The Serpent Power — Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodroffe) (1924)
1 “Having drunk, having drunk, having again drunk,” a passage in the Kulārnava Tantra signifying not actual drinking (as some suppose), but repeated raising of Kundalinī.
2 We may say “Take a magnet” and “magnetism”.
positive charge will induce an equivalent negative charge in a neighbouring object. Now, shall we suppose that the Mūlādhāra, when it becomes over-saturated, induces in the neighbouring centre (say, Svādhishthāna) a dynamic (not static) equivalent?¹ Is this what the rise of the Serpent Power really means? The explanation, I am tempted to think, is not perhaps altogether fantastic.”
In reply to this highly interesting and illustrative account of my friend, I wrote suggesting some difficulties in the way of the acceptance of his statement that Kundalī-Shakti did not, in fact, Herself uncoil and ascend, but projected upwards an emanation in the likeness of Her own self. The difficulty I felt was this: In the first place, the Yoga books, to which full credence must be given in this matter, unequivocally affirm that Kundalī Herself does, in fact, ascend. This is borne out by some inquiries made of a Tantrik Pandit very familiar with his Shāstra² after the receipt of the letter quoted. As the body of the Yogī still lives, though in an inert corpse-like condition, when consciousness of it is lost, I asked him how the body was sustained when Kundalī left Her central abode.
His answer was that it was maintained by the nectar which flows from the union of Shiva and Shakti in the Sahasrāra. This nectar is an ejection of power generated by their union. If Kundalī does not ascend, but a mere emanative spark of Her, how (he further asked) is it that the body becomes cold and corpse-like? Would this follow if the power still remained at its centre, and merely sent forth a dynamic equivalent of itself? There were further difficulties
1 Here is the seat of the first moviug, or Pashyantī Shabda.
2 Though not practising himself, his brother, from whom he had learnt, was an adept in this Yoga. His statements I have always found of peculiar value. It must, however, be rcmembered that, however learned or practised a Pandit or Yogī may be, it is possible for him to be ignorant of the scientific implications of his doctrine and practice.
in the theory put forward by my friend, though it may be that there are also difficulties in the acceptance of the statement that the Mūlādhāra is entirely depleted of the great power. I suggested that Kundalī was the static centre of the whole body as a complete conscious organism, and that each of the parts of the body and their constituent cells must have their own static centres, which would uphold such parts and cells; and that the life of the body, as a collection of material particles (from which the general organic consciousness as a whole was withdrawn), was sustained by the nectar which flowed from Kundalī Shakti when in union with Shiva in the Sahasrāra. In reply, Professor P. Mukhopādhyāya dealt with the matter as follows:
“According to my presentation of the case, something —viz., a dynamic equivalent or ‘operative double’—is certainly sent forth from the Mūlādhāra, but this basic centre or seat is not depleted or rendered void of static energy in consequence of that operation. The Mūla (root), as the seat of static or coiled power, can never be dispensed with. It is the sine qua non of all functions of the triple body (gross, subtle, causal). It is, so to say, the buffer or base against which any activity of the Jīva (embodied consciousness) must react or recoil, like a naval or any other kind of heavy gun against its base or emplacement. Thus, while the dynamic or uncoiled Shakti ascends the axis, the static or coiled Shakti retains its place at the Mūla, and remains as the very possibility of the dynamic upheaval. The ascending power is simply the dynamic counterpart of the static ground. To say that Kundalī leaves its place and ascends is only to say that it ceases to be Kundalī and becomes dynamic. The ascending power is therefore uncoiled or non-Kundalī power; it is the dynamic expression of the Kundalī power. So far all can agree. But the question is: Is the Mūla depleted or deprived of all power (especially coiled power) when that dynamical expression leaves it and ascends the axis? Is the dynamic expression wholly at the expense of the static ground? Should the latter cease in order that the former may commence?
“Here, I think, I must answer in the negative. It is a case of power leaving as well as remaining—leaving as dynamic and remaining as static; it is the case of the Kundalī being uncoiled in one aspect or pole and remaining still coiled in another aspect or pole. A paradox, perhaps, but, like most paradoxes, it is likely to be true.
