Sri Kamalakara Mishra
The philosophic position of a system has its bearing on the religious side. The philosophic difference between the Advaitin and the Tantric reflects itself in the difference regarding their religious and cultural attitude. Since according to the Advaitin the world is a veil or superimposition on Reality, the way to attain Reality would be, according to him, to tear off the covering which hides the Real. The world of duality which is an illusion, is an obstruction to the knowledge of Brahman, and, therefore, we must develop an attitude of vairāgya (detachment) towards the world and the worldly values. The world is ultimately unreal and valueless (tuccha), and finally, it has to be rejected and got rid of. In the end, the world has to be literally renounced (sannyāsa). Moreover, activity, according to the Advaitin, is incompatible with Jñāna, and, therefore, all activity would be a hindrance in the path of self-realization; and in the state of Mukti there is no possibility of activity at all. This totally negative attitude towards the world and life is the necessary outcome of the negative metaphysics which the Advaitin holds.
The adherent of Tantra on the other side would give a contrary picture. Since the world is a līlā and positive outcome of śiva, there is no question of renouncing the world. Moreover, kriyā is quite compatible with jñāna, and it is the very nature of the freed consciousness; therefore, there is no need of renouncing activity, nor would there be the absence of activity in the life of the Jīvanmukta (the freed soul who is still in the body). As to the question of the world being bondage to Mukti, he would point out that it is not the world and worldly life that is bondage, but attachment (rāga) which is born out of ignorance (ajñāna or mala). Ajñāna is nothing but a sense of duality and egoity. It is not the world which is the outcome of ajñāna; it is only the sense of duality and egoity that is the outcome of ajñāna. It is not the world, therefore, that binds; what binds is the sense that ‘I’ am a limited ego (aṇu or paśu), and that ‘the world is other to me or different from me’.
The attachment itself cannot vanish simply by negating or rejecting the world; it would rather bind all the more. The attachment can go only by overcoming the duality or difference, by realizing that ‘I am one with all’. The psychology of attachment requires the sense of duality and difference. I can be attached to something different from or other to me. There is no question of attachment with what is already the self. That is why true love which is exemplified in the lives of Siddhas, never causes attachment, but, on the contrary, frees one from attachment. It can be safely postulated as a theory that we can be free from attachment only by loving and not by simply turning away our attention from the world. The reason behind this is that the world cannot go nor can it loosen its grip simply by out de-recognizing or rejecting it. The world can lose its hold on us only when it is sublimated, that is, when it is taken to become our own self. This does not also mean that the physical world is changed; the world as such will not change; it is our attitude to the world in our mind that changes. The positive attitude towards life and the world is actually a way – perhaps the wiser way – than the way of negation, of overcoming attachment.
The Jīvanmukta in the Tantric tradition behaves in the world in a positive way. He loves all as his own self and enjoys the worldly objects in an unattached manner like śrī kṛṣṇa. For him, the world is the free manifestation or play of his own Self. He is in perfect identity with all. The Advaitin, because he has a negative attitude towards the world, finds difficulty in adjusting the Jīvanmukta in the world.
In the Tantric tradition, we find a positive and respectful attitude towards the world and worldly values. The things of the world are accepted and worshipped as śiva. Material wealth, for example, is taken to be the Goddess Lakṣmī, a form of the divine śakti. The natural desires and vṛttis of mind are accepted as sparks of the divine śakti. The Sāttvic, Rājasic and Tāmasic vṛttis are respectively symbolized and worshiped as Goddesses Sarasvatī, Lakṣmīand Kālī. A girl or a woman would be regarded as the Devī Herself. This is diametrically opposed to the negativist’s attitude towards the woman, which says (praśnottarī attributed to Shankaracharya):
dvāraṃ kimekaṃ narakasya nārī |
‘What is the door to hell? It is the woman’.
To regard the woman as the door to hell, as the verse suggests, is the height of the vanity and hypocrisy of man; psycho-analytically speaking it is a psychological situation of self-deception. By condemning the woman, the man actually condemns his own self, the sexual self.
