The Serpent Power — Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodroffe) (1924)
Buddhists may dispute this critic’s understanding of their Shūnyavāda, as Tantriks will contest his account of the origin of their Shāstra. The Historian will call in question the statement that Shangkara¹ abolished the Tantra. For, according to the Shangkaravijaya, his action was not to abolish any of the sects existing at his time, but to reform and establish bonds of unity between them, and to induce them all through their differing methods to follow a common ideal. Thus, even though Krakacha was absorbed into his
1 See ante, p. 281.
God, the extreme Tantrik sect of Kāpālikas which he represented is said to have continued to exist with Shangkara’s approval, though possibly in a modified form, under its leader Vatukanātha. The Brahmos, Aryasamāj, Vaishnavas, and Shaivas, may resent this critic’s remarks so far as they touch themselves. I am not here concerned with this religious faction, but will limit the following observations in reply to the subject in hand:
The criticism, notwithstanding its “pious” acerbity against forms of doctrine of which the writer disapproved, contains some just observations. I am not however here concerned to establish the reality or value of this Yoga method, nor is proof on either of these points available except through actual experiment and experience. From a doctrinal and historical point of view, however, it seems that this critic did not have a sufficient knowledge¹ of the subject which he has thus so vigorously condemned, or of the wide acceptance which this Yoga has received in India. It is true that Karma with Jnāna are means for the attainment of Moksha. These and Bhakti (devotion) which may partake of the character of the first or the second, according to the nature of its display,² are all contained in the eight processes of Yoga. Thus, they include Tapas, a form of Karma yoga,³ and Dhyāna, a process of Jnāna yoga. As
1 An English education, such as the Author of this criticism received, not infrequently has the effect of divorcing those thus educated, not only from a knowledge of Indian Shāstra, but from the possibility of understanding it.
2 Thus, the offering of flowers and the like to the Divinity partakes of the nature of Karma; whilst Bhakti in its transcendental aspect, in which by love of the Lord the devotee is merged in Him, is a form of Samādhi.
3 When, however, we deal with what are called the three Kāndas— viz., Karma, Upāsanā, and Jnāna—Tapas and the like practices form part of Upāsanā Kānda. The above definition is for the purposes of Yoga classification only.
Buddhists may dispute this critic’s understanding of their Shūnyavāda, as Tantriks will contest his account of the origin of their Shāstra. The Historian will call in question the statement that Shangkara¹ abolished the Tantra. For, according to the Shangkaravijaya, his action was not to abolish any of the sects existing at his time, but to reform and establish bonds of unity between them, and to induce them all through their differing methods to follow a common ideal. Thus, even though Krakacha was absorbed into his
1 See ante, p. 281.
God, the extreme Tantrik sect of Kāpālikas which he represented is said to have continued to exist with Shangkara’s approval, though possibly in a modified form, under its leader Vatukanātha. The Brahmos, Aryasamāj, Vaishnavas, and Shaivas, may resent this critic’s remarks so far as they touch themselves. I am not here concerned with this religious faction, but will limit the following observations in reply to the subject in hand:
The criticism, notwithstanding its “pious” acerbity against forms of doctrine of which the writer disapproved, contains some just observations. I am not however here concerned to establish the reality or value of this Yoga method, nor is proof on either of these points available except through actual experiment and experience. From a doctrinal and historical point of view, however, it seems that this critic did not have a sufficient knowledge¹ of the subject which he has thus so vigorously condemned, or of the wide acceptance which this Yoga has received in India. It is true that Karma with Jnāna are means for the attainment of Moksha. These and Bhakti (devotion) which may partake of the character of the first or the second, according to the nature of its display,² are all contained in the eight processes of Yoga. Thus, they include Tapas, a form of Karma yoga,³ and Dhyāna, a process of Jnāna yoga. As
1 An English education, such as the Author of this criticism received, not infrequently has the effect of divorcing those thus educated, not only from a knowledge of Indian Shāstra, but from the possibility of understanding it.
2 Thus, the offering of flowers and the like to the Divinity partakes of the nature of Karma; whilst Bhakti in its transcendental aspect, in which by love of the Lord the devotee is merged in Him, is a form of Samādhi.
3 When, however, we deal with what are called the three Kāndas— viz., Karma, Upāsanā, and Jnāna—Tapas and the like practices form part of Upāsanā Kānda. The above definition is for the purposes of Yoga classification only.
No commentary for this page.