The Serpent Power — Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodroffe) (1924)
that because a method of Yoga procures bliss it therefore secures liberation. In order that we be liberated we must secure that particular Bliss which is the Brahman. Some centuries ago, however, a band of Atheists (i.e., the Buddhists) discovered the doctrine of the Void (Shūnyavāda), and by a false display of a new kind of Nirvāna Mukti locked up these two doors which gave entry to liberation. To-day these doors are secured by three padlocks. The first is the doctrine that by faith one attains Krishna, but where there is argument (Tarka) He is far away. The second is the error of the Brahmos, who in Western fashion think that they can control the formless, changeless Brahman by shutting their eyes in church and repeating that He is the merciful, loving Father who is ever occupied with our good, and that if He be flattered He will be pleased; for worship (Upāsanā) is flattery. The third is the opinion of those to whom all religious acts are nothing but superstition; to whom self-interest is the only good, and whose pleasure it is to throw dust into the eyes of others and secure the praise of those whom they have thus blinded. Vishnu, in order to cause the disappearance of the Vedas in the Kali age, manifested as the atheist Buddha, and allowed various false doctrines, such as that of the Arhatas, to be proclaimed. Rudra was affected by the sin of destroying the head of Brahmā. Then he began to dance, and a number of Uchchhishta (or low maglinant) Rudras whose deeds are never good issued from His body. Vishnu and Shiva asked each other, ‘Can we do these people any good?’ Their partial manifestations then promulgated Shāstras opposed to the Vedas, fitted for the atheistic bent of their minds, that they might haply thereby rise through them to higher things. God fools the wicked with such Scriptures. We must now, however, discriminate between Shāstras. It is not because it is said in Sanskrit ‘Shiva says’ (Shiva uvācha) that we should accept all which follows this announcement. All that is opposed to Veda and Smriti must be rejected. Of the enemies of the Vedas¹ for whom such Shāstras were designed, some became Vaishnavas, and others Shaivas. One of such Scriptures was the Tantra with a materialistic Yoga system called Shatchakra-Sādhana, which is nothing but a trickery on the part of the professional Gurus, who have not hesitated also to promulgate forged scriptures. ‘The very mention of Tantrik Shāstra fills us with shame.’ The Shatchakra Sādhana is a mere obstruction to spiritual advancement. The bliss which is said to be attained by leading Kundalī to the Sahasrāra is not denied, since it is affirmed by those who say they have experienced it. But this Bliss (Ānanda) is merely a momentary superior kind of physical Bliss which disappears with the body, and not the Bliss which is Brahman and liberation. Moksha is not to be got by entering the Sahasrāra, but in leaving it by piercing the Brahmarandhra and becoming bodiless.²
“The Tantrik seeks to remain in the body, and thus to obtain liberation cheaply, just as the Brahmos and Members of the Ārya Samāja have become Brahmajnānīs (knowers of the Brahman) at a cheap price. Nectar, too, is cheap with the Tantriks. But what is cheap is always worthless, and this shows itself when one attempts to earn some fruit from one’s endeavours. ‘And yet all men are attracted when they hear of Shatchakra.’ ‘Many are so steeped in Tantrik faith that they can find nothing wrong with its Shāstras.’ And the Hindu nowadays has
1 This no Tantrik would admit. He would say that it is ignorance (Avidyā) which sees any differences between Veda and Āgama. The critic re-echoes some Western criticisms.
p. 280
been put in such a maze by his Tantrik Gurus that he does not know what he wants. For centuries he has been accustomed to the Tantrik Dharma,¹ and his eyes are therefore not clear enough to see that it is as truly unacceptable to a Hindu as it is to a Mussalman. In fact, these persons (for whose benefit the Guru makes these remarks) are full of Mlechchhatā,² though, after all, it must be admitted to be some advance for such a creature as a Mlechchha to adhere even to Tantrik doctrine. For bad as it is it is better than nothing at all. All the same, the Gurus delude them with their fascinating talk about Shatchakra. Like a lot of the present-day advertisers, they offer to show their so-called ‘Lotuses’ to those who will join them. Men are sent to collect people to bring them to a Dīkshāguru (initiator). In this respect the Tantriks act just like coolie recruiters for the tea-gardens.³ The Tantrik says there are really ‘Lotuses’ there; but if the Lotuses are really there, why are we not told how we may see them?⁴ And there also are supposed to be Devatās, Dākinīs, Yoginīs, ‘all ready at every moment for inspection.’⁵ And, then, how material it all is! They speak of a Parashiva above Shiva, as if
2 It is true that complete Mukti or Kaivalya is bodiless (Videha). But there is a Mukti in which the Yogī retains his body (Jīvanmukti). In truth, there is no “leaving,” for Ātmā, as Shangkara says, does not come and go.
