose whichever path he likes, and to enjoy or suffer from the comforts and discomforts of the path on which his choice may fall. The person driven has neither comfort nor discomfort. Atma is ever free from attachment.

The driver may, with unerring discretion, take the carriage safely through the paths of sin and virtue which the Śāstra indicates; but if he is weak, there is danger for him. The ten wayward horses draw the carriage in ten different directions and, consequently, the small carriage, built with five pieces of wood¹ and full of innumerable joints, breaks down in mid-path. Besides this, the hero who has taken charge of driving the carriage is hardly able to control himself, not to speak of controlling the horses. He has a dread of the two reins iama and dama,² which are prescribed for controlling the horses. Even the thought of them often greatly frightens him, and, in many cases, he is of opinion that the idea of handling and using them in tightening or loosening the hold on the horses, is but an incredible fancy. It is owing to such weakness on the part of the driver that in the hunt for happiness in the samsāra, Jiva so often forgets his aim.

¹ The five elements.

² Equanimity and self-restraint, external and internal.

It is here in the samsāra that the terrible catastrophe begins. Although the driver is weak, he can cast his eyes towards the person sitting in the carriage, and then, forgetting fatalism,' one becomes inclined to say: "O Mother! what play is this of yours? The strength and intelligence of the driver are not unknown to You; why, then knowing everything, have You placed the carriage in charge of such a worthless driver? True it is that I am a great sinner, but for that You cannot abandon me. In this great crisis neither the driver nor the person driven² can save himself. I know that I must suffer the fruits of my own karma; but still, O Mother! I desire to see You once in this broken carriage' of mine."

"As in Ravana's last drive in a carriage, so in this last drive of mine appear for once, O Mother! mad and shouting, 'Fear not! fear not!'. Stand in the carriage, holding me to Thy bosom. Do not disappear, but appear for a moment in my heart, so that I can for once see the lustrous glory of your world-encompassing beauty, filling my eyes, filling my mind, filling my life. O Mother! let the light of that death-conquering black beauty of yours, which has the lustre of a million moons, dispel the darkness of my fear of death. O Mother! may I, climbing to your bosom and becoming yours, die the death⁴ for which even immortals, regardless of their privilege of immortality, long. So I say, come, O Mother! let us two, Mother and son, together undertake today the journey by carriage. Let me for once see, O Mother! your Car-journey⁵ in the carriage of my body, in the carriage of my eyes, in the carriage of my mind, in the carriage of my heart. I have heard that there is no return journey ⁶ in your carriage, and hence this desire on my part."

¹ Adrsta vada.

² There is no escape for the driven because he, too, is associated with the sufferings of the Jiva, though he does not feel them.

³ The human body.

⁴ Of the individual self in the bosom of the Mother.

⁵ Rathajatra, or car festival, in which the Deva or Devī is drawn in a car. Here the human body is the Devī's car.

⁶To the worlds of birth and death.

HOME