To have a respectful or religious attitude towards the things and beings of the world (śiva bhāvanā) is a spiritual sādhnā. By doing so, we actually sublimate our own minds. To have a worshipful attitude towards the things of the world does not drive is into indulgence; on the contrary, it helps us make the mind free from the compulsion to indulge. It is also not incompatible with the attempt to correct or reform. One can adore a girl as Devī or a boy as Kṛṣṇa, and at the same time admonish him or her to discipline. Almost in every spiritual tradition, the disciple is required to worship his guru as God, but is at the same time advised to be aware of the infirmities of the guru as well. It is said:
doṣā vācyā gurorapi |
‘One should speak of the infirmities of the guru also’.
Unlike Advaita which prescribes the path of renunciation (sannyāsa), the Tantra tradition consistently favors the path of the householder. The life of the householder provides ample opportunity for translating into practice the ideals of Tantra. It is quite helpful in integrating the personality fully, and thereby realizing the Self in its fullness. It is favored not only because it is easier, but it is considered even necessary. The renunciate life may not bring spiritual integration; it may on the contrary give rise to disintegration by suppression of desires. It is true that renunciants like Buddha, Shankara and Ramana Maharshi have been truly integrated personalities; but they were so because they felt immense love and compassion for their fellow beings. Such persons free themselves from the narrow confines of the family only to serve a larger family.
The Agamic attitude of adoration has not been a mere theory; it has been a living culture in India. When a girl is born, it is said that the Devī or Bhagavatī has come into the house. Kumārī pūjana is still prevalent in the Hindu society, and it is specially performed during Navarātra. The bridegroom and the bride in a marriage ceremony are worshiped as Viṣṇu and Lakṣmī, and the person who performs the ritual of Kanyādāna (giving of the bride) utters the mantra:
viṣṇurūpāya varāya lakṣmīrūpiṇīṃ kanyāṃ tubhyamahaṃ saṃpradade |
‘I give the bride as Lakṣmī to the bridegroom as Viṣṇu’.
Even material objects are worshipped – the earth, the mountains, the rivers, the ocean, the trees, the fire, the sun, the moon, and so on and so forth. To worship the Divine in man (naranārāyaṇa), to see Nārāyaṇa in the poor (daridranārāyaṇa), to visualize Janārdana in the rank and file (janatājanārdana) – is nothing but āgamic.
From what we have discussed above, it should become clear that there really is no contradiction between the way of the world (Bhukti or Bhoga) and the way to Liberation (Mukti or Mokṣa). The ascetic tradition maintains that there is a dichotomy between Bhukti and Mukti, or Bhoga and Yoga, or Pravṛtti and Nivṛtti, or Avidyā and Vidyā, or the secular and the spiritual. It is maintained that the two are incongruous, rather contradictory; if one has to follow the path of Mokṣa, one will have to turn back from Bhoga. This prescription is generally understood not merely in spirit, but it is also literally understood as the renunciation of worldly affairs. But the Tantra maintains that really there is no dichotomy between the two. The Tāntric would point out that Bhukti is not only not contradictory to Mukti, but it is also congenial to the attainment of Mukti, provided the path of Bhukti is followed in the proper way.
Bhukti is helpful in Mukti in two ways. First, it tends to work out the maturation (paripāka) of desires by actualizing the potential seed-desires. Mukti is not possible unless the desires are matured or exhausted. The seed exhausts itself by growing into a tree; this is the natural law for the exhausting of the seed. The ascetic may say here that the seed could be burnt in the very beginning without allowing it to undergo the long process of exhausting itself into a tree, and similarly, the desires could be burnt in the very beginning, the malignant growth could be nipped in the very bud. But this does not happen as to burn the desire is not that easy. Nature also perhaps does not allow the seed desire to be burnt; the natural process is that of exhausting into fruition. This is the līlā of the Lord; otherwise, He would create no desires or even the world. The desire is created with a purpose, the purpose of actualizing into worldly activity, so that the sportive plan of the Lord may be fulfilled. If the desires are to be nipped in the very bud, why should He create them at all?