1 “Having drunk, having drunk, having again drunk,” a passage in the Kulārnava Tantra signifying not actual drinking (as some suppose), but repeated raising of Kundalinī.
2 We may say “Take a magnet” and “magnetism”.
positive charge will induce an equivalent negative charge in a neighbouring object. Now, shall we suppose that the Mūlādhāra, when it becomes over-saturated, induces in the neighbouring centre (say, Svādhishthāna) a dynamic (not static) equivalent?¹ Is this what the rise of the Serpent Power really means? The explanation, I am tempted to think, is not perhaps altogether fantastic.”
In reply to this highly interesting and illustrative account of my friend, I wrote suggesting some difficulties in the way of the acceptance of his statement that Kundalī-Shakti did not, in fact, Herself uncoil and ascend, but projected upwards an emanation in the likeness of Her own self. The difficulty I felt was this: In the first place, the Yoga books, to which full credence must be given in this matter, unequivocally affirm that Kundalī Herself does, in fact, ascend. This is borne out by some inquiries made of a Tantrik Pandit very familiar with his Shāstra² after the receipt of the letter quoted. As the body of the Yogī still lives, though in an inert corpse-like condition, when consciousness of it is lost, I asked him how the body was sustained when Kundalī left Her central abode.
His answer was that it was maintained by the nectar which flows from the union of Shiva and Shakti in the Sahasrāra. This nectar is an ejection of power generated by their union. If Kundalī does not ascend, but a mere emanative spark of Her, how (he further asked) is it that the body becomes cold and corpse-like? Would this follow if the power still remained at its centre, and merely sent forth a dynamic equivalent of itself? There were further difficulties
1 Here is the seat of the first moviug, or Pashyantī Shabda.
2 Though not practising himself, his brother, from whom he had learnt, was an adept in this Yoga. His statements I have always found of peculiar value. It must, however, be rcmembered that, however learned or practised a Pandit or Yogī may be, it is possible for him to be ignorant of the scientific implications of his doctrine and practice.
in the theory put forward by my friend, though it may be that there are also difficulties in the acceptance of the statement that the Mūlādhāra is entirely depleted of the great power. I suggested that Kundalī was the static centre of the whole body as a complete conscious organism, and that each of the parts of the body and their constituent cells must have their own static centres, which would uphold such parts and cells; and that the life of the body, as a collection of material particles (from which the general organic consciousness as a whole was withdrawn), was sustained by the nectar which flowed from Kundalī Shakti when in union with Shiva in the Sahasrāra. In reply, Professor P. Mukhopādhyāya dealt with the matter as follows:
“According to my presentation of the case, something —viz., a dynamic equivalent or ‘operative double’—is certainly sent forth from the Mūlādhāra, but this basic centre or seat is not depleted or rendered void of static energy in consequence of that operation. The Mūla (root), as the seat of static or coiled power, can never be dispensed with. It is the sine qua non of all functions of the triple body (gross, subtle, causal). It is, so to say, the buffer or base against which any activity of the Jīva (embodied consciousness) must react or recoil, like a naval or any other kind of heavy gun against its base or emplacement. Thus, while the dynamic or uncoiled Shakti ascends the axis, the static or coiled Shakti retains its place at the Mūla, and remains as the very possibility of the dynamic upheaval. The ascending power is simply the dynamic counterpart of the static ground. To say that Kundalī leaves its place and ascends is only to say that it ceases to be Kundalī and becomes dynamic. The ascending power is therefore uncoiled or non-Kundalī power; it is the dynamic expression of the Kundalī power. So far all can agree. But the question is: Is the Mūla depleted or deprived of all power (especially coiled power) when that dynamical expression leaves it and ascends the axis? Is the dynamic expression wholly at the expense of the static ground? Should the latter cease in order that the former may commence?
“Here, I think, I must answer in the negative. It is a case of power leaving as well as remaining—leaving as dynamic and remaining as static; it is the case of the Kundalī being uncoiled in one aspect or pole and remaining still coiled in another aspect or pole. A paradox, perhaps, but, like most paradoxes, it is likely to be true.
No commentary for this page.