The Serpent Power — Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodroffe) (1924)
2 This is a contemptuous term which has descended from the days when the stranger was looked on as an object of enmity or contempt. Just as the Greeks and Chinese called anyone not a Greek or a Chinese a “barbarian,” so Hindus of the Exoteric School call all non-Hindus, whether aboriginal tribes or cultivated foreigners, Mlechchhas. Mlechchhatā is the state of being a Mlechchha. It is to the credit of the Shākta Tantra that it does not encourage such narrow ideas.
3 These wander about India persuading the villagers to go and work on the tea-gardens, to which they are then conveyed by means which, to say the least, are not always admirable. Truth makes it necessary to state that the allegation that the Gurus employ agents to secure followers is baseless. The Gurus of the right type as a matter of fact are very particular about the competency of the wonld-be disciple.
4 The books and the Gurus claim to do so.
5 It is not a peep-show open to any. Only those are said to see who have mastered the great difficulties in this path.
there was more than one Brahman. And, then, the nectar is said to be of the colour of lac. Well, if so, it is a gross (Sthūla) and perceptible thing; and as a doctor can then squeeze it out there is no need for a Guru.¹ In short, the Tantrik Shatchakra is nothing but ‘a sweet in the hands of a child’. A child who is wayward is given a sweet to keep him quiet. But if he has sense enough to know that the sweet is given to distract him, he throws it away, and finds the key to the locked doors of Yoga, called Karma and Jnāna. This process of Yoga was expelled from Hindu society centuries ago. For nearly 2,500 years ago Shangkara,² when destroying atheism, exterminated also Shatchakrayoga. (When Shangkara disputed with the Kāpā- lika Krakacha, the latter invoked to his aid the fierce form of Shiva called Bhairava. But on Shangkara’s worshipping the God, the latter said to Krakacha, ‘Thy time has come,’ and absorbed His devotee into Himself.)³ Shangkara then showed the worthlessness of the Tantras. They are again to-day attempting to enter Hindu society, and must be again destroyed.”
The writer of the note thus summarised omitted to notice or perhaps was unaware that the Chakras are mentioned in the Upanishads, but endeavoured to meet the fact that they are also described in the Purānas by the allegation that the Pauranik Chakras are in conformity with the Vedas, whereas the Tantrik Chakras are not. It is admitted that in the Shiva Purāna there is an account of the six centres, but it is said that they are not there alleged to actually exist, nor is anything mentioned of any Sādhanā in connection with them. They are, it is contended, to be imagined only for the purpose of worship. In external worship Devas and Devīs are worshipped in similiar Lotuses. The Purānas, in fact, according to this view, convert what is external worship into internal worship. If, according to the Purāna, one worships an interior lotus, it is not to be supposed that there is anything there. One is worshipping merely a figment of one’s imagination, though it is curious to note that it is said that this figment secures certain advantages to the worshipper, and the latter must commence, according to this critic, with the Chakra which he is qualified to worship. It is not obvious how any question of such competency arises when each of the Chakras is imagined only. Attention is drawn to the fact that in the Linga Purāna there is nothing about the rousing of Kundalī, the piercing of the six centres, the drinking of nectar, and so forth. The Purāna merely says, “Meditate on Shiva and Devī in the different lotuses.” There is, it is thus contended, a radical difference between the two systems. “In the Pauranik description of the Chakras everything is stated clearly; but with the Tantrik all is mystery, or else how indeed, except by such mystification, could they dishonestly carry on their profession as Gurus?”
1 These observations display misunderstanding of the subject dealt with. I dealt with this class of criticism. I limit my present observations to the historical origins of this Yoga.
2 This is the Indian tradition as to the philosopher’s date.
3 The parenthesis is mine. See also Mādhava’s Shangkaravijaya, Ch. XV.
2 This is a contemptuous term which has descended from the days when the stranger was looked on as an object of enmity or contempt. Just as the Greeks and Chinese called anyone not a Greek or a Chinese a “barbarian,” so Hindus of the Exoteric School call all non-Hindus, whether aboriginal tribes or cultivated foreigners, Mlechchhas. Mlechchhatā is the state of being a Mlechchha. It is to the credit of the Shākta Tantra that it does not encourage such narrow ideas.
3 These wander about India persuading the villagers to go and work on the tea-gardens, to which they are then conveyed by means which, to say the least, are not always admirable. Truth makes it necessary to state that the allegation that the Gurus employ agents to secure followers is baseless. The Gurus of the right type as a matter of fact are very particular about the competency of the wonld-be disciple.
4 The books and the Gurus claim to do so.
5 It is not a peep-show open to any. Only those are said to see who have mastered the great difficulties in this path.
there was more than one Brahman. And, then, the nectar is said to be of the colour of lac. Well, if so, it is a gross (Sthūla) and perceptible thing; and as a doctor can then squeeze it out there is no need for a Guru.¹ In short, the Tantrik Shatchakra is nothing but ‘a sweet in the hands of a child’. A child who is wayward is given a sweet to keep him quiet. But if he has sense enough to know that the sweet is given to distract him, he throws it away, and finds the key to the locked doors of Yoga, called Karma and Jnāna. This process of Yoga was expelled from Hindu society centuries ago. For nearly 2,500 years ago Shangkara,² when destroying atheism, exterminated also Shatchakrayoga. (When Shangkara disputed with the Kāpā- lika Krakacha, the latter invoked to his aid the fierce form of Shiva called Bhairava. But on Shangkara’s worshipping the God, the latter said to Krakacha, ‘Thy time has come,’ and absorbed His devotee into Himself.)³ Shangkara then showed the worthlessness of the Tantras. They are again to-day attempting to enter Hindu society, and must be again destroyed.”
The writer of the note thus summarised omitted to notice or perhaps was unaware that the Chakras are mentioned in the Upanishads, but endeavoured to meet the fact that they are also described in the Purānas by the allegation that the Pauranik Chakras are in conformity with the Vedas, whereas the Tantrik Chakras are not. It is admitted that in the Shiva Purāna there is an account of the six centres, but it is said that they are not there alleged to actually exist, nor is anything mentioned of any Sādhanā in connection with them. They are, it is contended, to be imagined only for the purpose of worship. In external worship Devas and Devīs are worshipped in similiar Lotuses. The Purānas, in fact, according to this view, convert what is external worship into internal worship. If, according to the Purāna, one worships an interior lotus, it is not to be supposed that there is anything there. One is worshipping merely a figment of one’s imagination, though it is curious to note that it is said that this figment secures certain advantages to the worshipper, and the latter must commence, according to this critic, with the Chakra which he is qualified to worship. It is not obvious how any question of such competency arises when each of the Chakras is imagined only. Attention is drawn to the fact that in the Linga Purāna there is nothing about the rousing of Kundalī, the piercing of the six centres, the drinking of nectar, and so forth. The Purāna merely says, “Meditate on Shiva and Devī in the different lotuses.” There is, it is thus contended, a radical difference between the two systems. “In the Pauranik description of the Chakras everything is stated clearly; but with the Tantrik all is mystery, or else how indeed, except by such mystification, could they dishonestly carry on their profession as Gurus?”
1 These observations display misunderstanding of the subject dealt with. I dealt with this class of criticism. I limit my present observations to the historical origins of this Yoga.
2 This is the Indian tradition as to the philosopher’s date.
3 The parenthesis is mine. See also Mādhava’s Shangkaravijaya, Ch. XV.
No commentary for this page.