We cannot also rule out the possibility of the desire being eradicated in the very beginning, for the Lord is free to grant that, and that may be a part of His līlā; but that would be an exception and not the general rule of the sport. The desires and the fulfillment of the desires are not evil in themselves, they become evil only when we abuse them or satisfy them in an immoral way. To ignore the desires outright would certainly be evil because it would bring self-deception and dissociation of the personality. The best way, therefore, would be to have a synthesis of both Vidyā and Avidyā, as stated in the Upaniṣad:
vidyāṃ cāvidyāṃ ca yastadvedobhayaṃ saha |
avidyayā mṛtyuṃ tīrtvā vidyayā.amṛtamaśnute ||
‘One who comprehends both vidyā and avidyā together crosses mortality with the help of avidyā and reaches immortality with the help of vidyā’.
When both vidyā and avidyā can become spiritual means, where is the dichotomy?
The second way in which Bhukti is helpful in Mukti is that when the desire for Bhoga and the objects of Bhoga are taken in a religious spirit, they become a help rather than a hindrance in the path of Mukti. In Tantra, the world and the objects of enjoyment are taken to be the sportive manifestation (līlā) of the Divine; and an attitude of sanctity is developed towards them, they are revered as śiva. This śiva bhāvanā is a potent means of rising above the desires. It is said in Tantra:
bhogo yogāyate sākṣāt pātakaṃ sukṛtāyate |
mokṣāyate ca saṃsāraḥ kuladharme kuleśvari ||
‘In Tantra, Bhoga becomes Yoga, vice becomes a virtue, and the (otherwise enslaving) world becomes means to liberation.’
sarvaśoṣī yathā sūryaḥ sarvabhogī yathā.analaḥ |
yogī bhuktvākhilān bhogān tathā pāpairnalipyate ||
‘The sun dries up everything of the world; the fire accepts everything for burning, and yet the sun and the fire remain every pure; so also the Yogi although accepting all the bhogas, is never defiled by sin’.
Accepting the world as śiva is the way to rise above the world. This is just like looking at the waves of the ocean as the ocean itself; the waves create duality and hindrance in attaining the ocean only till we bifurcate them from the ocean and do not see them as the ocean. For a spiritual aspirant in Tantra, the entire world is a play of the Divine śakti. It is in this spirit that he accepts all the enjoyments of the world.
It is not the world and enjoyable objects of the world that create bondage, but it is rāga (attachment) which is the real bondage, and it can be overcome not by an attitude of negation, a positive negation as it were. It is possible to have the enjoyment of worldly objects without attachment. One who treads the path of Mukti fully enjoys the world unattachedly. The Jīvanmukta does this out of his freedom and joy. His senses being naturally under perfect control, there is no compulsion on his part to indulge in the world. The bound man indulges in the world out of compulsion from the instinctive urge, not the freed one. The Gītā says:
rāgadveṣaviyuktaistu viṣayānindriyaiścaran |
ātmavaśyairvidhyetātmā prasādamadhigacchati ||
Kṛṣṇa is the perfect example of this. For Him, everything is His own līlā vilāsa. In this attitude, one is in Bhoga and yet at the same time transcending the Bhoga.
Karma (action) which is generally taken to be bondage, becomes means of liberation when it is performed in this spirit. The Gītā is the champion of this idea. If the world which consists of activity and enjoyment were a hindrance to Mukti, it would be a hindrance and bondage to the Creator also, which it is not. For the Creator, the world is kriyā (spontaneous activity), and so it becomes for one who seeks to become one with the Creator.
One of the significant points in the philosophy of Tantra is that there is perfect compatibility and harmony between Jīvanmukti and socio0cultural activity. This becomes especially significant in view of the classical Advaita where socio-cultural activity is logically meaningless in the context of the attainment of Mukti. In Advaita, one who aspires for Mulkti would try to dissociate oneself from social activity, for all such activity is a disvalue for one. Indulgence in the world and worldly activities is not only useless for him but also obstruction in the way of self-realization. The world is unreal and valueless (tuccha); it is a superimposition on the Real, created by ignorance, and it must therefore be discarded and renounced in order to reach the Real. The ideal of Jīvanmukti can go only with the renunciation (sannyāsa) of the world. Nivṛtti, and not Pravṛtti is the ideal of Advaita.
Moreover, in Advaita, the person who attains Jīvanmukti lives just to work out his remaining prārabdha karma. He can do no positive work with regard to society, as he becomes niṣkriya. He is like one who has taken preparatory leave prior to the retirement from one’s services, and counting one’s days for the final retirement; such a one loses all interest in the affairs one was previously into. Society cannot be benefited from him, for he has no incentive for doing good to society. All actions cease on his part, and the world becomes for him a non-entity. He is lost to the world, as it were, and the world in turn is lost to him. In the Advaitic pattern, each historical case of the attainment of Mukti is a virtual loss to society.