1 This, at any rate, attests its wide pervasiveness.
that because a method of Yoga procures bliss it therefore secures liberation. In order that we be liberated we must secure that particular Bliss which is the Brahman. Some centuries ago, however, a band of Atheists (i.e., the Buddhists) discovered the doctrine of the Void (Shūnyavāda), and by a false display of a new kind of Nirvāna Mukti locked up these two doors which gave entry to liberation. To-day these doors are secured by three padlocks. The first is the doctrine that by faith one attains Krishna, but where there is argument (Tarka) He is far away. The second is the error of the Brahmos, who in Western fashion think that they can control the formless, changeless Brahman by shutting their eyes in church and repeating that He is the merciful, loving Father who is ever occupied with our good, and that if He be flattered He will be pleased; for worship (Upāsanā) is flattery. The third is the opinion of those to whom all religious acts are nothing but superstition; to whom self-interest is the only good, and whose pleasure it is to throw dust into the eyes of others and secure the praise of those whom they have thus blinded. Vishnu, in order to cause the disappearance of the Vedas in the Kali age, manifested as the atheist Buddha, and allowed various false doctrines, such as that of the Arhatas, to be proclaimed. Rudra was affected by the sin of destroying the head of Brahmā. Then he began to dance, and a number of Uchchhishta (or low maglinant) Rudras whose deeds are never good issued from His body. Vishnu and Shiva asked each other, ‘Can we do these people any good?’ Their partial manifestations then promulgated Shāstras opposed to the Vedas, fitted for the atheistic bent of their minds, that they might haply thereby rise through them to higher things. God fools the wicked with such Scriptures. We must now, however, discriminate between Shāstras. It is not because it is said in Sanskrit ‘Shiva says’ (Shiva uvācha) that we should accept all which follows this announcement. All that is opposed to Veda and Smriti must be rejected. Of the enemies of the Vedas¹ for whom such Shāstras were designed, some became Vaishnavas, and others Shaivas. One of such Scriptures was the Tantra with a materialistic Yoga system called Shatchakra-Sādhana, which is nothing but a trickery on the part of the professional Gurus, who have not hesitated also to promulgate forged scriptures. ‘The very mention of Tantrik Shāstra fills us with shame.’ The Shatchakra Sādhana is a mere obstruction to spiritual advancement. The bliss which is said to be attained by leading Kundalī to the Sahasrāra is not denied, since it is affirmed by those who say they have experienced it. But this Bliss (Ānanda) is merely a momentary superior kind of physical Bliss which disappears with the body, and not the Bliss which is Brahman and liberation. Moksha is not to be got by entering the Sahasrāra, but in leaving it by piercing the Brahmarandhra and becoming bodiless.²
“The Tantrik seeks to remain in the body, and thus to obtain liberation cheaply, just as the Brahmos and Members of the Ārya Samāja have become Brahmajnānīs (knowers of the Brahman) at a cheap price. Nectar, too, is cheap with the Tantriks. But what is cheap is always worthless, and this shows itself when one attempts to earn some fruit from one’s endeavours. ‘And yet all men are attracted when they hear of Shatchakra.’ ‘Many are so steeped in Tantrik faith that they can find nothing wrong with its Shāstras.’ And the Hindu nowadays has
1 This no Tantrik would admit. He would say that it is ignorance (Avidyā) which sees any differences between Veda and Āgama. The critic re-echoes some Western criticisms.
p. 280
been put in such a maze by his Tantrik Gurus that he does not know what he wants. For centuries he has been accustomed to the Tantrik Dharma,¹ and his eyes are therefore not clear enough to see that it is as truly unacceptable to a Hindu as it is to a Mussalman. In fact, these persons (for whose benefit the Guru makes these remarks) are full of Mlechchhatā,² though, after all, it must be admitted to be some advance for such a creature as a Mlechchha to adhere even to Tantrik doctrine. For bad as it is it is better than nothing at all. All the same, the Gurus delude them with their fascinating talk about Shatchakra. Like a lot of the present-day advertisers, they offer to show their so-called ‘Lotuses’ to those who will join them. Men are sent to collect people to bring them to a Dīkshāguru (initiator). In this respect the Tantriks act just like coolie recruiters for the tea-gardens.³ The Tantrik says there are really ‘Lotuses’ there; but if the Lotuses are really there, why are we not told how we may see them?⁴ And there also are supposed to be Devatās, Dākinīs, Yoginīs, ‘all ready at every moment for inspection.’⁵ And, then, how material it all is! They speak of a Parashiva above Shiva, as if
2 It is true that complete Mukti or Kaivalya is bodiless (Videha). But there is a Mukti in which the Yogī retains his body (Jīvanmukti). In truth, there is no “leaving,” for Ātmā, as Shangkara says, does not come and go.
1 This, at any rate, attests its wide pervasiveness.
No commentary for this page.