Dr. C P M Namboodiry in his brilliant and a little controversial paper, ‘Advaita and Indian Tradition’, (CASP, Banaras Hindu University, 1968), has carefully analyzed the Advaitic position to successfully show that the ideal of Jīvanmukti in scholastic Advaita is incompatible with the ideal of the betterment of society. He says, “Either he (the Advaitin) must find some explanation why a person who has realized Brahman still continues in the world of avidyā, and this would be tantamount to accepting that avidyā can in some sense survive; or he must totally deny the very possibility of Jīvanmukti, which would go against the Upaniṣadic tradition. While the mumukṣu might at least take a passive interest in the affairs of the world or society, in so far as he still forms part of it, the Jīvanmukta is totally and permanently dissociated from it”. He further says, “the real has never had nor can ever have any relation with the illusory. In the progress from the illusory to the real, nothing that was in any way connected with the illusory is taken up; as far as the real is concerned every accretion is illusory”. He concludes, “Advaita has no concept of social progress, and has no ideal of humanitarian service”. By Advaita, Dr. Namboodiry here means the classical scholastic Advaita, and not the original Advaita of the Upaniṣads , nor the Advaita of people like Ramana Maharshi.
In the tradition of Agama and Tantra, we find a different picture of the ideal of Jīvanmukti. Socio-cultural activity goes hand in hand with self-realization, both before and after the attainment of Jīvanmukti. Before the attainment, activity serves as means to self-realization; and after attainment, activity naturally flows in a spontaneous way (spanda or kriyā) as it is the very nature of the Self. We have already seen that indulgence in the world and performance of the social and worldly activity is not a hindrance in Self-realization. Rather, Pravṛtti is, in the Tantric tradition, taken to be a potent means of self-realization. The aspirant therefore would not renounce the world. He would, on the contrary, indulge in worldly affairs and take part in the socio-cultural activity.
In Tantra, unlike in classical Advaita, the Real (śiva or Self) is conceived not at inactive (niṣkriya), but kriyā or spontaneous activity is conceived to be the very nature of Self. The world is not taken as a superimposition on śiva but as a free and active creation of His. As kriyā is the very nature of the Self or śiva, the Jīvanmukta (who has attained Shivahood), like say Kṛṣṇa, becomes the ideal of free activity. He feels one with all and does good to all (sarvabhūtahiteratāḥ – Gītā 5/7). This is quite consistent with their knowledge of oneness with all (sarvabhūtātmabhūtātmā – Gītā 5/7). He spontaneously works for the progress and betterment of society. The Jīvanmukta does not act to work our his prārabdha, his prārabdha being already liquidated; he acts because the spontaneous activity is his very nature. He would respond to every call, he would take an active interest in the affairs of the world. While the ordinary man (paśu) would do this out of his selfish interests and by straining his will, the liberated person will do this out of the universal love and that also in a free and relaxed way; while accruing in external activity (unmeṣa), he always remains established in the Self.
The Jīvanmukta, freed from the personal ego, actually identifies himself with all. The Advaitin may say that so long as one sees others – so long as the vikalpas or the world of duality are there – there can be no Mukti, for to see others is avidyā. The adherent of Tantra would point out that it is not the physical presence of ‘others’ and the objective world that is avidyā, but avidyā or ajñāna is to see them ‘as others’ – to know them as different from oneself. The physical or actual presence of duality is not the bondage, for the physical duality is just a free manifestation or accretion of the Self itself; it is only the ‘sense’ of duality – the wrong understanding that it is different from oneself – that is the bondage, and it is this that is called māyīya mala. An illustration may help clarify the point. When I freely create an imaginary world in my mind, I know that the world is my own creation and that I am one with it; though I see it objectively, yet my non-duality remains intact. But when the same imagination becomes a dream, I forget the truth and take the objective dream-world to be different from me; and it is then that I am bound. To the liberated person who is woken up from the dream of duality, the world does not cease to exist, but he sees the world as the free accretion (prasāra) of his own Self. The presence of the world of duality does not hamper his non-dual self-realization. Utpaladeva says:
sarvo mamāyaṃ vibhava ityevaṃ parijānataḥ |
viśvātmano vikalpānāṃ prasarepi maheśatā ||
(īśvarapratyabhijñā 4/1/12).
‘One who is identified with the Universal Self and knows – all this is my own glory – remains in Shivahood even in the face of prevailing determinations or duality’.
Thus, we see that the world and the secular activities are perfectly compatible with the attainment of Jīvanmukti, or self-realization. We would add that activity flows much more when the Self is attained. Energy or activity is natural to the Self, the ego is an obstruction to its flow; therefore, the bound soul (paśu) is not fully active. But when the ego is silenced and the Self attained, the constrained energy is released. Hence the greater flow of energy. The more one is seated in the Self, that is, the more the ego is relaxed or silenced, the more the Self expresses itself in the form of creative activity. And since self-realization is the state of universal love, this creative activity is generally directed towards the welfare of society.
In the case of partial realization, this energy may, in the spiritually untrained, take a destructive turn, but that is because the Self is now ignored and the ego takes the mastery of the released energy. The mythology of demons or asuras suggests this. Many of the famous asuras first performed tapasyā (self-mortification, which is symbolic of the mortification of the ego) and did intense devotion to Lord śiva. As a result, the Lord being pleased granted them unusual power which they later on misused, and also were punished on that account. This simply means that when the lower self submits to the Higher Self, the power of the Higher Self is released; but the lower self still not being fully enlightened, there is the possibility of the abuse of this power, which ultimately must also meet its punishment. The point is that all energy, constructive or destructive, is from the Higher Self anyway. When one displays tremendous creativity and work in any field, secular or religious, one is, even partially, in unity with the Self.
Aesthetic creativity too ensues from the Self. The ānanda of the Self expresses itself in creativity in art too. The Upaniṣad too maintains the Self to be of the nature of aesthetic joy (raso vai saḥ). That is why all the esoteric and mystic language that flows from that state, becomes poetic. The Veda and the Upaniṣads themselves are examples of this.
The sublime creative activity is not a result of the straining of the will, but it is a spontaneous expression of the Self. A real poet does not compose by forcing his will; poetry in the true sense of the term flows – it flows from the Self. The poet is to some extent in communion with the Self, which is the fountainhead of all beauty and creativity. The rich artistic creativity which we find in the history of Indian culture can be well explained on the basis of this Agamic theory. According to classical Advaita, however, all such creative activity would be due to avidyā or ignorance and not due to the Self – a theory which leads to the absurdity of thinking that all the great and inspired work of art is the creation of ignorant mind and not of enlightened one.
About the origin of almost all the arts it is traditionally believed and also expressly said in the scriptures that they have come from Lord śiva; all the arts – poetry, music, dance, architecture, and so on, are associated with Agama and Tantra. The origin of all the arts and aesthetic disciplines from śiva may be sheer mythology, but it suggests a truism, namely, that the artistic creativity originates from the Self or śiva.
So, the path of self-realization or śiva prāpti is not devoid of earthly beauty; it is rich with creativity, fulfillment, and love. The celestial and the terrestrial, the spiritual and the secular, the transcendent and the immanent, go hand in hand. The two are not exclusive of each other; in fact, the immanent or the secular is the free expression of the transcendent or the spiritual; and in this sense, the two are one.
It also follows that Nirvikalpa Samādhi advocated by the Sāṃkhya and the Pātañjala Yoga and also accepted by Advaita is not the highest Samādhi. The highest or the ultimate is what is called Sahajāvasthā or Sahaja Samādhi. In the Nirvikalpa stage, all the vikalpas (modifications of the mind) are silenced, and therefore, all activity ceases. This is, according to Tantra, a stage prior to the final attainment; and so this may be called the penultimate and not the ultimate. The vikalpa aroused from motives and desires must cease before the attainment of the ultimate stage; but it does not mean that the natural vikalpas or the vikalpas aroused out of the freedom of the Self should also cease. Sahajāvasthā (the natural state of Consciousness) is desireless and egoless, and therefore, there are no vikalpas caused by desire or motive; but the natural and free vikalpas flow automatically. Hence, spontaneous activity in the state of Sahaja samādhi.
Shankaracharya maintains that jñāna and kriyā (or Karma as he would understand it) are diametrically opposed to each other like light and darkness. Karma leads forward, or it takes one away from the Self; the Self is already there in the ground which can be reached only by retiring or receding and not by moving forward. In other words, Self can be attained only by jñāna, which is something like retiring to the center, and not by karma which is like running away from it. Shankaracharya, therefore, not only rejects Karma, but he rejects even the combination of jñāna and karma (jñāna-karma-samuccaya). Jñāna should not be understood as verbal knowledge of the Real; it is the actual attainment of the Real which lies at the ground of everyone and everything. It is not something outside to be acquired afresh by karma; and so attaining the Real is a question of withdrawing back or receding to the original ground, rather than moving forward.
With this basic insight, Shankaracharya, however, is in some difficulty while interpreting the Gītā which maintains in unequivocal terms that Karmayoga directly leads to self-realization. In his Gītā bhāṣya he interprets the position of the Gītā to say that when karma is performed in the spirit of offering it to God (īśvarārpaṇabuddhyā) and without the desire for fruit (phalābhisaṃdhivarjita), then it works for self-purification (sattvaśuddhi) and thereby makes one fit for the jñānaniṣṭhā, which is, in turn, the direct road to self-realization. He accepts that in the Gītā, the Lord teaches Karmayoga to Arjuna, but maintains that it is because Arjuna is karmādhikārī.
The insight that the attainment or realization of the Self is a question of receding back or relaxing to the ground, is logically sound and cannot, therefore, be brushed aside by the logical mind. Every system of Indian philosophy accepts this, Tantra too accepts Karma as bondage or mala; it is called kārmaṇa mala. But the logical problem now arises; if karma leads in the opposite direction, how can it help reach the goal? Even if it is phalābhisaṃdhivarjita and is performed with a spirit of īśvarārpaṇa, how can it purify, for it is identified as essentially binding? How can the presence of fire, if it is fire, bring cold?
The Tantra and its exponents like Abhinavagupta answer this question by saying that what the Gītā teaches is not ‘karma’; the Gītā itself holds Karma to be bondage. What it teaches is Kriyā, a phenomenon we have already tried to identify. Kriyā is not voluntary ethical action (karma), but it is an automatic or natural and spontaneous activity, in which one is not a doer for one does not exert one’s will and yet activity flows through one automatically, so to say. In India, there is a deep-rooted tradition of actionless activity, which is jñāna and kriyā – relaxation and activity, both in one. The Lord asks Arjuna to resign his will and surrender to the Lord (Higher Self). Arjuna is required to become a medium (nimitta) and allow the cosmic divine activity to flow through him; in such a state, though indulging in activity, one is not a doer. This is a state of activity and relaxation both in one. It is therefore jñāna and kriyā both in one. And the Gītā declares in unambiguous terms that the two are one.
What Shankaracharya misses in the interpretation of the Gītā is the distinction between Kriyā and Karma, and he fails to appreciate that the Gītā is actually teaching Kriyā which is one with jñāna, and which, instead of being ‘preparatory to jñānaniṣṭhā’ directly leads to self-realization. Shankara cannot appreciate the point that jñāna and kriyā are two aspects of one and the same state of consciousness, because he starts with the presupposition that the Self or Consciousness is a state of pure jñāna (and no kriyā), all kriyā (or karma as he would understand it) being illusory. But the presupposition itself is questionable.
It is also not that jñāna and kriyā as sādhanas are different in the beginning and they become one only in the end. Our contention is that the two are interpenetrating from the very beginning. If we analyze the concept of what is called jñāna, we will find that it is not intellectual or verbal knowledge, otherwise, all the erudite scholars would become liberated. Jñāna necessarily involves a change or transformation in the inner person. It is here that Tantra introduces the concept of pauruṣa jñāna (spiritual knowledge or realization) as distinguished from the bauddha jñāna (intellectual or verbal knowledge). Intellectual knowledge can be had by reading scriptures or hearing discourses, but the spiritual realization comes only by sādhanā which means inner change or spiritual evolution. Hearing of the śrutivākya can cause self-realization only when the person is already spiritually evolved. So, jñāna involves kriyā in so far as it is spiritual change.